The European Repository Landscape 2008 (Surf EU-Driver)

The European Repository Landscape 2008 Inventory of Digital Repositories for Research Output in the EU

a m st e r da m u n i v e r s i t y p r e ss

The European Repository Landscape 2008

The European Repository Landscape 2008 Inventory of Digital Repositories for Research Output Maurits van der Graaf (Edited by Marjan Vernooy-Gerritsen)

PART 1: Towards the Implementation of a Repository Infrastructure PART 2: Digital Research Repositories in Europe PART 3: Appendices of the Inventory Study

AMSTERDAM UNIVERSITY PRESS

This work contains descriptions of the DRIVER II project findings, work and products. In case you believe that this document harms in any way IPR held by you as a person or as a representative of an entity, please do notify us immediately via [email protected]. The authors of this document have taken any available measure in order for its content to be accurate, consistent and lawful. However, neither the DRIVER II project consortium as a whole nor the individual partners that implicitly or explicitly participated in the creation and publication of this work hold any sort of responsibility that might occur as a result of using its content. This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the DRIVER consortium and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

Publisher: Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam Cover design: Maedium, Utrecht ISBN 978 90 8964 190 8 / E-ISBN: 978 90 8964 190 8 NUR 953 © SURF Foundation (2009). This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution (BY) 3.0 Netherlands License.

Trends in Research Information Management DRIVER studies (2006-2008) The European Repository Landscape Maurits van der Graaf & Kwame van Eijndhoven A DRIVER’s Guide to European Repositories Rene van Horik, Wilma Mossink, Vanessa Proudman, Barbara Sierman, Alma Swan (Edited by Kasja Weenink, Leo Waaijers & Karen Van Godtsenhoven) Investigative Study of Standards for Digital Repositories and Related Services Muriel Foulonneau & Francis André

DRIVER II studies (2008-2009) The European Repository Landscape 2008 Inventory of Digital Repositories for Research Output in the EU Maurits van der Graaf (Edited by Marjan Vernooy-Gerritsen) Enhanced Publications Linking Publications and Research Data in Digital Repositories Saskia Woutersen-Windhouwer, Renze Brandsma, Peter Verhaar, Arjan Hogenaar, Maarten Hoogerwerf, Paul Doorenbosch, Eugène Dürr, Jens Ludwig, Birgit Schmidt, Barbara Sierman (Edited by Marjan Vernooy-Gerritsen) Emerging Standards for Enhanced Publications and Repository Technology Survey on Technology Karen Van Godtsenhoven, Mikael Karstensen Elbæk, Gert Schmeltz Pedersen, Barbara Sierman, Magchiel Bijsterbosch, Patrick Hochstenbach, Rosemary Russell, Maurice Vanderfeesten (Edited by Karen Van Godtsenhoven & Marjan Vernooy-Gerritsen)

Contents About the Contributors ..................................................................9 About the DRIVER Studies ........................................................... 11 Trends in Research Information Management ................................. 13

PART 1. 1. 2.

Introduction ...................................................................... 17 Development of a Repository Infrastructure ........................... 19 2.1 Stakeholders ............................................................ 19 2.2 Next Steps in the Development of Repositories .............. 22 2.3 Conclusion ............................................................... 25 References........................................................................ 26

PART 2. 3.

4.

5.

Towards the Implementation of a Repository Infrastructure................................................15

Digital Research Repositories in Europe .........27

Research Repositories in Europe........................................... 29 3.1 Methods................................................................... 30 3.2 Total Number of IRs in Europe..................................... 33 3.3 Annual Growth in the Number of Repositories ................ 33 3.4 The Situation per Country........................................... 34 Contents and related Issues ................................................ 41 4.1 One or more Repositories per Institute ......................... 42 4.2 Type of Materials in the Repository .............................. 43 4.3 Contents of the Research Repositories .......................... 45 4.4 Version of Journal Articles deposited ............................ 47 4.5 Open Access and other Forms of Availability.................. 49 4.6 Percentage of each Form of Availability......................... 51 4.7 Representation of Disciplines....................................... 52 4.8 Coverage of the Research Repositories ......................... 53 4.9 Work process of depositing materials ........................... 54 Technical Infrastructure and technical Issues ......................... 61 5.1 Software Packages .................................................... 62 5.2 Persistent Identifiers.................................................. 63 5.4 Long-term Availability ................................................ 65 5.5 Statistical Data on Access and Usage ........................... 66 5.6 Subject and Keyword indexing .................................... 68 5.7 Author Identifier ....................................................... 70 5.8 Metadata Standards................................................... 71 5.9 DRIVER Guidelines .................................................... 72 5.10 Enhanced Publications................................................ 73 7

6.

7.

8.

9.

Institutional Policies ........................................................... 75 6.1 Policies with Regard to the Deposition of Materials by the Academics .......................................................... 75 6.2 Other institutional Policies .......................................... 78 Services created on top of the Research Repositories .............. 83 7.1 Summary ................................................................. 83 7.2 International Registries .............................................. 84 7.3 Search engines ......................................................... 85 7.4 Other Services on top of the Research Repositories ........ 86 7.5 Printing-on-demand................................................... 88 7.6 Personal Services ...................................................... 90 7.7 Other Services .......................................................... 91 7.8 Priorities for Services at a European Scale..................... 92 Stimulants and Inhibitors for maintaining Repositories ............ 95 8.1 Summary ................................................................. 95 8.2 Stimulants for maintaining Repositories ........................ 95 8.3 Inhibitors for maintaining Repositories.......................... 98 8.4 Highest Priority Issue on European Agenda ................. 100 A new Development: thematic Repositories ......................... 111 9.1 Introduction ........................................................... 111 9.2 Methods................................................................. 111 9.3 Diversity in type of thematic or non-institutional Research Repositories .............................................. 111

PART 3. 10.

11.

12. 13.

8

Appendices of the Inventory Study...............115

Quantitative Assessment of the Contents of institutional Repositories .................................................................... 117 10.1 Totals and Averages ................................................ 117 10.2 Totals and Averages without Outliers ......................... 118 Quantitative Assessment of the Contents of thematic Repositories .................................................................... 121 11.1 Thematic Repositories .............................................. 121 11.2 Other Data about thematic and/or non-institutional Repositories ........................................................... 123 Questionnaire for the institutional Repositories ..................... 131 Questionnaire for the thematic /non-institutional Repositories .................................................................... 153

About the Contributors Author Maurits van der Graaf, MSc carried out the earlier DRIVER inventory study in 2006 together with Kwame van Eijndhoven. He has conducted this inventory study as an in-house consultant for the SURFfoundation for the EU funded DRIVER II project. As a consultant for Pleiade Management and Consultancy (www.pleiade.nl) he was assigned in information services, science, education and in the cultural sector. Before working at Pleiade Van der Graaf held various management positions in publishing, in library and documentation institutes, and in public education. These positions include: director of the Dutch Influenza Foundation, the Dutch Agency for Current Research Information and deputy director of the Netherlands Institute of Scientific Information Services. Editor Dr Marjan Vernooy-Gerritsen is Programme Manager of SURFshare, the programme of the Section ICT and Research of SURF, the collaborative organisation for ICT in higher education and research. Previously she was Chief Information Officer (CIO) of Cito, the Dutch national institute for educational measurement. As a consultant she was responsible for a nationwide project on the implementation of ICT in Education in the Netherlands, and advised Ministries of Science and Education in the Netherlands, Mauritius, and Turkey on that topic. Marjan has a background in biochemistry and informatics.

9

About the DRIVER Studies The primary objective of the EU funded project Digital Repositories Infrastructure Vision for European Research, DRIVER (FP6) and DRIVER II (FP7), was to create a cohesive, robust and flexible, pan-European infrastructure for digital repositories, offering sophisticated services and functionalities for researchers, administrators and the general public. DRIVER's vision was to build a Europe and worldwide Digital Repository infrastructure, which follows the principle of linking users to knowledge. Today Digital Repositories contain a full spectrum of scholarly materials, from theses, technical reports and working papers to digitised text and image collections. Sometimes they even contain sets of primary research data. Digital repositories may be disciplinary or institutional. In the future, Europe-wide Digital Repository Infrastructure will be a virtual network of physically distributed and peripheral maintained repositories from all countries in Europe. By virtually integrating multiple repositories from many institutions in all European countries, the network will build up a critical mass of research materials, which can be disseminated and presented to the world as a powerful demonstration of research output in Europe. This contributes to innovation in a wide variety of sectors and communities. Within this virtual network, each repository will maintain its own identity and will be clearly marked with a label of the providing repository host. With the end of the first stage of DRIVER in November 2007, the test bed system D-NET was delivered, producing a search portal with Open Access content from over 70 repositories. DRIVER II moved from a test bed to a production-quality infrastructure and expanded the geographical coverage of Digital Repositories included in it1. One of the objectives of DRIVER II was to build a Confederation to promote greater visibility and application of research output through global networks of Open Access digital repositories. This effort led to the launch of the new international organisation COAR, the Confederation of Open Access Repositories in October 2009.

1

http://www.driver-community.eu

11

DRIVER II significantly broadened the horizon of the whole DRIVER endeavour on infrastructure operation and functionality innovation by state-of-the-art and future-direction studies. After positive appraisal in the mid term review these studies are combined to three reports in the series ‘Trends in Research Information Management’2. The European Research Repository Landscape 2008 by Maurits van der Graaf is an update of a similar study in 2006. It shows an increasing number of respondents and a further diversification in the character of a repository. These may be institutional or thematically based, and as such non-institutional as well. The ongoing process of widespread and diversification urges coherent approach, as a basic feature of repositories is the retrievability of information that may be dispersed over them. Continued monitoring of developments will be necessary. Enhanced Publications by Saskia Woutersen-Windhouwer, Renze Brandsma, Peter Verhaar, Arjan Hogenaar, Maarten Hoogerwerf, Paul Doorenbosch, and Eugène Dürr, Ludwig Jens, and Birgit Schmidt is a state-of-the-art overview of the structural elements of an Enhanced Publication, as well as publication models, interrelationship and repository issues. In-depth study is made of object models and functionalities. More practically, a sample is given of datasets together with a demonstrator-project. In the final section, this book deals with long-term preservation issues, linking to the developments of digital repositories that are studied in other books in this series. Emerging Standards for Enhanced Publications and Repository Technology by Karen Van Godtsenhoven et al. serves as a technology watch on the rapidly evolving world of digital publication. It provides an up-to-date overview of technical issues, underlying the development of universally accessible publications, their elemental components and linked information. More specifically it deals with questions as how to bring together the communities of the Current Research Information Systems (CRIS) and the Common European Research Information Format (CERIF). Case studies like EGEE, DILIGENT and DRIVER are analyzed, as well as implementations in projects in Ireland, Denmark and The Netherlands. Interoperability is the keyword in this context and this book introduces to new standards and to concepts used in the design of envelopes and packages, overlays and feeds, embedding, publishing formats and Web services and service-oriented architecture. 2

http://www.driver-repository.eu

12

Trends in Research Information Management Developments in digital data management disclose opportunities never seen before in the world of scientific and scholarly publishing. Research is no longer condensed exclusively in the traditional printed format with its fixed identity as peer reviewed article, journal or book. By losing this traditional identity the single steps in the process of research are becoming accessible as elements that seek context in new relationships. This poses two basic questions for data management: when is an element relevant and what kind of relationship is to be managed. Data management has inherent questions and problems: uniformity, accessibility, durability and efficiency, to name only a few. Accessibility of the components of the research process will give rise to new ways of collaboration in research. These developments will call for a new approach, Research Information Management. This series of books are based on trend analyses, an inventory on the scientific repositories in Europe, and state-of-the-art studies in the EU funded DRIVER II project. They are the result of in-depth discussions, troubling with uncertainty about future evolvement, and struggling with the formulation of definitions in the continuously changing world of scholarly communication. Authors, advisors, and reviewers showed perseverance in getting around with the selection of valuable standards and promising developments. I wish to acknowledge all members of the DRIVER community for their contribution to this work. Choosing the format of a book is a rather traditional starting point that seems appropriate now, as we are only at the beginning of developments. Of course, the content will be presented in other formats as well and naturally in Open Access. And the form of an enriched publication will be pursued, e.g. when theoretical concepts are presented in a mock up or a simulator, as is the case with the ‘demonstrators’. In our series, mixing the format of a book with Internet information occasionally results in pictures of moderate printing quality. We decided not to enhance this part of the publication, but rely on referral to the corresponding Internet site for those who want further reading. 13

The six DRIVER reports are the beginning of a series of international publications on Trends in Research Information Management (TRIM). The TRIM series will host a variety of publications, mostly offspring of ongoing activities and projects in which SURF participates, written by well-informed authors.

Marjan Vernooy-Gerritsen, editor Utrecht, September 2009

14

PART 1. Towards the Implementation of a Repository Infrastructure

1.

Introduction

It is widely acknowledged that a common knowledge base for European research is necessary. The DRIVER project aims towards this3. European practices may be harmonised and the development of stateof-the-art technology facilitated. As a first step, a clear picture of the state-of-the-art of the European repositories is needed. To get this picture, digital repositories in the 27 countries of the European were surveyed in 2006, covering 114 repositories from 17 European countries. Basically, this is a follow-up of an earlier SURF study carried out in 2005, which included 10 European countries (Van Westrienen and Lynch, 2005). The present 2008 survey continues this trend, showing an increasing number of respondents. 178 Institutional research repositories and 14 thematic and other non-institutional repositories from 22 European countries took part actively. As both the 2006 and the 2008 studies are based on partially the same questionnaire, it is possible to make a comparison between the 2008 and 2006 results on a number of issues. In addition, an analysis is made of the repositories that participated in both surveys. With 192 research repositories participating this study is the most comprehensive study of the growing landscape of research repositories in Europe. Part 1 of this book deals with the overall outcomes of the inventory and conclusions with regard to the implementation of Digital Research Repositories. In Part 2 the factual results of the survey are presented. Part 3 describes the procedure of the survey with information about response and non-response, and the survey.

3

www.driver-support.eu.

17

2.

Development of a Repository Infrastructure

2.1

Stakeholders

Institutional research repositories are an important innovation to the scientific information infrastructure. There following three stakeholders are directly involved in this innovation process: authors, institutes and information users.

2.1.1

Authors

From the perspective of the authors the institutional research repository will have an important function as an electronic archive for their own research output, for elsewhere-published materials such as journal articles but also for working papers, internal reports and other ‘grey literature’, that are not yet elsewhere published. Authors might use the electronic archive to generate publication lists on their own website or sending out URLs of publications to colleagues. The main advantages for the authors will be greater exposure of their work and time saving by reducing their administrative workload. Do academic authors accept research repositories? There are a number of studies on the self-archiving behaviour of authors of journal articles. Swann and Brown (2005) show that approximately half of academic authors of the various disciplines practice some sort of self-archiving. Antelman (2006) finds self-archiving by academics varying greatly over six social science disciplines, but only in one discipline higher than 50%. Both studies show that large percentages of self-archiving academics do so via personal or departmental websites, and not via OAI-PMHcompliant institutional or thematic repositories. In a recent article, Norris et al4 checked more than 2500 articles published in toll-access journals and found 38% available in an Open Access form. However, further analysis showed that many of those articles, self-archived by the authors, were not archived in institutional repositories but on personal websites or departmental websites. A survey of the faculty of

4

Loughborough University Institutional Repository: Finding open access articles using Google, Google Scholar, OAIster and OpenDOAR; http://hdl.handle.net/2134/4084.

19

the University of California5 confirms this: 14% of the respondents selfarchived postprints of journal articles in repositories, in contrast to 31% who posted postprints on a personal or departmental website. These results point to two shortcomings in the self-archiving behaviour of academic authors. Many academics, although with large variations per academic discipline, do not self-archive yet. A large percentage of the academics that do self-archive, do not use the institutional repositories but their personal or departmental web pages. Research repositories should therefore focus on this. A user-friendly deposition procedure seems to be necessary to convince authors to deposit their work in the institutional repositories. Personal services to the depositing author such as the option to generate a publication list on the personal homepage will enhance the appeal of the institutional research repository. Long-term availability and the persistent identifier are also good arguments to convince academics. To authors that are not self-archiving yet the research repository should offer services that might lower the threshold for them, such as a variety in options of availability. From the survey it becomes clear that approximately 30% of the institutional research repositories in Europe have also some sort of mandatory policy implemented, be it mostly partly.

2.1.2

Academic institutes

From the perspective of academic institutes, the research repository might have two functions: •

5

Showcase of research output. In many cases the institutional research repository is considered by the university administration to be a good way of ‘putting the name of the university on the map’. This function is focused on people outside the university or research institute. It will make the research institute more visible, especially with a view on attracting funds for the research institute or university. Clearly, for this function the full text of the publications is preferred.

Faculty attitudes and behaviors regarding scholarly communication: survey findings from the University of California, 2007.

20

•

Administration tool. Institutional Repositories can be used for the compilation of the annual report and for research assessment exercises. Research output measurements are increasingly used internally as a factor in the distribution of financial funds among the various departments, thereby making the need for comprehensive research repositories more urgent.

2.1.3

Information users

From the perspective of the information users inside and outside the research institutes, research repositories might serve as a source for grey literature and an alternative access to toll-access literature. A common infrastructure for research repositories, as strived for by the DRIVER project, is particularly in the interest of this stakeholder. It is important to note that access to gray literature through the traditional library information systems always has been difficult. So research repositories might have a useful role here6. The possibility of alternative access to toll-access literature is given much attention and lively discussion. Proponents of Open Access seek to make research output accessible for everyone with the argument that the research is already paid for by the taxpayer and therefore should be freely available to him. Most journal publishers working with the traditional subscription model now allow authors of journal articles to deposit a version of the full text of the article, but fear potential damage to their business models (Beckett and Inger, 2007). The effects of depositing journal articles in research repositories on the authors, users and the economics will be extensively studied in the PEER Observatory, a joint research effort of publishers and repositories7. A successful alignment of the functions for authors, institutes and information users as stakeholders will be needed to achieve the full potential of the institutional research repositories as a major addition to the scholarly information system. A number of actions and developments at the level of the institutes will be needed to increase the added value of the repository for authors and for the institute itself.

6

This is supported by the result of a user study of the DRIVER Portal (Usability Assessment Report, DRIVER 2007; van Godtsenhoven et al). 7 http://www.peerproject.eu

21

2.2

Next Steps in the Development of Repositories

Institutional research repositories are a major innovation within the scientific information infrastructure. Vernooy-Gerritsen, Pronk and Van der Graaf (2009) gave some suggestions for the next steps in further development of institutional repositories in European countries. Their recommendations are based on the following model for adoption and implementation of IT innovations within an organisation (Cooper and Zmud, 1990).

Stages in Innovation Adoption and Implementation 1.

Initiation: a match is found between innovation and its application in the organisation.

2.

Adoption: a decision is reached to invest resources to accommodate the implementation effort.

3.

