Assessment of Self-archiving in Institutional Repositories: Across Disciplines

Assessment of Self-archiving in Institutional Repositories: Across Disciplines by Jingfeng Xia Available online 7 November 2007

This research examined self-archiving practices by four disciplines in seven institutional repositories. By checking each individual item for its metadata and deposition status, the research found that a disciplinary culture is not obviously presented. Rather, self-archiving is regulated by a liaison system and a mandate policy.

INTRODUCTION How to secure the participation of faculty in self-archiving has been one of the hot topics in the discussion and operation of institutional repositories (IRs).1 The usability of an IR relies primarily on the amount of its content material,2 which becomes available through self-archiving of research outcomes by faculty authors.3 The more faculty members contribute to an IR, the larger its content size is, and consequently the more useful the IR. While digital repositories have been adopted by many higher educational institutions around the world, faculty contributions to the IRs have been generally scarce. The reluctance of faculty for participating in self-archiving is, among other reasons, because faculty scholars are usually too busy to be distracted from their already heavy load in research and teaching,4 although observations revealed that depositing an article to an IR database takes only less than ten minutes for a new self-depositor.5 Faculty authors are also concerned with intellectual issues for pre-prints and copyright issues for postprints.6 Most importantly, faculty feel they may not benefit from self-publishing research in a digital repository given the requirements of their career promotion for which only peerreviewed publications, mostly in print journals, are valued.7 Some findings by librarians suggested that moving publications online will create more opportunities for them to be read and cited, and, thus, will increase the visibility of the authors among peers which is considered important by scholars in their career development.8 Such findings are, unfortunately, not widely recognized and do not refer to IRs in particular. Overall, faculty have not recognized the advantages of IRs in increasing their research impact.

“While digital repositories have been adopted by many higher educational institutions around the world, faculty contributions to the IRs have been generally scarce.”

Jingfeng Xia is Reference and Instructional Librarian, John Cotton Dana Library, 185 University Avenue, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ 07102, USA .

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 33, Number 6, pages 647–654

Studies suggest that the attitudes of faculty toward selfarchiving vary from discipline to discipline.9 In some disciplines, sharing pre-prints among peers has been an accepted norm of information exchange so that scholars feel comfortable about depositing their research, pre-published, or post-published, in an

December 2007 647

online database.10 Such disciplines have typically established a subject-based repository that has been successful in supporting research activities for scholars in areas such as physics (with arXiv) and economics (with RePec). On the other hand, many other disciplines, especially those in social sciences and the humanities, have not had an opportunity to be exposed to such online information acquisitions and dissemination.11 Scholars in these fields are relatively unfamiliar with the self-archiving practice and hesitant to take part in what they may consider as experimental efforts. This situation, the so-called “disciplinary divide”, was largely formed by the ethnography of academic disciplines based upon the nature of knowledge.12 With regard to the differences of scholarly communication between disciplines, there exists a dichotomy of intellectual features: convergent vs. divergent, or mutual dependence vs. independence.13 In a discipline where convergence dominates the structure of its knowledge, research would have been conducted based on the methods and theories of others as well as shared by others. Such mutual dependence enables researchers to share common research goals, problems, and procedures. Physics and economics are among these disciplines. It is, therefore, not difficult to understand why both of these disciplines were leaders in the establishment of subjectbased repositories and still rely on the repositories for circulating research findings. In divergent disciplines, mutual dependence in research is low and scholars may have less desire to share pre-published, or even post-published, material. Scholars usually have diverse research data, interests, and agendas. Even though mutual dependence exists, its significance is only visible within a restricted group of projects. Many social science and humanity disciplines such as sociology, psychology, and geography are characterized as divergent. Subject-based repositories have never developed in these disciplines. Scholars have generally believed that faculty in a field where a subject-based repository is a typical practice for information sharing tend to self-archive more in their institutional repository.14 It has also been assumed that where disciplinary culture is more conservative and where scholarly sources choose to hold back changes, faculty are less inclined to selfarchive research results.15 “There is a direct correlation between willingness to self-archive and the existence of subject-based repositories.”16 Accordingly, institutional repositories have been met with enthusiasm from certain academic fields but indifference from others. The application of this “disciplinary culture” theory in the studies of digital repositories has not been supported by scientific evidence. A fundamental problem resides in the difference between IR and subject repository infrastructures: the former collects the research output of an institution including all its academic units, whereas the latter serves one (or sometimes more than one) discipline which goes beyond an institution. From a faculty's perspective, contributing to a subject is based on research interests, while it may be his/her obligation to the institution for working with an IR.17 Recognizing the difference will help IR managers adjust their operational strategies concerning faculty's participation in self-archiving.18 Some strategies aim at or may have already resulted in changing the disciplinary cultures and blurring the divide. They particularly target the divergent disciplines within which faculty are unfamiliar with or have conservative attitudes

