Search results

The purpose of this study was to understand the landscape of Indian research data repositories (RDRs) indexed in the re3data.org. The study analysed the metadata elements of Indian RDRs to identify their disciplinary orientations, typology, standards adopted, foreign collaborations, etc. The study ascertained the current status of the Indian RDRs by visiting their respective websites and tried to identify and map the exact disciplinary orientation of each RDR.

The study used “content analysis” of the metadata elements extracted from re3data.org along with the information analysis of the respective websites of the registered RDRs.

The study identified that only 80% of the Indian RDRs listed by the re3data.org is currently active. Most of the Indian RDRs are hosted by the central and state governments and are almost equally distributed among Life Sciences, Natural Sciences and Social Sciences domains. The data provided by the re3data.org for the Indian RDRs are not complete and up-to-date.

The findings indicate the presence of a good number of inactive RDRs in the re3data.org. The study suggests using a revised version of the DFG subject classification scheme or considering a standard classification scheme for subject indexing.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first of its kind that critically analysed the metadata values extracted and moved further to identify the current status of Indian RDRs.

RDR has become an essential academic infrastructure in an atmosphere that facilitates the openness of research output granted by public research funds. This study aims to understand operational status of 152 Asian data repositories on re3data and cluster repositories into four groups according to their operational status. In addition, identify the main subject areas of RDRs in Asian countries and try to understand what topic correlations exist between data archived in Asian countries.

This study extracts metadata from re3data and analyzes it in various ways to grasp the current status of research data repositories in Asian countries. The author clusters the repositories into four groups using hierarchical cluster analysis according to the level of operation. In addition, for identifying the main subject areas of RDRs in Asian countries, extracted the keywords of the subject field assigned to the each repository, and Pathfinder Network (PFNET) analysis is performed.

About 70 per cent of the Asian-country repositories are those where licenses or policies are declared but not granted permanent identifiers and international-level certification. As a result of the subject domain analysis, eight clusters are formed centering on life sciences and natural sciences.

The research output in developing countries, especially non-English-speaking countries, tends not to be smoothly circulated in the international community due to the immaturity of the open-access culture, as well as linguistic and technical problems. This study has value, in that it investigates the status of Asian countries’ research data management and global distribution infrastructure in global open-science trends.

As the humanities develop in the realm of increasingly more pronounced digital scholarship, it is important to provide quality subject access to a vast range of heterogeneous information objects in digital services. The study aims to paint a representative picture of the current state of affairs of the use of subject index terms in humanities journal articles with particular reference to the well-established subject access needs of humanities researchers, with the purpose of identifying which improvements are needed in this context.

The comparison of subject metadata on a sample of 649 peer-reviewed journal articles from across the humanities is conducted in a university repository, against Scopus, the former reflecting local and national policies and the latter being the most comprehensive international abstract and citation database of research output.

The study shows that established bibliographic objectives to ensure subject access for humanities journal articles are not supported in either the world's largest commercial abstract and citation database Scopus or the local repository of a public university in Sweden. The indexing policies in the two services do not seem to address the needs of humanities scholars for highly granular subject index terms with appropriate facets; no controlled vocabularies for any humanities discipline are used whatsoever.

In all, not much has changed since 1990s when indexing for the humanities was shown to lag behind the sciences. The community of researchers and information professionals, today working together on digital humanities projects, as well as interdisciplinary research teams, should demand that their subject access needs be fulfilled, especially in commercial services like Scopus and discovery services.

Open-access repositories (OARs) are essential for openly disseminating intellectual knowledge on the internet and providing free access to it. The current study aims to evaluate the growth and development of OARs in the field of technology by investigating several characteristics such as coverage, OA policies, software type, content type, yearly growth, repository type and geographic contribution.

The directory of OARs acts as the source for data harvesting, which provides a quality-assured list of OARs across the globe.