Adaptation: the innovation is developed, installed and maintained. Procedures are developed and maintained. Members are trained both in the new procedures and in innovation.

4.

Acceptance: organisational members are induced to commit to the innovation’s usage.

5.

Routinisation: usage of the technology application is encouraged as a normal activity.

6.

Infusion: increased organisational effectiveness is achieved through using the IT application in a more comprehensive and integrated manner to support higher-level aspects of work.

The above model implies that the first stages, initiation, adoption and adaptation, will be mainly processes on the level of a research institution or university.

2.2.1

Actions at Institutional Level

This survey shows that nearly 300 institutions in Europe have already passed the adoption stage and this number is increasing annually by approximately 30 institutions. Actions focused on the added value for the research institute itself could encompass automatic citation counts for each item, with an eye on research assessment exercises, and actions to increase the visibility, accessibility and retrievability of the

22

contents of the repository. Ultimately, this will lead to an increased coverage of the institutional research output by the research repository. Only a very few responses point to a mandatory policy for all research publications produced by the institution’s researchers. One respondent commented: ”Never urge an academic; you won't get anything. Convince them.” Based on this recommendation a ‘seduce-to-use’ policy will ultimately be more successful than a mandatory policy. Two kinds of mandatory policies currently prevail: • Only depositing of theses is mandatory; • The ‘depositing’ of metadata pertaining to research publications is mandatory.

2.2.2

Actions at the Authors’ Level

With regard to authors within an institution with a research repository, the stages of acceptance and routinisation will apply. The studies on self-archiving mentioned in Paragraph 2.1.1 point to two gaps in the self-archiving behaviour of academic authors: • Many academics, although with large variations across academic disciplines, do not as yet self-archive; • A large percentage of those academics that do self-archive, do not use the institutional repositories for this, tending to use their personal or departmental Web pages instead. Actions by research repositories with regard to authors should therefore focus on closing these gaps. A user-friendly depositing procedure is needed to convince authors who still use their departmental or personal Web sites for archival purposes to change to their institutional repository instead. Personalisation functionality should be provided, such as the option to generate a publication list on their personal homepage. The manifest benefits of long-term availability and persistent identifiers are compelling arguments in wooing the authors. Research repositories should offer services that will lower the threshold for authors who do not self-archive as yet, for instance a wider variety in options of availability.

2.2.3

Actions at the Infrastructure Level

This survey shows that within Europe there is still a need for further deployment of digital repositories at research institutions that do not have one yet. There is also a need to improve the existing repositories through development of an enhanced common infrastructure. 23

At international level actions like the following could help: • Further development and improvement of a common infrastructure for research repositories; • Continuing advocacy efforts to increase the deployment of research institutes at research institutes that do not have one yet; • Continuing advocacy efforts to stimulate deposition of research output; • Technical harmonisation; • Stimulation of various technological developments related to research repositories. When the institutional research repositories are fully incorporated in the scholarly communication system, authors and institutions can only reap the benefits of this innovation when the material in the repositories is widely used by users/readers of scholarly information. Optimal usage can be achieved through a reliable infrastructure for research repositories that enhances the accessibility and retrievability of their content. DRIVER aims to develop such a pan-European infrastructure, offering sophisticated services and functionality for authors, institutions and information users. To help the new entrants in the research repository world, DRIVER has set up a number of programmes such as the DRIVER Guidelines, the Mentor Service and the Tutorial for data providers8. As scholarly information is truly global, a truly international effort by the more permanent organisation is needed. Therefore the DRIVER community has launched international not-for-profit association COAR, the Confederation of Open Access Repositories, in October 2009. This new organisation aims “To enhance and progress the provision, visibility and application of research outputs through global networks of Open Access digital repositories.”

8 Respectively: http://www.driversupport.eu/documents/DRIVER_Guidelines_v2_Final_2008-11-13.pdf http://www.driver-support.eu/managers.html , http://www.driversupport.eu/mentor.html.

24

COAR strives to achieve this aim by: • Support and coordination of global collaborative efforts towards high-quality Open Access data and interoperable systems; • Acting as the reference point for repository standardisation efforts, the repository community platform, and to be the venue for discussion and meetings working towards streamlining OA repository developments; • Advocacy of consistent policy formulation on institutional repository; • Development and support of interoperable standards for national aggregation of research content in OA repositories; • Supporting the formalisation of OA mandates by research funders and institutions; • Promoting an increased rate of self-archived deposit with as little burden as possible on the researcher; • Maintenance, development and growth of the DRIVER Confederation as technical, functional and organisational network of OA repositories.

2.3

Conclusion

It may be concluded from this survey that much has been achieved already at a European level. But there is still a way to go to achieve full incorporation of research repositories in the scholarly communication system, giving authors, institutes and information users the opportunity to reap the full benefits of this innovation of the scholarly information system. Clearly, the present state of research repositories is not yet in the final phase of innovation implementation called ‘infusion’, whereby the scholarly communication system, as a whole will function at a higher level. In our view, working on three tracks to improve the functionality of the repositories for authors, institutions and users will make this final stage of innovation adoption achievable within a decade. Lobbying efforts directed at decision makers within the research institutions will be needed for some years to come in order to reach the stage whereby a majority of research institutions will have a research repository.

25

References

Antelman K., Self-archiving practice and the influence of publisher policies in the social sciences. Learned Publishing 19, 85-89, 2006. Beckett C. and S. Inger, Self-archiving and journal subscriptions: coexistence or competition? Publishing Research Consortium, 2007. Cooper R.B. and R.W. Zmud, Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach. Management Science archive, Volume 36, Issue 2 (February 1990), 123 – 139. Feijen M., W. Horstmann, P. Manghi, M. Robinson and R. Russell. DRIVER: Building the Network for Accessing Digital Repositories across Europe. Ariadne 53, 2007. Swan A. and S. Brown, Open access self-archiving: An author Study. Key Perspectives Ltd: Departmental Technical Report, 2005. Vernooy-Gerritsen M., G. Pronk, M. van der Graaf, Three Perspectives on the Evolving Infrastructure of Institutional Research Repositories in Europe. Ariadne. Issue 59, April 2009. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue59/vernooy-gerritsen-et-al/ Westrienen van G. and C.A. Lynch, Academic Institutional Repositories, Deployment Status in 13 Nations as of mid-2005. D-Lib Magazine, September 2005, volume 11, number 9.

26

PART 2. Digital Research Repositories in Europe

27

3.

Research Repositories in Europe

Summary Based on the response rate of the survey, the number of OAI-PMH compliant institutional research repositories in the European Union including Norway, Switzerland and Croatia is estimated at 280 to 290. It appears to have increased with 25 to 30 repositories per year in the last 3 years. This figure is lower than generally assumed, as based on OPEN DOAR and similar registries, probably because we used a restrained definition, ‘containing research output from contemporary researchers’. ‘Repository’ is now used in a much broader sense than a few years ago, especially for datasets in the area of archives and heritage collections. The annual growth rate of the institutional repositories in Europe is 2535 newly started research repositories per year. In addition, 15 thematic research repositories were identified in the survey. So the total number of research repositories is estimated around 300. The estimate of 280 to 290 institutional research repositories in Europe means that nearly half of the universities have now an institutional research repository implemented. This is based on the number of universities in Europe of 593 according to the European University Association. If compared with the number of universities according to Braintrack, about one third of the universities in Europe have implemented a repository. The situation in the European Union countries with regard to institutional repositories is as follows: from six EU countries there are no data available, indicating that there may be no repositories. In two EU countries repositories appear to be in a starting phase, and in six EU countries in an early stage, i.e. 10-50% of the relevant universities have research repositories. In 13 EU countries, an estimated 50% or more of the relevant universities have implemented a research repository that is categorised as a more advanced stage. The situation in the EU has considerably progressed since the 2006 survey, when only seven countries could be categorised in the more advanced stage.

29

3.1

Methods

3.1.1

Development of the Questionnaire

A draft questionnaire was developed, based on the questionnaire of the 2006 survey. The questionnaire and the focus of the study were discussed during the teleconferences of the Work Package Two steering committee and in a WP2 workshop in Utrecht9. At this workshop it was also decided to expand the number of countries from the 27 countries of the European Union to include additional European countries: Croatia, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland. It was noted that a number of questions in the questionnaire of the 2006 survey were only applicable to institutional repositories. For the 2008 survey a separate questionnaire without these questions was developed for the thematic research repositories.

3.1.2

Collecting Address Data

Potential respondents were listed using several sources: • The list of respondents to the 2006 survey; • New data on the repositories in European countries from OPEN DOAR, OAIster and results from searches on the Internet. This resulted in a list of 520 potential contact persons to be invited to participate in this survey. Contact persons were invited by e-mail on 28 August 2008 to participate in the questionnaire. In the e-mail, the definition of research repository was given. As the term ‘repository’ is nowadays used in a much broader sense than a few years ago, it was decided for the 2008 survey to use a more strict definition of research repositories. In this study a research repository is defined as (1) containing research output from contemporary researchers, (2) institutional or thematic and (3) OAI-PMH compliant. The focus on contemporary researchers is the new element compared with the 2006 survey. The e-mail contained a coded link to the questionnaire and also a link to enable the respondent to decline participation if their repository did not match the definition of a research repository. On the 12th September 9

Attendees: Dale Peters, Renze Brandsma, Saskia Franken, Friedrich Summann, Birgit Schmidt, Gera Pronk.

30

2008, an email with a reminder was sent to all respondents who had not responded to the initial invitation. A second reminder was sent on September 29th.

3.1.3

Response and non-response

In the beginning of October 158 questionnaires were returned by institutional repositories and 14 questionnaires by thematic repositories. 47 Respondents declined to participate. 301 Contact persons of the original mailing list had not responded. This large number led us to study the non-response. The mailing list of the 301 contact persons was thoroughly checked: double names and addresses (sometimes the same institute was named by its original name and its English name) were discarded, as were names and addresses of non-research institutes. This resulted in a list of 201 names and addresses of potential respondents at research institutes throughout Europe. They were asked for their reasons not to respond to the questionnaire. There was also an option to leave an e-mail address if the respondent on second thoughts would like to participate in the original survey. The reason we did not respond to the questionnaire

o o

o

o

o

NOT RELEVANT: we do not have a repository. NOT RELEVANT: our repository does not fulfill the criteria of the definition of this study (OAIPMH, containing current research output). NO OPPORTUNITY: we had no opportunity to participate (email mislaid, time constraints, et cetera). ALREADY PARTICIPATED: our institute already participated; we are listed twice in your mailing list. STILL WANT TO PARTICIPATE: the deadline is extended until October 15: if you still want to participate, fill in your email address below. The system will send you then the link to the questionnaire.

Table 1. The non-response questionnaire

31

The non-response study brought the number of respondents participating in the questionnaire for the institutional research repositories to 178. The number of 14 respondents that participated in the thematic research repository questionnaire remained the same. The non-response study was carried out after the mailing of the invitations and two reminders in August and September 2008. The invitations to participants to the non-response study were sent out on October 6 to 200 addresses that did not respond to the earlier invitations and reminders. Below the non-response question and its results are presented.

Figure 1. Reasons for non-response

In total 26% of the 201 respondents answered as follows: • 15.4% of the respondents the questionnaire was not relevant because of no repository existed; • 19.2% of the respondents had no opportunity to participate; • 17.3% of the respondents had already responded to the questionnaire; apparently they were listed on the original address list twice or more; • 48.1% of the respondents still wanted to participate. From these results, it can be concluded that 67% of the 201 nonrespondents represent a research repository according to the definition of this study.

32

3.2

Total Number of IRs in Europe

Based on the final response an estimation of the total number of institutional repositories in Europe is made. An Estimation of the Total Number of Repositories From the data can be calculated that the total number of research repositories in Europe is estimated at around 30010. The number of institutional research repositories is estimated at 280 to 290, as approximately 15 thematic repositories were identified in this study. Coverage of this Survey Ultimately 178 institutional research repositories participated; this is approximately 60% of the estimated total number of research repositories in Europe. Coverage of Universities Assuming that most repositories with research output are linked to universities, an estimate can be made of the coverage of research repositories by universities throughout Europe. The number of universities in Europe is 593 according to the European University Association (full members) or 828 according to Braintrack (see www.braintrack.com). So between 34% and 47% of the European Universities has a research repository.

3.3

Annual Growth in the Number of Repositories

When did the repository or repositories in your institution become operational, or in case of earlier repositories OAI-PMH compliant? This question in the questionnaire for the institutional repositories was answered as follows: • 41.6% of the repositories became operational/ OAI-PMH compliant in 2004 or earlier; • 15.2% became operational in 2005; • 19.7% became operational in 2006;

10 This estimate was made by the following calculation: 158 repositories participated at the time of the non-response study. 200 additional potential respondents were contacted: from the non-response study it appeared that 67% of them have research repositories (thus 134 repositories). 158 + 134 = 292. Thus the total number of research repositories appears to be around 300.

33

• •

16.3% became operational in 2007; 7.3% became operational in 200811.

This means that the number of institutional repositories is growing with an annual number of approximately 25 to 35 institutional repositories.

Figure 2. Annual growth in the number of repositories

3.4

The Situation per Country

Categorisation per Country The number of universities for each country included in the survey was derived from two sources, Braintrack and European University Association. These numbers, in combination with the results of the 2006 and 2008 survey, were used to characterise the situation with regard to institutional research repositories in each European country (see text box).

11 The 2008 survey was carried out from August to October 2008. The 2008 figure for new institutional repositories therefore can be expected to be lower, as very newly started repositories will be missed by the survey or have started after survey.

34

Four categories •

No data available or no research repository known.

•

Starting phase: A few institutions have set up a research repository in these countries.

•

Early stage: A sizeable part of the research oriented universities, estimated to be between 10% and 50% of the relevant universities in the country, has implemented a research repository.

•

More advanced stage: A sizeable part of the research-oriented universities, estimated to be 50% or more of the relevant universities in the country, has implemented a research repository.

It has to be emphasised that the categories are rather arbitrary and that the categorisation per country is often arbitrary as well and sometimes even based on limited information. So it is merely a general impression of the situation with regard to research repositories per European country. The results of this categorisation are summarised as follows: •

No Data or no Research Repositories. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania. In total six EU countries.

•

Starting Phase. In two EU countries, Estonia and Poland, the institutional research repositories are in the starting phase.

•

Early Stage. In six EU countries, the research repositories are in their early stages: Austria, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.

•

Advanced Stage. In 13 EU countries, the research repositories are in a more advanced stage: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

•

Newly included Countries. In this survey a number of European countries outside the European Union and not part of the earlier survey were included. The results: Iceland has no data or no research repository; Croatia appears to be in the starting phase; Switzerland appears to be in the early stages, while Norway is in the more advanced stage. 35

Comparison with the 2006 Categorisation A similar categorisation was carried out in the 2006 survey. In the table below, the comparison with the categorisation of the EU countries on basis of the 2006 survey is presented. Phase of development of research repositories EU countries scored

2006

2008

No data or no research repository

7

6

Starting phase

5

2

Early stage

8

6

More advanced stage

7

13

Table 2. Comparison of categories of EU countries

The 2008 figures show a notable improvement with the results from the 2006 survey. The main results are: •

Notable Advances in seven Countries. Six countries, Belgium, Hungary, Ireland, Finland, Greece, and Portugal, are now categorised in the advanced stage, while based on the 2006 survey they were categorised in the ‘no data’ category, in the starting phase or in the early stages. In Belgium, Portugal, Finland, Greece and Ireland concerted efforts to develop the research repositories have been carried out, for Hungary no such information is available to the authors. In addition, Slovenia is now categorised as in the early stage, while it was categorised as in the starting phase in the 2006 survey.

•

Countries with many Universities and little or no Data on Research Repositories. There are a number of countries that show a notable lack of data from this survey on research repositories, while they host an important number of universities. A few examples are Poland, a country with a considerable number of universities and no data available and the Czech Republic with a considerable number of universities and no response to this survey12.

12

It has to be noted that there was a very limited response to the 2008 survey from France - scored in the more advanced stage with a considerable number of universities.

36

16

11

Bulgaria

27

15

Croatia

5

5

Cyprus

0

1

17

17

Denmark

9

7

Estonia

7

3

Finland

21

17

X

7

France

84

59

X

5

Germany

80

59

X

34

Greece

19

16

X

5

Hungary

30

12

X

3

Iceland

9

1

Ireland

6

9

X

5

72

57

X

23

Latvia

5

4

Lithuania

7

10

Luxembourg

2

0

Norway

6

7

Malta

3

1

Poland

33

42

Portugal

24

16

Romania

48

22

Slovakia

12

11

Slovenia

3

2

Czech Republic

Italy

X

Number of DRs participating

Belgium

More advanced stage

17

Early stage

European University Association (full members)

12

Star-ting phase

BrainTrack

Austria

No data or no DR

Number of Universities

1 X

X

7 0

X

1

X

0 X

0 X

X

5 1

X

0

X

0 X

1

X

0 X

X

4 0

X

1 X

X

6 0

X

0 X

1 37

26

21

Switzerland

12

12

The Netherlands

22

14

X

11

United Kingdom

135

73

X

38

Total number of universities EU

828

593

Total number of DRs participating

38

X

Number of DRs participating

Sweden

More advanced stage

52

Early stage

European University Association (full members)

76

Star-ting phase

BrainTrack

Spain

No data or no DR

Number of Universities

7 X

X

10 2

178

Figure 3. Overview of the stages of the EU countries

39

4.

Contents and related Issues

Summary 70% of the participating institutes have one research repository, nearly a quarter more than one. Approximately 8% have outsourced it. The large majority of research repositories is focused on containing various publication types in full text, while less than half also contains metadata-only records relating to publications. But quantitatively, metadata-only records take up 51% of all records, while full text records take up one-third. Only a small percentage of the repositories contain non-textual materials such as primary datasets, images, video and music. A closer look at the full text records in the repositories shows that 62% are grey literature, i.e. theses, proceedings and working papers; 38% contain primary literature, i.e. journal articles and books/book chapters. The respondents also estimated the number of records of each type in their repositories. From these data it appears that a typical research repository in Europe contained in total 8.545 items in September 2008. With regard to the full text of elsewhere-published materials, one is confronted with copyright rules and, in case of journal articles, the question of which version should be deposited. The comparison of the data from the 2008 and 2006 surveys show a clear trend from preprint form and/or published form towards postprint form. Another important issue is the variation in availability forms for full text supported by the repository: Open Access, Open Access with embargo period, Campus Access or No Access (archive only). It appears that the repositories are offering more options over the last few years. However, from an additional analysis of the 2008 data, it appears that 47% of the research repositories still offer only one form of availability, the Open Access option. The disciplines are fairly even represented in the materials, be it with a slight overrepresentation of Humanities and Social Sciences with 35%. Comprehensive coverage is an important success factor for the research repositories. Coverage is estimated by the respondents of the 2008 survey on average at 35% of the research output of their institutes. In 41

another estimate by the respondents, the percentage of academics of their institutes delivering material to the research repositories is on average 33%. These estimates are similar to those made by the respondents to the 2006 survey, suggesting no real progress in this respect. Work processes vary from self-depositing by academics to independent collection of the materials by repository staff members. Compared to the results of the 2006 survey, there is a remarkable increase in the percentage of repositories that use a combination of various workflows (28% in 2006 versus 44% in 2008).