648 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

toward self-archiving to encourage faculty in those fields to make active contributions to IRs. One of the strategies is the implementation of a mandate policy, mostly at the institutional level and in certain cases at the departmental or college level inside an institution, that requires all faculty members to deposit their publications in the repository with which they are affiliated.19 Interestingly, many surveys found that most faculty members interviewed, no matter in what academic field, are willing to cooperate with the mandate policy, if one has been in existence.20 This contrasts with the reality that most faculty are not practicing self-archiving. Recently, some institutions have pioneered a mandate policy for their IRs and have received positive results. Queensland University of Technology in Australia is one of them.21

“some institutions have pioneered a mandate policy for their IRs and have received positive results.” Another strategy that many IR managers have adopted is a liaison system by which a librarian, an administrative staff, or a student assistant, is assigned to work with one or more academic units.22 This liaison is responsible for collecting agreements from each faculty in these units and depositing articles on behalf of the faculty, which will free faculty from having extra jobs beyond teaching and research. This system has become more and more popular and has proved to be an efficient and effective practice that is capable of making the content size of an IR larger. Eventually, this non-author depositorship will alter the concept of “self-archiving” and re-define “disciplinary culture”. Few studies have been undertaken to evaluate the status of self-archiving across disciplines.23 Those that have focused on this topic typically surveyed faculty about their history and willingness of self-archiving research into IRs. According to responses from the faculty, a picture of disciplinary practices was sketched. One of the notable studies is an author study carried out by Swan and Brown among 1296 scholars in 2004 with one of the findings pointing to the particularly enthusiastic contributions of scholars in library and information science.24 Another study applied ethnographic observations and interviews to record how faculty did their work in terms of dealing with digital technologies.25 It found that faculty across different disciplines all tend to be cautious about partaking in selfarchiving activities of an IR. These studies did not look at the actual condition of IR deposits. Faculty reaction to self-archiving is, however, only one measure of the success of an IR. At the very least it does not take the efforts of liaisons into consideration and ignores other factors affecting the recruitment of repository content, e.g., the implementation of a mandate policy. Examination of individual content items is one way of understanding self-archiving across disciplines in a repository. Each item, when being deposited, has necessary metadata elements that describe the item. Although in some repositories only very limited information is required for depositors to input (e.g., article title and author name) in order to simplify the archiving process, it is normal practice for repository items to have more metadata elements for informa-

tion of the journal (e.g., title, date, and pages), article (e.g., type—like research article or conference paper, format—such as pdf or slide, version—such as pre-print or post-print, and subject and keywords), author (e.g., affiliation and title), and depositor. These metadata elements provide first-hand information for the analysis of self-archiving status at the disciplinary level, upon which a cross-subject comparison becomes possible. A group of factors for assessing the success of self-archiving in institutional repositories has been discussed recently.26 Unlike previous assessments, these factors are proposed to analyze metadata and seek the understanding of self-archiving from new perspectives. For example, the factors focused on such aspects of archiving as depositorship (by article authors or others) and full-text availability.27 This article will apply additional factors to the measure of disciplinary differences by checking each item deposited for its metadata as well as the text document itself in several well-known institutional repositories by selected academic disciplines. The goal is to determine how self-archiving has been performed in these disciplines.

