Institutional repositories and e-journal archiving: What are we learning?

Journal of Electronic Publishing

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2008, Pages

  Smith, Kathlin ^a  

^a Council on Library and Information Resources ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 45349089333     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10802711     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3998/3336451.0011.107     Document Type: Review

References (14)

1. See Peter Lyman and Hal R. Varian, "How Much Information?" (2003). Available at http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much- info-2003/ (accessed Jan. 3, 2008). A recent report from Dartmouth estimated that it "uses over 37 terabytes of storage centrally for business applications and e-mail alone, and the average demand is growing at about 6 terabytes annually." By comparison, it notes, "if stored as plain text, the print collection of the Library of Congress would amount to about 20 terabytes of information." Jeffrey Horrell and Deborah Jakubs. Digital Asset Management: Elements of an Institutional Program. Final Report on the Duke/Dartmouth Project. (Unpublished). July 10, 2007.
2. Karen Markey, Soo Young Rieh, Beth St. Jean, Jihyun Kim, and Elizabeth Yakel, of the University of Michigan School of Information. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. February 2007. The census is the first step in a longer-term undertaking, called the MIRACLE (Making Institutional Repositories a Collaborative Learning Environment) Project, to examine how colleges and universities are implementing IRs. The project seeks to identify models and best practices in the administration and technical infrastructure of IRs, as well as policies governing access to repository collections. The goal is to identify factors contributing to the success of IRs and effective ways of accessing and using them.
3. Although a handful of institutions in Australia and the United Kingdom have some form of mandatory deposit policy, the idea of mandating deposit of an institution's intellectual output is controversial. In the United States, while an institution might establish mandates for the deposit of administrative records, it would be difficult to set similar requirements for the deposit of faculty research.
4. The authors intend to conduct an IR-user study as a follow-on activity, and they include a list of possible survey questions on page 89 of their report. Other organizations, including CLIR, are also undertaking studies on IR use and users.
5. To date, most of this information has been drawn from counts of users, unique contributors, and searches.
6. See Andrew Odlyzko (2000), "The Rapid Evolution of Scholarly Communication," (http://www.si.umich.edu/PEAK-2000/odlyzko.pdf) (accessed Jan. 3, 2008);
7. Steve Lawrence, (2001) "Free Online Availability Substantially Increases a Paper's Impact," Nature 411 (May 31): 521;
8. Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown (2004), "Authors and Open Access Publishing," Learned Publishing 17(3): 219-224;
9. Kristin Antelman (2004), "Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact?" College & Research Libraries (September): 372-382;
10. and Gunther Eysenbach (2006), "Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles," PLoS Biology 4(5) e157:0692-0698.
11. "Urgent Action Needed to Preserve Scholarly Electronic Journals," edited by Donald J. Waters, October 15, 2005. Available at http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/ejournalpreservation_final.pdf (accessed Jan. 3, 2008).
12. The Cornell University Library Research and Assessment Services wrote the report, which CLIR commissioned in collaboration with the Association for Research Libraries (ARL).
13. The authors suggest that the registry could follow such models as the Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR) and ROARMAP, which tracks the growth of institutional self-archiving policies.
14. Available at http://www.crl.edu/PDF/trac.pdf (accessed Jan. 3, 2008)