4.1

One or more Repositories per Institute

The questionnaire started with a number of questions about the contents of the research repositories and a number of related issues. The results are presented below. A1a. Does your institution presently maintain a digital

n

%

121

68.0

23

12.9

20

11.2

14

7.9

repository for research output of your researchers? Yes, our institution maintains one digital repository for research output itself Yes, our institution maintains more than one digital repository for research output itself and I fill in this form for one repository only Yes, our institution maintains more than one digital repository for research output itself and I fill in this form for the combined total of our repositories Yes, our institution has a digital repository for research output, however the maintenance is outsourced to a third party 178 Answers

100.0

Table 4. Number of repositories per institute

Does your institute presently maintain a digital repository for research output of your researchers? This question was answered as follows: • 68.0% of the participating institutes maintain one research repository for research output themselves; • 24.1% of the participating institutes maintain more than one research repository for research output themselves;

42

•

7.9% of the participating institutes have outsourced the maintenance of a research repository.

Several institutes that maintain more than one repository indicated in their comments that these multiple repositories are dedicated to specific types of material, such as theses, articles and publications, working papers or images.

4.2

Type of Materials in the Repository

A2. What type of materials is presently in the digital

n

%

161

90.4

57

32.0

133

74.7

repository at your institution? [If your institution maintains more than one digital repository, please state here the aggregate numbers.] Articles (full text and metadata) Articles (metadata only) Books/ book chapters (full text and metadata) Books/ book chapters (metadata only) Theses (full text and metadata) Theses (metadata only) Proceedings (full text and metadata) Proceedings (metadata only)

57

32.0

143

80.3

44

24.7

120

67.4

47

26.4

124

69.7

Working papers (metadata only)

36

20.2

Primary datasets

15

8.4

Images

38

21.3

Video

32

18.0

Music

7

3.9

Other

59

Working papers (full text and metadata)

178 Answers

33.1 100.0

Table 5. Types of materials in the research repository

What type of materials does the research repository of your institute presently cover? The majority of the research repositories of the participating institutes contain the full text of textual materials: • 90.4% contain journal articles; • 80.3% contain theses; • 69.7% contain working papers; • 74.7% contain books or book chapters; • 67.4% contain proceedings. 43

A minority of the research repositories of the participating institutes contains metadata of textual materials without the full text, i.e. metadata only records: • 32.0% contain metadata of articles; • 32.0% contain metadata of books and book chapters; • 24.7% contain metadata of theses; • 26.4% contain metadata of proceedings; • 20.2% contain metadata of working papers. A small minority of the research repositories of the participating institutes contain non-textual materials: • 21.3% contain images; • 18.0% contain video; • 8.4% contain primary datasets; • 3.9% contain music; • 33.1% of the respondents indicate that there are also other materials in their repositories; from their comments, it appears this relates mostly to patents, learning materials, journals and students’ papers. Comparison with 2006 Survey In the table below a comparison is made with the 2006 survey. A2. What type of materials is presently in the digital repository of your institute?

2008

2006

%

%

Articles (full text and metadata)

90.4

85.1

Articles (metadata only)

32.0

40.4

Books/book chapters (full text and metadata)

74.7

62.3

Books/book chapters (metadata only)

32.0

33.3

Theses (full text and metadata)

80.3

74.6

Theses (metadata only)

24.7

29.8

Proceedings (full text and metadata)

67.4

62.3

Proceedings (metadata only)

26.4

22.8

Working papers (full text and metadata)

69.7

65.8

Working papers (metadata only)

20.2

21.9

8.4

7.9

Images

21.3

14.9

Video

18.0

12.3

Primary datasets

Music

3.9

5.3

Other

33.1

25.4

Table 6. Types of materials in the research repository

44

From the table it appears that compared to the 2006 study that the percentage of repositories with various types of full text materials and the percentage of repositories with images and or video have increased.

4.3

Contents of the Research Repositories

In a number of open questions, the total numbers of each type of material and from 2007 separately were asked in an attempt to assess the total number of the various items within research repositories in the European Union and to assess a ‘snapshot’ of the number of items covered from 2007. Below the composition of the repositories is presented in a number of pie charts13. The research repositories mainly contain textual materials (Figure 4): • 84% relate to textual materials: 51% metadata-only records, 33% full text records; • 4% relate to non-textual materials; • 12% are listed under the category ‘other materials’, mainly student papers and learning materials, thus mostly textual materials as well.

Figure 4. Diversity in record types as of September 2008

A typical research repository contained in total 8.545 items, as assessed in September 2009. The number of data from 2007 is typically 1.689 items. Compared with similar figures from the 2006 survey, these numbers are slightly lower, respectively 8984 in total and 1741

13

The results with regard to the contents are presented in more detail in Chapter 11.

45

from the snapshot 2005. This is probably caused by a number of participating repositories that started recently. The textual records consist of records with metadata only, and records with metadata and full text. The larger part of the records consists of metadata only. These textual materials, metadata records and full text records together, consist of (Figure 5): • 54% articles; • 12% books and book-chapters; • 18% theses; • 11% proceedings; • 5% working papers.

Figure 5. Types of textual materials (metadata only records and full text records); total as of September 2008

If one only looks at the full text records, the publication types are as follows (Figure 6): • 34% articles; • 4% books and book-chapters; • 39% theses; • 14% proceedings; • 9% working papers.

46

Figure 6. Publication types of full text records; total as of September 2008

4.4

Version of Journal Articles deposited

Figure 7. Version of articles deposited in research repositories

Which version of the full text journal article can be deposited in the research repository of the participating institutes? A question about this, with more than one answer possible, was answered as follows: • 71.9% of the research repositories allow the published version of the journal articles; • 70.8% of the research repositories allow the postprint version of the journal articles;

47

50.0% of the research repositories allow the preprint version of the journal article.

•

Comparison with 2006 Survey In Table 7 a comparison is made with the 2006 survey. A5-1. With regard to full text journal articles

2008

2006

%

%

Preprint version (pre-refereeing)

50.0

47.4

Postprint (i.e. final draft post-refereeing)

70.8

59.6

Published version (publisher-generated format)

71.9

61.4

(published or to be published): which version is deposited [Please tick all boxes that apply]

Table 7. Version of full text journal articles comparison 2008 and 2006

From the table it appears that: • The percentage of research repositories that allows the preprint version has remained more or less the same; • The percentage of research repositories that allows the postprint version has increased from 59.6% to 70.8%; • The percentage of research repositories that allows the published version has increased from 61.4% to 71.9%. Which form of the journal article is mostly present? The answers are as follows: • 43.6% of the research repositories contain mostly the published form of the journal article; • 46.2% the postprint form of the journal article; • and 10.3% the preprint version of the journal article. The results from these two questions about the version of journal articles in the repositories lead to the conclusion that although most research repositories cover the three possible versions of journal articles, i.e. preprint, postprint or published version. In quantitative terms the published version and the postprint version are dominant.

48

Figure 8. Forms of journal articles in the repository

Comparison with 2006 Survey In the table below a comparison is made with the 2006 survey. A5-2 Which statement best describes the form of

2008

2006

%

%

Most articles are available in preprint form only

10.3

17.6

Most articles are available in postprint form

46.2

30.4

Most articles are available in published form

43.6

52

journal articles in your research repository?

Table 8. Statement which best describes the form of journal articles present in the repository, compared to 2006 survey

It appears that there is a clear trend from preprint form and/or published form towards postprint form.

4.5

Open Access and other Forms of Availability

Are the records with textual materials, such as journal articles, books and book chapters, theses, proceedings and working papers, all publicly available, i.e. Open Access? Alternatively, are they available in other variants, i.e. Open Access with embargo for a certain period, Campus Access or not publicly accessible at all, i.e. for archival purposes only?

49

The question on this topic was answered as follows: • 96.6% of the research repositories contain textual materials with Open Access availability; • 32.6% of the research repositories contain textual materials with Open Access with an embargo period; • 30.0% of the research repositories contain textual materials with Campus Access; • 18.0% of the research repositories contain textual materials that are archived only but not available for anyone; • 6.7% of the respondents have indicated other options for the availability of the textual materials. These materials are available for a fee, after an e-mail request or restricted to members of a project team.

Figure 9. Availability forms of the full text materials

An additional analysis showed that 47% of the research repositories offer only one form of availability: the Open Access option.

50

Comparison with 2006 Survey In Table 9 a comparison is made with the results from 2006. A6-a. With regard to the availability of the full text

2008

2006

%

%

Open Access: publicly available

96.6

94.7

Open Access with embargo: publicly available after a

32.6

18.4

30.3

26.3

materials (articles, books, book chapters, theses etc.): how are they available? [Please tick all boxes that apply]

certain period of no access Campus Access: only available for users within our institution No Access: archived but NOT available at all Other

18.0

14

6.7

7.9

Table 9. Availability of the full text materials, comparison 2008 and 2006

From the table it appears that: • The percentage of research repositories with materials available under the conditions of Open Access with embargo has increased from 18.4% in 2006 to 32.6% in 2008; • The percentage of research repositories with materials available under the conditions of Campus Access has increased from 26.3% in 2006 to 30.3% in 2008; • The percentage of research repositories with materials, which are not accessible, has increased from 14% in 2006 to 18% in 2008.

4.6

Percentage of each Form of Availability

In the next question, the respondents were asked to give an estimate of the percentage of each form of availability of the full text materials in their research repository. The results are presented in the table below together with the results from the 2006 survey. This leads to the following results: • On average 86% of the records in the participating research repositories are publicly available via Open Access; • On average 3% of the records in the participating research repositories are available via Open Access after an embargo period; • On average 5% of the records in the participating research repositories are available for the campus of the institute only;

51

On average 4% of the records in the participating research repositories are not available, but archived only; In addition, 1% of the records in the participating research repositories are available in another way.

• •

Comparison with 2006 Survey In the table below a comparison is made with the results from 2006. Average

OA

OA em-

Campus

No ac-

Other

Respon-

percentage

public

bargo

Access

cess

%

dents

accessibil-

%

%

%

%

86

3

5

4

1

158

88

1

6

2

3

10614

N=

ity 2008 total EU 2006 total EU Table 10. Form of availability of the full text materials, comparison 2008 and 2006

Compared with their results from 2006, it appears that the percentage of Open Access materials under embargo has increased from 1% in 2006 to 3% in 2008. The percentage of materials, which are not accessible, has increased from 2% in 2006 to 4% in 2008.

Other

Respondents N=

35

17

22

20

6

145

2006

30

13

25

20

12

94

Engineering

2008

Natural Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Life Sciences

Representation of Disciplines

Average percentage of materials, covering the disciplines

4.7

Table 11. Representation of disciplines, comparison 2008 and 2006

In the next question the respondents were asked to give an estimate about the percentage of materials covering the various disciplines. The

14

Not all respondents have answered to this question.

52

results are presented in the table above together with the results from the 2006 survey. This leads to the following results: • 35% of the materials in the participating research repositories related to disciplines in Humanities and Social Sciences; • 22% of the materials in the participating research repositories related to disciplines in Natural Sciences; • 20% of the materials in the participating research repositories related to disciplines in Engineering; • 17% of the materials in the participating research repositories related to disciplines in Life Sciences; • 6% of the materials in the participating research repositories related to other disciplines.

are are are are are

It is concluded that the 2008 figures are broadly similar to the results of the 2006 survey.

4.8

Coverage of the Research Repositories

In the next two open questions the respondents were asked to give estimates about: 1. The percentage of the academics delivering material to the research repository, and 2. The percentage of research output from their institute in the last year (2007) deposited in the research repository. 108 Respondents gave an estimate on the percentage of the academics of their institute delivering material to their research repository. Many respondents declined to answer this question because they thought it was difficult or impossible to estimate. On average, the estimated percentage of academics delivering material to the research repositories is 33%. 105 Respondents gave an estimate on the percentage of the research output of 2007 of their institute deposited in their research repository: on average, the estimated percentage of research output of 2007 deposited in the research repositories is 35%.

53

Comparison with 2006 Survey In the table below a comparison is made with the results from the 2006 survey. Please give some estimates about the delivery of the

2008

2006

materials by the academics in your institution:

%

%

Percentage of academics delivering material to the

33

38

35

n/a

n/a

37

research repository: Percentage of the research output from your institution in the last year (2007) deposited in the research repository: Percentage of the research output from your institution in the last year (2005) deposited in the research repository: Table 12. Delivery by academics

From the table it appears that these estimates from the respondents of both surveys are similar.

4.9

Work process of depositing materials

Figure 10. Work processes of depositing materials

How is the material deposited in the research repository? A multiplechoice question about the work processes of depositing the materials in the repository was answered as follows:

54

•

•

•

• •

21.3% of the research repositories of the participating institutes followed ‘workflow A’: self-depositing by the academics, with quality control by specialised staff members; 20.2% of the research repositories of the participating institutes followed ‘workflow B’: delivery by the academics, and depositing by the specialised staff members; 8.4% of the research repositories of the participating institutes followed ‘workflow C’: materials collected by staff members independent of the academics; 43.8% of the research repositories of the participating institutes followed a combination of workflows A, B and C; 6.2% of the research repositories of the participating institutes indicated that they followed a different procedure. In their comments however, these respondents described variations on the three work procedures described in the answer categories, e.g. selfdepositing by academics without quality control by the library and various combinations of the three procedures.

Comparison with 2006 Survey In the table below a comparison is made with the results from the 2006 survey. A9. Which statement best describes the work

2008

2006

21.3

28.1

20.2

26.3

8.4

7.0

43.8

28.1

6.2

10.5

processes of depositing of materials in the repository? Workflow A: self depositing by academics, quality control by specialised staff members Workflow B: delivery by academics, depositing by specialised staff members Workflow C: collected by staff members independent of the academics A combination of those Other

Table 13. Work processes of depositing materials, comparison 2008 and 2006

From the table it appears that: • In 2006, 28.1% of the research repositories employed a combination of the depositing methods; • In 2008, this percentage has risen to 43.8%.

55

Descriptions of procedures for depositing The respondents were also asked in an open question to describe briefly the work procedures. 106 respondents provided a description of their work procedures. In the table below, a selected number of interesting descriptions are presented. Selected comments with regard to the work processes of depositing of materials in the repository Workflow A: self depositing by academics, quality control by specialised staff members A researcher submits a record by logging into the system via a web form. Submits the record, which is then quality controlled by library staff and then made public. Research materials from academics are deposited via the Research Expertise Database (which is a research publications database). Typically, an academic should update the metadata for his or her research publications list on a regular basis. The functionality exists for the academic to choose a Deposit full text button, which offers them a separate page to further describe the full text of their material, including the version and abstract. The metadata, plus the full text is then imported into the Repository for copyright and metadata checks. There is no quality control; academics enter their own material, except for doctoral thesis where the bibliographical quality is checked to some extent. Everyone deposits, as he (she) wants his (her) publications in the national repository (HAL). HAL's staff checks the thematic classification and the readability of the document, which was deposited.

56

Only registered users can deposit their paper in the repository. Thanks to the process of self-archiving, each user has a personal 'user area' where he can start to deposit his paper. First, you have to fill in the metadata in order to give essential information about your paper. Some items are mandatory others are optional. Then, you can upload a file (PDF, PowerPoint, or others) to the metadata format you have just set. In the end, the user sends the document to the submission buffer. The document remains in the submission buffer, until it is validated by specialized staff members (quality control). After quality control, the staff will deposit the document in the main archive. Therefore, while self-archiving is carried out by registered users, only staff members can validate the documents and deposit them in the main archive. Self-depositing by the academics, creating a contract for the rights, quality control and feedback from staff, publishing. In some cases, mainly for non-thesis, we spoke with the academics and do some of the deposit work. Some special arrangement in rare case is possible as well. Workflow B: delivery by academics, depositing by specialized staff members 1. 2.

Authors deliver their reports and papers or just the metadata to specialized staff members for deposition in the repository. Authors deliver their manuscript to editors for publishing in the VTT publishing series. Specialized staff members deposit electronic version of the publication in the repository.

Work is sent to repository administrator who checks copyright, metadata and deposits. A few academics are now self-depositing and librarians or repository administrator checks metadata. Workflow C: collected by staff members independent from the academics Academics sign deposit agreement, provide a list of all publications. Library staff input items into repository, locate full text, secure copyright.

57

Library staff collects articles and citations by 1. Email from academic staff; 2. Existing staff publications database; 3. Existing research assessment exercise database. Library staff makes records in repository, check copyright, contact academics if any problems, repository staff make metadata and digital object, or metadata only, live. Alternatively, some staff has created their own user registration account and deposit articles. Library staff then checks copyright, contact academics if any problems, repository staff make metadata and digital object, or metadata only, live. Are moving to a process whereby administrators in academic departments will become editors and self-deposit by academics will be encouraged. This organisational WP will become effective since September 1st 2008: 1. Authors: declare interest to make publicly available their work (OA) via the institutional repository. 2. Library: search for author's recent bibliography in Web of Science, and send it to author, asking to send postprints, if still the author have them; asking for any other work author has published or done. 3. Authors: send back to library postprints, with metadata, additional keywords, etc. 4. Library: check into the Sherpa/Romeo the OA conditions and do the deposit. In case of white publishers, postprints will be available only via campus access. Keep the author informed. 5. Library: assure that metadata of deposited publications will be automatically available also to the institutional research information system, in such a way author will not have to do boring operations twice, or more. In this way we plan to complete 100% of material published in the current year (2008) in our institution (8 CNR institutes located in Bologna, we have one archive for each institute).

58

The process herein described by default is Delegate Archiving, that is, the filing process is mostly performed by staff members: 1. Selection or supply of references; 2. Complete bibliographic description, with occasional cooperation from authors; 3. Location and archiving of associated full-text file; 4. License acceptance; 5. Final revision of the filed item. An annual research return exercise is carried out which is used for the metadata records. A specialised librarian enters this into the repository and checks to see where full-text is allowed and requests it from the author in most cases. Mixture of procedures A, B and C 1.

2. 3.

Post and preprint: library staff contacts scientists and looks through bibliographies on the web or articles are delivered in any format via the upload interface Dissertation: very strong rules, submission and quality control (formats) via web interface E-Journals: editors get access to their part on the edoc Server and do everything themselves

The academic or an administrative member of their staff, e.g. a secretary, deposits the details. These details are held in a 'buffer zone' while a member of library staff checks the item's eligibility and edits/adds any incorrect/missing metadata. Recently, if the full text has not been supplied but could have been supplied, i.e. the publisher allows its use, and then we have been contacting the depositor to request it. Authors send us word or excel files with their publications listed. We check copyright and tell the authors which version can be uploaded, pdf or preprint. If the authors have the required preprints they send them to us. This is rare. Otherwise, we download the pdf from the Web and deposit for the author. We use a commercial provider who does all technical aspects for us (page design, database design, maintaining servers, upgrades, etc). Table 14. Comments on the work processes of depositing materials in the repository

59

60

5.