METHOD The disciplines of chemistry, economics, physics, and sociology were selected with the following considerations. First, these disciplines represent traditional academic fields, rather than being interdisciplinary, so that cross-institution comparisons are possible. Second, they can represent disciplines that both have and do not have a subject-based repository for cross discipline comparisons. Physics has one of the oldest subject repositories in the world – arXiv – which was initiated in 1991 by Paul Ginsparg in the Los Alamos National Laboratory for high energy physics.28 It soon gained its reputation as a predominant preprint archive and has expanded to cover physics, mathematics, computer science, and quantitative biology, with a total of 402,288 e-prints by January 2007.29 Similarly, economics enjoys a famous decentralized database of working papers, journal articles, and software components, which has been heavily used by economists.30 On the contrary, chemistry and sociology do not have well-known repositories recognized by their scholars. Seven IRs were selected to carry out the comparisons, including Queensland University of Technology (QUT),31 University of Melbourne,32 University of Queensland,33 all in

Australia; Lund University in Sweden;34 and the University of Glasgow,35 University of Southampton,36 and University of Strathclyde,37 all in the U.K.. This IR list is similar to the one used in previous studies of the author on self-archiving assessment in order to keep the research series consistent. Also, the selection considered the content size of the IRs, believing that large IRs can enhance the validity of the examination across disciplines and institutions. All seven IRs are built with the EPrints application, and this selection was not by random. Among currently popular IR applications such as DSpace, EPrints, Fedora, and Greenstone, only EPrints features a Deposited By field as one of its metadata elements, which is crucial to this assessment. Additionally, a mandate policy has been the practice of QUT38 but not others, providing us with the opportunity to compare the influences of a mandate policy among IRs. Each IR was checked to obtain the number of deposits by disciplines. This research also relied on the Web site of each department for the information of its faculty. There are some limitations on using online information of such types to carry out the research. In each IR, items are categorized by subjects or departments for easy browsing. Item overlaps between subjects and between departments are unavoidable, partly because the categorization may be made by keywords in metadata of the items provided by depositors. As a result, for example, papers written by faculty in other related departments may be grouped into chemistry, and work written and deposited by chemistry faculty may not be included in the department. It is difficult to run a crosscheck for the overlaps. This research chose to ignore them with the premise that a balance of depositions across disciplines is reached when many repositories are examined. Calculating faculty size is also challenging. The first difficulty is how to define faculty. Each institution has its own categorization of faculty members, which may or may not include research fellows and post-doctorates. In addition, adjuncts and graduate students may also contribute to the IR of their institution. Second, the mobility nature of employees makes a perfect calculation impossible. Not only do students and non-core faculty members come and go, but regular faculty employees also change their affiliations. Third, the quality of departmental Web sites varies. Some are not updated frequently, and some provide inadequate information.

Figure 1 Rates of Depositing by Four Disciplines in Seven IRs

December 2007 649

Table 1 Rates of Depositing by Four Disciplines in Seven IRs IR Institution

Chemistry

Physics

Economics

Sociology

0.080

0.020

0.019

0.013

Lund University

0.079

0.002

0.000

0.004

Glasgow University

0.022

0.290

0.004

0.015

University of Strathclyde

0.287

0.074

0.015

0.032

University of Melbourne

0.004

0.013

0.121

0.002

University of Southampton

University of Queensland

0.005

0.082

0.071

0.003

Queensland U of Technology

0.054

0.012

0.040

0.032

However, it is believed that information provided by departments on their Web site is adequate enough for the purpose of making comparisons across disciplines. By checking the Web sites of selected departments, it was found that most of them did deliver necessary information. This research relies only on current data of the departments and ignores changes of employment in the past that may not be reflected on the Web sites. The definition of faculty here includes core faculty, namely professors of all ranks, research fellows, and postdoctorates of a department that participate in research activities, although the latter are only temporary to the department. As long as the same criterion is used, cross-disciplinary comparisons are acceptable. All items categorized into the four disciplines in the seven IRs were manually checked to record such available information as depositor, depositing date, full-text availability, item type, and item format. The examination time was January 2007.

FINDINGS Disciplinary Culture Is Not Evident Apparently, the depositing rates vary dramatically from discipline to discipline. Fig. 1 and Table 1 display the differences among seven IRs that all retain items in the selected disciplines. In most institutions, chemists and sociologists have shown more enthusiasm for contributing to the repository databases than their physics and economics colleagues. In fact, only three repositories have more deposits in the subjects of physics and economics.