The study found that 125 nations contributed a total of 4,045 repositories in the field of research, with the USA leading the list with the most repositories. Maximum repositories were operated by institutions having multidisciplinary approaches. The DSpace and Eprints were the preferred software types for repositories. The preferred upload content by contributors was “research articles” and “electronic thesis and dissertations”.

The study is limited to the subject area technology as listed in OpenDOAR; therefore, the results may differ in other subject areas.

The work can benefit researchers across disciplines and, interested researchers can take this study as a base for evaluating online repositories. Moreover, policymakers and repository managers could also get benefitted from this study.

The study is the first of its kind, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to investigate the repositories of subject technology in the open-access platform.

The purpose of this paper is to collect the global status data of digital repositories automatically and analyzed it by building a database. For analysis criteria the following were utilized: first, China, Japan and Republic of Korea (CJK) repository operational status; second, language of the repository content; third, repository type, fourth, repository of CJK by subject area; fifth, the amount of repository content; and sixth, repository software.

OpenDOAR and ROAR services were used as the sources to obtain the information on the digital repository. Those sources are representative services that provide the digital repository registration services and are used as sources in a variety of studies. A six kinds of data analysis criteria: first, CJK repository operational status; second, language of the repository content; third, repository type; fourth, repository of CJK by subject area; fifth, the amount of repository content; and sixth, repository software were utilized.

First, CJK is operating 288 repositories (8 percent compared to the world, 42.2 percent compared to Asia). Second, the repositories that provide Japanese, Chinese and Korean contents are 5.57 percent, 4.14 percent and 0.72 percent, respectively. Third, the repository operated by the government is inadequate in Asia. Fourth, in Korea and Japan, the repositories in the field of humanities and social sciences appeared all in the top 10. Fifth, Korea provides 1,342,845 cases of contents (0.81 percent compared to the global). Sixth, the “DSpace” software is most widely utilized as a repository system and it is the same in CJK.

This results of this study can be used to identify the repository status in Korea compared to global and to CJK, and can be utilized as a basis to determine the direction of the repository promotion and policy in Korea and also to administer the national R&D budget.

This paper aims to report on the findings of the second phase of the Behavioural strand of the EC‐funded PEER project (http://www.peerproject.eu/). The paper seeks to explore authors' and readers' behaviours in relation to authors' peer‐reviewed accepted manuscripts in open access repositories.

The research was undertaken using a mixed‐method approach, involving the distribution of a survey by the 12 participating publishers to their authors in selected journal titles and a participatory workshop with European researchers from selected disciplinary areas.

Researchers' attitudes towards versions of published journal articles made open access via open access repositories may vary depending on whether researchers report behaviours from the perspective of an author or a reader. The research found that disciplinary cultures, norms and traditions shape authors' self‐archiving behaviour and readers' use of those versions of journal articles held in repositories.

One of the limitations of the research is that it was impossible for the research team to gauge the representativeness of the survey compared to the actual disciplinary distribution of the population of EU researchers, as such population information is not available in an aggregated and consistent format.

The PEER Observatory is an unprecedented large‐scale collaboration between publishers, researchers and repositories to investigate the effects of self‐archiving at European level. The paper provides a disciplinary reading of the findings and augments the understanding of how disciplinary culture and norms shape authors' and readers' behaviours in relation to self‐archiving.

In the present era, research data is a concern for researchers, as they are trying to find new ways to communicate their research findings and conclusions to other researchers in order to increase visibility and credibility. BRICS nations are fast emerging economies and contribute significantly in research output. This study makes an effort to analyze and explore the role of BRICS nations towards open access research data repository registered with Registry of Research Data Repositories.

The data were gathered from re3data repository, and the search was limited to BRICS nations. The data were further analyzed and tabulated as per set parameters, namely, country-wise distribution, types of contents, subject coverage and language diversity.

