review of literature - inflibnetshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/4603/7/07_chapter...

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Literature search is a vital part of all research. There are several benefits of such a

search. It provides a source of research ideas, gives an orientation to what is already

known, helps to develop a conceptual framework, indicates as assessment of

feasibility and provides information on the research approach to be used.

The aim of the study was to document the efforts now in progress i.e. Open access

movement with sharp focus on Institutional repositories, which is one of the important

means of achieving open access. The main objective of this study was to identify the

wide range of practices involved in developing and managing an institutional

repository and to investigate knowledge, practice and opinions about the IR among

the users of the institutions having institutional repositories.

The present study examined institutional repositories developed in India from two

perspectives: IR Development and Management; and Users of institutions having IR.

Relevant literature on both aspects were consulted. Over the past five years, the

implementation of IRs has been growing rapidly and the publications on IRs have

flourished accordingly. Therefore this chapter is divided into three sections namely IR

Development and Management, Users of institutions having IR and Institutional

repository initiatives in India.

The section on IR Development and Management begins with Scholarly

communication and then moves on to the specific areas of Institutional repositories.

While the section on Users of institutions having IR begins with general studies on

authors and then sheds light on specific areas such as Experience of IR, Contribution

to IR and Opinion about IR.

Chapter 2: Review of Literature

25

2.1 IR Development and Management

Literature on IR Development and Management could be largely divided into studies

as follows:

2.1.1. Scholarly communication

2.1.2. Open access movement

2.1.3. Concept of Institutional Repository

2.1.4. Issues of IRs / Basic components of IR

a) Timeline

b) Exploratory activities

c) Anticipated benefits

d) Management

e) Contributors

f) IR System / Software

g) Number, types and rate of growth of digital documents

h) Inhibiting factors

2.1.1 Scholarly Communication

A few studies specifically related to scholarly communication were located. The

significant article by Van de Sompel, Payette, Erickson, Lagoze, and Warner (2004)

explored characteristics of the established scholarly communication system, and

observed emerging trends after studying changing nature of research. They tried to

distill some core characteristics of a future scholarly communication system.

Pöschl (2004) discussed the failure of traditional journal publishing and peer review

to provide efficient scientific exchange and quality assurance in today‘s highly

diverse world of science. He also proposed the most promising way to improve

matters is a two-stage (or multi-stage) publication processes with interactive peer

review and public discussion in new and traditional scientific journals.

Several studies explained how an IR would be a new strategy for facilitating changes

in electronic scholarly communication (Chan, 2004; Crow, 2002; Lynch, 2003;

Shearer, 2003).


26

2.1.2 Open Access Movement

Awre (2003) described the advent and development of the open access movement. He

also argued that this movement poses a challenge to traditional journal publishing like

no other before and it is inevitable that current practice in publishing and purchasing

will be affected. Buckholtz, Dekeyser, Hagemann, Krichel, and Van de Sompel

(2003) gave the historical overview of Open Access Movement. The paper described

how the effects of open Access (OA) are being addressed, and what OA will mean for

publishers, librarians, and intermediaries.

Pellizari (2003) examined strengths and weaknesses of the Open Access strategy in

general and, more specifically, of the Open Archives Initiative, discussing

experiences, criticisms and barriers. Peter Suber (2004b) gave a brief overview of

Open Access especially for those who are new to the concept. Association of

Research Libraries (2003) in their article highlighted the key points to consider in

thinking about and discussing open access. This article gave examples of open access

implementation and provided sources for more information.

Davis et al. (2004) examined different aspects of the Open Access and offered

recommendations for Cornell University Library's involvement in the arena of Open

Access publishing. They concluded that the Open Access and subscription models can

coexist and are in fact likely to do so for the foreseeable future. Peter Suber (2004a) in

his report gave a brief overview of significant happenings of Open access movement

of 2003.

Meyers (2004) in her report highlighted the critical events that have taken place as the

issue had developed over the last few years, and provided extensive quotes of all

published perspectives relevant to the open access concept. Lamb (2004) reviewed

various models of open access publishing and recommended strategies for traditional

journal publishers

A book edited by Jacobs (2006) ―Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and

Economic Aspects‖ covered various aspects of open Access. The twenty chapters of

this book were grouped into five sections: Open access—history, definitions and

rationale; Open access and researchers; Open access and other participants; The

position around the world; and The future.


27

2.1.3. Concept of IR

A growing body of literature regarding IRs has emerged since 2002 when major

research universities in the U.S., such as MIT and the University of California

launched their own IR systems. Following are important research papers / reports

which has made significant contribution in the IR literature and gives valuable input

to IR developers, research scholars etc.

In 2002, Crow published a paper which provided an overview of the major issues that

institutions and consortia need to address during an implementation of an institutional

repository. The paper argued that IRs provide a critical component in reforming the

system of scholarly communication—a component that expands access to research,

reasserts control over scholarship by the academy, increases competition and reduces

the monopoly power of journals, and brings economic relief and heightened relevance

to the institutions and libraries that support them. IR have the potential to serve as

tangible indicators of a university‘s quality and to demonstrate the scientific, societal,

and economic relevance of its research activities, thus increasing the institution‘s

visibility, status, and public value.

Johnson (2002) gave his own opinion advocating IRs, arguing that they will enhance

scholarly communication. These two papers raised the question of why scholars

should support a new publishing model.

Lynch (2003) defined and described the current developments in institutional

repositories and tried to explain why IRs are so deeply and strategically important to

the enterprises of scholarship and higher education.

Lynch listed three concerns for IRs: that they will be used as tools for administrative

control, that they will be burdened by irrelevant policy baggage (e.g. peer-review or

gate-keeping policies), and that at least some IRs will fail to be supported,

diminishing the perceived value of all IRs. These three concerns represent potential

threats to successful population and management of IRs.

Branin (2003) in his draft paper on institutional Repositories in ―Encyclopedia of

Library and Information Science‖ described conceptual model and standards for a

digital repository and basic components of an institutional repository.


28

Publisher and Library / Learning Solutions ( 2004) reported information on all aspects

of IRs such as issues facing those establishing IRs, problems of faculty take-up of

self-archiving services, and intellectual property rights. Other issues included

organisation and management, funding and business models, accession policies,

metadata, long-term preservation and access.

Shearer (2004) conducted a survey to determine the status of the institutional

repositories at CARL member libraries. She reported that majority of the CARL

libraries that are planning an IR intend to use the DSpace software. She also argued

that content recruitment remains one of the biggest barriers for the implementers at

CARL libraries. She reported that most of the CARL institutional repositories are

being managed by one or two staff members on a part-time basis and have few

dedicated resources for the institutional repository. In continuation Shearer (2005)

conducted another survey to evaluate the content, policies, software platforms, and

advocacy activities of member IR‘s.