Technical Infrastructure and technical Issues

Summary Technical harmonisation is an important goal of the DRIVER project, as it is essential for building a common infrastructure for research repositories. From the survey it appears that over the last years some progress has been made. Although the software market is still fragmented, two market leaders have increased their market share to, together, 50% (DSpace and GNU EPrints). The other half of the market share goes to more than 10 other software packages. The DRIVER guidelines have been developed by the DRIVER project to ensure highlevel interoperability and retrieval of content. 82% of the respondents know about them and 54.5% makes every effort to follow them. The percentage of research repositories with a persistent identifier assigned to each document has increased from 74.6% in the 2006 survey to 84.3% in the 2008 survey. The Handle system and URN are used most frequently (with over 35% each). The DOI and PURL identifiers are used by 12 to 15% of the repositories. Over 50% of the participating research repositories have secured longterm availability of their materials. Over 30% have plans to do so. Over 70% of the participating research repositories log the statistical data on access and usage. Over 30% of the participating research repositories assign a unique identifier to each author. A similar percentage is developing it. Over 60% of the research repositories comply with the qualified Dublin core standards. About 40% follow the unqualified Dublin core standards. With regard to the metadata standards, the figures are as follows: OAI-ORE 14.6%, MODS 12.4%, MARC21 11.2%, and DIDL 9%. Over 45% of the repositories are technically prepared for Enhanced Publications. More than 30% have plans for preparations. The large majority of research repositories (86%) do have some form of subject or keyword indexing: over 50% in English language, over 30% in a non-English-language. 61

5.1

Software Packages

Figure 11. Overview of the software packages used

Which software package is used for the research repository? Two market leaders have together 50% market share: DSpace with 30.3% and GNU EPrints with 19.7%. The other 50% of the market is fragmented: • OPUS is also a market leader, but mainly restricted to Germany; • The other software packages (ARNO, CDSWare, Digitool, DIVA, Fedora, iTOR, MyCoRe, and VITAL) are used by 5% or less of the participating institutes; • 16.9% of the respondents indicated they used locally developed software packages; • 11.2% of the respondents indicated that they used another software packages, not mentioned in one of the answer categories. Comparison with 2006 Survey In Table 15 a comparison is made with the 2006 survey. From the table it appears that the market share of DSpace has increased by almost 10%.

62

Software package

2008

2006

ARNO

1.1

3.5

CDSware

3.4

0.9

Digitool

1.1

n/a

DIVA

2.2

5.3

30.3

20.2

DSpace Fedora GNU EPrints

2.2

2.6

19.7

23.7

iTOR

0.6

0.9

MyCoRe

2.2

n/a

OPUS

8.4

10.5

VITAL

0.6

n/a

16.9

16.7

Locally developed software package

Table 15. Overview of the software packages used, comparison 2008 and 2006

5.2

Persistent Identifiers

Is a persistent identifier assigned to each document? This question was answered as follows (Figure 12): • 84.3% of the research repositories do have a persistent identifier assigned to each document; • Approximately 12% do not have such a persistent identifier; • About 4% of the respondents answered this question with ‘don't know’. Comparison with 2006 Survey A comparison with the 2006 survey is made in the table below. B2. Is a persistent identifier assigned to each

2008 %

2006 %

Yes

84.3

74.6

No

11.8

14.9

3.9

10.5

document?

Don't know

Table 16. Percentage of persistent identifiers present in 2006 and 2008

From the table it appears that the percentage of research repositories with a persistent identifier assigned to each document has increased from 74.6% to 84.3%.

63

Figure 12. Persistent identifiers

Which Identifier is used? Next, the respondents were asked to state which identifiers they used. Of the repositories with a persistent identifier: • 42.7% uses the Handle system; • 35.3% uses URN (Uniform Resource Name); • 15.3% uses DOI (Digital Object Identifier); • 12.7% uses PURL (Persistent URL); • No one uses the ARK identifier; • 10% uses another type of persistent identifier. Repositories with a persistent identifier:

n

%

Handle system ® persistent identifier

64

42,7

URN (Uniform Resource Name)

53

35,3

PURL (Persistent URL)

19

12,7

DOI (Digital Object Identifier)

23

15,3

ARK (Archival Resource key)

0

0

Other

15

10

150 Answers Table 17. Overview of the persistent identifiers used

64

100

5.4

Long-term Availability

Is the long-term availability of the materials in the repositories secured? A question about this was answered as follows (Figure 13): • Nearly 52.2% of the research repositories do have the long-term availability of their materials secured; • Nearly 32.6% of the research repositories do not have the longterm availability of their materials secured yet, but have plans to do so; • Nearly 7.3% of the research repositories have the long-term availability of their materials not secured and have no plans to do so; • About 8% of the respondents answered this question with ‘don't know’.

Figure 13. Long-term availability If yes, how? (Only those repositories with the long-

n

term availability secured; n=93)

answers %

By internal procedures

71

76.3

By means of the national library

35

37.6

93 Answers

100.0

Table 18. How is the long-term availability secured?

76.3% of the research repositories, which have the long-term availability of their materials secured, have done this by means of

65

internal procedures; 37.6% of the research repositories have done this by means of the national library. Comparison with 2006 Survey A comparison with the 2006 survey is made in the table below. B3. Is the long-term availability of the materials in

2008

the repositories secured?

2006

%

%

Yes

52.2

72.8

Not yet, but we have plans to do so

32.6

n/a

No, no plans for developing it either

7.3

n/a

No

n/a

15.8

Don't know

7.9

11.4

Table 19. Long-term availability, comparison 2008 and 2006

It appears that there is a sharp decrease in the percentage of research repositories that state they have secured long-term availability; in 2006 72.8% of the repositories said they have secured long-term availability, in 2008 this percentage has dropped to 52.2%. The difference in the responses to this question shows that repository managers are more aware of the meaning ‘long term availability’ and the procedures that accompany it. From the comments by the respondents it appears that a number of respondents see long-term preservation as a task for the National Library. Other respondents name several projects in which they participate to secure the long-term availability: PRESERV2 (UK), SHERPA 2 Data preservation project (UK), PINDAR (Denmark) and ABES (France).

5.5

Statistical Data on Access and Usage

Are statistical data on access to the repository and usage of the materials logged by the research repositories? This question was answered as follows: • 71.9% of the research repositories do log the statistical data on access to the repository and the usage of the materials; • 21.3% of the research repositories do not log these statistical data; • 6.7% of the respondents answered this question with ‘don't know’.

66

Figure 14. Statistical data logged

Comparison with 2006 Survey A comparison with the 2006 survey is presented in the table below. The results of both surveys are very similar in this respect. From the comments made it appears the statistical data comprise often of page views and usage per item. B4. Is statistical data on access to the repository and usage of the materials logged?

2008

2006

%

%

Yes

71.9

70.2

No

21.3

21.9

6.7

7.9

Don't know Table 20. Percentage of repositories that log statistical data

67

5.6

Subject and Keyword indexing

B5. Which statement best describes the subject indexing

n

%

57

32.0

35

19.7

Freely assigned keywords [in the language of the country]

33

18.5

Keywords or classifications according to (a) standardised

28

15.7

of your digital repository Freely assigned keywords [in the language of the country and/or in English] Keywords or classifications according to (a) standardised system(s) [in the language of the country and/or in English]

system(s) [in the language of the country] No subject indexing 178 Answers

25

14.0 100.0

Table 21. Subject and keyword indexing

The next question addressed the subject and/or keyword indexing of the research repository. The question was answered as follows: • 32% use a system of freely assigned keywords in the language of the country or in English; • 19.7% of the research repositories index the contents with keywords or classifications according to a standardised system in the language of their own country or in English; • 18.5% use a system of freely assigned keywords in the language of their own country only; • 15.7% of the research repositories index the contents according to a standardised system in the language of their own country only; • 14.0% of the research repositories have no subject indexing. In conclusion: • 35.4% of the research repositories use a standardised system of keywords or classifications for indexing in English and/or in the language of their own country; • 50.5% of the research repositories use a system of freely assigned keywords in English and/or in the language of their own country; • A majority of the research repositories (51.7%) use one of these systems in the language of their own country and in English; • A minority of the research repositories (34.2%) use one of these systems only in the language of their own country.

68

The respondents were asked to comments on this question. From their comments, it appears that the following standardised indexes are used: • SWD • DDC • LOC • OECD • LCSH • JEL • AAL • ULAN • AGROVOC (thesaurus) • PACS • MSC • UDC (Universal Decimal Classification) • BKL • EnTAGSHS Comparison with 2006 Survey A comparison with the 2006 survey is presented in the table below. B5. Which statement best describes the subject indexing

2008

of your digital repository

%

200 6 %

Freely assigned keywords [in the language of the country

32.0

28.9

19.7

31.6

Freely assigned keywords [in the language of the country]

18.5

14.9

Keywords or classifications according to (a) standardised

15.7

16.7

14.0

7.9

and/or in English] Keywords or classifications according to (a) standardised system(s) [in the language of the country and/or in English]

system(s) [in the language of the country] No subject indexing

Table 22. Subject and keyword indexing, comparison 2008 and 2006

From the table it appears that: • The percentage research repositories which use no subject indexing has doubled from 7.9% in 2006 to 14% in 2008; • The percentage repositories with subject indexing by freely assigned key words in the language of the country and/or in English appears to have increased: in 2006 43.8%, in 2008 it is 50.5%.

69

The percentage repositories with subject indexing by keywords or classifications according to (a) standardised system(s) in the language of the country have remained the same. The percentage research repositories with subject indexing by keywords or classifications according to standardised systems in the language of the country and/or in English has decreased by 11.9%; in 2006 the percentage was 31.6%, in 2008 the percentage is 19.7%.

5.7

Author Identifier

Figure 15. Author identifiers

Is a unique identifier assigned to each author? This question is answered as follows: • 30.9% of the research repositories assign a unique identifier to each author; • 27.5% of the research repositories are developing such a unique identifier for each author; • 41.6% of the research repositories have no plans for such a development. Comparison with 2006 Survey A comparison with the 2006 survey is presented in Table 23.

70

B6. Is a unique identifier assigned to each

2008 %

2006 %

Yes

30.9

32.5

No, but we are developing such author identifier in

27.5

26.3

41.6

41.2

author?

the near future No, and there are no plans for developing it either Table 23. Author identifiers, comparison 2008 and 2006

It appears that the results of both surveys are very similar.

5.8

Metadata Standards

Which metadata standards are followed within your research repository? This question was answered as follows: • 61.8% of the research repositories follow the Dublin Core standards, qualified; • 43.3% of the research repositories follow the Dublin Core standards, unqualified; • 9% follow DIDL standards; • 11.2% follow MARC21 standards; • 12.4% follow MODS metadata standards; • 14.6% follow OAI-ORE standards.

Figure 16. Metadata standards used

71

There is no comparison with the 2006 survey for this question, as the question was then differently formulated.

5.9

DRIVER Guidelines

The DRIVER guidelines have been developed by the DRIVER project to ensure high-level interoperability and retrieval of content. This technical harmonisation effort focuses among others on metadata. B8. Does your repository follow the DRIVER Guidelines?

n

%

We do not know about the DRIVER Guidelines

49

27.5

We know about the DRIVER Guidelines, but do not follow them

32

18.0

We know about the DRIVER Guidelines and (make every

97

54.5

effort) to follow them 178 Answers

100.0

Table 24. Percentage of repositories that follow the DRIVER Guidelines

Do the research repositories in Europe follow the DRIVER Guidelines? A question about this was answered as follows: • 82.5% of the respondents know about the DRIVER Guidelines: o 54.5% knows about the DRIVER Guidelines and makes every effort to follow them; o 18.0% knows about the DRIVER Guidelines, but does not follow them; • 27.5% does not know about the DRIVER Guidelines. From the comments the respondents, it appears that some repositories are DRIVER compliant through the national repository. The national repository follows the DRIVER Guidelines and in turn, the local repositories follow the national policy. Some other repositories follow the DINI guidelines, on which the DRIVER Guidelines are based.

72

5.10

Enhanced Publications

Figure 17. Percentage of repositories that are prepared for Enhanced Publications

Is your repository technically prepared for Enhanced Publications? This question was answered as follows: • 46.1% of the repositories is technically prepared for Enhanced Publications; • 32.6% of the repositories is not technically prepared for Enhanced Publications, but has plans to do so; • 21.8% is not technically prepared for Enhanced Publications and does not have any plans to do so. There is no comparison with the 2006 survey for this question, as the question was not part of the 2006 survey

73

6.

Institutional Policies

Summary From the 2008 survey it appears that nearly one-third of the institutes have some sort of mandatory depositing policy. This percentage has increased somewhat since 2006. Just over half of the institutes have an official policy of voluntary deposition and nearly 15% have not formulated any official policy. From the comments by the respondents, most mandatory policies appear to be limited, to theses or to metadata only. Eleven possible institutional policies were surveyed. Raising awareness campaigns among academics is the most frequently policy, nearly 60% of the repositories. An important change to the 2006 survey is that the number of repositories reporting that some academics in their institution are required to deposit research output by researching organisations has increased considerably, from 19% to 30%.

6.1

Policies with Regard to the Deposition of Materials by the Academics

What is the policy of the institute maintaining the research repository towards the academics with regard to depositing material? A question about this topic was answered as follows: • 29.2% of the participating research repositories have a policy of voluntarily depositing combined with a strong encouragement to do so; • 23% have a policy of voluntarily depositing; • 20.2% have a policy of partly mandatory depositing: for some materials, e.g. theses, the academics are required to deposit, for other materials they are free to deposit; • 11.8% have a policy of mandatory depositing, academics are required to deposit materials in the repository; • 14.6% of the participating research repositories have no formal policy. These results can also be presented as follows: • 52.2% of the participating research repositories have a policy of voluntary depositing; • 32% have a policy of mandatory depositing.

75

Figure 18. Overview of the depositing policies

From the comments from the respondents it appears that there are a number of different mandatory policies: • Only depositing of theses is mandatory; • Only the ‘depositing’ of metadata of research publications is mandatory; the depositing of the full text is voluntary or sometimes organised by the staff of the repository; • Only a very few comments points to a mandatory policy for all research publications. Full text publishing is recommended, not mandatory. Submitting metadata is mandatory; submitting full text is not mandatory Mandatory for Metadata Voluntarily with strong encouragement for full text We have an institutional mandate, but: never urge an academic, you won't get anything. Convince them. Mandate exists in theory, but implementation is still being considered. It is only mandatory to deliver metadata Doctoral students are required to upload their doctoral theses. All academics are required to submit the metadata of their publications.

76

Publication registration is mandatory. Making publications open access is strongly recommended in a decision by the university board. Doctoral candidates are required to deposit metadata and strongly encouraged to deposit theses. Thesis deposit is mandatory for a number of research-based degrees, effective for those commencing from October 2007. Mandatory deposit of theses by students We are moving towards mandatory deposit of theses. Open access to these will still be voluntary. Mandatory depositing in the repository is only for PhD thesis. For the other material, the deposit is free and voluntary Only theses are mandatory Deposit of research articles will become mandatory in January 2010. Deposit of doctoral theses is mandatory. Everything else voluntary Policy for deposit of theses. Some depositories strongly encouraging deposit of research materials. There is mandatory deposit for author versions of journal articles, conference proceedings and higher theses. We have had a mandate for all research theses to be submitted to the repository since September 2006. Our mandate for other research output, such as journal articles, has only just been agreed by our Academic Council and has not yet come into effect, although it will later this year. We got an official mandate but as it is unenforceable it's really just 'strong encouragement' Mandatory depositing: academics are required to deposit materials that are published by the institution, but not elsewhere.

77

Comparison with 2006 Survey A comparison with the 2006 survey is presented in Table 25. C1. Which statement best describes the policy of your

2008

2006

%

%

11.8

8.8

20.2

15.8

29.2

30.7

Voluntarily depositing: academics are free to deposit materials

23.0

20.2

There is no official policy

14.6

21.9

1.1

2.6

institution for the academics with regard to depositing material? Mandatory depositing: academics are required to deposit materials Partly mandatory depositing: academics are required to deposit some materials, e.g. theses, and free to voluntarily deposit other materials Voluntarily depositing with strong encouragement: academics are strongly encouraged to deposit materials

Other

Table 25. Overview of the depositing policies, comparison 2008 and 2006

From the table it appears that: • The percentage of repositories, which have a policy of mandatory or partly mandatory depositing, has increased from 24.6% in 2006 to 32% in 2008; • The percentage of repositories with a policy of voluntarily depositing has stayed more or less the same (50.9% in 2006 versus 52.2% in 2008); • The percentage of repositories, which state they have no official policy, has decreased from 21.9% in 2006 to 14.6% in 2008.

6.2

Other institutional Policies

C2. Please tick the statements below that are valid for

n

%

105

59.0

88

49.4

87

48.9

80

44.9

the digital repository in your institution Awareness-raising campaign(s) among academics about the digital repository have been carried out within our institution. There are clear guidelines for the selection of material for inclusion in the digital repository. The interest from decision-makers within our institution in the digital repository is (rather) high. The digital repository at our institution is integrated/linked with other systems in our institution.

78

C2. Please tick the statements below that are valid for

n

%

80

44.9

68

38.2

66

37.1

54

30.3

33

18.5

32

18.0

27

15.2

the digital repository in your institution There is a coordinating national body for digital repositories, within which we have contacts. There is a policy to safeguard the long-term preservation of the deposited material. There is a central gateway to the digital repositories in our country, to which our digital repository is linked. Some academics in our institution are required to deposit research output by research funding organisations in our country. The digital repository at our institution is integrated/linked with the current research information system (CRIS) in our institution. The digital repository at our institution has been set up with financial support from a national funding programme for digital repositories in our country. In our institution the deposited materials are used to measure the output of individual researchers for evaluation purposes (accountability). 178 Answers

100.0

Table 26. Overview of the other institutional policies

In a next question, the respondents were asked to assess a number of statements with regard to the research repository in their institute. In more than 50% of the research repositories an awareness-raising campaign among academics about the research repository has been carried out. In between 30% to 50% of the research repositories: • The research repository is integrated and/or linked with other systems in the institute; • There is contact with a coordinating national body; • There are clear guidelines for the selection of material for inclusion in the research repository; • There is high interest from the decision-makers within the institute in the repository; • There is a policy to safeguard the long-term preservation of the deposited material; • There is a national central gateway to the research repositories, to which the research repository is linked; 79

•

Some academics are required to deposit research output by the research funding organisations in the country.

