News on the front of institutional repositories; here is an excerpt of Charles W. Bailey mail on SPARC ML:
“The Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit is now available from the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). 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. […]
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.
- 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 was by far the most commonly used system: 20 implementers used it exclusively and 3 used it in combination with other systems.
- Proquest DigitalCommons (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 software.
- 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 authorize 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 3,844.”
SPEC bibliographic information: University of Houston Libraries Institutional Repository Task Force. Institutional Repositories. SPEC Kit 292. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 2006. ISBN: 1-59407-708-8. The table of contents and executive summary are available online.