Lynch and Lippincott (2005) surveyed academic institutions to examine the current

state of IRs in the United States. They found that out of 97 universities categorised as

Carnegie "doctoral universities", 40% already operated IRs. Among non-

implementers, 88% were found to be in the planning stage of IR implementation. This

finding indicated that IRs are becoming a component of the technical infrastructure in

doctoral research institutions. Whether they become a part of the intellectual

infrastructure depends on the extent of faculty contribution. IRs were found to be used

for a variety of materials beyond eprints. Responses indicated a strong preference for

libraries as sole administrators of IRs.

Another study by Westrienen and Lynch (2005) examined 13 countries, excluding the

US. Barriers of IR efforts were highlighted. This study argued that content

recruitment is the central issue for most institutional repositories.

Bailey et al. (2006) published the executive summary of ―Institutional Repositories".

Their research indicated that over half of ARL libraries may have IRs by the end of

year 2007. Less than one-quarter responded that they have no plans to implement an

IR. Institutions had generally taken less than one year on implementation.


29

Kennan and Wilson (2006) reviewed the current literature and discussed institutional

repository (IR) and open access (OA) issues, to provide examples from the

Information Systems (IS) literature. They proposed the use of IS literature and further

research to understand about IR implementations by library managers.

A major study by Davis and Connolly (2007) reported findings of their study

regarding the IR at Cornell University. They conducted in-depth interviews with

eleven faculty members in the sciences, social sciences and humanities, to explore

their attitudes, motivations, and behaviors for non-participation in institutional

repositories. They found that Cornell's DSpace is largely underpopulated and

underused by its faculty. Many of its collections were empty, and most collections

contained few items. Lack of functionality in DSpace contributed to lack of use; in

particular, the poor quality of its discovery tools.

The noteworthy study done by Markey, Rieh, Jean, Kim, and Yakel (2007)

investigated the implementation of IRs in academic institutions to identify models and

best practices for the administration, technical infrastructure, and access to digital

collections.

There were few articles which documented the development of IR at their institutions

such as at MIT (Smith, 2002), the University of Glasgow (Nixon, 2002), the

universities of Edinburgh and Nottingham (Pinfield, Gardner, & MacColl, 2002)

University of Bath (Martin, 2003) and University of Southampton (Hey, 2004).

2.1.4 Issues of IRs

a) Timeline

Markey et al. (2007) queried to know how much time was required for planning and

pilot testing and the date when IR become operational i.e. available to authorised

users for submission and searching of digital content.

b) Exploratory activities

Markey et al. (2007) discussed various exploratory activities that institution exercised

before implementation of IR such as attending IR software implementation training &

workshops, demonstrating operational IRs to institution's decision-makers etc.


30

c) Anticipated benefits of IR

Hayes (2005) discussed how IR supports research, learning, and administrative

processes. Especially discussed were the benefits IRs offered to the institutions, staff

and students. Pickton (2005) suggested undoubted benefits to institutions in building

up of repository as they are able to greatly extend the amount of material they can

offer to their researchers. Johnson (2002) in his article commented on short-term and

on-going benefits of IRs for universities and their faculty and how it is advancing the

transformation of scholarly communication.

Gibbons (2004) presented compelling reasons for why an organisation would want to

establish an IR including providing an infrastructure for preservation of digital

content, lowering the barrier to document distribution, creating a centralised digital

showcase in which research, teaching, and scholarship can be highlighted, and

facilitating wider distribution. Yeates (2003) also listed the benefits of IRs, such as:

extending the range of knowledge sharing. He also focused on leveraging existing

investment in information and content management systems and making more flexible

ways of scholarly communication available. Pickton and Barwick (2006) discussed in

detail benefits of IR to the institution and authors.

Rieh, Markey, Yakel, Jean, and Kim (2007) who carried out an empirical study

examined how library directors and others involved in IRs articulate their benefits.

According to the authors early identification of explicit benefits and value would

assist IR staff in justifying the establishment of an IR to the larger university and

provide a framework for IR development. The results of the survey and interviews

demonstrated that IRs require a digital curation perspective in order to achieve the

major benefits college and university libraries envision for them.

d) IR Management

Staff

Robinson (2007) identified staff and skills required for developing repository such as

to manage the repository budget, services, familiarity with software, ability to

customize software, preservation and metadata etc.


31

Similar views were expressed by Bell, Foster, and Gibbons (2005), Carver (2003),

Jenkins, Breakstone, and Hixson (2005), Lyon (2003). They described how librarians

are involved in IR development, and how they provide a wide range of necessary

functions, including overcoming publisher and academic resistance, providing good

metadata standards, and pushing for inclusion in external search services. Bailey

(2005c) in his paper oriented reference librarians, library administrators, and others to

IRs and open access, providing a context for understanding how reference librarians'

jobs may be transformed by the emergence of IRs.

IR funding / Cost

According to Barton and Waters (2004) costs of Institutional Repository programme

depends on the scope of service requirements and the available resources. In their

workbook they had described the primary cost factors and issues to consider when

building a budget or cost model for institutional repository service.

However, staff costs including time spent drafting policies, arranging licensing

agreements, developing guidelines, promoting the repository, training and supporting

users and creating metadata, may be significant (Crow, 2002; Horwood, Sullivan,

Young, & Garner, 2004).

IPR

JISC funded a one-year project called RoMEO (Rights Metadata for Open archiving).

RoMEO, which took place between 2002–2003, specifically looked at the self-

archiving of academic research papers, and the subsequent disclosure and harvesting

of metadata about those papers using the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for

Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) by OAI Data and Service Providers. The project

highlighted a number of concerns about publishers' copyright agreements, which - if

dealt with - could greatly improve an author's rights under the current journal

publishing system (Gadd, Oppenheim, & Probets, 2003b).

Willinsky (2002) examined contradictions in how copyright works with the

publishing of scholarly journals. This paper reviewed the specifics of publishers'

contracts with editors and authors, as well as the larger spirit of copyright law in

seeking to help scholars to better understand the consequences the choices they make


32

between commercial and open access publishing models for the future of academic

knowledge.

IR policy

Gutteridge and Harnad (2002) discussed policy decisions which should be made when

implementing an archive, and also suggested a possible policy based on their

experience.

Arthur Sale (2006a) tried to understand researcher behavior in depositing research

articles in open access institutional repositories. He suggested that repository

managers should invest in promotion and follow-up for 2-3 years after a mandatory

policy is promulgated, after which the behavior becomes routinised.

Another paper of Arthur Sale (2006b) analysed the impact of high-level institutional

policy decisions on population of the individual repositories. The paper showed that

just like research article repositories, voluntary ETD deposition results in repositories

collecting less than 12% of the available theses, whereas mandatory policies are well

accepted and cause deposit rates to rise towards 100%.

Promotion

Jenkins, Breakstone, and Hixson (2005) discussed various attempts that they had

made at the University of Oregon to increase user awareness about their IR such as by

making links to the Scholars Bank through the online catalog, creating a record for the

IR and cataloging individual items in the repository. They also suggested that

reference librarians have vital roles to play in helping to recruit authors to submit their

content to institutional repositories, as well as in educating users to search such

repositories effectively and retrieve the scholarly content from them.