Because these rates were calculated from raw numbers of deposits in the IR databases, they may not represent the real situation of self-archiving with regard to disciplinary differences. For example, the reason that physics faculty in an institution deposited fewer items might be because the size of the department is small. So, how do we compare a department whose members consist of only 2 percent of the total faculty in an institution and whose deposits make up 6 percent of the total deposits in the IR to another department whose members consist of 6 percent of the total faculty number and whose deposits constitute only 2 percent of the total IR deposits? Table 2 shows the rates of faculty size by four disciplines in these institutions, which were obtained by dividing the actual number of faculty of a department by the number of total faculty in the institution. Except for a large physics department at Lund University, the four disciplines at other universities have a similar size. Simply dividing the rate of faculty size in Table 2 by the rate of deposit number in Table 1 for each discipline of an IR will yield a weighted rate of depositing (Table 3). Compared to the rates in Table 1, the condition of self-archiving across disciplines has changed. Now, only two IRs – the universities of Melbourne and of Queensland – seem to have successfully drawn the participation of faculty from the departments of physics and economics. Self-archiving in other IRs shows a reverse situation where chemists and sociologists have contributed more than physicists and economists. This finding does not favor the popular assumption that faculty in a field where the practice of self-archiving in subject-

Table 2 Comparison of Four Disciplines in Seven IRs on the Rates of Faculty Numbers IR Institution

Chemistry

Physics

Economics

Sociology

University of Southampton

0.047

0.037

0.025

0.012

Lund University

0.050

0.231

0.079

0.019

Glasgow University

0.022

n/a

0.030

0.014

University of Strathclyde

0.030

0.031

0.010

0.013

University of Melbourne

0.009

0.009

0.015

n/a

University of Queensland

0.009

0.009

0.020

0.003

Queensland U of Technology

0.006

0.010

0.012

0.005

The information of physics faculty at Glasgow and sociology faculty at Melbourne are not checkable online.

650 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Table 3 Weighted Rates of Depositing by Four Disciplines in Seven IRs IR Institution

Chemistry

Physics

Economics

Sociology

University of Southampton

1.702

0.540

0.760

1.083

Lund University

1.580

0.009

0.013

0.210

Glasgow University

1.000

n/a

0.133

1.071

University of Strathclyde

9.566

2.387

1.500

2.462

University of Melbourne

0.444

1.444

8.066

n/a

University of Queensland

0.556

9.111

3.555

1.000

Queensland U of Technology

9.000

1.200

3.333

6.400

The information of physics faculty at Glasgow and sociology faculty at Melbourne is not checkable online and relevant rates are absent.

based repositories has been in existence for a long time prefer to contribute to the IR of their institution. Both physics and economics have world-known subject repositories that have been used prevalently by scholars for the exchange of research ideas and results for many years. Upon comparison to other disciplines of the same institution, faculties in physics and economics are only active in two of the selected IRs. Their deposits in most other IRs are fewer than those of chemists and sociologists who did not have as much experience in selfarchiving as physicists and economists did. Chemistry faculty have more deposits in most IRs. However, before concluding it as a pattern, it is necessary to take another factor into consideration: faculty productivity. Because of the dissimilarity in knowledge structure across disciplines, research traditions have long perceived varied productivity by faculties in different fields. Scholarly publications per year as well as in total differ among departments. According to Neumann, the average publication of a faculty member is 3.19 articles per year in chemistry, 2.46 articles per year in physics, and 2.36 articles per year in sociology.39 Applying these figures to the rates in Table 3 will change the relationships of the depositing between disciplines slightly (Fig. 2, Table 4).

(Table 5). Of the total 129 items deposited by economists at Melbourne, only 2.3 percent were deposited by faculty authors themselves, while 97.7 percent of the items were deposited by others on behalf of the faculty. An administrative assistant in the department – Mrs. Rosemary Schiavello – deposited 53 percent of the total items in the repository since May 2006, and another administrative assistant – Mrs. Suzanne Collins – deposited another 15 percent since June 2006. Four other names in the IR are responsible for the rest of the deposits that were all done before December 2004. Although their names are not on the department's Web site, their titles – Ms. and Mrs. – may indicate their status as non-faculty.

