SPEC Kit 338: Library Management of Disciplinary Repositories · 13
an explicit call from a funder were motivating factors.
As an extension of this concept, InterNano noted that
its development was part of “broader impacts” activi-
ties for a large research center, making it an important
component of an overarching research project. Only
one repository, Dryad, cited the need for preservation
and archiving policies. PubMed Central, because of
its unique status as the mandated repository for the
National Institutes of Health (NIH), was developed
out of a need to share the publicly funded products
of the NIH research community. As noted by the re-
spondent, “This initially voluntary activity was later
mandated by Congress in 2008 through a requirement
of National Institutes of Health researchers to submit
final, peer-reviewed manuscripts to PubMed Central.”
Of the 12 disciplinary repositories represented,
the earliest was established in 1995 and the most re-
cent was launched in 2013. Between 2000 and 2013,
a repository was established almost annually, with
the exception of 2005, 2006, and 2011 (see Table 1).
However, none of the ARL libraries that responded
to the survey reported active or future planning to
launch a disciplinary repository.
As expected, disciplinary repositories are more
common in the sciences, with only three social science
repositories and two humanities repositories among
those represented in this study. This may be due to the
continued high rate of publication in the sciences, as
well as the increase in scientific grey literature (Larsen
and von Ins 2010).
The primary audience for disciplinary reposito-
ries is the academic communities that they serve.
Government, non-profit workers, and industry pro-
fessionals are other common audience segments,
which is unsurprising given the subject matter of
many of the repositories in this study. Students and
the general public are less commonly reported as
target audiences, although The Digital Archaeological
Record (tDAR) noted, “The repository contents [are]
not explicitly designed to be of interest to the general
public, however, many of the visitors to the repository
website appear to be members of the general public
who have an interest in the archaeology of specific
geographical areas or topics. We are pleased that the
repository also is of interest to this audience and may
in the future develop features that are of interest and
relevance to such visitors and users.” This is an unin-
tended positive consequence of providing open access
to disciplinary scholarly resources. Dryad uniquely
includes publishers, learned societies, research insti-
tutions, and funding bodies as part of their primary
audience. Dryad’s content focus on research data and
their content recruitment model of partnering with
publishers may contribute to extended audiences.
Table 1. Repository Launch Date and Subject Coverage
Repository Launch Date Subject Coverage
AgEcon Search 1995 Agriculture and applied economics
PubMed Central® 2000 Biomedicine
HABRI Central 2012 Human-animal interaction
Industry Studies Working Papers 2010 Industry studies
InterNano 2007 Nanomanufacturing
The Aphasiology Archive 2003 Communication impairments and disorders
Dryad 2008 Evolutionary biology and ecology
PhilSci-Archive 2001 Philosophy of science
Resources in Integrated Care for Morbidity
Management and Disability Prevention (RIIC-4MMDP)
2013 Neglected tropical diseases, disability prevention, early
detection of disease and prevention
Archive of European Integration 2002 European integration
The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR) 2009 Archaeology and related fields
Minority Health and Health Equity Archive 2004 Minority health, health disparities, ethnic and racial
disparities in health research, policy, and services
an explicit call from a funder were motivating factors.
As an extension of this concept, InterNano noted that
its development was part of “broader impacts” activi-
ties for a large research center, making it an important
component of an overarching research project. Only
one repository, Dryad, cited the need for preservation
and archiving policies. PubMed Central, because of
its unique status as the mandated repository for the
National Institutes of Health (NIH), was developed
out of a need to share the publicly funded products
of the NIH research community. As noted by the re-
spondent, “This initially voluntary activity was later
mandated by Congress in 2008 through a requirement
of National Institutes of Health researchers to submit
final, peer-reviewed manuscripts to PubMed Central.”
Of the 12 disciplinary repositories represented,
the earliest was established in 1995 and the most re-
cent was launched in 2013. Between 2000 and 2013,
a repository was established almost annually, with
the exception of 2005, 2006, and 2011 (see Table 1).
However, none of the ARL libraries that responded
to the survey reported active or future planning to
launch a disciplinary repository.
As expected, disciplinary repositories are more
common in the sciences, with only three social science
repositories and two humanities repositories among
those represented in this study. This may be due to the
continued high rate of publication in the sciences, as
well as the increase in scientific grey literature (Larsen
and von Ins 2010).
The primary audience for disciplinary reposito-
ries is the academic communities that they serve.
Government, non-profit workers, and industry pro-
fessionals are other common audience segments,
which is unsurprising given the subject matter of
many of the repositories in this study. Students and
the general public are less commonly reported as
target audiences, although The Digital Archaeological
Record (tDAR) noted, “The repository contents [are]
not explicitly designed to be of interest to the general
public, however, many of the visitors to the repository
website appear to be members of the general public
who have an interest in the archaeology of specific
geographical areas or topics. We are pleased that the
repository also is of interest to this audience and may
in the future develop features that are of interest and
relevance to such visitors and users.” This is an unin-
tended positive consequence of providing open access
to disciplinary scholarly resources. Dryad uniquely
includes publishers, learned societies, research insti-
tutions, and funding bodies as part of their primary
audience. Dryad’s content focus on research data and
their content recruitment model of partnering with
publishers may contribute to extended audiences.
Table 1. Repository Launch Date and Subject Coverage
Repository Launch Date Subject Coverage
AgEcon Search 1995 Agriculture and applied economics
PubMed Central® 2000 Biomedicine
HABRI Central 2012 Human-animal interaction
Industry Studies Working Papers 2010 Industry studies
InterNano 2007 Nanomanufacturing
The Aphasiology Archive 2003 Communication impairments and disorders
Dryad 2008 Evolutionary biology and ecology
PhilSci-Archive 2001 Philosophy of science
Resources in Integrated Care for Morbidity
Management and Disability Prevention (RIIC-4MMDP)
2013 Neglected tropical diseases, disability prevention, early
detection of disease and prevention
Archive of European Integration 2002 European integration
The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR) 2009 Archaeology and related fields
Minority Health and Health Equity Archive 2004 Minority health, health disparities, ethnic and racial
disparities in health research, policy, and services