Mackie (2004) described some strategies that can be used to help populate an

institutional repository. He argued that filling a repository for published and peer-

reviewed papers is a slow process, and it is clear that it is a task that requires a

significant amount of staff input from those charged with developing the repository.


33

Mark and Shearer (2006) listed number of promotional activities managers can

exercise such as passing out brochures, conducting presentations to faculty

committees, publishing articles in the library or campus newsletters / newspapers etc.

Assessment

Westell (2006) in his paper discussed variety of assessment techniques such as input

activity, usage, and citation analysis.

Xia and Sun (2007) evaluated the success of open access self-archiving in several

well-known institutional repositories. Two assessment factors were applied to

examine the current practice of self-archiving: depositorship and the availability of

full text. This research discovered that the rate of author self-archiving was low and

that the majority of documents had been deposited by a librarian or administrative

staff. Similarly, the rate of full-text availability was relatively low, except for

Australian repositories.

Peer-review and Quality Control

According to Day (2003) the focus of an institutional repository should be on content

that is either peer-reviewed or not, the choice being left to those who develop their

collection policies. In order to ensure a certain level of quality control, some

institutions may decide to separate peer-reviewed e-prints from those that have not

been reviewed. The importance of this varies between subject disciplines.

Houghton, Steele, and Henty (2003) and Genoni (2004) highlighted the important

issue of quality control in their papers.

e) IR Contributors

Crow (2002) suggested in his paper that works of faculty authors typically represent

an institutional repository's critical mass of intellectual output. However, there are, of

course, other populations within the institution-including students and non-faculty

researchers-whose works may be highly relevant and valuable to the repository

program, if not crucial to its success.


34

f) IR System / Software

A workbook by Barton and Waters (2004) contained detail guidelines on the

developing of Institutional Repository. It also offered practical advice as well as work

sheets one can use to get started with own repository programme.

A dozen of IR software‘s were described in workbook by Barton and Waters (2004)

with technical features. According to Lynch (2006) making a decision can be complex

and involves careful thought about factors such as what the repository will contain,

how it will be used, the features that are wanted, and the local technical environment.

There were two articles which compared IR software‘s (Budapest Open Access

Initiative, 2004; Canadian Association of Research Libraries, n.d.). Powell (2005)

attempted to identify some of the technical criteria that might be used to evaluate the

different institutional repository (IR) software platform options, particularly in terms

of the ‗machine‘ interfaces that the repository offers.

The report of Open Access Repositories in New Zealand project (OARINZ) project,

(2006) discussed the technical evaluation of six Open Source Repository system/s

including DSpace and EPrints. The report recommended that DSpace could be

accommodated within the national network of New Zealand because DSpace scored

well in the overall evaluation.

Digital preservation issues such as fear of technological obsolesce and need of

preservation were discussed in few articles (Pinfield & Hamish, 2003; Jones &

Beagrie, 2002). Several key initiatives were addressing digital preservation issue such

as SHERPA (http://www.sherpadp.org.uk/index.html) and the Digital Preservation

Coalition (DPC) were the most prominently initiatives. An excellent site for learning

about digital preservation was the Preserving Access to Digital Information (PADI)

(http://www.nla.gov.au/padi/about.html) site published by the Australian National

University. They offer a concise guide to the most often discussed strategies for

digital preservation – migration, adherence to standards, encapsulation and emulation

– along with additional resources for in-depth information.


35

There were papers (Lagoze & Van De Sompel, 2001; Suleman & Fox, 2001)

described in detail about technical standard for metadata harvesting and its

applications.

The detail information about interoperability standard - Open Access Initiative

Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) was available on their website

(http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html).

g) Number, types and rate of growth of digital documents

According to Crow (2002) institutional repositories were particularly well-suited for

various types of gray literature and other fugitive and unpublished material. Such gray

literature forms a part of the informal scholarly communication process.

Genoni (2004) in his paper addressed the issue of content in repositories, and

suggested that librarians need to approach the task of content development by

applying some of the procedures and skills associated with collection management

within more traditional environments.

Hirwade and Hirwade, (2006) enumerated variety of materials an Institutional

repository may contain produced by the researchers of the institution such as

preprints, postprints, teaching, material etc.

McDowell (2007) evaluated IR deployment in the U.S. since 2005 and its rate of

growth. The results indicated that the rate of growth per IR per six weeks was average

low of 4% and a high of 44%.

h) Inhibiting factors / IR Challenges

Chan (2004) examined emerging trend of university based IRs designed to capture

scholarly output of an institution and maximize the research impact of this output. The

relationship of this trend to the open access movement was discussed and challenges

and opportunities for using IRs to promote new modes of scholarship were provided.

Alma Swan (2008) in her paper discussed impediments to Open Access in India such

as lack of awareness, copyright restrictions etc.


36

2.2 Users of institutions having IR

In this section the literature has been discussed under the following broad sub

headings:

2.2.1 General studies on authors of open access journals / archives

2.2.2 Experience of IR

2.2.3 Contribution to IR

2.2.4 Opinion about IR

2.2.1 General studies on authors of open access archives / journals

Rowlands, Nicholas, and Huntingdon (2004) surveyed the views and attitudes of 3787

senior researchers from 97 countries in relation to what they wanted from the journals

regarding publication of their articles at a time of change and uncertainty. They found

that authors‘ attitudes towards the open access movement were generally positive,

although there were significant reservations about quality and preservation in an

increasingly digital information landscape.

In continuation, another survey was conducted by Rowlands and Nicholas (2005)

reported on the behaviour, attitudes and perceptions of 5,513 senior journal authors on

range of issues relating to a scholarly communication system. Key findings suggested

that research community is now much more aware of the open access issue. The

proportion of authors publishing in an open access journal has grown considerably

from 11 per cent (2004) to 29 per cent in 2005.

Another significant study was done by Pelizzari (2004) ―Academic Authors and Open

Archives: A Survey in the Social Science Field‖. This study discussed the following

issues: authors‘ general attitudes towards electronic publications, use or non-use of

IR, attitudes towards copyright and reasons for contribution or non-contribution of

documents to IR.

Swan and Brown (2004) studied authors who had published their work in open access

journals vis a vis authors who had not done so.


37

Some studies surveyed authors (Houghton, Steele, & Henty, 2003; Swan et al, 2005)

regarding their requirements, views and usage of scholarly publishing including their

attitudes to IR.

Westrienen and Lynch (2005) surveyed institutional repository deployment in thirteen

nations: Australia, Canada, the United States and ten European countries – Belgium,

France, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Italy

and the Netherlands. They explored how national policies and strategies were shaping

this deployment.

Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and the Open Society Institute (OSI)

surveyed journal authors. Their main aim was to investigated the authors‘ awareness

of new open access possibilities, the ease of identification of and submission to open

access outlets, their experiences of publishing their work in this way, their concerns

about any implications open access publishing may have upon their careers, and the

reasons why (or not) they chose to publish through an open access outlet. The study

reported that almost two-thirds of respondents were familiar with the open access

concept. The primary reason for choosing an open access outlet in which to publish is

a belief in the principle of free access to research information. These authors also

perceived open access journals as being faster than traditional journals, having a

larger readership and thus resulting in higher numbers of citations to their work. More

than half (55%) of the authors who had published their work in open access journals

had not paid a fee (JISC/OSI, 2004).

2.2.2 Experience of IR

Swan and Brown (2005) surveyed 1296 academics worldwide to determine the

current state of play with respect to authors‘ self-archiving behaviour. The survey also

briefly explored author experiences and opinions on publishing in open access

journals.

Wojciechowska (2007) had conducted a survey of mathematical and computer science

community (128 lecturers and researchers) belonging to twelve research centers in

France. The paper provided information about the knowledge of open archives,

information search, experience in self-archiving and copyright awareness of French

researchers in mathematics and computer science.


38

Watson (2007) investigated authors‘ publishing behaviours, attitudes, concerns, and

their awareness and use of their institutional repository (IR), Cranfield QUEprints.

The findings suggested that despite a reasonable amount of advocacy many authors

had not heard of QUEprints and were not aware of its purpose.

2.2.3 Contribution to IR

A number of studies explored what inspires scholars to publish research and to go on

and self archive in IR (Houghton, Steele, & Henty, 2003; Swan et al., 2005).

Shearer (2003) conducted CARL institutional repositories survey to determine IRs

contribution to input activity and their use. She suggested that the success of IRs will

be determined eventually by "their uptake and use by researchers". She argued that

the success of an IR should be determined by its use, and one of the measures of

usefulness is contribution of content. Although potential contributors include faculty,

students and staff in universities, faculty members were considered the crucial

contributors of scholarly content. However, several studies noted that it was difficult

to get faculty members to contribute (Chan, 2004; Foster & Gibbons, 2005).

Foster and Gibbons (2005) had interviewed 25 professors at the University of

Rochester in order to investigate the factors affecting their contribution. In this study

they identified reasons why faculty did not submit their content. The most important

reasons were copyright infringement worries and disciplinary work practices (e.g., co-

authoring or versioning). Faculty members developed their own routines to create and

organise documents. Therefore faculty members perceived that IR contribution

involved additional work, such as metadata creation for contributed objects.

Pickton and McKnight (2005) investigated the potential role for research students in

institutional repository at Loughborough University. More than half of the

respondents selected ‗it is a good way of disseminating my work to the research

community and beyond‘. Half of the respondents selected ‗to get feedback or

commentary‘.

Kim (2006) in his survey discussed the problems surrounding faculty contribution to

Institutional Repositories (IRs) and proposed a theoretical model for studying the

diverse factors surrounding this issue.


39

Through in-depth interviews with eleven faculty members in the sciences, social

sciences and humanities, Davis and Connolly (2007) explored their attitudes,

motivations, and behaviors for non-participation in institutional repositories. Authors

emphasized that reward systems, traditions, and norms are different across disciplines.

2.2.4 Opinion of users about access, copyright and management of IR

Swan and Brown (2003) investigated the authors‘ awareness of new open access

possibilities, the ease of identification of and submission to open access outlets, their

experiences of publishing their work in this way. Also their concerns about any

implications open access publishing may have upon their careers. The reasons why

(or not) they chose to publish through an open access outlet were also studied. They

found that the majority of authors felt that journals‘ publishers should make articles

available electronically for free. Later, they found that 92% of OA authors were

saying that the ‗principle of free access for all readers‘ was an important reason for

publishing in OA journals (Swan & Brown, 2004).

Bates, Loddington, Manuel, and Oppenheim (2006) gathered views on the use of an

institutional repository (IR) for the deposit of teaching and learning materials by

academic staff in UK Higher Education (HE) institutions and by specialists in the

field of Teaching and Learning (T&L). Authors found that over half of the

participants were in favour of peer review and about one third wanted to give

password access to registered users.

The traditional assignment of copyright to publishers was discussed as a possible

impediment to the success of institutional e-print repositories in the article written by

Day (2003).

From a survey of authors and publishers Gadd, Oppenheim, and Probets (2003b)

found that around a third of academics were not sure who owned the copyrights of a

research paper. The same study showed that while 41 % of the surveyed academics

freely assigned copyright to publishers, almost half (49%) did so reluctantly. They

proposed that one way of solving at least some of the copyright issues of institutional

repositories would be for universities and other educational institutions to assert

copyright ownership of the research outputs of employees.


40

Gadd, Oppenheim, and Probets (2003a) investigated RoMEO project that surveyed

542 academic authors in 57 countries across a variety of disciplines. Some 60%

thought they initially owned copyright of their papers, though 32% admitted they

didn‘t know. Half i.e. 50% said 71-100% of their papers were co-authored, thus

creating scope for disagreement on self-archiving. More than 60% were happy for

others to display, print, save, excerpt from, and give away their papers, so long as

given attribution and quotes were verbatim. In fact, authors were prepared to grant

more liberal terms for the use of their own papers than they actually expected to be

available to themselves for the use of other papers.

Allard, Mack, and Feltner-Reichert (2005) identified six roles that are the

responsibilities of librarians in the IR environment: understanding software, project

planning and management, collection definition, metadata guidance, submission

review, and author training. Similarly Horwood, Sullivan, Young, and Garner (2004)

discussed role of librarians in the development and promotion of institutional

repositories as well as skills needed by library staff.

2.3 Institutional Repository Initiatives in India

As the concept Open Access gained popularity in India, number of articles started

being published about IR most after 2004.

One of the important articles written by the Rajashekar (2004) discussed the relevance

of open-access publishing in developing countries; the potential for open-access

publishing in India; and a few current open-access initiatives in India. He also

proposed a possible technical model to organise open-access publishing in India.

A broad outline on the growth of open access archiving, in developing countries,

focusing mainly on India and its benefits had been provided by Chan and his

colleagues on Scidev.net (Chan, Kirsop, & Arunachalam, 2005). One more article by

Chan and Kirsop (2001) and few articles by Professor Arunachalam were also

important in this regard (Arunachalam, 2005; Arunachalam, 2006). Specific Indian

initiatives especially open archive initiatives were mentioned in this context. Das,

Sen, and Dutta (2005) covered in their article the types of content and software used

in developing repositories. Some of the problems of the repositories were also

highlighted.


41

An article written by Harnad and Swan (2008) discussed the Indian contribution to

open access and increase in research impact. They recommended that India needed to

adopt a national OA self-archiving mandate for all of its research institutions and

funders. The recent article by Professor Arunachalam (2008) reviewed current status

of scientific research and progress made in open access – OA journals, OA

repositories and open course ware - in India.