In less than 20% of the research repositories: • The research repository of the institute has been set up with financial support from a national funding program; • The deposited materials are used to measure the output of the individual researchers for evaluation purposes; • The research repository at our institution is integrated/linked with the current research information system (CRIS) in our institution. Comparison with 2006 Survey A comparison with the 2006 survey is made in Table 27. From the table it appears that the top three statements, which got the highest percentage respondents, have changed: • The percentage of repositories, which have clear guidelines for the selection of materials for inclusion in the research repositories, has increased from 42.1% in 2006 to 49.4% in 2008; • The interest from the decision-makers within the institutions has increased from 40.4% in 2006 to 48.9% in 2008; • The percentage of repositories, which are integrated or linked with other systems in the institution, has decreased from 57.9% in 2006 to 44.9% in 2008; • The percentage of repositories, which have contact with a national coordinating body, has remained more or less the same, but because the increased percentages in other statements, this statement is no longer in the top three in the 2008 survey. It should be noted that there is an increase in the percentage of research repositories that mention that some academics in their institution are required to deposit research output by research funding organisations (from 19.3% to 30.3%).

80

C2. Please tick the statements below that are valid for the digital repository in your institution Awareness-raising campaign(s) among academics about

2008

2006

%

%

59.0

58.8

49.4

42.1

48.9

40.4

44.9

57.9

44.9

43.9

38.2

38.6

37.1

33.3

30.3

19.3

18.5

n/a

18.0

17.5

15.2

16.7

the digital repository have been carried out within our institution. There are clear guidelines for the selection of material for inclusion in the digital repository. The interest from decision-makers within our institution in the digital repository is (rather) high. The digital repository at our institution is integrated/linked with other systems in our institution. There is a coordinating national body for digital repositories, within which we have contacts. There is a policy to safeguard the long-term preservation of the deposited material. There is a central gateway to the digital repositories in our country, to which our digital repository is linked. Some academics in our institution are required to deposit research output by research funding organisations in our country. The digital repository at our institution is integrated/linked with the current research information system (CRIS) in our institution. The digital repository at our institution has been set up with financial support from a national funding programme for digital repositories in our country. In our institution, the deposited materials are used to measure the output of individual researchers for evaluation purposes (accountability). Table 27. Overview of the other institutional policies, comparison 2008 and 2006

81

7.

Services created on top of the Research Repositories

7.1

Summary

About 70% of the participating research repositories are registered to OAIster and Open DOAR. About 40% are registered to ROARMAP and The University of Illinois OAI-PMH Data Provider Registry. Accessibility is very important for the users of the repositories. The 2008 survey results show that in comparison with the 2006 survey the accessibility of repository information by search engines is increasing. Most repositories are now accessible via Google (91%) and Google Scholar (72.5%). In 2006 these percentages were much lower (respectively 64.9% and 51.8%). However, the accessibility through other specialised search engines (Scirus, Scientific Commons) is limited (under 30%), while just under half of the contents of repositories are also listed in the local and/or regional library catalogue. Printing-on-demand. Nearly 10% of the participating research repositories are linked to a printing-on-demand service, while another 10% has plans to develop such a link. Usage statistics. Nearly 30% of the research repositories have a service of displaying usage statistics per digital item, another 30% have plans for such a service. Personal services. Nearly 30% of the research repositories have personal services for the depositing academics, such as an automatically generated publications list. Another 30% have plans for such a service. The respondents of the research repositories were asked to rate their priority for 13 possible services at the European scale. Four services came out on top with more than 30% of the respondents giving this a priority: (1) general search engines, gateways and portals (2), disciplinary and thematic search engines, gateways and portals (3) citation index services and (4) advisory services (Open Access advocacy).

83

7.2

International Registries

D1-a. Which international registries has your repository

n

%

Open DOAR

134

75.3

OAIster

123

69.1

ROARMAP

78

43.8

The University of Illinois OAI-PMH Data Provider Registry

68

38.2

been registered to?

178 Answers

100.0

Table 28. Overview of the international registries to which repositories are registered

To which international registries has your repository been registered? About 70% of the participating research repositories are registered to OAIster and Open DOAR. About 40% of the participating research repositories are registered to ROARMAP and The University of Illinois OAI-PMH Data Provider Registry. 7.2.1 Comparison with 2006 Survey A comparison with the 2006 survey is made in the table below. D1-a. Which international registries has your

2008

2006

%

%

Open DOAR

75.3

41.2

OAIster

69.1

57.9

ROARMAP

43.8

n/a

The University of Illinois OAI-PMH Data Provider Registry

38.2

n/a

repository been registered to? [Please tick all boxes that apply]

Table 29. Overview of the international registries to which repositories are registered, comparison 2008 and 2006

From the table it appears that the registration to international registries has increased. The registration to OAIster has increased from 57.9% in 2006 to 69.1% in 2008. The registration to Open DOAR has almost doubled since 2006.

84

7.3

Search engines

D1-b. The contents of your research repository is

n

%

162

91.0

129

72.5

Scirus

53

29.8

Scientific Commons

51

28.7

searchable via the following general engines/gateways/portals General internet search engines such as Google, Yahoo, MSN etc. Google Scholar

178 Answers

100.0

Table 30. Overview of the general search engines through which the repositories are searchable

Through which search engines are research repositories searchable? This question was answered as follows: • The large majority of the participating research repositories are searchable via general Internet search engines such as Google; • More than 70% of the participating research repositories are searchable via Google Scholar; • Approximately 29% of the participating repositories are searchable via Scirus or Scientific Commons.

7.3.1

Comparison with 2006 Survey

A comparison with the 2006 survey is made in the table below. D1-b. The contents of your digital repository is

2008

2006

%

%

91.0

64.9

Google Scholar

72.5

51.8

Scirus

29.8

18.4

Scientific Commons

28.7

-

searchable via the following general engines/gateways/portals: [Please tick all boxes that apply] General internet search engines such as Google, Yahoo, MSN etc.

Table 31. Overview of the general search engines through which the repositories are searchable, comparison 2008 and 2006

The table shows that the content of research repositories is much better searchable via general search engines such as Google in 2008 than it was in 2006. 85

7.4

Other Services on top of the Research Repositories

7.4.1

Listing in Catalogues

A question about a listing of the research repository in library catalogues is answered as follows (the answer categories were not mutually exclusive): • 47.8% of the research repositories have their contents listed in the catalogue of the library of the institution; • 44.4% of the research repositories have their contents listed in a regional or national catalogue.

Figure 19. Catalogues in which the digital repository is listed

In the list below, the catalogues mentioned by the respondents in their comments are listed. BIBSYS BICTEL/e CBT, SBN COBISS COPAC, WorldCat danBib DARE-depot

86

KOBV ESTER EThOS - for theses FENNICA GBV GVK - Gemeinsamer Verbundkatalog HAL HELKA - Catalogue of Libraries of Helsinki University Fennica - the national bibliography of Finland, NELLI portal INTUTE SHERPA Search KB (National Library of the Netherlands) Libris MeerCat NARCIS National Danish Research Database Norwegian Open Research Archive Nukat NCC PLEIADI (Italian service providers) PORBASE (National); SIIB/UC Millennium (UC librairies Catalogue) Recolecta RK Hamburg GBV Union Catalogue SBN node of Bologna via Sebina Open Search SUDOC TIBORDER from TIB

87

7.4.2

Comparison with 2006 Survey

A comparison with the 2006 survey is presented in the table below. D2. The contents of your digital repository is (partly) listed in the following catalogues:

2008

2006

%

%

National/ regional catalogue

44.4

47.4

Catalogue of our library

47.8

53.5

Other

11.8

16.7

Table 32. Catalogues in which the digital repository is listed

The table shows that the percentages of listing of research repositories listed in national/regional and/or library catalogues are rather similar in both surveys.

7.5

Printing-on-demand

Figure 20. Printing-on-demand services

A question about the linking of the research repositories to printing-ondemand services yields the following results: • 9.6% of the research repositories are linked to a printing-ondemand service; • 10.1% of the research repositories have plans to develop such a link to printing-on-demand service; • 80.3% of the research repositories have no printing-on-demand service nor plans to set up one. 88

7.5.1

Comparison with 2006 Survey

A comparison with the 2006 survey is presented in the table below. D3. Is your digital repository linked to printing-on-demand services?

2008

2006

%

%

9.6

12.3

No

80.3

74.6

This is planned

10.1

13.2

Yes

Table 33. Percentage of digital repositories linked to printing-on-demand services, comparison 2008 and 2006

From the table it appears that the percentage of repositories linked to printing-on-demand services has stayed more or less the same since 2006.

7.5.2

Usage Statistics

On a question about a service of displaying usage statistics per research item, the results are as follows: • 29.2% of the participating research repositories have such a service; • 31.5% of the participating research repositories plan such a service; • Nearly 40% have no such service, nor plans to set up one.

7.5.3

Comparison with 2006 Survey

A comparison with the 2006 survey is presented in the table and figure below. D4. Does your digital repository have a service of

2008

2006

%

%

Yes

29.2

30.7

No

39.3

44.7

This is planned

31.5

24.6

displaying usage statistics per digital item?

Table 34. Percentage of repositories that display usage statistics, comparison 2008 and 2006

89

Figure 21. Percentage of repositories that display usage statistics

It appears that the results of the 2008 survey are rather similar to the 2006 survey.

7.6

Personal Services

Figure 22. Repositories with personal services for the depositing academics

90

On the presence of personal services for the depositing scientists (such as an automatically generated publication list), the results are as follows: • 28.7% of the participating research repositories have such personal services; • 29.8% of the participating research repositories have plans for such personal services; • 41.6% of the participating research repositories have no personal services, nor plans to set up one.

7.6.1

Comparison with 2006 Survey

A comparison with the 2006 survey is presented in the table below. D5. Does your digital repository have personal

2008

2006

services for the depositing academics, such as

%

%

Yes

28.7

35.1

No

41.6

46.5

This is planned

29.8

18.4

an automatically generated publication list?

Table 35. Repositories with personal services for the depositing academics

From the table it appears that the percentage of repositories, which have personal services for the depositing academics, has not increased in comparison to the 2006 study. The percentage of repositories, which state that they have such personal services for the depositing academics planned, has increased from 18.4% in 2006 to 29.8% in 2008.

7.7

Other Services

To a question on other services existing or planned based on the research repository, approximately 52% of the participating research repositories mention that they have so. In their comments, most respondents mention services that have already been questioned in this survey. However, in their comments a number of services not earlier mentioned in the questionnaire are described: • Find an expert; • Podcast interviews with depositing academics; • Request a reprint button; 91

• • • •

RSS feed; Services for evaluation purposes; Support of digital signatures; Web 2.0 features.

Figure 23. Percentage of digital repositories that have other services

7.8

Priorities for Services at a European Scale

Which services should have priority for further development at the European scale? On • • • •

the priority list with over 30% of the respondents are: General search engines, gateways and portals; Disciplinary and thematic search engines, gateways and portals; Citation index services; Advisory services (Open Access advocacy).

Next on the priority list, indicated by 20 to 30% of the respondents are: • Preservation services; • Research assessment/evaluations services; • Usage statistics services.

92

D7. Which services do you believe should have priority

n

%

Citation index services

71

39.9

Disciplinary/ thematic search

69

38.8

General search engines/gateways/portals

57

32.0

Advisory services (Open Access advocacy)

56

31.5

Preservation services

52

29.2

Usage statistics services

48

27.0

Research assessment/evaluation services

39

21.9

Personal services for the depositing scientists

27

15.2

Cataloguing or metadata creation/enhancement services

23

12.9

Advisory services (technical aspects)

21

11.8

Publishing services

10

5.6

Repository hosting services

9

5.1

Printing-on-demand services

2

1.1

Other services

4

2.2

for further development at a European scale?

engines/gateways/portals/repositories

178 Answers

100.0

Table 36. Overview of priorities for further development at a European scale

Ten to 15% of the respondents indicated the following services: • Personal services for the depositing scientists; • Advisory services (technical aspects); • Cataloguing or metadata creation/enhancement services. At the bottom of the priority list, with the priority given by less than 10% of the respondents, rank the following services: • Publishing services; • Repository hosting services; • Printing-on-demand services.

7.8.1

Comparison with 2006 Survey

A comparison with the 2006 survey is presented in Table 37. The results of the comparison are rather similar with a few exceptions: • Less perceived need for general search engines/gateways or a portal; • Increased perceived need for research assessment services/ research evaluation services; • Increased perceived need for usage statistics services; • Less perceived need for repository hosting services.

93

D7. Which services do you believe should have

2008

2006

priority for further development at a European

%

%

Citation index services

39.9

34.2

Disciplinary/ thematic search

38.8

42.1

General search engines/gateways/portals

32.0

40.4

Advisory services (Open Access advocacy)

31.5

24.6

Preservation services

29.2

27.2

Research assessment/evaluation services

21.9

13.2

Usage statistics services

27.0

20.2

Cataloguing or metadata creation/enhancement services

12.9

10.5

Advisory services (technical aspects)

11.8

11.4

Personal services for the depositing scientists

scale?

engines/gateways/portals/repositories

15.2

14.9

Publishing services

5.6

6.1

Repository hosting services

5.1

11.4

Other services

2.2

0.9

Printing-on-demand services

1.1

2.6

Table 37. Overview of the priorities for further development at a European scale, comparison 2008 and 2006

94

8.

Stimulants and Inhibitors for maintaining Repositories

8.1

Summary

The respondents were asked to identify the main stimulants and inhibitors for maintaining research repositories, choosing from a list of nine. Four stimulants came out on top with more than 30% of the respondents: • Increased visibility and citations for academics’ publications; • Interest from the decision-makers within the institute; • A simple and user-friendly depositing process, and • Integration of the research repositories with other systems in the institute. Two were chosen as the main inhibitors with more than 50% of the respondents agreeing: • The lack of an institutional policy of mandatory depositing, and • The situation with regard to copyright of published materials and the knowledge about this among academics. In an open question the respondents were asked to state which issues should be highest on the priority list for the development of research repositories in Europe. Many respondents answered this question. The need for mandatory policies with regard to depositing came out on top, closely followed by advocacy, copyright issues, technical issues and the need for specific services.

8.2

Stimulants for maintaining Repositories

A question about the most important stimulants for the development of the research repository and its contents in the institute of the respondents was answered as follows.

95

More than 30% of the respondents indicated that they saw as the most important stimulants: • Increased visibility and citations for academics’ publications; • Interest from the decision-makers within the institute; • A simple and user-friendly depositing process; • Integration of the research repositories with other systems in the institute. Between 20% and 30% of the respondents indicated that they saw as the most important stimulants: • Requirements of research funding organisations in their country about depositing research output in Open Access repositories; • Awareness-raising efforts among the academics in the institute; • The institutional policy of mandatory depositing. Between 10% and 20% of the respondents indicated that they saw as the most important stimulants: • A policy to safeguard the long-term preservation of the deposited material; • The situation with regard to copyright of the published materials and knowledge about this among academics. E1. What do you see as the most important

n

%

103

57.9

Interest from the decision-makers within our institution

63

35.4

Our simple and user-friendly depositing process

56

31.5

Integration/linking of the digital repository with other systems

55

30.9

51

28.7

49

27.5

Our institutional policy of mandatory depositing

48

27.0

Our policy to safeguard the long-term preservation of the

26

14.6

STIMULANTS for the development of the digital repository and its contents in your institution? [Please tick a maximum of 3 items] Increased visibility and citations for the publications of the academics in our institution

in our institution The requirements of research funding organisations in our country about depositing research output in Open Access repositories Awareness-raising efforts among the academics in our institution

deposited material

96

E1. What do you see as the most important

n

%

18

10.1

STIMULANTS for the development of the digital repository and its contents in your institution? [Please tick a maximum of 3 items] Situation with regard to copyright of (to be) published materials and the knowledge about this among academics in our institution 178 Answers

100.0

Table 38. Overview of the most important stimulants for the development of research repositories

8.2.1

Comparison with 2006 Survey

A comparison with the 2006 survey is presented in the table below. E1. What do you see as the most important

2008

2006

%

%

57.9

46.5

Interest from the decision-makers within our institution

35.4

26.3

Our simple and user-friendly depositing process

31.5

43.9

Integration/linking of the digital repository with other

30.9

18.4

28.7

14.9

27.5

28.9

Our institutional policy of mandatory depositing

27.0

20.2

Our policy to safeguard the long-term preservation of the

14.6

14.9

10.1

10.5

STIMULANTS for the development of the digital repository and its contents in your institution? [Please tick a maximum of 3 items] Increased visibility and citations for the publications of the academics in our institution

systems in our institution The requirements of research funding organisations in our country about depositing research output in Open Access repositories Awareness-raising efforts among the academics in our institution

deposited material Situation with regard to copyright of (to be) published materials and the knowledge about this among academics in our institution Table 39. Overview of the most important stimulants for the development of research repositories, comparison 2008 and 2006

Table 39 shows that: • A higher percentage thinks the increased visibility and citations for the publications of the academics is the most important stimulant.

97

In 2006 this percentage was 46.5%, in 2008 this percentage has increased to 57.9%; A higher percentage considers the interest from the decisionmakers within the institution as an important stimulant. 26.3% in 2006 versus 35.4% in 2008; A simple and user-friendly depositing process is considered to be of less importance for stimulating the development of the repository. 45.9% in 2006 versus 31.5% in 2008; The requirements of research funding organisations with regard to depositing research output in open access repositories are more important. 14.9% in 2006 versus 28.7% in 2008; Institutional policy with regard to mandatory depositing is also an increasingly important issue (20.2% in 2006 versus 27% in 2008).

•

•

•

•

8.3

Inhibitors for maintaining Repositories

E2. What do you see as the most important

n

%

91

51.1

Lack of an institutional policy of mandatory depositing

86

48.3

Lack of requirements of research funding organisations in our

52

29.2

48

27.0

39

21.9

Lack of a simple and user-friendly depositing process

36

20.2

Lack of awareness-raising efforts among the academics in our

33

18.5

27

15.2

6

3.4

INHIBITORS for the development of the digital repository and its contents in your institution? [Please tick a maximum of 3 items] Situation with regard to copyright of (to be) published materials and the knowledge about this among academics in our institution

country about depositing research output in Open Access repositories Lack of interest from the decision-makers within our institution Lack of integration/linking of the digital repository with other systems in our institution

institution Lack of support for increased visibility and citations for the publications of the academics in our institution Lack of a policy to safeguard the long-term preservation of the deposited material 178 Answers

100.0

Table 40. Overview of the most important inhibitors for the development of research repositories

98

What do you see as the most important inhibitors for the development of the research repository and its contents in your institute? Approximately 50% of the respondents indicated that they saw as the most important inhibitors: • Lack of an institutional policy of mandatory depositing; • The situation with regard to copyright of published materials and the knowledge about this among academics. Between 20% and 30% of the respondents indicated that they saw as the most important inhibitors: • Lack of requirements of research funding organisations in their country about depositing research output in Open Access repositories; • Lack of integration of the research repository with other systems in the institute; • Lack of a simple and user-friendly depositing process; • Lack of interest from the decision-makers in their institute. Between 10% and 20% of the respondents indicated that they saw as the most important inhibitors: • Lack of awareness-raising efforts among academics in their institute; • Lack of support for increased visibility and citations for the publications of the academics. Less than 10% of the respondents indicated that they saw as the most important inhibitors: • Lack of a policy to safeguard the long-term preservation of the deposited material.

