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