A number of articles discussed the experience of developing and maintaining

institutional repository (Doctor, 2007; Jayakanth, Minj, Silva, & Jagirdar, 2008;

Jobish, Biswal, Minj, Rajashekhar, & Venkadesan, 2005; Krishnamurthy, 2005;

Laxminarsaiah & Rajgoli, 2007; Madalli, 2003; Patel, Vijayakumar & Murthy, 2006;

Sutradhar, 2006).

A paper by Ghosh and Das (2006) provided information about the present state of

open access Literature by various institutions of the country. A chapter in a book

written by Sahu and Parmar (2006) discussed OA archiving and especially the efforts

to popularise OA archives.

One of the important research papers was by Fernandez (2006) who evaluated the

growth and development of online research repositories in India within the broader

framework of open access. She conducted interviews with information professionals

responsible for creation and maintenance of online research repositories in India.

Open access journals, e-print archives and e-theses repositories were covered with an

emphasis on the sciences including the physical sciences, mathematics and the

biomedical sciences. The study explored the background of participants, institutional

culture, software selection, nature of funding, submission policies and future plans of

the repositories.

National Knowledge Commission (NKC) on ―Open Access and Open Educational

Resources‖ recommended the increase of Open Access content from India and to

increase the public awareness and utilisation of OA material (National Knowledge

Commission, 2007).

There were some research papers which explored current status of Open Access

journals in India (Pandita, 2005; Sahu, 2006; Sawant, 2008).


42

A book published by UNESCO authored by Anup Kumar Das (2008) gave very brief

overview of institutional repositories in India. Unfortunately no qualitative research

papers / reports or in depth study of Indian institutional repositories in this

publication. Many of the articles available were descriptive not analytical therefore

researcher did not find them very useful. No papers / reports were available on users

of IRs that could have been used to compare with the findings of the present study.

Apart from the research articles bibliographies also helped to locate research articles

and research reports. A bibliography titled ―Scholarly Electronic Publishing

Bibliography‖ compiled by Charles Bailey (2005b) was found to be important. This

bibliography presented selected English-language articles, books, and other printed

and electronic sources that were useful in understanding scholarly electronic

publishing efforts on the Internet. There was a separate section on Repositories, E-

Prints and OAI. Two more bibliographies by Ho and Bailey (2005) and by the Bailey

(2005a) were also helpful in this regard.

Through understanding the research methods and findings from these articles the

researcher could develop pertinent objectives and research methods.

The next chapter discusses the objectives of the current study.


43

REFERENCES

Allard, S., Mack, T. R., & Feltner-Reichert, M. (2005). The librarian's role in

institutional repositories: A content analysis of the literature. Reference Services

Review, 33(3), 325 – 336. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00907320510611357

Arunachalam, S. (2005). India moving ahead with open access. Retrieved October 18,

2006, from

http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number54/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=02

Arunachalam, S. (2006). Open access - current developments in India. Proceedings

Berlin 4 Open Access: From Promise to Practice, Potsdam-Golm, Germany.

Retrieved March 18, 2007, from

http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1255/01/Berlin4SA.pdf

Arunachalam, S. (2008). Open Access in India: Hopes and Frustrations. Proceedings

ELPUB 2008 Conference on Electronic Publishing, Toronto, Canada, 271-279.

Retrieved December 15, 2008, from

http://elpub.scix.net/data/works/att/271_elpub2008.content.pdf

Association of Research Libraries. (2003). Framing the Issue: Open Access. Retrieved

October 18, 2005, from http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/framing_issue_may04.pdf

Awre, C. (2003). Open access and the impact on publishing and purchasing. Serials,

16(2), 205-208. Retrieved October 18, 2005, from

http://uksg.metapress.com/media/BA750YXUWQ0TRV768X2M/Contributions/C

/T/0/V/CT0VRTHJ6HNWJA56.pdf

Bailey, C. W. (2005a). Open access bibliography. Retrieved December 10, 2005, from

http://www.escholarlypub.com/oab/oab.pdf

Bailey, C. W. (2005b). Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography. Retrieved

October 18, 2005, from http://www.digital-scholarship.org/cwb/oaw.htm


44

Bailey, C. W. (2005c). The Role of Reference Librarians in Institutional Repositories.

Reference Services Review, 33(3), 259-267. Retrieved June 10, 2006, from


Bailey, C.W., Coombs, K., Emery, J., Mitchell, A., Morris, C., Simons, S. et al.

(2006). Institutional Repositories. SPEC Kit 292. Retrieved December 18, 2007,

from http://www.arl.org/spec/SPEC292web.pdf

Barton, M. R., & Waters, M. M. (2004). Creating an Institutional Repository:

LEADIRS Workbook. Retrieved October 18, 2005, from

https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/26698/1/Barton_2004_Creating.pdf 2004

Bates, M., Loddington, S., Manuel, S., & Oppenheim, C. (2006). Rights and Rewards

Project: Academic Survey - final report. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from

http://hdl.handle.net/2134/1815

Bell, S., Foster N. F., & Gibbons, S. (2005). Reference Librarians and the Success of

Institutional Repositories. Reference Services Review, 33(3), 283-290. Retrieved

June 18, 2007, from

https://urresearch.rochester.edu/retrieve/4494/refserreview.pdf

Branin, J. (2003). Institutional Repositories. Draft Paper for Encyclopedia of Library

and Information Science. Retrieved September 18, 2006, from

https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/441/1/inst_repos.pdf

Buckholtz, A., Dekeyser, R., Hagemann, M., Krichel, T., & Van de Sompel, H.

(2003). Open access: Restoring scientific communication to its rightful owners.

Retrieved October 18, 2005, from

http://www.esf.org/publication/157/ESPB21.pdf

Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2004). A Guide to OAI-compliant Institutional

Repository Systems. Retrieved October 18, 2005, from

http://www.soros.org/openaccess/software/


45

Canadian Association of Research Libraries. (n.d.). Institutional Repository Pilot

Project list of tools and technology. Retrieved September 12, 2005, from

http://www.carl-abrc.ca/projects/ir/tools-e.htm

Carver, B. (2003). Creating an Institutional Repository: A Role for Libraries. Ex-

Libris, 181. Retrieved May 28, 2004, from

http://marylaine.com/exlibris/xlib181.html

Chan, L. (2004). Supporting and Enhancing Scholarship in the Digital Age: The Role

of Open-Access Institutional Repositories. Canadian Journal of Communication,

29, 277–300. Retrieved March 11, 2005, from

http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00002590/01/Chan_CJC_IR.pdf

Chan, L., & Kirsop, B. (2001). Open Archiving Opportunities for Developing

Countries: towards equitable distribution of global knowledge. Ariadne. 30.

Retrieved October 18, 2005, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue30/oai-chan/

Chan, L., Kirsop, B., & Arunachalam, S. (2005). Open access archiving: The fast

track to building research capacity in developing countries. Retrieved September

10, 2006, from www.scidev.net/ms/openaccess

Crow, R. (2002). The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper.