8.3.1

Comparison with 2006 Survey

A comparison with the 2006 survey is presented in the table below. E2. What do you see as the most important INHIBITORS for the development of the digital

2008

2006

%

%

51.1

49.1

48.3

50.0

repository and its contents in your institution? [Please tick a maximum of 3 items] Situation with regard to copyright of (to be) published materials and the knowledge about this among academics in our institution Lack of an institutional policy of mandatory depositing

99

E2. What do you see as the most important

2008

2006

%

%

29.2

27.2

27.0

21.9

21.9

11.4

Lack of a simple and user-friendly depositing process

20.2

15.8

Lack of awareness-raising efforts among the academics in

18.5

15.8

15.2

6.1

3.4

1.8

INHIBITORS for the development of the digital repository and its contents in your institution? [Please tick a maximum of 3 items] Lack of requirements of research funding organisations in our country about depositing research output in Open Access repositories Lack of interest from the decision-makers within our institution Lack of integration/linking of the digital repository with other systems in our institution

our institution Lack of support for increased visibility and citations for the publications of the academics in our institution Lack of a policy to safeguard the long-term preservation of the deposited material Table 41. Overview of the most important inhibitors for the development of research repositories, comparison 2008 and 2006

The table shows that compared to 2006 the top three most important inhibitors remain the same. These are the situation with regard to copyright, the lack of an institutional policy of mandatory depositing and the lack of requirements of research funding organisations with regard to depositing. An increase is reported on most other inhibiting factors.

8.4

Highest Priority Issue on European Agenda

In a concluding open question the respondents were asked to state which issues should be highest on the priority list for the development of research repositories in Europe? In total, 101 respondents answered this question. The answers to this question are listed in the table below. The answers were categorised as follows: • 21 Respondents mentioned the need for mandatory policies with regard to depositing; • 17 Respondents mention issues of advocacy; • 16 Respondents mentioned issues with regard to copyright; • 16 Respondents mention technical issues; 100

• • •

14 Respondents mentioned the need for (specific) services; 9 Respondents mention coordination and harmonisation issues; 7 Respondents mentioned issues that were categorised in the category ‘other’.

Work with publishers to encourage them to make it easier and clearer for authors to deposit material in repositories.

Advocacy

There is still a great need for advocacy (marketing) at all levels within HE - many academics still do not understand the advantages of open access repositories.

Advocacy

The success of digital repositories is strongly connected to the increasing of open access acceptance in the scientific community. Convincing communication with the scientists should be highest on the priority list.

Advocacy

The subject of copyright and the advocacy of open access.

Advocacy

Public awareness: making all academics aware of the importance in depositing publications in institutional repositories.

Advocacy

Open Access advocacy. Requirements of research funding organisations in our country about depositing research output in Open Access repositories. Mandatory policy for depositing in Institutional archives research outputs coming from public funds.

Advocacy

More information about OA and copyright to academics, thus public relations and awareness raising.

Advocacy

Interest from the decision-makers at a national level.

Advocacy

In a general, providing and marketing attractive and useful value-added services to the scientific community and thus encouraging researchers to provide their own inputs into the repositories.

Advocacy

101

Here in Italy we need a strong commitment of Europe to advocacy and the organisation of initiatives both at European level and at single nations level, to back OA in a more top-down manner, in addition to the bottom-up efforts of the universities.

Advocacy

Evidence for effectiveness of Institutional Repositories i.e. proof of increased citations; proof that material in repository has been a causal factor in attracting research funding.

Advocacy

Content acquisition. For this, a better integration of Advocacy information and publication channels, i.e. of informal and formal publication systems, would be very helpful. Projects in collaboration with publishers can promote such an interlinking, the eContentplus projects PEER (Publishing and the Ecology of European Research) and OAPEN (Open Access Publishing in European Networks) are current examples. Moreover, specific deposit clauses in access and publishing licenses will substantially support the filling of institutional repositories. Examples include Springer Open Choice and BioMed Central. Awareness raising. Working with funding bodies and institutions to promote mandating of depositing and development of international gateways.

Advocacy

Awareness of the possibilities of e-publishing of preprints/postprints.

Advocacy

Awareness and trust, in all levels, of content deposited on digital repositories. That's why initiatives such as DRIVER or other bodies that publish guidelines are very useful. Of course copyright is a big issue that must be solved for the complex and heterogeneous material of digital repositories.

Advocacy

102

At the moment, I suspect, when an academic embarks on a literature survey for a piece of research they are carrying out, I doubt very much that their first port of call will be an institutional repository or a gateway/portal to search across institutional repositories. Changing the habits of academics to encourage them to use institutional repositories more should be a priority in my view.

Advocacy

Advocacy to academics and mandates.

Advocacy

Collaborating and publishing issues should be highest on the priority list.

Coordination & harmonisation

The initiative for the regular use of an international Coordination & harmonisation repository network as a reliable source of scientific information should be perceived by the researchers as a clear, sound alternative for their daily information needs. For achieving this purpose, we need an efficient process of coordination among development platforms, a strict selection of the nature of contents to be offered and effective ways of communicating the progress to researchers/academics via specific congresses or seminars. An enhanced cooperation from European or national institutions in the promotion of Open Access would also be desirable. Standardisation, making everything talk easily.

Coordination & harmonisation

Need a European policy for scientific production. To promote evaluation of scientific activities based on deposit in a digital repository.

Coordination & harmonisation

More incisive policy to invite member States to undertake national programmes to support institutional repositories in research institutes and universities.

Coordination & harmonisation

103

I would like to see all the technical and metadata issues resolved so that we could concentrate on acquiring, managing and exploiting content. So I wouldn't object to one software platform, one standard set of metadata that was completely interoperable, so that we could remove all the inhibitors that exist around the choices we have to make at present, and simply get on with the core task.

Coordination & harmonisation

Coordination of efforts to discover publishers' repository deposit policies regarding research outputs in addition to journal articles, e.g. book chapters and conference papers, combined with efforts to encourage them to relax any restrictive terms.

Coordination & harmonisation

A globally or at least European accepted certification procedure for digital repositories (incl. repositories for scientific primary data) and the implementation of corresponding CA.

Coordination & harmonisation

National Programme, Europe common policies and founded Projects. Contents quality control.

Coordination & harmonisation

The need to change the retention of author's rights by publishers. The SPARC Author Addendum is a step on this direction but further action is necessary.

Copyright

The highest issue for the future of digital institutional repositories remain associated to copyright restrictions, reinforced by recent regulations adopted by the European Community. It should be acknowledged that there is a fundamental difference between scientific materials and commercial publications. The priority for scientific materials is the widest circulation; all copyright restrictions connected to the system of commercial publishing are at odds with this need and represent a dangerous threat to scientific progress grounded on scholarly communication of the results of scientific research.

Copyright

The copyright policies.

Copyright

104

Some sort of general picture of how publishers are going to deal with OA over the next 5, 10, 20 years or so. Suppose they suddenly decide to adopt a significantly hostile approach? Or vice versa? Is the repository community prepared for this?

Copyright

Simplification of the present unclear and very restrictive E.U. copyright law.

Copyright

Rights issues regarding published material.

Copyright

Promotion of Open access in European scientific society and less restrictions on copyright.

Copyright

Copyright problems. Everybody need peer reviewed material, and this is the main focus of a good journal.

Copyright

Copyright issues (4 respondents)

Copyright (4x)

Copyright - author versus publisher versus IR.

Copyright

Clearing of copyright issues concerning Open Access on EU level.

Copyright

Clarification of copyright issues.

Copyright

Changing copyright policies.

Copyright

Ban all clauses that hand copyright fully over to the publisher.

Copyright

Research funding organisation should make it mandatory to deposit all research output funded by them in to Open Access Repositories.

Mandatory

Our institutional policy of mandatory depositing.

Mandatory

OA mandating.

Mandatory

National and Institutional mandatory policies.

Mandatory

Most of the, and most relevant, research carried out in my institution is EU funded research. So, we believe that it is of primary importance to have a clear and mandatory OA policy of the EU Commission, in the FP7 and later funding programs.

Mandatory

Mandatory policies from funding agencies.

Mandatory

105

Mandatory policies coming from public funding agencies.

Mandatory

Mandatory depositing and copyright issues: copyrights must not be exclusively transferred to publishers.

Mandatory

Mandated open archiving of publicly funded research.

Mandatory

Institutions and funders should contractually require Mandatory all their employees to grant them an open-access publishing license of any academic papers they produce. This works nicely for the U.S. government (their constitution puts all U.S. government employees work in the public domain, and scientific publishers accept this). See: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2008/05/07/hlsgoes-open-access-unanimously for an excellent policy that Harvard Law School introduced. Following this example is actively discussed here as well (and should be elsewhere, too!). Institutional policy of mandatory depositing and government legislation and practices of mandatory depositing.

Mandatory

Institutional policy of mandatory depositing.

Mandatory

Institutional policy for mandatory depositing. Main inhibitor is knowledge about copyright issues.

Mandatory

Increase of content, populating the repositories. Any European efforts on this issue, i.e. awareness raising and mandatory depositing.

Mandatory

Implementation of institutional policies of mandatory depositing and/or definition of the requirements of research funding organisations about depositing research output in Open Access repositories.

Mandatory

European research funding organisations should require depositing research outputs in institutional repositories.

Mandatory

All publications with out without full text in de IRs. So services are complete.

Mandatory

106

A mandate of OA from the European commission or parliament.

Mandatory

A European policy regarding mandatory depositing.

Mandatory

(1) Requirement of research funding organisations about depositing research output in open access repositories. (2) Copyright issues. (3) Funding.

Mandatory

Policies for mandatory depositing of all kind of material (specially that funded by state or EC money)\n- New services for the users and the community (assessment & evaluation, publishing).

Mandatory

Advisory services.

Other

Open access initiative and open source s/w policy.

Other

Evidence of benefits to individual researchers.

Other

More European publishers should clarify their archiving policy in the Romeo/Sherpa list.

Other

Metadata training for librarians.

Other

Lack of integration/linking of the digital repository with other systems in our institution.

Other

Improving the acceptability among academics.

Other

In my opinion, the issues, which should be highest on the priority list nowadays, are: research evaluation; standard set of metadata to enhance interoperability; and preservation policies.

Services

General search portals.

Services

Simplification of depositing.

Services

Self-management by researchers (add, delete, edit, upload, withdraw).

Services

An Impact factor value of the Open Access repository should be identified.

Services

Search engine services dedicated to digital repositories.

Services

107

Help people understand how they can increase their Services impact factor while submitting on their institutional repository. Moreover, we should develop several tools helping the automatic importation of meta data from domain-specific repositories (e.g. PubMed, arXiv, etc.) People are simply too lazy to submit two times their publication (or perhaps they don't care for their institution as they desperately want to move to the MIT). CRIS / OAR integration. Simple user interfaces, researcher should never have to input the same data twice. So SOA infrastructure at universities and if possible between universities. However first simple interfaces integrated in the researchers own workflow, i.e. integration with Office or other work suits.

Services

Full text indexing, citation ranking just as Google and Google Scholar are offering it; citation grouping and citation linking in the manner of the ACM Digital Library (e.g. for ordering cooperative groups of researchers); Integration with the modern Internet and Web 2.0 technologies.

Services

Enabling research institutions to make their institutional repository OAI-PMH compliant and linked to national repositories. Facilitating access to national repositories (as DRIVER aims to do). Creating thematic repositories. Facilitating access to.

Services

More focus on specific needs of creative and Services performing arts disciplines, with non-traditional means of publication and documentation of research output provides an opportunity for institutional repositories to act as trusted resources for storing and sharing research output in these areas. Development of research assessment/evaluation services.

Services

Disciplinary portals.

Services

108

Continued efforts to ease the actual deposit process lowering the threshold for getting started, this must also include further integration with other systems e.g. CRIS'es. Further good services for displaying visibility (statistics, citation research etcetera) must be developed hopefully demonstrating value for the scholar.

Services

The long-term availability of documents.

Technical

The integration/linking of the digital repository with other systems in institutions.

Technical

Statistics collation.

Technical

Preservation services and impact analysis.

Technical

Preservation services - this is hard for institutions to tackle alone.

Technical

Good disciplinary search engines that harvest from the IRs.

Technical

Get rid of PDF files.

Technical

Funding for technical developments, the 'institutionalisation' of the repository manager (for most repository managers, this activity is surplus/voluntary, never their 'job') and more connection to GRID and data projects from the EC.

Technical

Meta data exchange formats for easier importing of all Technical publication form. More flexible copyright. Statistical measures and benchmarks for IRs across Europe would encourage participation. Dissemination of eLABa repository content via DRIVER Technical union catalogue. Coherent metadata.

Technical

109

1.

2. 3. 4.

Easy-to-install, maintainable an interoperable IR Technical software platform, which comes with user-friendly interface for submission and workflow. Decide/impose European interoperability protocols and standards (DIDL and MODS). Develop value-added services; especially thematic search portals and usage and citation analysis. Develop electronic publishing format (ODF for example), and accompanying software, permitting electronic publishing according to this format, automated submission into an IR, with automated metadata creation.

Interoperability and searchability of contents.

Technical

Integration and interoperability: there's a lot work going on at the technical level, but the real challenge is to integrate the repository into the 'research continuum' i.e. right into the researcher's workflow, seamlessly and invisibly. The challenge will is one of organisational change and this requires support at every level - starting both at the policy level and at the level of providing tangible benefits for the researcher and research groups (reduction in duplication of effort, maximisation of impact, cost/time savings). The top priority should to focus on this clear vision and follow through with developments in policy, support, funding and systems.

Technical

Integrating software (DSpace, Fedora, e-prints). Technical Metadata creating and conversion tools; implementing mets-bundles (or other) into repository software etcetera. Table 42. Overview of priorities for the development of digital repositories

110

9.

A new Development: thematic Repositories

9.1

Introduction

This inventory study shows that a new type of repository is emerging. It is non-institutional and only to a certain degree research based. These thematic repositories need further analysis as a kind-of-their-own in order to establish the nature of their content and relationship and the specific place they may have in the repository landscape. In this chapter a preliminary inventory is made to get a first impression. In the years to come this type of repository undoubtedly will need more attention.

9.2

Methods

A number of questions in the questionnaire of the 2006 survey were only applicable for institutional repositories. For this reason, a separate questionnaire without these questions was developed for the thematic research repositories. Participants in the 2008 survey could choose which questionnaire was most applicable for their research repositories.

9.3

Diversity in type of thematic or noninstitutional Research Repositories

In this paragraph, the main results from 14 respondents to the questionnaire for the thematic repositories are presented. The results from two related research repositories on crystallography were removed from the dataset, because these repositories are not OAI compliant15.

15 These repositories can be found at http://www.crystallography.net and contain CIF files of predicted crystal structures and with atomic coordinate data as interpreted by crystallographers, and the original measured (experimental) diffraction data -- observed structure factors and intensities. The Crystallography Open Database is a project that collects all published inorganic, metal-organic and small organic molecule structures solved by diffraction methods in one database and provides an easy possibility to search for a molecule and conveniently retrieve needed data.

111

In Table 43, an overview of the 14 OAI-compliant participating thematic and/or non-institutional research repositories is presented. Clearly, there is a great diversity in type of these research repositories: • 5 repositories focus on specific type of material, such as conference proceedings, scientific or technical reports or theses - often limited to a certain scientific area; • 5 repositories are subject specific and present different types of research publications on this subject; • 2 repositories represent some sort of organisation: one repository represents a national funding programme; another represents a research network of European scientists; • 1 repository is a shared repository for several institutes; • 1 repository is part of the workflow for various open access journals. Type

Description

URL

Nationally

Digital repository of the ESRC funded

http://www.tlrp.org/

funded

Teaching and Learning Research

dspace/

research

Programme based in the UK.

programme Network of

This is a subject specific repository

http://ecnis.openrepo

researchers

containing research produced by

sitory.com/ecnis

researchers working for the ECNIS EU Network of Excellence. Subjects covered include environmental cancer risk, nutrition and individual susceptibility. The ECNIS Repository is managed by the Library of the Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine in Lodz, Poland. Open

DiPP is not an institutional repository.

http://www.dipp.nrw.

access

The authors do not deposit the

de

journal

material themselves, but submit it to

workflow

a peer review workflow. Once the material passes this quality control and is accepted for publication, the editorial staff deposits the material together with the metadata in the repository. Optional the author is asked for imprimatur.

112

Type

Description

URL

Shared

Doria contains collections from

https://oa.doria.fi

repository

several institutions, and it is pretty much up to them, which kind of materials they would like to deposit. In addition to strictly scholarly materials, we also have collections of digitised books, manuscripts and sound recordings, most of them from the collections of the National Library. In addition to open access materials, we have a couple of restricted collections. By far the biggest of these is Elektra, which currently contains about 17600 articles from ca. 40 Finnish scientific journals, collected in co-operation with the publishers of these journals. The metadata of these articles is openly accessible, but although the metadata includes a link to a full text version, the articles are stored on another server, and most of them can be accessed only from the institutions, which have subscribed to the service.

Specific

Mostly articles or slides from single

http://www.opus-

type of

speeches at conferences on Library

bayern.de/bib-info/

material:

sciences.

conference proceedings Specific

Conference abstracts of scientific

type of

meetings in the medical area.

www.egms.de/en/

material: conference proceedings Specific

Multimedia learning objects; Research

www.iriss.ac.uk/openl

type of

reports; Practice papers; Audio files

x

material:

(podcasts) in the field of social

learning

services

resources

113

Type

Description

URL

Specific

French scientific and technical reports.

http://lara.inist.fr

Specific

This site contains master theses in the

http://memsic.ccsd.

type of

field of the Communication and

cnrs.fr

material:

Information sciences from French

theses

speaking countries.

Subject

Educational research: theses, working

http://www.pedocs.de

repository

papers, proceedings, book chapters of

/

type of material: scientific reports

edited books. Subject

Archaeology and related sciences

http://eprints.jiia.it:80

repository

(archaeometry, archaeozoology etc.).

