Re: ARL Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit

From: Charles W. Bailey, Jr. <cbailey_at_UH.EDU>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:02:02 -0500

Stevan:

(1) Question 26 asked:

"Is there any pressure on authors to submit content to the IR?"

For respondents that had an operational IR (N=36), the result
was:

No pressure on authors to submit content: 18, 50%

They are encouraged to do so: 16, 44%

They are not required to do so, but this is being actively
considered: 1, 3%

They are required to do so: 1, 3%

Asked to explain the requirement, the one respondent said:

"Students must submit theses or dissertations."

(2) One section of question 9 yielded a wide range of
start-up costs ($8,000-$1.8 million) and operational
costs ($8,600-$500,000) for respondents that had
operational IRs.

Cost breakdowns revealed that staffing and benefits
were the largest cost factor.

One section of question 9 asked:

"Please estimate the percentage of the budget allocated to each
of the following categories."

For respondents that had an operational IR, the mean results
for start-up costs were:

Staffing and benefits: 63.3%
Hardware acquisition: 25.6%
Software acquisition: 23.0%
Hardware maintenance: 9.2%
Software maintenance: 6.0%
Vendor fees (if IR is hosted
by an external vendor): 70.2

For respondents that had an operational IR, the mean results
for ongoing operation costs were:

Staffing and benefits: 68.3%
Hardware acquisition: 23.3%
Software acquisition: 14.5%
Hardware maintenance: 10.3%
Software maintenance: 11.5%
Vendor fees (if IR is hosted
by an external vendor): 73.8%

(3) Respondents were not asked why they picked
a particular IR software package. Aside from
DSpace and DigitalCommons, the other software
packages being used by respondents with
operational IRs were CONTENTdm (used either
in conjunction with DSpace or alone) or
ETD-db and Open Conference Systems (used with
DSpace by one respondent). It is unknown
why EPrints is not being used.

While the survey attempted to be as comprehensive as
possible, its length had to be restricted. As it was,
it was certainly one of the longest (if not the longest)
survey of this type that ARL has ever done.

Stevan Harnad wrote:
> Charles,
>
> Many thanks for your helpful replies to the three questions (though
> in fact those weren't actually the three questions I had in mind!).
>
> I was in fact wondering about the following three questions (though I
> am not implying that you are the one who ought to know or provide
> the answers!):
>
> (1) Why, among all the means mentioned for recruiting content, ARL
> did not mention the most powerful and successful of them all
> (institution/funder mandates)?
>
> http://eprints.utas.edu.au/375/
>
> (2) Why were the average costs for start-up and annual maintenance
> for ARL archives ($182,550; $113,543) so high?
>
> Cf:
> http://library.uncw.edu/web/faculty/kempr/documents/listserv-summary-IR-open-source-costs.xls
> http://www.arl.org/sparc/pubs/enews/aug01.html#6
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4443.html
>
> (3) Why does the distribution of softwares used to create ARL IRs in particular
> seem to be so skewed, compared to the US and worldwide distribution:
>
> dspace/bepress/eprints
>
> ARL IRs: 23d/7b/0e
> US total IRs: 36d/40b/33e
> World IRs: 111d/47b/123e
>
> Source: ROAR http://archives.eprints.org/
>
> Best wishes, Stevan
>
> Stevan Harnad
> American Scientist Open Access Forum
> http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Charles W. Bailey, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Stevan:
>> Thanks for your comments.
>>
>> What is ARL?
>> "ARL is a nonprofit organization of 123 research libraries
>> at comprehensive, research-extensive institutions in the US
>> and Canada that share similar research missions,
>> aspirations, and achievements. It is an important and
>> distinctive association because of its membership and the
>> nature of the institutions represented. ARL member libraries
>> make up a large portion of the academic and research library
>> marketplace, spending more than one billion dollars every
>> year on library materials."
>> http://www.arl.org/arl/arlfacts.html
>>
>> What libraries are in ARL?
>> http://www.arl.org/members.html
>> The survey was restricted to ARL members, 71% of whom responded.
>>
>> How was an IR defined in the survey?
>> "For the purposes of this survey an IR is simply defined as a
>> permanent, institution-wide repository of diverse locally
>> produced digital works (e.g., article preprints and
>> postprints, data sets, electronic theses and dissertations,
>> learning objects, technical reports, etc.) that is available
>> for public use and supports metadata harvesting. If an
>> institution shares an IR with other institutions, it is
>> within the scope of this survey. Not included in this
>> definition are scholars' personal Web sites; academic
>> department, school, or other unit digital archives that are
>> primarily intended to store digital materials 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)."
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Charles
>>
>> Charles W. Bailey, Jr., Assistant Dean for Digital Library
>> Planning and Development, University of Houston Libraries
>> E-Mail: cbailey_at_digital-scholarship.com
>> Publications: http://www.digital-scholarship.com/
>> (Provides access to DigitalKoans, Open Access Bibliography,
>> Open Access Webliography, Scholarly Electronic Publishing
>> Bibliography, Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog,
>> and other publications.)
>
>
>> Stevan Harnad wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Charles W. Bailey, Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.arl.org/pubscat/pr/2006/spec292.html
>>>> [3] http://www.arl.org/spec/SPEC292web.pdf
>>>> - 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.
>>> I don't know who is and who isn't in ARL, but according to ROAR, there
>>> are at least 200 OAI-compliant archives in the US:
>>>
>>> Institutional/Departmental: 115
>>> Theses: 18
>>> Central: 11
>>>
>>> http://archives.eprints.org/
>>>
>>>> - The mean cost of IR implementation was $182,550.
>>>> - The mean annual IR operation cost was $113,543.
>>> That would be a figure worth breaking down by software used
>>>
>>> http://archives.eprints.org/?action=browse#version
>>>
>>> A calculation by IR policy and content, with a quick calculation
>>> of the cost per paper (full text!) might be revealing too.
>>>
>>>> - 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.
>>> The ROAR figures for total US archives are (again, with no index of what
>>> is and is not an ARL IR):
>>>
>>> DSpace: 55
>>> EPrints: 52
>>> Bepress: 44
>>>
>>> The corresponding figures worldwide are:
>>>
>>> EPrints: 210
>>> DSpace: 167
>>> Bepress: 53
>>>
>>>> - 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.
>>> It would be interesting to see the correlation between whether an
>>> IR had a review-bottleneck in depositing and the number of
>>> full-text deposits (eliminating proxy deposits).
>>>
>>> (Prediction: The unbottlenecked IRs will be much fuller.)
>>>
>>>> - 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
>>>> catalogued IR materials completely using local standards.
>>> Obviously library proxy depositing has to be analyzed separately from direct
>>> deposits by authors (or their assigns).
>>>
>>>> - 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.
>>> No US university yet has a self-archiving mandate. They ought to try
>>> that: They might find it trumps all other factors (as Arthur Sale's
>>> analyses have been showing):
>>>
>>> http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php
>>>
>>>> - The mean number of digital objects in implementers' IRs was
>>>> 3,844.
>>> What percentage of those were full texts of OA target content
>>> (peer-reviewed research)?
>>>
>>> Stevan Harnad
>> --
>

--
Best Regards,
Charles
Charles W. Bailey, Jr., Assistant Dean for Digital Library
Planning and Development, University of Houston Libraries
E-Mail: cbailey_at_digital-scholarship.com
Publications: http://www.digital-scholarship.com/
(Provides access to DigitalKoans, Open Access Bibliography,
Open Access Webliography, Scholarly Electronic Publishing
Bibliography, Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog,
and other publications.)
Received on Wed Aug 23 2006 - 19:13:05 BST

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