 |
 |
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)." 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: [log in to unmask] 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.)