ARL Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit

From: Charles W. Bailey, Jr. <cbailey_at_UH.EDU>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:58:29 -0500

The Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit is now available [1] from the
Association of Research Libraries (ARL [2]). This document presents the
results of a thirty-eight-question survey of 87 responding ARL members
in early 2006 about their institutional repositories practices and
plans. The survey response rate was 71% (87 out of 123 ARL members). The
front matter and nine-page Executive Summary [3] are freely available.
The document also presents detailed question-by-question results, a list
of respondent institutions, representative documents from institutions,
and a bibliography. It is 176 pages long.

Here is the bibliographic information: University of Houston Libraries
Institutional Repository Task Force. Institutional Repositories. SPEC
Kit 292. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 2006. ISBN:

The members of the University of Houston Libraries [4] Institutional
Repository Task Force who authored the document were Charles W. Bailey,
Jr.; Karen Coombs; Jill Emery (now at UT Austin); Anne Mitchell; Chris
Morris; Spencer Simons; and Robert Wright.

The creation of a SPEC Kit [5] is a highly collaborative process. SPEC
Kit Editor Lee Anne George and other ARL staff worked with the authors
to refine the survey questions, mounted the Web survey, analyzed the
data in SPSS, created a preliminary summary of survey question
responses, and edited and formatted the final document. Given the amount
of data that the survey generated, this was no small task. The authors
would like to thank the ARL team for their hard work on the SPEC Kit.

Although the Executive Summary is much longer than the typical one (over
5,100 words vs. about 1,500 words), it should not be mistaken for a
highly analytic research article. Its goal was to try to describe the
survey's main findings, which was quite challenging given the amount of
survey data available. The full data is available in the "Survey
Questions and Responses" section of the SPEC Kit.

Here are some quick survey results:

     - Thirty-seven ARL institutions (43% of respondents) had an
     operational IR (we called these respondents implementers), 31 (35%)
     were planning one by 2007, and 19 (22%) had no IR plans.
     - Looked at from the perspective of all 123 ARL members, 30%
     had an operational IR and, by 2007, that figure may reach 55%.
     - The mean cost of IR implementation was $182,550.
     - The mean annual IR operation cost was $113,543.
     - Most implementers did not have a dedicated budget for either
     start-up costs (56%) or ongoing operations (52%).
     - The vast majority of implementers identified first-level IR
     support units that had a library reporting line vs. one that had a
     campus IT or other campus unit reporting line.
     - DSpace [6] was by far the most commonly used system: 20
     implementers used it exclusively and 3 used it in combination with
     other systems.
     - Proquest DigitalCommons [7] (or the Bepress software it is
     based on) was the second choice of implementers: 7 implementers used
     this system.
     - While 28% of implementers have made no IR software
     modifications to enhance its functionality, 22% have made frequent
     changes to do so and 17% have made major modifications to the
     - Only 41% of implementers had no review of deposited
     documents. While review by designated departmental or unit officials
     was the most common method (35%), IR staff reviewed documents 21% of
     the time.
     - In a check all that apply question, 60% of implementers said
     that IR staff entered simple metadata for authorized users and 57%
     said that they enhanced such data. Thirty-one percent said that they
     cataloged IR materials completely using local standards.
     - In another check all that apply question, implementers
     clearly indicated that IR and library staff use a variety of
     strategies to recruit content: 83% made presentations to faculty and
     others, 78% identified and encouraged likely depositors, 78% had
     library subject specialists act as advocates, 64% offered to deposit
     materials for authors, and 50% offered to digitize materials and
     deposit them.
     - The most common digital preservation arrangement for
     implementers (47%) was to accept any file type, but only preserve
     specified file types using data migration and other techniques. The
     next most common arrangement (26%) was to accept and preserve any
     file type.
     - The mean number of digital objects in implementers' IRs was


Best Regards,
Charles W. Bailey, Jr., Assistant Dean for Digital Library
Planning and Development, University of Houston Libraries
(Provides access to DigitalKoans, Open Access Bibliography,
Open Access Webliography, Scholarly Electronic Publishing
Bibliography, Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog,
and other publications.)
Received on Mon Aug 21 2006 - 18:31:15 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:28 GMT