Retrieved May 19, 2004, from

http://www.arl.org/sparc/IR/IR_Final_Release_102.pdf

Das, A. K. (2008). Open Access to Knowledge and Information: Scholarly Literature

and Digital Library Initiatives – the South Asian Scenario. New Delhi: UNESCO.

Das, A., Sen, B. K., & Dutta, C. (2005). Collection development in digital

information repositories in India. Vishwabharat@TDIL, 17, 91-96. Retrieved

January 26, 2006, from eprints.rclis.org/archive/00005682/

Davis, P. M., & Connolly, M. J. L. (2007). Institutional Repositories: Evaluating the

Reasons for Non-use of Cornell University's Installation of Dspace. D-Lib

Magazine, 13(3/4). Retrieved January 10, 2008, from

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march07/davis/03davis.html


46

Davis, P., Ehling, T., Habicht, O., How, S., Saylor, J. M., & Walker, K. (2004).

Report of the CUL Task Force on Open Access Publishing. Retrieved November

11, 2006, from

http://dspace.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/193/3/OATF_Report_8-9.pdf

Day, M. (2003). Prospects for institutional e-print repositories in the United Kingdom.

Retrieved August 4, 2004, from http://www.rdn.ac.uk/projects/eprints-

uk/docs/studies/impact/

Doctor, G. (2007). Knowledge sharing: developing the digital repository of SIPS.

VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems, 37(1), 64-

73. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from


Fernandez, L. (2006). Open Access Initiatives in India - an Evaluation. Retrieved

October 25, 2006, from

http://units.sla.org/division/dst/Annual%20Conference%20Contributed%20Papers

/2006papers/Leila%20Fernandez%20open%20access%20India.pdf

Foster, N. F., & Gibbons, S. (2005). Understanding Faculty to Improve Content

Recruitment for Institutional Repositories. D-Lib Magazine, 11(1). Retrieved

February 1, 2006, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.html.

Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., & Probets, S. (2003a). RoMEO studies 1: The impact of

copyright ownership on author-self-archiving. Journal of Documentation, 59(3),

243-277. Retrieved September 15, 2005, from


Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., & Probets, S. (2003b). The Intellectual Property Rights

Issues Facing Self-archiving: Key Findings of the RoMEO Project. D-Lib

Magazine, 9(9). Retrieved September 20, 2005, from

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september03/gadd/09gadd.html

Genoni, P. (2004). Content in Institutional Repositories: A Collection Management

Issue. Library Management, 25(6/7), 300 – 306. Retrieved March 13, 2005, from

http://iris.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/01435120410547968


47

Ghosh, S. B., & Das, A. (2006). Open access and institutional repositories – a

developing country perspective: a case study of India. Proceedings World Library

and Information Congress: 72nd

IFLA Council and General Conference, Seoul,

Korea. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from

http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00006391/01/157-Ghosh_Das-en.pdf

Gibbons, S. (2004). Establishing an Institutional Repository. Library Technology

Reports, 40(4), 11–14. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from

https://publications.techsource.ala.org/products/archive.pl?article=2538

Gutteridge, C., & Harnad, S. (2002). Applications, Potential Problems and a

Suggested Policy for Institutional E-Print Archives. Retrieved August 28, 2005,

from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/6768/01/eprintspolicy.pdf

Harnad, S., & Swan, A. (2008). India, Open Access, the Law of Karma and the

Golden Rule. DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology, 28 (1), 35-40.

Retrieved March 13, 2005, from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14432/1/india.pdf

Hayes, H. (2005). Digital Repositories: Helping universities and colleges. Retrieved

November 18, 2005, from

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/HE_repositories_briefing_paper_2005

.pdf

Hey, J. (2004). Targeting Academic Research with Southampton's Institutional

Repository. Ariadne, 40. Retrieved September 12, 2005, from

http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue40/hey/

Hirwade, M., & Hirwade, A. (2006). Institutional repositories : Challenge and

opportunity for LIS Professionals in digital age. Library Herald, 44(2), 146-151.

Ho, A. K., & Bailey, C. W. (2005). Open Access Webliography. Retrieved March 15,

2006, from www.escholarlypub.com/cwb/oaw.htm


48

Horwood, L., Sullivan, S., Young, E., & Garner, J. (2004). OAI compliant

institutional repositories and the role of library staff. Library Management,

25(4/5), 170 – 176. Retrieved February 16, 2005, from


Houghton, J. W., Steele, C., & Henty, M. (2003). Changing Research Practices in the

DigitalInformation and Communication Environment. Retrieved February 1,

2005, from http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41581/2/c_res_pract.pdf

Jacobs, N. (Ed.). (2006). Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic

Aspects. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

Jayakanth, F., Minj, F., Silva, U., & Jagirdar, S. (2008). ePrints@IISc: India's first

and fastest growing institutional repository. OCLC Systems & Services, 24(1). 59

– 70. Retrieved December 16, 2008, from


Jenkins, B., Breakstone, E., & Hixson, C. (2005). Content In, Content Out: The Dual

Role of the Reference Librarian in Institutional Repositories. Reference Services

Review, 33(3), 312 – 324. Retrieved March 2, 2006, from

www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00907320510611348

Jobish, P., Biswal, H. K., Minj, F., Rajashekhar, T. B., & Venkadesan, S. (2005).

Etd@IISc: A DSpace-based ETD-MS and OAI compliant theses repository

service of Indian Institute of Science. Proceedings ETD 2005: Evolution through

discovery, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved July 16, 2007, from

http://adt.caul.edu.au/etd2005/papers/049Minj.pdf

Johnson, R. K. (2002). Institutional Repositories: Partnering with Faculty to Enhance

Scholarly Communication. D-Lib Magazine, 8(11). Retrieved February 8, 2005,

from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november02/johnson/11johnson.html

Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) & the Open Society Institute (OSI).

(2004). Journal Authors Survey Report. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISCOAreport1.pdf


49

Jones, M., & Beagrie, N. (2002). Preservation Management of Digital Materials: A

Handbook. Retrieved April 11, 2004, from

www.dpconline.org/graphics/handbook/

Kennan, M. A., & Wilson, C. S. (2006). Institutional repositories: review and an

information systems perspective. Library Management, 27(4/5), 236-248.

Retrieved March 29, 2007, from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article

&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0150270403.html

Kim, J. (2006). Motivating and Impeding Factors Affecting Faculty Contribution to

Institutional Repositories. JCDL Workshop: Digital Curation and Trusted

Repositories: Seeking Success, NC, USA. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from

http://sils.unc.edu/events/2006jcdl/digitalcuration/Kim-JCDLWorkshop2006.pdf

Krishnamurthy, M. (2005). Digital library of mathematics using DSpace: A practical

experience. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 42(3), 245-256.