80/

Will contain translated research papers from other languages. Subject

Electronic archive of published texts

http://sammelpunkt.

repository

in philosophy.

philo.at

Subject

Medical research papers.

http://www.zbmed.de

repository

/ellinet.html?lang=en

Subject

Information science: for primary

http://archivesic.ccsd.

repository

documents (article, book,

cnrs.fr

proceedings, etc.). Researchers can upload secondary documents (primary dataset, slides, etc.). Table 43. Overview of type and content of thematic repositories

114

PART 3. Appendices of the Inventory Study

10. Quantitative Assessment of the Contents of institutional Repositories 10.1

Totals and Averages

In the following tables the figures are given for both the total numbers and the data from 2007 in the repositories, the ‘2007 snapshot’. Totals per Digital Repository total EU16

Overall

2007 snapshot

171

149

Articles full text and metadata

448.892

56.451

Articles metadata only

612.164

94.399

Nr respondents

Books full text and metadata

27.957

63.61

Books metadata only

146.743

19.144

Theses full text and metadata

191.957

34.973

Theses metadata only

29.782

4.398

Proceedings full text and metadata

62.688

5.277

115.110

23.251

Working papers full text and metadata

46.568

6.948

Working papers metadata only

19.866

2.400

Proceedings metadata only

Primary datasets

572.729

111.426

1.057.632

10.722

Video

5.748

1.166

Music

19

6

Images

Other Grand totals

16

203.260

30.130

3.541.115

407.052

Not all respondents have answered to this question.

117

Average per Digital Repository total EU Nr respondents

Overall

2007 snapshot

171

149

Articles full text and metadata

2.625

379

Articles metadata only

3.580

634

Books full text and metadata

163

43

Books metadata only

858

128

1.123

235

Theses metadata only

174

30

Proceedings full text and metadata

367

35

Proceedings metadata only

673

156

Working papers full text and metadata

272

47

Working papers metadata only

116

16

Primary datasets

3.349

748

Images

6.185

72

34

8

Theses full text and metadata

Video Music

0

0

Other

1.189

202

20.708

2.732

Grand totals

10.2

Totals and Averages without Outliers

Analysis of the above-mentioned date has showed that five repositories deviated strongly from the other participating repositories with regard to the numbers of certain types of records (see table below). In order to give a representative picture of the typical repositories with research output in Europe, the data from these repositories were removed from the earlier presented tables.

118

The excluded repositories are: Data from the following repositories were not included because of their outlier number of certain types of records covered Germany

Friedrich-Schiller-Universität

1 million images

Germany

WDC-MARE / PANGAEA

572.397 datasets

Greece

Aristotle University of

65.000 articles – mostly clipped

Thessaloniki

newspaper articles

Hungary

Hungarian Széchényi Library

70.000 articles

Lithuania

LABT

130.000 articles, 40.000 proceedings and 20.000 books

Below the tables of the totals and the averages are presented with outliers excluded. Totals per Digital Repository total EU17

Overall

(excluding 5 outliers – see text)

2007 snapshot

Nr respondents

166

145

Articles full text and metadata

159.892

33.451

Articles metadata only

482.164

81.399

18.297

3.851

Books metadata only

126.743

17.144

Theses full text and metadata

179.836

31.473

Theses metadata only

28.782

4.298

Proceedings full text and metadata

62.648

5.267

Proceedings metadata only

74.126

18.267

Working papers full text and metadata

43.037

6.948

Working papers metadata only

19.866

2.400

Books full text and metadata

Primary datasets Images Video

266

39

53.632

10.122

2.548

1.166

Music

19

6

Other

166.645

29.130

1.418.501

244.961

Grand totals

17

Not all respondents have answered to this question.

119

Average per DR total EU18

Overall

(excluding 5 outliers – see text) Nr respondents Articles full text and metadata Articles metadata only

2007 snapshot

166

145

963

231

2.905

561

Books full text and metadata

110

27

Books metadata only

764

118

Theses full text and metadata

1.083

217

Theses metadata only

173

30

Proceedings full text and metadata

377

36

Proceedings metadata only

447

126

Working papers full text and metadata

259

48

Working papers metadata only

120

17

2

0

323

70

15

8

Primary datasets Images Video Music

0

0

Other

1.004

201

Grand totals

8.545

1.689

18

Not all respondents have answered to this question.

120

11. Quantitative Assessment of the Contents of thematic Repositories 11.1

Thematic Repositories

In the tables below, the number of thematic or non-institutional research repositories set up in the last years and the content of these repositories (total numbers and 2007 snapshot) are presented. From these tables, the following can be concluded: • Throughout Europe, each year a handful of these thematic research repositories are being set-up; • These repositories contain similar material types as the institutional repositories: mainly textual materials; • In terms of numbers, the thematic or non-institutional repositories covered by this survey are rather small in comparison with the institutional repositories: the thematic repositories cover typically approximately 3.800 records compared to the 8.500 records of a typical institutional repository. Table with the number of thematic or non-institutional research repositories: When did your repository become operational (i.e. in

n

%

2004 or earlier

5

35.7

2005

4

28.6

2006

1

7.1

2007

2

14.3

2008

2

case of earlier repositories, become OAI-PMH compliant)?

14 Answers

14.3 100.0

Content of the thematic repositories: Content

Average per repository

Total

Articles (full text)

401

4.811

Articles (metadata only)

2.981

17.884

121

Content

Average per repository

Total

Books (full text)

82

815

Books (metadata only)

25

148

Theses (full text)

962

7.692

Theses (metadata only)

825

3.300

Proceedings (full text)

159

1.274

Proceedings (metadata only)

1

3

Working papers (full text)

219

1.533

Working papers (metadata only)

0

0

Primary datasets

0

0

Images

902

3.606

Video

6

28

Music

100

300

Other

4.387

26.32419

Articles (full text)

100

800

Articles (metadata only)

667

2.000

Books (full text)

7

43

Books (metadata only)

1

4

Theses (full text)

421

2.525

Theses (metadata only)

100

300

Proceedings (full text)

36

182

Proceedings (metadata only)

0

0

Working papers (full text)

121

484

Working papers (metadata only)

0

0

Primary data

0

0

Images

152

606

Video

1

4

Music

33

100

Other

990

4.950

2007 snapshot

19

Mainly conference abstracts

122

11.2 Other Data about thematic and/or noninstitutional Repositories Other data about the 14 thematic and/or non-institutional repositories covered by this survey are presented below. n

Responses %

A5-1. With regard to full text journal articles (published or to be published): which version is deposited [Please tick all boxes that apply] Preprint version (pre-refereeing)

5

35.7

Postprint (i.e. final draft post-refereeing)

4

28.6

Published version (publisher-generated

9

64.3

format) 14 Answers

100.0

0 Blanks

0.0

A5-2 Which statement best describes the form of journal articles in your digital repository? Most articles are available in preprint form

1

7.1

Most articles are available in postprint form

2

14.3

Most articles are available in published form

5

35.7

only

8 Answers

57.1

6 Blanks

42.9

A6-a. With regard to the availability of the full text materials (articles, books, book chapters, theses etc.): how are they available? [Please tick all boxes that apply] Open Access: publicly available

13

92.9

2

14.3

0

0.0

No Access: archived but NOT available at all

0

0.0

Other

0

0.0

Open Access with embargo: publicly available after a certain period of no access Campus Access: only available for users within our institution

14 Answers 0 Blanks

100.0 0.0

123

B1. Which software package is used for the digital repository? ARNO

0

0.0

CDSware

0

0.0

Digitool

1

7.1

DIVA

0

0.0

DSpace

4

28.6

Fedora

0

0.0

GNU EPrints

3

21.4

iTOR

0

0.0

MyCoRe

0

0.0

OPUS

2

14.3

VITAL

0

0.0

Locally developed software package

1

7.1

Other

3

21.4

14 Answers

100.0

0 Blanks

0.0

B2. Is a persistent identifier assigned to each document? Yes

10

71.4

No

3

21.4

Don't know

1

14 Answers

7.1 100.0

0 Blanks

0.0

If yes, which persistent identifier? [PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] Handle system ® persistent identifier

4

28.6

URN (Uniform Resource Name)

6

42.9

PURL (Persistent URL)

1

7.1

DOI (Digital Object Identifier)

2

14.3

ARK (Archival Resource key)

0

0.0

Other

3

21.4

14 Answers 0 Blanks

124

100.0 0.0

B3. Is the long-term availability of the materials in the repositories secured? Yes

7

50.0

Not yet, but we have plans to do so

5

35.7

No, no plans for developing it either

0

0.0

Don't know

2

14 Answers

14.3 100.0

0 Blanks

0.0

If yes, how? [PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY By internal procedures

7

By means of the national library

3

14 Answers

50.0 21.4 100.0

0 Blanks

0.0

B4. Is statistical data on access to the repository and usage of the materials logged? Yes

12

85.7

No

1

7.1

Don't know

1

7.1

14 Answers

100.0

0 Blanks

0.0

B5. Which statement best describes the subject indexing of your digital repository No subject indexing

0

0.0

Freely assigned keywords [in the language

1

7.1

4

28.6

6

42.9

3

21.4

of the country] Freely assigned keywords [in the language of the country and/or in English] Keywords or classifications according to (a) standardised system(s) [in the language of the country] Keywords or classifications according to (a) standardised system(s) [in the language of the country and/or in English] 14 Answers 0 Blanks

100.0 0.0

125

If you use a standardised classification or keyword system, please indicate here which: SWD-Schlagwörter

1

7.1

Mesh

1

7.1

YSA

1

7.1

DDC

1

7.1

Ours

1

7.1

FIS Bildung Thesaurus

1

7.1

Library of Congress Subject Areas

1

7.1

classification of the German National Library

1

7.1

1

7.1

of Medicine Social Care Institute for Excellence thesaurus 9 Answers

64.3

5 Blanks

35.7

B6. Is a unique identifier assigned to each author? Yes

3

21.4

No, but we are developing such author

2

14.3

9

64.3

identifier in the near future No, and there are no plans for developing it either 14 Answers

100.0

0 Blanks

0.0

B7. A number of metadata standards are developed in order to enhance the interoperability of repositories. Which of the following metadata standards are followed within your digital repository? [Please check all boxes that apply] Dublin Core (qualified)

10

71.4

Dublin Core (unqualified)

4

28.6

DIDL

1

7.1

MARC21

1

7.1

MODS

1

7.1

OAI-ORE

1

14 Answers 0 Blanks

126

7.1 100.0 0.0

B8. Does your repository follow the DRIVER guidelines (see the link below if you want to refresh your memory)? We do not know about the DRIVER

7

50.0

2

14.3

5

35.7

guidelines We know about the DRIVER guidelines, but do not follow them We know about the DRIVER guidelines and (make every effort) to follow them 14 Answers

100.0

0 Blanks

0.0

B9. A new development is Enhanced Publications: publications combined with research output such as images, video and/or datasets. Is your repository technically prepared for these Enhanced Publications? Yes No. but we have plans to prepare our

10

71.4

2

14.3

2

14.3

repository technically for this No, and there are no plans for preparing for it either 14 Answers

100.0

0 Blanks

0.0

C: Policies regarding the digital repository There are clear guidelines for the selection of material for inclusion in the digital repository. Yes No

11 3

14 Answers

78.6 21.4 100.0

0 Blanks

0.0

C: Policies regarding the digital repository There is a policy to safeguard the long-term preservation of the deposited material. Yes No 14 Answers 0 Blanks

4

28.6

10

71.4 100.0 0.0

127

Google and Google D1-a. Which international registries has your repository been registered to? [Please tick all boxes that apply] OAIster

8

57.1

Open DOAR

9

64.3

ROARMAP

4

28.6

The University of Illinois OAI-PMH Data

6

42.9

Provider Registry 14 Answers

100.0

0 Blanks

0.0

D1-b. The contents of your digital repository is searchable via the following general engines/gateways/portals: [Please tick all boxes that apply] General internet search engines such as

13

92.9

Google, Yahoo, MSN etc. Google Scholar

10

71.4

Scirus

3

21.4

Scientific Commons

5

35.7

14 Answers

100.0

0 Blanks

0.0

D2. The contents of your digital repository is (partly) listed in the following catalogues: National/ regional catalogue

8

57.1

Catalogue of our library

5

35.7

Other

3

14 Answers

21.4 100.0

0 Blanks

0.0

Please name this/these national/regional catalogue(s) PubMed, Catalogue of Lodz/Poland Libraries

1

7.1

hbz Verbundkatalog

1

7.1

ESRC

1

7.1

National Libraries

1

7.1

Verbunddatenbank NRW

1

7.1

SSKS www.ssks.org.uk

1

7.1

MEDPILOT

1

7.1

7 Answers

50.0

7 Blanks

50.0

128

D3. Is your digital repository linked to printing-on-demand services? Yes No This is planned

0

0.0

12

85.7

2

14.3

14 Answers

100.0

0 Blanks

0.0

D4. Does your digital repository have a service of displaying usage statistics per digital item? Yes

4

28.6

No

4

28.6

This is planned

6

14 Answers

42.9 100.0

0 Blanks

0.0

D5. Does your digital repository have personal services for the depositing academics, such as an automatically generated publication list? Yes

4

28.6

No

8

57.1

This is planned

2

14.3

14 Answers 0 Blanks

100.0 0.0

129

12. Questionnaire for the institutional Repositories Inventory study into the present type and level of OAI-PMH compliant digital repository activities for research output in the EU (2008 update) This study is part of a European Union funded project (DRIVER; for more information see the link below) and aims at making a complete inventory of the present type and level of Digital Repository activity in the EU, both at infrastructure and services level. The results of this update of the DRIVER Inventory study will be made public. The results of the earlier study can be retrieved via the link The European Repository Landscape below. Please click here for a link to the website of the DRIVER project http://www.driver-community.eu Link to The European Repository Landscape http://dare.uva.nl/document/93725 DRIVER and the focus of this inventory study DRIVER aims to create a common infrastructure for OAI-PMH compliant repositories with output from contemporary researchers in order to create a knowledge base for European research. For this purpose we are carrying out an inventory study focused on institutional repositories throughout Europe containing such research output. A digital repository for research output in this study is defined as (see also the first question): 1. Containing research output from contemporary researchers 2. Institutional or thematic 3. OAI-PMH compliant

131

The questionnaire addresses the following topics: A. Coverage of the academics and their research output in your institution B. Technical infrastructure and technical issues C. Institutional policies regarding the digital repository D. Services created on top of the digital repositories E.

Stimulators and inhibitors for establishing, populating and maintaining digital repositories

F.

Your institution and its digital repository

A. Coverage of the academics and their research output in your institution (=university/organisation) A1a. Does your institution presently maintain a digital repository for research output of your researchers?

o

o

o

o

o

o

132

Yes, our institution maintains one digital repository for research output itself Yes, our institution maintains more than one digital repository for research output itself and I fill in this form for one repository only Yes, our institution maintains more than one digital repository for research output itself and I fill in this form for the combined total of our repositories Yes, our institution has a digital repository for research output, however the maintenance is outsourced to a third party No, we maintain a thematic repository with research output from researchers from multiple institutions - please fill in another form available via the link below No, we maintain a OAI-PMHcompliant repository, but with other types of information (educational, heritage

o

information etc) - please click on the decline-link below to ensure you won't receive any reminders No, we maintain no repository with research output of the researchers from our institution please click on the decline link to ensure you won't receive any reminders

I decline to participate in this survey because we have a different type of repository or no repository

I Decline / Ik doe niet mee

A1b. When did the repository/repositories in your institution become operational (i.e. in case of earlier repositories, become OAI-PMH compliant)?

o o o o o

2004 or earlier 2005 2006 2007 2008

Please add any further comments: A2. What type of materials is presently in the digital repository at your institution? [If your institution maintains more than one digital repository, please state here the aggregate numbers.] □

Articles (full text and metadata)

□

Articles (metadata only)

□

Books/ book chapters (full text and metadata)

□

Books/ book chapters (metadata only)

□

Theses (full text and metadata)

□

Theses (metadata only)

133

□

Proceedings (full text and metadata)

□

Proceedings (metadata only)

□

Working papers (full text and metadata)

□

Working papers (metadata only)

□

Primary datasets

□

Images

□

Video

□

Music

□

Other

Please add any further comments: A3. Please give (an estimate of) the total number of items per type of materials now available in the digital repository at your institution? [if the type of materials is not available, please insert 0] Articles (full text and metadata) Articles (metadata only) Books/ book chapters (full text and metadata) Books/ book chapters (metadata only) Theses (full text and metadata) Theses (metadata only) Proceedings (full text and metadata)

134

Proceedings (metadata only) Working papers (full text and metadata) Working papers (metadata only) Primary datasets Images Video Music Other Please add any further comments: A4. Please give (an estimate of) the number of items per type of materials that has been added in the last year (2007) in the digital repository at your institution? [if the type of material is not available, please insert 0] Articles (full text) Articles (meta data only) Books/ book chapters (full text and metadata) Books/ book chapters (metadata only) Theses (full text and metadata) Theses (metadata only) Proceedings (full text and metadata) Proceedings (metadata only)

135

Working papers (full text and metadata) Working papers (metadata only) Primary data Images Video Music Other Please add any further comments: A5-1. With regard to full text journal articles (published or to be published): which version is deposited [Please tick all boxes that apply]

A5-2 Which statement best describes the form of journal articles in your digital repository?

□

Preprint version (pre-refereeing)

□

Postprint (i.e. final draft postrefereeing)

□

Published version (publishergenerated format)

o

Most articles are available in preprint form only Most articles are available in post print form Most articles are available in published form

o o

A6-a. With regard to the availability of the full text materials (articles, books, book chapters, theses etc.): how are they available? [Please tick all boxes that apply] □

136

Open Access: publicly available

□

Open Access with embargo: publicly available after a certain period of no access

□

Campus Access: only available for users within our institution

□

No Access: archived but NOT available at all

□

Other

If other, please elaborate: A6-b. Please give (an estimate of) the percentages of each form of availability of the full text materials in your digital repository: [Please make the percentages add up to 100 and enter the data as numbers without percentage signs] Open Access: publicly available Open Access with embargo: publicly available after a certain period Campus Access: only available for users within our institution No Access: archived but NOT available at all Other A7. Please give an estimate, if known, of the percentage of the materials covering the following disciplines [Please make the percentages add up to 100 and enter the data as numbers without percentage signs] Humanities and Social sciences Life Sciences

137

Natural Sciences Engineering Other Please add any further comments: A8. Please give some estimates about the delivery of the materials by the academics in your institution. Percentage of academics delivering material to the digital repository: Percentage of the research output from your institution in the last year (2007) deposited in the digital repository: Total number of academics in your institution:

Please add any further comments:

138

o o o o o o o o o

>100 101-250 251-500 501-1000 1001-2500 2501-5000 5001-10000 More than 10000 Not applicable

A9. Which statement best describes the work processes of depositing of materials in the repository?

o o o

o o o o

Self depositing by academics quality control by specialised staff members Delivery by academics, depositing by specialised staff members Collected by staff members Independent of the academics A combination of those three methods Other

Please describe briefly the (organisational) work processes of depositing in the repository:

B. Technical infrastructure and technical issues B1. Which software package is used for the digital repository?

o

ARNO CDSware Digitool DIVA DSpace Fedora GNU EPrints iTOR MyCoRe OPUS VITAL Locally developed software package Other

o o o

Yes No Don't know

o o o o o o o o o o o o

If other, please describe: B2. Is a persistent identifier assigned to each document?

