Transcript - UM Research Repository

3-DAY INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY
WORKSHOP USING DSPACE FOR MEMBERS
OF AUNILO
25-27 MAY 2009
INSTITUTIONAL
REPOSITORIES
Nor Edzan Che Nasir
UM Library
DEFINITIONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Crow (2002) - digital collections that capture and preserve the intellectual
output of university communities
Johnson (2002) - any collection of digital material hosted, owned or
controlled, or disseminated by a college or university, irrespective of purpose
or provenance
Johnson (2002) - a digital archive of the intellectual product created by the
faculty, research staff, and students of an institution; accessible to end users
both within and outside of the institution, with few if any barriers to access
University libraries worldwide - developing and maintaining IRs as a means of
managing and disseminating digital materials.
Materials - created by university staff
IRs - disseminate information on the academic activities of the university
community.
There is a conscious move amongst universities worldwide to develop and
maintain their own institutional repositories.
Crow (2002) attributes this to the “new scholarly publishing paradigm” and
the “institutional visibility and prestige”.
IRs are able to “display full texts for research results” and IR systems are
able to “preserve research histories and results” and “is an excellent platform
for knowledge preservation and sharing” (Chen, 2008).
Usually - university library maintains the IR with a collection size ranging
from hundreds to thousands
DEVELOPMENT OF IR
• Bailey, Charles W. 2008. Institutional repositories : tout
de suite.
• http://www.digital-scholarship.org/ts/irtoutsuite.pdf
• University libraries given the task to build and
maintain IRs
• Need to come out with a policy – covers everything
from submission to copyright
• Use proprietary software
– Digital commons
• Or use open source
– EPrint – University of Southampton, UK
– Greenstone – University of Otago, NZ
– DSpace – MIT, USA
– Fedora
MONITORING OF IRS ON
THE WEB
• Registry of Open Access
Repositories (ROAR)
• http://roar.eprints.org/index.php
• Directory of Open Access
Repositories (DOAR)
• http://www.opendoar.org/index.ht
ml
RANKING
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
http://repositories.webometrics.info
Ranking Web of World Repositories - ranks repositories in order
to support “Open Access initiatives and therefore the free
access to scientific publications in an electronic form and to
other academic material”
Web indicators - measure global visibility and impact of the
scientific repositories
Use ROAR and DOAR to identify open access repositories but
they discard repositories which are journal portals, nonscientific or archival in nature
Query these repositories using the four largest search engine
namely, Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead
Ranking is calculated based on visibility (50%), size (20%), rich
files (15% ) and scholar (15%)
For 2008, UTM = 82 out of 300 , For 2009, UTM = 85 out of 300
UTM has done it correctly and should now be in a position to
assist other university libraries to perform just as well if not
better.
REFERENCES
•
Brody, Tim. 2009. Registry of Open Access Repositories. Southampton:
University of Southampton. http://roar.eprints.org/index.php
•
Chen, Kuang-hua. 2008. Institutional Repository at National Taiwan
University. DRF International Conference 2009. Osaka: DRF.
•
Crow, Raym. 2002. The Case for Institutional Repositories: a SPARC
Position Paper. ARL Bimonthly Report, 223.
•
Johnson, R. 2002. Institutional Repositories: Partnering with Faculty to
Improve Scholarly Communication. D-Lib Magazine, vol. 8, no. 11.
•
University of Nottingham. 2009. OPENDOAR: the Directory of Open
Access Repositories. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
http://www.opendoar.org/index.html
•
Cybermetrics Lab. 2009. Ranking Web of World Repositories. Madrid:
Cybermetrics Lab. http://repositories.webometrics.info
THANK YOU