Comparing Repository Types. The dark side of open access in Google and Google Scholar.

An article

Title

Comparing Repository Types: Challenges and Barriers for Subject-Based Repositories, Research Repositories, National Repository Systems and Institutional Repositories in Serving Scholarly Communication

Year

2010

Authors

Laurent Romary INRIA and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Germany
Chris Armbruster Max Planck Society, Germany

Abstract

After two decades of repository development, some conclusions may be drawn as to which type of repository and what kind of service best supports digital scholarly communication. In this regard, four types of publication repository may be distinguished, namely the subject-based repository, research repository, national repository system, and institutional repository. Two important shifts in the role of repositories may be noted and in regard to content, a well-defined and high quality corpus is essential. This implies that repository services are likely to be most successful when constructed with the user and reader in mind. With regard to service, high value to specific scholarly communities is essential. This implies that repositories are likely to be most useful to scholars when they offer dedicated services supporting the production of new knowledge. Along these lines, challenges and barriers to repository development may be identified in three key dimensions, i.e., identification and deposit of content, access and use of services, and preservation of content and sustainability of service. An indicative comparison of challenges and barriers in some major world regions is offered.

http://www.igi-global.com/gateway/article/48203
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2436650
ACM association Computer Machinery
The ACM Digital Library is a research, discovery and networking platform containing:

• The Full-Text Collection of all ACM publications, including journals, conference proceedings, technical magazines, newsletters and books.
• A collection of curated and hosted full-text publications from select publishers.
• The ACM Guide to Computing Literature, a comprehensive bibliographic database focused exclusively on the field of computing.
• A richly interlinked set of connections among authors, works, institutions, and specialized communities.

http://dl.acm.org/

Cited by

Kristin R. Eschenfelder , Kalpana Shankar , Rachel Williams , Allison Lanham , Dorothea Salo , Mei Zhang,
What are we talking about when we talk about sustainability of digital archives, repositories and libraries?
Proceedings of the 79th ASIS&T Annual Meeting: Creating Knowledge, Enhancing Lives through Information & Technology, p.1-6, October 14-18, 2016, Copenhagen, Denmark
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3017595&CFID=736601247&CFTOKEN=53449726

Enrique Orduña-Malea , Emilio Delgado López-Cózar,
The dark side of open access in Google and Google Scholar: the case of Latin-American repositories, 
Scientometrics, v.102 n.1, p.829-846, January 2015
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2716369&CFID=736601247&CFTOKEN=53449726

Abstract

Since repositories are a key tool in making scholarly knowledge open access (OA), determining their web presence and visibility on the Web (both are proxies of web impact) is essential, particularly in Google (search engine par excellence) and Google Scholar (a tool increasingly used by researchers to search for academic information). The few studies conducted so far have been limited to very specific geographic areas (USA), which makes it necessary to find out what is happening in other regions that are not part of mainstream academia, and where repositories play a decisive role in the visibility of scholarly production. The main objective of this study is to ascertain the web presence and visibility of Latin American repositories in Google and Google Scholar through the application of page count and web mention indicators respectively. For a sample of 137 repositories, the results indicate that the indexing ratio is low in Google, and virtually nonexistent in Google Scholar; they also indicate a complete lack of correspondence between the repository records and the data produced by these two search tools. These results are mainly attributable to limitations arising from the use of description schemas that are incompatible with Google Scholar (repository design) and the reliability of web mention indicators (search engines). We conclude that neither Google nor Google Scholar accurately represent the actual size of OA content published by Latin American repositories; this may indicate a non-indexed, hidden side to OA, which could be limiting the dissemination and consumption of OA scholarly literature.

References

1
Albanese, A. R. 2009. Institutional Repositories: Thinking Beyond the Box. Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/
 
2
Armbruster, C. 2008. Access, Usage and Citation Metrics: What Function for Digital Libraries and Repositories in Research Evaluation? Online Currents, 225, 168-180. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/author=434782
 
3
Bailey, C. W. 2008. Open Access Bibliography. Retrieved from http://www.digital-scholarship.com/
 
4
Bailey, C. W. 2009. Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography. Retrieved from http://www.digital-scholarship.com/
 
5
Bailey, C. W. 2010. Institutional Repositories Bibliography. Retrieved from http://www.digital-scholarship.com/
 
6
Basefsky, S. 2009. The End of Institutional Repositories and the Beginning of Social Academic Research Service: An Enhanced Role for Libraries. Law and technology resources for legal professionals. Retrieved from http://www.llrx.com/authors/1133
 
7
Kennan, M. A., & Kingsley, D. A. 2009. The State of the Nation: A Snapshot of Australian Institutional Repositories. First Monday, 142. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org
 
8
Laurent Romary , Chris Armbruster, Beyond Institutional Repositories, International Journal of Digital Library Systems, v.1 n.1, p.44-61, January 2010  [doi>10.4018/jdls.2010102703]
 
9
Salo, D. 2008. Innkeeper at the Roach Motel. Library Trends, 572. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/library_trends/v057/57.2.salo.html.
 
10
Vernooy-Gerritsen, M., Pronk, G., & van der Graaf, M. 2009. Three Perspectives on the Evolving Infrastructure of Institutional Research Repositories in Europe. Ariadne, 59, ¿¿¿. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue59/vernooy-gerritsen-et-al/.
 
11
Wellcome Library. 2008. The Year in Review. Wellcome Collection, 13. Retrieved from http://library.wellcome.ac.uk/assets/wtx055651.pdf

BibTeX

@article{Romary:2010:CRT:2436646.2436650,
 author = {Romary, Laurent and Armbruster, Chris},
 title = {Comparing Repository Types: Challenges and Barriers for Subject-Based Repositories, Research Repositories, National Repository Systems and Institutional Repositories in Serving Scholarly Communication},
 journal = {Int. J. Digit. Library Syst.},
 issue_date = {October 2010},
 volume = {1},
 number = {4},
 month = oct,
 year = {2010},
 issn = {1947-9077},
 pages = {61--73},
 numpages = {13},
 url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jdls.2010100104},
 doi = {10.4018/jdls.2010100104},
 acmid = {2436650},
 publisher = {IGI Global},
 address = {Hershey, PA, USA},
 keywords = {Deposit Mandate, Institutional Repository, National Repository System, Repository Infrastructure, Research Repository, Scholarly Communication, Subject-Based Repository},
}