Deposit Figures May Not Indicate Faculty Participation In order to understand why the departments of physics and economics at two universities have done a better job than other disciplines, let us take a closer look at their deposits in the IRs

On the other hand, physics at Melbourne has a different archiving condition, where about 90 percent of deposits were self-archived by authors. However, these items are all student theses and dissertations. The physics faculty contributed only

“Of the total 129 items deposited by economists at Melbourne, only 2.3 percent were deposited by faculty authors themselves, while 97.7 percent of the items were deposited by others on behalf of the faculty.”

Figure 2 Final Weighted Rates of Depositing by Disciplines in Seven IRs

December 2007 651

Table 4 Final Weighted Rates of Depositing by Disciplines in Seven IRs

Table 6 Rates of Depositorship in Economics at the University of Queensland's IR

Chemistry

Physics

Economics

Sociology

Southampton

0.534

0.220

0.322

0.459

Belinda Weaver

0.68

Lund

0.495

0.004

0.006

0.089

Non-Author Other

0.15

Author Self-archiving

0.17

Glasgow

0.313

n/a

0.056

0.454

Strathclyde

2.999

0.970

0.636

1.043

Melbourne

0.139

0.587

3.418

n/a

Queensland

0.174

3.704

1.506

0.424

QUT

2.821

0.488

1.412

2.712

The information of physics faculty at Glasgow and sociology faculty at Melbourne is not checkable online and relevant rates are absent.

two articles to the IR. Here, the total deposits are only nineteen and, therefore not large enough to reveal a pattern. Like economics at Melbourne, Queensland's economics has a total of 260 deposits, of which about 17 percent were selfarchived by the faculty and about 83 percent were deposited by other people (Table 6). Among all non-authors who worked on depositing, a librarian – Belinda Weaver – deposited about 68 percent of the items. Although this rate of self-archiving is a little higher than Melbourne, it is still considered very low. In this IR, physics has a similar situation. As a comparison, deposits in chemistry in these IRs were also examined. It is interesting to find that self-archiving rates are much higher than physics and economics: 100 percent selfarchived deposits at Queensland, and 76.2 percent self-archived deposits at Melbourne. Unfortunately, the total deposits for each of these departments, as well as sociology departments, are still too small to make a conclusion. Yet, it is worth observing that administrative staff or librarians have not worked in these departments to help faculty archive articles. Mandate Policy Is At Work The Queensland University of Technology is the only institution in the list that has implemented a mandate policy to regulate self-archiving (the IR of Southampton's Electronics and Computer Science has a mandate policy, but the university's IR does not have one). Studies found that QUT

Table 5 Rates of Depositorship in Economics at the University of Melbourne's IR Deposited By

Rate

Rosemary Schiavello

0.53

Suzanne Collins

0.15

Shirley Sullivan

0.12

Deposited By

has the most successful repository among all Australian institutions.40 The rates of deposits in its four disciplines are indeed the highest compared to other IRs examined (Table 4). After checking the actual deposits, it was discovered that liaisons have also been assigned to deposit articles. For example, a librarian – Paula Callan – has been active in the deposition.41 It was also found that self-archiving by faculty is a common practice, although liaisons have participated in the efforts. Table 7 displays the rates of deposits by authors vs. by others at QUT. All disciplines examined have a large number of deposits in the IR that makes the analysis reliable scientifically. The rates of self-archiving by authors are high in these three disciplines, of which chemists contributed as high as 68.3 percent of the deposits. Physicists and sociologists also contributed nearly half of the deposits in their categories. Almost all deposits archived by others were by the librarian mentioned above alone. The reason that QUT has been singled out in the IRs for their practice of self-archiving is possibly because of the existence of a mandate policy. Under such a regulation, faculty feel obligated to add their research results into their IR database. Most of the deposits are research articles, and all of them are full text.

