SPEC Kit 292: Institutional Repositories (July 2006)
Page13(13 of 176)
Institutional Repositories · 13 Executive Summary Introduction Since 2002, when DSpace and other institutional repository (IR) software began to be available, an increasing number of research libraries and their parent institutions have established institutional repositories to collect and provide access to diverse, locally produced digital materials. This emerging technology holds great promise to transform schol- arly communication, but it is still in its infancy. For the purposes of this survey, an IR was simply defined as a permanent, institution-wide reposito- ry of diverse, locally produced digital works (e.g., article preprints and postprints, data sets, electron- ic theses and dissertations, learning objects, and technical reports) that is available for public use and supports metadata harvesting. If an institution shares an IR with other institutions, it was within the scope of this survey. Not included in this defi- nition were scholars’ personal Web sites academic department, school, or other unit digital archives that are primarily intended to store digital materi- als created by members of that unit or disciplinary archives that include digital materials about one or multiple subjects that have been created by authors from many different institutions (e.g., arXiv.org). In this analysis, the authors have chosen to re- port the data as percentages based on the relevant number of responses (which can vary by question and within question) unless number totals are clear- er. Percent figures have been rounded according to standard rules and they may total to slightly over or under 100%. For questions where respondents supplied textual answers, the authors have only used unambiguous replies in their analysis and calculated percentages accordingly. Respondents who indicated that their institutions currently have IRs are referred to as “implementers.” Respondents who indicated they have plans to develop an IR are referred to as “planners.” Background The survey was distributed to the 123 ARL mem- ber libraries in January 2006. Eighty-seven libraries (71%) responded to the survey. Of those, 37 (43%) have an operational IR, 31 (35%) are planning for one by 2007 at the latest, and 19 (22%) have no im- mediate plans to develop an IR. One respondent had an operational IR as early as 1999 and a few more came online in 2002 and 2003. Implementation surged in 2004 as 12 repositories became publicly accessible 14 followed in 2005. Two more were operational in early 2006 and an additional 11 are planned for later this year. Seven others expect their IRs to become accessible in 2007. (One planner indicated that planning and implementation has been ongoing since 2004.) This data indicate that 30% of all ARL institu- tions had an operational IR at the beginning of 2006 by the end of 2007 the total may reach at least 55%. While the growth rate appears to be leveling off at this point, IRs will continue to be developed and implemented in the near future. Implementers and planners are in general agree- ment about their motivations for starting an IR. The