Lagoze, C., & Van de Sompel, H. (2001). The Open Archives Initiative: Building a

low-barrier interoperability framework. Proceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE-CS

jointconference on Digital libraries, Roanoke, Virginia, USA. Retrieved March 10,

2005, from http://www.openarchives.org/documents/jcdl2001-oai.pdf

Lamb, C. (2004). Open access publishing models: opportunity or threat to scholarly

and academic publishers? Learned Publishing, 17, 143–150. Retrieved March 26,

2007, from

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/cw/alpsp/09531513/v17n2/s9/p143.p

df?fmt=dirpdf&tt=885&cl=16&ini=connect&bini=&wis=connect&ac=0&acs=32

629,75000325&expires=1129969797&checksum=6DE386AE83CF5B7E5780351

117A8002A&cookie=1089202816

Laxminarsaiah, A., & Rajgoli, I. U. (2007). Building institutional repository: an

overview. OCLC Systems & Services, 23(3), 278-286. Retrieved May 16, 2008,

from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/10650750710776413


50

Lynch, C. A. (2003). Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for

Scholarship in the Digital Age. ARL Bimonthly Report, 226. Retrieved June 10,

2004, from http://www.arl.org/newsltr/226/ir.html

Lynch, C. A. (2006). Open Computation: Beyond Human-Reader-Centric Views of

Scholarly Literatures. In N. Jacobs (Ed.), Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical

and Economic Aspects (pp. 185-193). Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

Lynch, C. A., & Lippincott, K. (2005). Institutional Repository Deployment in the

United States as of Early 2005. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9). Retrieved May 1, 2006,

from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/lynch/09lynch.html

Lyon, L. (2003). eBank UK: Building the Links Between Research Data, Scholarly

Communication, and Learning. Ariadne, 36. Retrieved September 6, 2005, from

http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue36/lyon/

Mackie, M. (2004). Filling Institutional Repositories: Practical strategies from the

DAEDALUS Project. Ariadne, 39. Retrieved September 28, 2005, from

http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue39/mackie/

Madalli, D. (2003). A digital library of library and information science using DSpace.

DRTC Workshop on Semantic Web, Bangalore, India. Retrieved February 11,

2007, from https://drtc.isibang.ac.in/handle/1849/56.

Mark, T., & Shearer, K. (2006). Institutional Repositories: A Review of Content

Recruitment Strategies. Proceedings World Library and Information Congress:

72nd

IFLA Council and General Conference, Seoul, Korea. Retrieved May 16,

2007, from http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla72/papers/155-Mark_Shearer-en.pdf

Markey, K., Rieh, S. Y., Jean, B. S., Kim, J., & Yakel, E. (2007). Census of

Institutional Repositories in the United States: MIRACLE Project Research

Findings. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub140/pub140.pdf

Martin, R. (2003). ePrints UK: developing a national e-prints archive. Ariadne, 35.

Retrieved July 10, 2005, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/martin/


51

McDowell, C. S. (2007). Evaluating Institutional Repository Deployment in

American Academe Since Early 2005 Repositories by the Numbers, Part 2. D-Lib

Magazine, 13(9/10). Retrieved December 18, 2007, from

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september07/mcdowell/09mcdowell.html

Meyers, B. (2004). Open Access: A Matter For Definition. Society for Scholarly

Publishing Issue Status Report June 2004. Retrieved October 11, 2006, from

http://www.sspnet.org/files/public/Open-Access-Report-Barbara-Meyers.pdf

National Knowledge Commission. (2007). Report of the Working Group on Open

Access and Open Educational Resources. Retrieved June 18, 2008, from

http://www.knowledgecommission.gov.in/downloads/documents/wg_open_course

.pdf

Nixon, W. J. (2002). The evolution of an institutional e-prints archive at the

University of Glasgow. Ariadne, 32. Retrieved March 8, 2004, from

http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue32/eprint-archives/

Open Access Repositories in New Zealand (OARINZ) project. (2006). Technical

Evaluation of Selected Open Access Repositories in New Zealand. Retrieved

August 12, 2007, from

https://eduforge.org/docman/view.php/131/1062/Repository%20Evaluation%20D

ocument.pdf

Pandita, N. (2005). Open Access journals in India. International seminar on Open

access for developing counties, Salvador, Bahia - Brasil. Retrieved May 19, 2007,

from http://www.icml9.org/meetings/openaccess/activity.php?lang=en&id=10 97

Patel, Y., Vijayakumar, J. K., & Murthy, T. A. V. (2006). Institutional digital

Repositories/E-archives: INFLIBNET‘s initiative. In M. G. Sreekumar (Ed.),

Proceedings of the 7th

MANLIBNET Annual National Conference on Digital

Libraries in Knowledge Management, Kochi, India. 312-318. Retrieved January

16, 2007, from http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00005683/.


52

Pelizzari, E. (2003). Harvesting for Disseminating: Open Archives and Role of

Academic Libraries. Retrieved March 19, 2004, from

http://www.bci.unibs.it/biblio/harvesting_eprint.html

Pelizzari, E. (2004). Academic Authors and Open Archives: A Survey in the Social

Science Field. Libri, 54, 113-122. Retrieved October 26, 2005, from

http://www.librijournal.org/pdf/2004-2pp113-122.pdf

Pickton, M. J. (2005). Research students and the Loughborough institutional

repository. (Master's Dissertation, Loughborough University, 2005). Retrieved

January 10, 2006, from

http://magpie.lboro.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/2134/571/1/Miggie_dissertation.pdf

Pickton, M. J., & Barwick, J. (2006). A Librarian's guide to institutional repositories.

Retrieved May 10, 2007, from https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-

jspui/handle/2134/1122

Pickton, M., & McKnight, C. (2005). Research students and the Loughborough

institutional repository. Retrieved June 10, 2006, from

http://magpie.lboro.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/2134/1000/1/Pickton%26McKnight+J

oLIS2006%281%29.pdf

Pinfield, S., & Hamish, J. (2003). The Digital Preservation of e -Prints. DLib

Magazine, 9(9). Retrieved April 21, 2005, from

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september03/pinfield/09pinfield .html

Pinfield, S., Gardner M., & MacColl, J. (2002). Setting up an institutional e-print

archive. Ariadne, 31. Retrieved March 22, 2005, from

http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue31/eprint-archives/

Pöschl, U. (2004). Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and

quality assurance. Learned Publishing, 17 (2), 105–113. Retrieved November 18,

2005, from

http://ninetta.ingentaselect.com/vl=2385048/cl=86/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/alps

p/09531513/v17n2/s5/p105


53

Powell, A. (2005). Notes about possible technical criteria for evaluating institutional

repository (IR) software. Retrieved October 25, 2006, from

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/distributed-systems/jisc-ie/arch/ir-software.pdf

Publisher and Library/Learning Solutions (PALS). (2004). Pathfinder Research on

Web-based Repositories: Final report. Retrieved June 22, 2005, from

http://www.edtechpost.ca/wordpress/2004/03/01/pathfinder-research-on-web-

based-repositories-final-report/

Rajashekar, T. B. (2004) Open-Access Initiatives in India. Proceedings of Open

Access and the Public Domain in Digital Data and Information for Science, Paris,

France, 154-157. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091454/html/154.html

Rieh, S. Y., Markey, K., Yakel, E., St. Jean, B., & Kim, J. (2007). Perceived Values

and Benefits of Institutional Repositories: A Perspective of Digital Curation.