DISCUSSIONS

AND

CONCLUSION

It is still too early to reverse the popularly assumed concept of disciplinary culture by stating that a pre-existing practice of selfarchiving will have discouraged the contribution of faculty in self-archiving to institutional repositories. However, the findings of this investigation do question the validity of the disciplinary culture theory. At least, the theory is not as obvious as scholars have thought. This analysis of depositing patterns among four disciplines – chemistry, economics, physics, and sociology – does not support the assumption that faculty with experience of self-archiving in a subject-based repository are more likely to contribute to an IR than those without. Of these disciplines, physicists and economists have such experience, and the other two groups do not. In these seven institutions,

Table 7 Comparison of Self-Archiving Practices in Three Disciplines at QUT

Eve Young

0.07

Department

Joan Poon

0.03

Jane M. Garner

0.04

Unknown

0.07

Author Self-archiving

0.023

652 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Rate

By Other

By Author

Total

Chemistry

31.7

68.3

142

Physics

57.1

42.9

42

Sociology

53.7

46.3

164

Economics does not have enough deposits for the comparison.

there is no apparent pattern to show which discipline has done much better than the others.

“This analysis of depositing patterns among four disciplines – chemistry, economics, physics, and sociology – does not support the assumption that faculty with experience of self-archiving in a subject-based repository are more likely to contribute to an IR than those without.”

Instead, the findings suggest that different operational styles of IRs will result in diverse depositing approaches in the IRs. For the disciplines checked, a liaison practice has played a key role for making content size of the IR large and making the IR more useful. For example, Queensland's economics department has consistently assigned one or two administrative staff at a time to deposit items on behalf of its faculty members since 2002. The dates of item deposition in economics show their continuous efforts in the input activities. The assistants have not only worked on archiving research outcomes of the faculty but have also deposited a great percentage of departmental technical reports (about 39 percent of the total economics deposits). With the involvement of liaisons, faculty have been freed from the input efforts. This is one of the strategies that university administrators and IR professionals have adopted for the advancement of repositories. In some institutions, after having spent much money on the implementation of a digital repository, pressure on making it large and useful has become intense. The IR professionals are looking for good ways of amplifying their IR content and increasing the reliability of faculty on them for research. However, it remains questionable if faculty will really rely on something that they did not contribute to and thus are not familiar with, and if a liaison system is an efficient way of promoting faculty participation when faculty is defined vaguely. In this investigation, students were found to be major contributors, particularly in the depositing of theses and dissertations. How to deal with the mobility of academic employees, including students and temporary fellows, will be an interesting topic in the future discussions of faculty participation in self-archiving. At the same time, the application of a mandate policy seems to have created a great impact on self-archiving practice across disciplines. The Queensland University of Technology has implemented such a policy to regulate their IR input. Its economists have enthusiastically responded to the institutional requirements and its chemists and sociologists have also contributed a great percentage of the deposits, although librarian liaisons have been assigned to assist in self-archiving. The same conclusion was made by Sale in his studies among Australian institutional repositories42 and verified by positive responses of faculty in interviews.43 It is time for IR professionals to emphasize this importance and bring it to the attention of administrators at the levels of library, department, and university. Institutional repositories need a mandate policy to ensure success.

As stated in the Method section, this research has some restrictions. It only examined EPrints repositories in Australia and several European countries and was limited to four disciplines only. As a preliminary study, its goal is to bring new approaches to the assessment of self-archiving. Future projects in the same direction may need to expand their research samples and cover other repository applications. Future projects may also need to combine the analysis of self-archiving patterns to the evaluation of repository uses to get a whole picture of the function of IRs.

