I have some doubts that the juxtaposition of institutional versus
central repository is helpful (any longer) - that is why the
proposition is to henceforth distinguish between four ideal types of
repositories on an abstract level, so as to be able to examine each
specific repository in more detail. For example PMC was a
subject-based repository, but it languished before it became a
research repository (capturing publication outputs) due to a national
mandate, which is compatible with also having a UK PMC and PMC
Canada. The point here is to examine (here: for the life sciences)
past and (possible) future repository development and help
stakeholders make informed decisions. Another example: the Durch
system looks like a network of institutional repositories, but is now
part of a national gateway (NARCIS). Moreover, the major institutions
in the network are research universities. Thus the question arises,
if Dutch repository development could be improved if stakeholders
used the notion of research repository and national repüository
system to consider their options (rather than thinking that the
institutions must do the job).
For the purpose of futher discussion I quote from the working paper
(at some length):
In two decades of immersion in digital worlds, we have witnessed the
development of various repository solutions and accumulated a better
understanding of what works and what doesn’t. The main
repository solutions may be distinguished as follows:
- Subject-based repositories (commercial and non-commercial, single
and federated) usually have been set up by community members and are
adopted by the wider community. Spontaneous self-archiving is
prevalent as the repository is of intrinsic value to scholars. Much
of the intrinsic value for authors comes from the opportunity to
communicate ideas and results early in the form of working papers and
preprints, from which a variety of benefits may result, such as being
able to claim priority, testing the value of an idea or result,
improving a publication prior to submission, gaining recognition and
attention internationally and so on. As such, subject-based
repositories are thematically well defined, and alert services and
usage statistics are meaningful for community users;
- Research repositories are usually sponsored by research funding or
performing organisations to capture results. This capturing typically
requires a deposit mandate. Publications are results, including
books, but data may also be considered a result worth capturing,
leading to a collection with a variety of items. Because these items
constitute a record of science, standards for deposit and
preservation must be stringent. The sponsor of the repository is
likely to tie reporting functions to the deposit mandate, this being,
for example, the reporting of grantees to the funder or the
presentation of research results in an annual report. Research
repositories are likely to contain high-quality output. This is
because its content is peer-reviewed multiple times (e.g. grant
application, journal submission, research evaluation) and the
production of the results is well funded. Users who are
collaborators, competitors or instigating a new research project are
most likely to find the collections of relevance;
- National repository systems require coordination - more for a
federated system, less for a unified system. National systems are
designed to capture scholarly output more generally and not just with
a view to preserving a record of scholarship, but also to support,
for example, teaching and learning in higher education. Indeed, only
a national purpose will justify the national investment. Such systems
are likely to display scholarly outputs in the national language,
highlight the publications of prominent scholars and develop a system
for recording dissertations. One could conceive of such a national
system as part of a national research library that serves scholarly
communication in the national language, is an international showcase
of national output and supports public policy, e.g. higher education
and public access to knowledge;
- Institutional repositories contain the various outputs of the
institution. While research results are important among these
outputs, so are works of qualification or teaching and learning
materials. If the repository captures the whole output, it is both a
library and a showcase. It is a library holding a collection, and it
is a showcase because the online open access display and availability
of the collection may serve to impress and connect, for example, with
alumni of the institution or the colleagues of researchers. A
repository may also be an instrument of the institution by
supporting, for example, internal and external assessment as well as
strategic planning. Moreover, an institutional repository could have
an important function in regional development. It allows firms,
public bodies and civil society organisations to immediately
understand what kind of expertise is available locally.
These four ideal types have been derived partly from the history of
repositories, partly through logical reasoning. This includes an
appreciation of the relevant literature on scholarly communication,
open access and repositories, though the following is not a
literature review but an argument that moves back and forth between
abstract ideal types and specific cases. Ideal types should not be
misunderstood as a classification, in which each and every repository
may be identified as belonging unambiguously to a category. Rather,
the purpose of creating ideal types is to aid our understanding of
repositories and provide a tool for analysing repository development.
Some publication repositories may be identified easily as resembling
very much one ideal type rather than another. Some of the classic
repositories conventionally identified as subject-based, such as
arXiv and RePEc, exhibit few features of another type. Yet, one of
the more interesting questions to ask is in how far other elements
are present and what this means. ArXiv, for example, is also a
research repository, with institutions sponsoring research in
high-energy physics being important to its development and success.
RePEc, by comparison, has a strong institutional component because
the repository is a federated system that relies on input and service
from a variety of departments and institutes.
To continue with another example, PubMed Central (PMC), at first
glance, is a subject-based repository. Acquisition of content,
however, only took off once it was declared a research repository
capturing the output of publicly funded research (by the NIH).
Notably, US Congress passed the deposit mandate, transforming PMC
into a national repository. That a parallel, though integrated,
repository should emerge in the UK (UK PMC) and Canada (PMC Canada)
is thus not surprising. Utilisation of the ideal types outlined above
would thus be fruitful in analysing the development of PMC and,
presumably, be equally valuable in discussing the future potential of
PMC, for example the possible creation of a Europe PMC.
National solutions are increasingly common (and principally may also
be regional in form), but vary especially with regard to privileging
either research outputs or the institutions. The French HAL system is
powered by the CNRS, the most prestigious national research
organisation, and thus is strong on making available research
results. In Japan, the National Institute of Informatics has
supported the Digital Repository Federation, which covers
eighty-seven institutions, with mainly librarians working to make the
system operational. In Spain, an aggregator and search portal,
Recolecta, sits atop a multitude of institutional repositories, with
a large variety of items. In Australia, institutional repositories
are prominently tied to the national research assessment exercise,
with due emphasis on peer reviewed publications.
More here:
Armbruster, Chris and Romary, Laurent, Comparing Repository Types:
Challenges and Barriers for Subject-Based Repositories, Research
Repositories, National Repository Systems and Institutional
Repositories in Serving Scholarly Communication (November 23, 2009).
Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1506905
Best,
Chris Armbruster
Received on Sat Nov 28 2009 - 18:59:56 GMT