The findings depict that in terms of strength, India has the highest number of data repositories, thereby achieved the first rank among BRICS nations, and South Africa has the least number of data repositories, whereas in terms of content type and subject coverage, India again is leading among BRICS nations. The English language is used by repositories as the main language of the interface.

The study helps to understand the development of research data repositories by BRICS nations. The study is further beneficial to researchers, as Registry of Research Data Repository provides a single platform to access repositories from various disciplines. Readily available data saves time, money and efforts of researchers and helps the researcher in completing their research activity in a very short span of time.

The paper has investigated open access data repositories of BRICS nation that has not been attempted earlier. This gives readers comprehensive overview of research data repositories developed in fast emerging economies of the global. The paper can be very helpful for information managers, OA promoters and education and research policy makers to devise plans and policy bearing in mind the evolving research channels in emerging economies.

By describing some of the often‐ignored aspects of repository advocacy, such as disciplinary differences and how these might affect the adoption of a particular institutional repository, this paper aims to offer practical guidance to repository managers and those responsible for open access and repository policy.

The argument uses examples from an empirical study of 43 in‐depth interviews of academic staff in three disciplines, Chemistry, Computer Science and Sociology, at two Australian universities. The interviewees discussed their interaction with the literature as an author, a reader and a reviewer.

The study finds that disciplines are markedly different from one another, in terms of their subject matter, the speed of publication, information‐seeking behaviour and social norms. These all have bearing on the likelihood a given group will adopt deposit into an institutional repository as part of their regular work practice.

It is important to decide the purpose of the institutional repository before embarking on an advocacy program. By mapping empirical findings against both diffusion of innovations theory and writings on disciplinary differences, this paper shows that repository advocacy addressing the university academic population as a single unit is unlikely to be successful. Rather, advocacy and implementation of a repository must consider the information seeking behaviour and social norms of each discipline in question.

The consideration of disciplinary differences in relation to repository advocacy has only begun to be explored in the literature.

The present study aims to investigate the experience, contribution and opinions of users of respective institutional repositories (IRs) developed in India.

The survey method was used. The data collection tool was a web questionnaire, which was created with the help of software provided by surveymonkey.com

It was observed that 85.94 percent of respondents (154) were aware of the IR facility/service and 14.05 percent (26) were not aware of IR. More than half of the respondents, i.e. 52.43 percent (97), learned about the IR service through links provided on institutions' websites. About 36.21 percent of the respondents had not contributed to any type of repository, while 25.94 percent of respondents had contributed to their IR. A higher percentage (16.76 percent) of respondents felt it was an “easy and fast way to communicate research results”. The majority of the respondents, i.e. 113 (61.08 percent), were willing to deposit symposium/conference/seminar papers. The most important reason for contribution was found to be preservation of documents for the future. Peer review was very much acceptable as a quality control mechanism. More than half of the respondents (57.84 percent) wanted to provide open access without any barrier for their ideal repository.

Only users of the respective Indian institutional repositories are studied, and the findings are compared with other studies.

This is the first detailed study focusing on the users and their experience of institutional repositories.

This study investigated the development of institutional repositories (IRs) at doctoral institutions, identifying factors that influence development and best practices using a comparative case study analysis approach to gather and analyze data. The development of a repository is one of the more complex projects that librarians may undertake. While many librarians have managed large information system projects, IR projects involve a larger stakeholder group and require support from technical services, public services, and administration to succeed. A significant increase in the development of repositories is expected with technology and process improvements for digital collection development so further study is warranted. Both institutional and subject repositories were examined for the case studies. Best practices and recommendations for future developers, such as early involvement of stakeholder groups and the need to educate both librarians and teaching faculty about open access collections, are also discussed. This study contributes to a more informed understanding of the development of IRs and identifies a model framework for future IR developers. The best practices framework incorporates the processes from the case study sites and includes additional factors identified from the case study interviews. Key to the framework is the inclusion of stakeholder groups on campus and assessment measures. While the case studies focused on doctoral institutions, the framework can be adapted to any size institution.