NOTES

AND

REFERENCES

1. Nancy Fried Foster and Susan Gibbons, “Understanding Faculty to Improve Content Recruitment for Institutional Repositories,” D-Lib Magazine 11, no. 1 (January 2005). Available http://www. dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.html (accessed November 22, 2006); C. Judson King, Diane Harley, Sarah Earl-Novell, Jennifer Arter, Shannon Lawrence and Irene Perciali, Scholarly Communication: Academic Values and Sustainable Models (Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies in Higher Education, July 2006). Available http://cshe. berkeley.edu/publications/docs/scholarlycomm_report.pdf (accessed November 22, 2006); Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown, Open Access Self-archiving: An Author Report (Cornwall, UK, May 2005). Available http:// eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10999 (accessed November 22, 2006). 2. Steve Probets and Celia Jenkins, “Documentation for Institutional Repositories,” Learned Publishing 19, no. 1 (January 2006): 58. 3. Suzie Allard, Thura R. Mack and Melanie Feltner-Reichert, “The Librarian's Role in Institutional Repositories: A Content Analysis of the Literature,” Reference Services Review 33, no. 3 (2005): 327; Swan and Brown, Open Access Self-archiving: An Author Report; Stephen Pinfield, “Self-archiving Publications,” in International Yearbook of Library and Information Management 2004–2005: Scholarly Publishing in an Electronic Era, edited by G.E. Gorman and Fytton Rowland (London: Facet Publishing, 2004), pp. 118–45. 4. Foster and Gibbons, “Understanding Faculty to Improve Content Recruitment for Institutional Repositories;” Morag Mackie, “Filling Institutional Repositories: Practical Strategies from the DAEDALUS Project,” Ariadne 39 (April 2004). Available http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue39/mackie/ (access November 22, 2006). 5. Leslie Carr and Stevan Harnad, “Keystroke Economy: A Study of the Time and Effort Involved in Self-archiving,” (March 2005). Available http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10688 (accessed November 22, 2006). 6. Elizabeth Gadd, Charles Oppenheim and Steve Probets, “RoMEO Studies 1: The Impact of Copyright Ownership on Academic Author Self-Archiving,” Journal of Documentation 50, no. 3 (2003): 243–77; Elizabeth Gadd, Charles Oppenheim and Steve Probets, “RoMEO Studies 4: An Analysis of Journal Publishers' Copyright Agreements,” Learned Publishing 16, no. 4 (October 2003): 293–308. 7. King, Harley, Earl-Novell, Arter, Lawrence and Perciali, Scholarly Communication: Academic Values and Sustainable Models. 8. Kristin Antelman, “Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact?,” College & Research Libraries 65, no. 5 (September 2004): 372–82; Steven Lawrence, “Online or Invisible?,” Nature 411, no. 6837 (December 2003): 521. 9. Theo Andrew, “Trends in Self-Posting of Research Material Online by Academic Staff,” Ariadne 37 (October 2003). Available http:// www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue37/andrew/ (accessed November 22, 2006); Pinfield, bSelf-archiving Publications,Q p. 13.

December 2007 653

10. Bill Hubbard, “SHERPA and Institutional Repositories,” Serials 16, no. 3 (November 2003): 243–47; Barbara Jenkins, Elizabeth Breakstone and Carol Hixson, “Content In, Content Out: The Dual Roles of Reference Librarian in Institutional Repositories,” Reference Services Review 33, no. 3 (2005): 316; M. Kathleen Shearer, “Institutional Repositories: Towards the Identification of Critical Success Factors,” Canadian Journal of Information & Library Sciences 27, no. 3 (September 2002/2003): 89–108. 11. Clifford D. Lynch, bInstitutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for Scholarship in the Digital Age,Q Portal: Libraries and the Academy 3, no. 2 (April 2003): 327–36. 12. Mary A. Kennon and Concepcion S. Wilson, bInstitutional Repositories: Review and an Information Systems Perspective,Q Library Management 27, 4/5 (2006): 236–48. 13. Kristin Antelman, bSelf-archiving Practice and the Influence of Publisher Policies in the Social Sciences,Q Learned Publishing 19, no. 2 (April 2006); Tony Becher, Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines (Milton Keynes: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, 1989); Richard Whitley, The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Second Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 14. Jenkins, Breakstone and Hixson, “Content In, Content Out: The Dual Roles of Reference Librarian in Institutional Repositories,” p. 316. 15. Lynch, “Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for Scholarship in the Digital Age,” p. 332. 16. Andrew, “Trends in Self-Posting of Research Material Online by Academic Staff.” 17. King, Harley, Earl-Novell, Arter, Lawrence and Perciali, Scholarly Communication: Academic Values and Sustainable Models. 18. Carr and Harnad, “Keystroke Economy: A Study of the Time and Effort Involved in Self-archiving;” Foster and Gibbons, “Understanding Faculty to Improve Content Recruitment for Institutional Repositories;” Jessica Hey, “Targeting Academic Research with Southampton's Institutional Repository,” Ariadne 40 (July 2004). Available http:// www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue40/hey/ (accessed November 22, 2006); Yvonne H. Ozek, “Lund Virtual Medical Journal Makes Selfarchiving Attractive and Easy for Authors,” D-Lib Magazine 11, no. 10 (October 2005). Available http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october05/ ozek/10ozek.html (accessed November 22, 2006). 19. Arthur Sale, bComparison of Content Policies for Institutional Repositories in Australia,Q First Monday 11 (April 2006): Available http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_4/sale/index.html (accessed November 22, 2006); Arthur Sale, bResearchers and Institutional Repositories,Q in Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects, ed. Neil Jacobs (Oxford: Chandos Publishing Limited, 2006), pp. 87–100. 20. Mackie, “Filling Institutional Repositories: Practical Strategies from the DAEDALUS Project;” Sale, “Comparison of Content Policies for Institutional Repositories in Australia.”