If yes, which persistent identifier? [PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] □

Handle system or persistent identifier

139

□

URN (Uniform Resource Name)

□

PURL (Persistent URL)

□

DOI (Digital Object Identifier)

□

ARK (Archival Resource key)

□

Other

If other, please elaborate: B3. Is the long-term availability of the materials in the repositories secured?

o o o o

Yes Not yet, but we have plans to do so No, no plans for developing it either Don't know

If yes, how? [PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] □

By internal procedures

□

By means of the national library

Please add any further comments: B4. Is statistical data on access to the repository and usage of the materials logged? Please add any further comments:

140

o o o

Yes No Don't know

B5. Which statement best describes the subject indexing of your digital repository

o o o

o

o

No subject indexing Freely assigned keywords [in the language of the country] Freely assigned keywords [in the language of the country and/or in English] Keywords or classifications according to (a) standardised system(s) [in the language of the country] Keywords or classifications according to (a) standardised system(s) [in the language of the country and/or in English]

If you use a standardised classification or keyword system, please indicate here which: Please add any further comments: B6. Is a unique identifier assigned to each author?

o o

o

Yes No, but we are developing such author identifier in the near future No, and there are no plans for developing it either

Please add any further comments: B7. A number of metadata standards are developed in order to enhance the interoperability of repositories. Which of the following metadata standards are followed within your digital repository? [PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] □

Dublin Core (qualified)

□

Dublin Core (unqualified)

□

DIDL

141

B8. Does your repository follow the DRIVER guidelines (see the link below if you want to refresh your memory)?

□

MARC21

□

MODS

□

OAI-ORE

o

We do not know about the DRIVER Guidelines We know about the DRIVER Guidelines, but do not follow them We know about the DRIVER Guidelines and (make every effort) to follow them

o

o

Link to the DRIVER Guidelines http://www.driver-support.eu/managers.html Please add any further comments: B9. A new development is Enhanced Publications: publications combined with research output such as images, video and/or datasets. Is your repository technically prepared for these Enhanced Publications? Please add any further comments:

142

o o

o

Yes No, but we have plans to prepare our repository technically for this No, and there are no plans for preparing for it either

C. Institutional policies regarding the digital repository C1. Which statement best describes the policy of your institution for the academics with regard to depositing material?

o

o

o

o

o o

Mandatory depositing: academics are required to deposit materials Partly mandatory depositing: academics are required to deposit some materials (for example theses), and free to voluntarily deposit other materials Voluntarily depositing with strong encouragement: academics are strongly encouraged to deposit materials Voluntarily depositing: academics are free to deposit materials There is no official policy Other

Please add any further comments: C2. Please tick the statements below that are valid for the digital repository in your institution: □

In our institution the deposited materials are used to measure the output of individual researchers for evaluation purposes (accountability).

□

Some academics in our institution are required to deposit research output by research funding organisations in our country.

□

-Awareness-raising campaign(s) among academics about the digital repository have been carried out within our institution. 143

□

The interest from decisionmakers within our institution in the digital repository is (rather) high.

□

There are clear guidelines for the selection of material for inclusion in the digital repository.

□

There is a policy to safeguard the long-term preservation of the deposited material.

□

The digital repository at our institution is integrated/linked with the current research information system (CRIS) in our institution.

□

-The digital repository at our institution is integrated/linked with other systems in our institution.

□

The digital repository at our institution has been set up with financial support from a national funding programme for digital repositories in our country.

□

-There is a coordinating national body for digital repositories, within which we have contacts.

□

There is a central gateway to the digital repositories in our country, to which our digital repository is linked.

Please comment on the institutional policies:

144

D. Services created on top of the digital repositories A number of services are being built on top of the digital repositories. Is the digital repository of your institution involved? D1-a. Which international registries has your repository been registered to? [Please tick all boxes that apply] □ □ □ □

OAIster Open DOAR ROARMAP The University of Illinois OAI-PMH Data Provider Registry

D1-b. The contents of your digital repository is searchable via the following general engines/gateways/portals: [Please tick all boxes that apply] □

□ □

General internet search enginessuch as Google, Yahoo, MSN etcetera Google Scholar Scirus Scientific Commons

D2. The contents of your digital repository is (partly) listed in the following catalogues: □ □ □

National/ regional catalogue Catalogue of our library -Other

o o o

Yes No This is planned

Please name this/these national catalogue(s) Please add any further comments: D3. Is your digital repository linked to printing-on-demand services? Please add any further comments:

145

D4. Does your digital repository have a service of displaying usage statistics per digital item?

o o o

Yes No This is planned

o o o

Yes No This is planned

o o o

Yes No Don't know

Please add any further comments: D5. Does your digital repository have personal services for the depositing academics, such as an automatically generated publication list? Please add any further comments: D6. Are there other services existing or planned based on your digital repository?

Please comment (if possible with example and/or URL):

D7. Which services do you believe should have priority for further development at a European scale? [Please tick a maximum of 3 items] □

General search engines/ gateways/portals

□

Disciplinary/thematic search engines/gateways/portals/ repositories

□

146

□

Advisory services (technicalaspects)

□

Advisory services (Open Access advocacy)

□

Cataloguing or metadata creation/enhancement services

□

Citation index services

□

Personal services for the depositing scientists

□

Preservation services

□

Printing-on-demand services

□

Publishing services

□

Repository hosting services

□

Research assessment/evaluation services

□

Usage statistics services

□

Other services

Please add any further comments: E. Stimulators and inhibitors for establishing, populating and maintaining digital repositories E1. What do you see as the most important STIMULANTS for the development of the digital repository and its contents in your institution? [Please tick a maximum of 3 items] □

Our simple and user-friendly depositing process

□

Our institutional policy of mandatory depositing

□

The requirements of research funding organisations in our country about depositing research output in Open Access repositories

□

Awareness-raising efforts among the academics in our institution

147

□

Increased visibility and citations for the publications of the academics in our institution

□

Interest from the decisionmakers within our institution

□

Our policy to safeguard the longterm preservation of the deposited material

□

Integration/linking of the digital repository with other systems in our institution

□

Situation with regard to copyright of (to be) published materials and the knowledge about this among academics in our institution

Please add any further comments: E2. What do you see as the most important INHIBITORS for the development of the digital repository and its contents in your institution? [Please tick a maximum of 3 items]

148

□

Lack of a simple and userfriendly depositing process

□

Lack of an institutional policy of mandatory depositing

□

Lack of requirements of research funding organisations in our country about depositing research output in Open Access repositories

□

Lack of awareness-raising efforts among the academics in our institution

□

Lack of support for increased visibility and citations for the publications of the academics in our institution

□

Lack of interest from the decision-makers within our institution

□

Lack of a policy to safeguard the long-term preservation of the deposited material

□

Lack of integration/linking of the digital repository with other systems in our institution

□

Situation with regard to copyright of (to be) published materials and the knowledge about this among academics in our institution

Please add any further comments: E3. Concluding question: Which issue should be highest on the priority list for the further development of digital repositories in Europe according to you? F. Your institution and its digital repository F1. My institution is best described as:

o

University College Governmental research institution Other non-governmental research institution Other

o o o

Austria Belgium Bulgaria

o o o o

If other, please elaborate: F2. My institution is based in:

149

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland The Netherlands United Kingdom

We would like to publish a list of all participating digital repositories in the final report and use the contact person for your repository in case of further inquiries from the DRIVER project. Please state for these purposes your details below (the other data of the questionnaire will be processed anonymously): Name of your institution: URL of your digital repository: Short description of your digital repository:

150

Name of contact person for the digital repository: Email address of this contact person: Click the submit button to register your answers. The system will respond with a confirmation message and an overview of your answers.

151

13. Questionnaire for the thematic /non-institutional Repositories DRIVER Inventory Study: form for thematic repositories with research output from researchers from multiple institutions Inventory study into the present type and level of OAI-PMH compliant digital repository activities for research output in the EU (2008 update) This study is part of a European Union funded project (DRIVER; for more information see the link below) and aims at making a complete inventory of the present type and level of Digital Repository activity in the EU, both at infrastructure and services level. The results of this update of the DRIVER Inventory study will be made public. The results of the earlier study can be retrieved via the link The European Repository Landscape below. Please click here for a link to the website of the DRIVER project http://www.driver-community.eu Link to The European Repository Landscape http://dare.uva.nl/document/93725 DRIVER and the focus of this inventory study DRIVER aims to create a common infrastructure for OAI-PMH compliant repositories with output from contemporary researchers in order to create a knowledge base for European research. For this purpose we are carrying out an inventory study focused on institutional repositories throughout Europe containing such research output. A digital repository for research output in this study is defined as (see also the first question): (1) Containing research output from contemporary researchers (2) Institutional or thematic (3) OAI-PMH compliant

153

The questionnaire addresses the following topics: A.

Contents related to research output in your repository

B.

Technical infrastructure and technical issues

C.

Institutional policies regarding the digital repository

D.

Services created on top of the digital repositories

E.

Stimulators and inhibitors for establishing, populating and maintaining digital repositories

F.

Your institution and its digital repository

A. Contents related to research output in your repository A1. When did your repository become operational (i.e. in case of earlier repositories, become OAI-PMH compliant)?

o

2004 or earlier

o

2005

o

2006

o

2007

o

2008

Please add any further comments: A2. What type of materials is presently in your repository?

154

□

Articles (full text and metadata)

□

Articles (metadata only)

□

Books/ book chapters (full text and metadata)

□

Books/ book chapters (metadata only)

□

Theses (full text and metadata)

□

Theses (metadata only)

□

Proceedings (full text and metadata)

□

Proceedings (metadata only)

□

Working papers (full text and metadata)

□

Working papers (metadata only)

□

Primary datasets

□

Images

□

Video

□

Music

□

Other

Please add any further comments: A3. Please give (an estimate of) the total number of items per type of materials now available in your repository? [If the type of materials is not available, please insert 0] Articles (full text and metadata) Articles (metadata only) Books/ book chapters (full text and metadata) Books/ book chapters (metadata only) Theses (full text and metadata) Theses (metadata only) Proceedings (full text and metadata) Proceedings (metadata only) Working papers (full text and metadata) Working papers (metadata only)

155

Primary datasets Images Video Music Other Please add any further comments: A4. Please give (an estimate of) the number of items per type of materials that has been added in the last year (2007) in your repository? [If the type of material is not available, please insert 0] Articles (full text) Articles (meta data only) Books/ book chapters (full text and metadata) Books/ book chapters (metadata only) Theses (full text and metadata) Theses (metadata only) Proceedings (full text and metadata) Proceedings (metadata only) Working papers (full text and metadata) Working papers (metadata only) Primary data Images Video Music

156

Other Please add any further comments: A5-1. With regard to full text journal articles (published or to be published): which version is deposited [Please tick all boxes that apply] □

A5-2 Which statement best describes the form of journal articles in your digital repository?

Preprint version (pre-refereeing)

□

Postprint (i.e. final draft post refereeing)

□

Published version (publisher generated format)

o

Most articles are available in preprint form only

o

Most articles are available in postprint form

o

Most articles are available in published form

A6-a. With regard to the availability of the full text materials (articles, books, book chapters, theses etc.): how are they available? [Please tick all boxes that apply] □

Open Access: publicly available

□

Open Access with embargo: publicly available after a certain period of no access

□

Campus Access: only available for users within our institution

□

No Access: archived but NOT available at all

□

Other

If other, please elaborate:

157

A6-b. Please give (an estimate of) the percentages of each form of availability of the full text materials in your digital repository: [Please make the percentages add up to 100 and enter the data as numbers without percentage signs] Open Access: publicly available Open Access with embargo: publicly available after a certain period Campus Access: only available for users within our institution No Access: archived but NOT available at all Other A7. Please give an estimate, if known, of the percentage of the materials covering the following disciplines [Please make the percentages add up to 100 and enter the data as numbers without percentage signs] Humanities and Social sciences Life Sciences Natural Sciences Engineering Other Please add any further comments: A8. Please describe briefly the (organisational) work processes of depositing in the repository:

158

B. Technical infrastructure and technical issues B1. Which software package is used for the digital repository?

o

ARNO

o

CDSware

o

Digitool

o

DIVA

o

DSpace

o

Fedora

o

GNU EPrints

o

iTOR

o

MyCoRe

o

OPUS

o

VITAL

o

Locally developed software package

o

Other

o

Yes

o

No

o

Don't know

If other, please describe: B2. Is a persistent identifier assigned to each document?

If yes, which persistent identifier? [PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] □

Handle system or persistent identifier

□

URN (Uniform Resource Name)

□

PURL (Persistent URL)

□

DOI (Digital Object Identifier)

□

ARK (Archival Resource key)

□

Other

If other, please elaborate:

159

B3. Is the long-term availability of the materials in the repositories secured?

o

Yes

o

Not yet, but we have plans to do so

o

No, no plans for developing it either

o

Don't know

If yes, how? [PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] □

By internal procedures

□

By means of the national library

Please add any further comments: B4. Is statistical data on access to the repository and usage of the materials logged?

o

Yes

o

No

o

Don't know

Please add any further comments: B5. Which statement best describes the subject indexing of your digital repository

160

o

No subject indexing

o

Freely assigned keywords [in the language of the country]

o

Freely assigned keywords [in the language of the country and/or in English]

o

Keywords or classifications according to (a) standardised system(s) [in the language of the country]

o

Keywords or classifications according to (a) standardised system(s) [in the language of the country and/or in English]

If you use a standardised classification or keyword system, please indicate here which: Please add any further comments: B6. Is a unique identifier assigned to each author?

o

Yes

o

No, but we are developing such author identifier in the near future

o

No, and there are no plans for developing it either

Please add any further comments: B7. A number of metadata standards are developed in order to enhance the interoperability of repositories. Which of the following metadata standards are followed within your digital repository? [PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] □

Dublin Core (qualified)

□

Dublin Core (unqualified)

□

DIDL

□

MARC21

□

MODS

□

OAI-ORE

Please add any further comments:

161

B8. Does your repository follow the DRIVER guidelines (see the link below if you want to refresh your memory)?

o

We do not know about the DRIVER Guidelines

o

We know about the DRIVER Guidelines, but do not follow them

o

We know about the DRIVER Guidelines and (make every effort) to follow them

Link to the DRIVER Guidelines http://www.driver-support.eu/managers.html Please add any further comments: B9. A new development is Enhanced Publications: publications combined with research output such as images, video and/or datasets. Is your repository technically prepared for these Enhanced Publications?

o

Yes

o

No, but we have plans to prepare our repository technically for this

o

No, and there are no plans for preparing for it either

Please add any further comments: C. Policies regarding the digital repository C1. Please tick the statements below that are valid for your digital repository: □

There are clear guidelines for the selection of material for inclusion in the digital repository.

□

There is a policy to safeguard the long-term preservation of the deposited material.

Please comment on these or other policies concerning your repository:

162

D. Services created on top of the digital repositories A number of services are being built on top of the digital repositories. Is your repository involved? D1-a. Which international registries has your repository been registered to? [Please tick all boxes that apply] □

OAIster

□

Open DOAR

□

ROARMAP

□

The University of Illinois OAIPMH Data Provider Registry

D1-b. The contents of your digital repository is searchable via the following general engines/gateways/portals: [Please tick all boxes that apply] □

General internet search engines such as Google, Yahoo, MSN etcetera

□

Google Scholar

□

Scirus

□

Scientific Commons

D2. The contents of your digital repository is (partly) listed in the following catalogues: □

National/ regional catalogue

□

Catalogue of our library

□

Other

o

Yes

o

No

o

This is planned

Please name this/these national/regional catalogue(s) Please add any further comments: D3. Is your digital repository linked to printing-on-demand services?

163

Please add any further comments: D4. Does your digital repository have a service of displaying usage statistics per digital item?

o

Yes

o

No

o

This is planned

o

Yes

o

No

o

This is planned

o

Yes

o

No

o

Don't know

Please add any further comments: D5. Does your digital repository have personal services for the depositing academics, such as an automatically generated publication list? Please add any further comments: D6. Are there other services existing or planned based on your digital repository?

Please comment (if possible with example and/or URL):

D7. Which services do you believe should have priority for further development at a European scale? [Please tick a maximum of 3 items]

164

□

General search engines/gateways/portals

□

Disciplinary/ thematic search engines/gateways/portals/ repositories

□

Advisory services (technical aspects)

□

Advisory services (Open Access advocacy)

□

Cataloguing or metadata creation/enhancement services

□

Citation index services

□

Personal services for the depositing scientists

□

Preservation services

□

Printing-on-demand services

□

Publishing services

□

Repository hosting services

□

Research assessment/evaluation services

□

Usage statistics services

□

Other services

Please add any further comments: E. Stimulators and inhibitors for establishing, populating and maintaining digital repositories E1. What do you see as the most important STIMULANTS for the development of your digital repository and its contents? [Please tick a maximum of 3 items] □

Our simple and user-friendly depositing process

□

The requirements of research funding organisations about depositing research output in Open Access repositories

□

Increased visibility and citationsfor the publications of the depositing academics

□

Our policy to safeguard the long-term preservation of the deposited material

165

□

Situation with regard to copyright of (to be) published materials and the knowledge about this among academics in our institution

Please add any further comments: E2. What do you see as the most important INHIBITORS for the development of the digital repository and its contents in your institution? [Please tick a maximum of 3 items] □

Lack of a simple and userfriendly depositing process

□

Lack of requirements of research funding organisations about depositing research output in Open Access repositories

□

Lack of support for increased visibility and citations for the publications of the depositing academics

□

Lack of a policy to safeguard the long-term preservation of the deposited material

□

Situation with regard to copyright of (to be) published materials and the knowledge about this among academics in our institution.

Please add any further comments: E3. Concluding question: Which issue should be highest on the priority list for the further development of digital repositories in Europe according to you?

166

F. Your organisation and its digital repository F1. My institution is best described as:

o

University

o

College

o

Governmental research institution

o

Other non-governmental research institution

o

Other

If other, please elaborate: F2. My institution is based in:

o

Austria

o

Belgium

o

Bulgaria

o

Croatia

o

Cyprus

o

Czech Republic

o

Denmark

o

Estonia

o

Finland

o

France

o

Germany

o

Greece

o

Hungary

o

Iceland

o

Ireland

o

Italy

o

Latvia

o

Lithuania

o

Luxembourg

o

Malta

o

Norway

o

Poland 167

o

Portugal

o

Romania

o

Slovakia

o

Slovenia

o

Spain

o

Sweden

o

Switzerland

o

The Netherlands

o

United Kingdom

We would like to publish a list of all participating digital repositories in the final report and use the contact person for your repository in case of further inquiries from the DRIVER project. Please state for these purposes your details below (the other data of the questionnaire will be processed anonymously): Name of your institution: URL of your digital repository: Short description of your digital repository: Name of contact person for the digital repository: Email address of this contact person:

168