[Web4lib] ARL Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit

[Charles W. Bailey, Jr.]

ARL Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit

The Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit is now available [1] from the
Association of Research Libraries (ARL [2]). This document presents the
results of a thirty-eight-question survey of 123 ARL members in early
2006 about their institutional repositories practices and plans. The
survey response rate was 71% (87 out of 123 ARL members responded). The
front matter and nine-page Executive Summary [3] are freely available.
The document also presents detailed question-by-question results, a list
of respondent institutions, representative documents from institutions,
and a bibliography. It is 176 pages long.

Here is the bibliographic information: University of Houston Libraries
Institutional Repository Task Force. Institutional Repositories. SPEC
Kit 292. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 2006. ISBN:
1-59407-708-8.

The members of the University of Houston Libraries [4] Institutional
Repository Task Force who authored the document were Charles W. Bailey,
Jr.; Karen Coombs; Jill Emery (now at UT Austin); Anne Mitchell; Chris
Morris; Spencer Simons; and Robert Wright.

Here are some quick survey results:

     - Thirty-seven ARL institutions (43% of respondents) had an
     operational IR (we called these respondents implementers), 31 (35%)
     were planning one by 2007, and 19 (22%) had no IR plans.
     - Looked at from the perspective of all 123 ARL members, 30%
     had an operational IR and, by 2007, that figure may reach 55%.
     - The mean cost of IR implementation was $182,550.
     - The mean annual IR operation cost was $113,543.
     - Most implementers did not have a dedicated budget for either
     start-up costs (56%) or ongoing operations (52%).
     - The vast majority of implementers identified first-level IR
     support units that had a library reporting line vs. one that had a
     campus IT or other campus unit reporting line.
     - DSpace [5] was by far the most commonly used system: 20
     implementers used it exclusively and 3 used it in combination with
     other systems.
     - Proquest DigitalCommons [6] (or the Bepress software it is
     based on) was the second choice of implementers: 7 implementers used
     this system.
     - While 28% of implementers have made no IR software
     modifications to enhance its functionality, 22% have made frequent
     changes to do so and 17% have made major modifications to the
     software.
     - Only 41% of implementers had no review of deposited
     documents. While review by designated departmental or unit officials
     was the most common method (35%), IR staff reviewed documents 21% of
     the time.
     - In a check all that apply question, 60% of implementers said
     that IR staff entered simple metadata for authorized users and 57%
     said that they enhanced such data. Thirty-one percent said that they
     cataloged IR materials completely using local standards.
     - In another check all that apply question, implementers
     clearly indicated that IR and library staff use a variety of
     strategies to recruit content: 83% made presentations to faculty and
     others, 78% identified and encouraged likely depositors, 78% had
     library subject specialists act as advocates, 64% offered to deposit
     materials for authors, and 50% offered to digitize materials and
     deposit them.
     - The most common digital preservation arrangement for
     implementers (47%) was to accept any file type, but only preserve
     specified file types using data migration and other techniques. The
     next most common arrangement (26%) was to accept and preserve any
     file type.
     - The mean number of digital objects in implementers' IRs was
     3,844.


[1] http://www.arl.org/pubscat/pr/2006/spec292.html
[2] http://www.arl.org/
[3] http://www.arl.org/spec/SPEC292web.pdf
[4] http://info.lib.uh.edu/index.html
[5] http://dspace.org/
[6] http://www.umi.com/products_umi/digitalcommons/

-- 

Best Regards,
Charles

Charles W. Bailey, Jr., Assistant Dean for Digital Library
Planning and Development, University of Houston Libraries

E-Mail: cbailey at digital-scholarship.com

Publications: http://www.digital-scholarship.com/

(Provides access to DigitalKoans, Open Access Bibliography,
Open Access Webliography, Scholarly Electronic Publishing
Bibliography, Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog,
and other publications.)