654 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

21. Arthur Sale, “The Acquisition of Open Access Research Articles,” (August 2006). Available http://eprints.comp.utas.edu.au:81/ archive/00000375/01/Acquisition.pdf (accessed November 22, 2006). 22. Rea Devakos, bTowards User Responsive Institutional Repositories: A Case Study,Q Library Hi Tech 24, no. 2 (2006): 173–82; Leslie Chan, bSupporting and Enhancing Scholarship in the Digital Age: The Role of Open Access Institutional Repositories,Q Canadian Journal of Communication 29 (2004): 277–300. 23. Allard, Mack and Feltner-Reichert, “The Librarian's Role in Institutional Repositories: A Content Analysis of the Literature.” 24. Swan and Brown, Open Access Self-archiving: An Author Report; Karla Hahn, “Seeking a Global Perspective on Scholarly Communication: Contributions from the UK,” ARL Bimonthly Report 241 (August 2005). 25. Foster and Gibbons, “Understanding Faculty to Improve Content Recruitment for Institutional Repositories.” 26. Jingfeng Xia & Li Sun, bFactors to Assess Self-archiving in Institutional Repository,Q Serials Review 33, 2 (June 2007) 73–80. 27. Jingfeng Xia and Li Sun, bAssessment of Self-archiving in Institutional Repositories: Depositorship and Full-Text Availability,Q Serials Review 33, 1 (March 2007) 14–21. 28. Paul Ginsparg, bWinners and Losers in the Global Research Village,Q The Serials Librarian 30, no. 3/4 (1997): 83–95. 29. arXiv. Available http://arxiv.org (accessed January 11, 2007). 30. RePec. Available http://repec.org/ (accessed January 11, 2007). 31. QUT ePrints. Available http://eprints.qut.edu.au/ (accessed January 11, 2007). 32. University of Melbourne ePrints Repository. Available http:// eprints.unimelb.edu.au/ (accessed January 11, 2007). 33. ePrintsUQ. Available http://eprint.uq.edu.au/ (accessed January 11, 2007). 34. LU:research. Available http://ask.lub.lu.se/ (accessed January 11, 2007). 35. Glasgow ePrints Server. Available http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/ (accessed January 11, 2007). 36. e-Prints Soton. Available http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/ (accessed January 11, 2007). 37. Strathprints. Available http://eprints.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/ (accessed January 11, 2007). 38. Sale Arthur, “The Acquisition of Open Access Research Articles,” First Monday 11 no. 10. 39. Yoram Neumann, bStandards of Research Publication: Difference between the Physical Sciences and the Social Sciences,Q Research in Higher Education 7, no. 4 (December 1977): 355–67. 40. Sale, “The Acquisition of Open Access Research Articles.” 41. Xia and Sun, “Assessment of Self-archiving in Institutional Repositories: Depositorship and Full-Text Availability.” 42. Sale, “Comparison of Content Policies for Institutional Repositories in Australia;” Sale, “The Acquisition of Open Access Research Articles.” 43. Mackie, “Filling Institutional Repositories: Practical Strategies from the DAEDALUS Project.”