Retrieved June 18, 2008, from

http://ils.unc.edu/digccurr2007/papers/rieh_paper_6-2.pdf

Robinson, M. (2007). Institutional Repositories: Staff and Skills Requirements.

Retrieved October 22, 2007, from

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/documents/sherpaplusdocs/notts-

Repository%20Staff%20and%20Skills.pdf

Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2005). New journal publishing models: an international

survey of senior researchers. Retrieved March 16, 2006, from

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ciber/ciber_2005_survey_final.pdf

Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., & Huntingdon, P. (2004). Scholarly Communication in

the Digital Environment: What Do Authors Want? Learned Publishing, 17(4),

261-273. Retrieved May 18, 2005, from

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2004/00000017/00000004/art00

002


54

Sahu, D. K. (2006). Open access publishing in the developing world: economics and

impact. Asia Commons: Asian Conference on the Digital Commons, Bangkok,

Thailand. Retrieved July 11, 2007, from

http://openmed.nic.in/1598/01/Openaccess_Medknow.pdf

Sahu, D. K., & Parmar, R. (2006). The position around the world: Open Access in

India. In N. Jacobs (Ed.), Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic

Aspects (pp. 26-32). Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

Sale, A. (2006a). The acquisition of open access research articles. First Monday,

11(10). Retrieved March 14, 2007, from

http://eprints.comp.utas.edu.au:81/archive/00000375/01/Acquisition.pdf

Sale, A. (2006b). The impact of mandatory policies on ETD acquisition. D-Lib

Magazine, 12(4). Retrieved October 18, 2006, from

http://eprints.comp.utas.edu.au:81/archive/00000267/01/sale_final.doc

Sawant, S. (2008). Open Access Journals in India. In M. Kognurmath (Ed.),

International Conference on ‘Knowledge for All: Role of Libraries and

Information Centres proceedings (pp. 59-67). Mumbai: Sita publications.

Shearer, K. (2003). Institutional repositories: towards the identification of critical

success factors. In W. C. Peekhaus & L. F. Spiteri (Eds.), Proceedings of the

Bridging the Digital Divide: Equalizing Access to Information and

Communication Technologies, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Retrieved March 15, 2005,

from http://www.cais-acsi.ca/proceedings/2003/Shearer_2003.pdf

Shearer, K. (2004). CARL Institutional Repositories Project. Retrieved October 3,

2005, from http://www.carl-

abrc.ca/projects/institutional_repositories/pdf/survey_results_2004-e.pdf

Shearer, K. (2005). CARL Institutional Repositories Project. Retrieved May 4, 2006,

from http://www.carl-

abrc.ca/projects/institutional_repositories/pdf/survey_results_2005-e.pdf


55

Smith, M. (2002). DSpace: An Institutional Repository from the MIT Libraries and

Hewlett Packard Laboratories. Retrieved May 13, 2004, from

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/26706/Smith_2002_DSpace.pdf?se

quence=1

Suber, P. (2004a). Open Access Builds Momentum. ARL Bimonthly Report, 232.

Retrieved May 18, 2005, from http://www.arl.org/newsltr/232/openaccess.html

Suber, P. (2004b). Open Access Overview: Focusing on open access to peer-reviewed

research articles and their preprints. Retrieved June 20, 2005, from

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm

Suleman, H., & Fox, E. (2001). The Open Archives Initiative: Realizing Simple and

Effective Digital Library Interoperability. Retrieved May 10, 2004, from

http://www.dlib.vt.edu/projects/OAI/reports/jla_2001_article_oai.pdf

Sutradhar, B. (2006). Design and development of an institutional repository at the

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur. Program: electronic library and

information systems, 40(3). 244 – 255. Retrieved March 18, 2007, from


Swan, A. (2008). Open Access for Indian Scholarship. DESIDOC Bulletin of

Information Technology, 28(1), 15-34. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from

http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14465/

Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2003). Authors and electronic publishing: what authors want

from the new technology. Learned Publishing, 16(1), 28–33. Retrieved July 18,

2004, from

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/cw/alpsp/09531513/v16n1/s6/p28.pdf

?fmt=dirpdf&tt=885&cl=17&ini=connect&bini=&wis=connect&ac=0&acs=3262

9,75000325&expires=1130051429&checksum=830CAC88B14C125165C358F2E

B3ADD16&cookie=837943616

Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2004). Authors and open access publishing. Learned

Publishing, 17(3), 219-224. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/


56

Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2005). Open access self-archiving: an author study. Retrieved

March 11, 2006, from

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Open%20Access%20Self%20Archivi

ng-an%20author%20study.pdf

Swan, A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., O‘Brien, A., Oppenheim, C., et al.

(2005). Delivery, Management and Access Model for E-prints and Open Access

Journals within Further and Higher Education. Retrieved May 18, 2006, from

http://cogprints.org/4122/01/E-prints%5Fdelivery%5Fmodel.pdf

Van de Sompel, H., Payette, S., Erickson, J., Lagoze C., & Warner, S. (2004).

Rethinking Scholarly Communication: Building the System that Scholars

Deserve. D-Lib Magazine, 10 (9), Retrieved February 1, 2006, from

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september04/vandesompel/09vandesompel.html

Watson, S. (2007). Authors‘ attitudes to, and awareness and use of, a university

institutional repository. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from

https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/2017/3/Authors%20attitudes-

awareness-and%20use%20of%20IR%27s-2007.pdf

Westell, M. (2006). Institutional repositories: proposed indicators of success. Library

Hi Tech, 24(2), 211-226. Retrieved June 18, 2007, from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article

&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/2380240205.html

Westrienen, G., & Lynch, C. A. (2005). Academic Institutional Repositories:

Deployment Status in 13 Nations as of Mid 2005. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9).

Retrieved September 18, 2006, from

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/westrienen/09westrienen.html

Willinsky, J. (2002). Copyright Contradictions in Scholarly Publishing. First Monday,

7(11). Retrieved October 18, 2007, from

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_11/willinsky/


57

Wojciechowska, A. (2007). Analysis of the use of open archives in the fields of

mathematics and computer science. OCLC Systems & Services, 23(1), 54-69.

Retrieved December 16, 2007, from


Xia, J., & Sun, L. (2007). Assessment of Self-Archiving in Institutional Repositories:

Depositorship and Full-Text Availability. Serials Review, 33(1), 14-21. Retrieved

October 18, 2007, from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1829/01/Assessment%5F-

%5Fdlist.doc

Yeates, R. (2003). Institutional repositories. VINE: The Journal of Information and

Knowledge Management Systems, 33(2), 96-100. Retrieved December 14, 2004,

from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/03055720310509064

review of literature - inflibnetshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/4603/7/07_chapter...

Documents