(This message is being sent to multiple lists; please excuse
duplication)<br><br>This study was conducted with the cooperation of
eIFL.net, the
University of Kansas Libraries, the DRIVER project and Key Perspectives
Ltd. The aim was to create an inventory of current digital repository
activities in developing and transition countries at both the
infrastructure and services level. This is the first attempt to collect
such data about digital repository activity in developing and transition
countries and we hope this will serve as a useful resource for
promoting open access and repository development in these regions. This
report was produced in the framework of the eIFL-OA advocacy program
supported by Open Society Institute and the Wellcome Trust. <br>
<br>Over the course of six months, 49 repositories from 20 countries on
three continents participated in this survey. The following countries
are represented: Argentina, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Ghana,
Hong Kong, India, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Namibia, Poland,
Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Taiwan, Ukraine, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.<br>
<br>You can download the report and the data from the EIFL website: <a href="http://www.eifl.net/cps/sections/services/eifl-oa/docs/report-on-open" target="_blank">http://www.eifl.net/cps/sections/services/eifl-oa/docs/report-on-open</a>
or from KU ScholarWorks:
<a href="http://hdl.handle.net/1808/6393" target="_blank">http://hdl.handle.net/1808/6393</a>.
<br><br>Thanks to all of you who participated in the survey! <br>
<br>Some of the findings of the survey are listed below: <br><br> *
Visibility, access, and preservation were the most important motivations
cited by participating institutions to establish a repository. Other
motivations included the need to evaluate researchers and departments,
and as a response to requests from faculty.<br>
<br> * The responses show an increasing rate of growth of
repositories over the last several years, and indicate that these
repositories are for the most part very new services. The repositories
at nearly one-fourth of the participating institutions had been publicly
accessible for less than a year at the time of the survey, and over 60%
had been accessible for less than three years.<br>
<br> * Libraries play a major role in advocating and maintaining
repositories. By far the majority of participating institutions (88%)
answered that the library actively advocated the establishment of a
repository. The Information Technology department was the second most
mentioned unit, cited by 28% of participating institutions. Other
departments mentioned include administration (18%), academic departments
(16%), and the research office (14%). In addition, 79% indicated that
the repository was supported by funds from the library’s operating
budget.<br>
<br> * Electronic theses and dissertations are the most common
type of material in the responding institutions' repositories. Other
common material includes full-text of research articles as peer-reviewed
postprints, journals published from the institution, and conference
papers. Preprints were far less common, as were audio and video.<br>
<br> * 85% of the materials in the repositories of the
participating institutions are open access or publicly available.<br> <br>
* About two-thirds of the participating institutions use some form of
mediated deposit in which staff members or librarians are directly
involved in the deposit of materials into the repository.<br>
<br> * The majority of participating institutions (56%) stated
that less than 25% of the researchers or faculty members at their
institutions have deposited material in the repository. For almost one
third (29%) of participating institutions the picture is a bit
better--between 25 and 50% of the researchers or faculty members at
these institutions have deposited material in the repository. 9%
indicated that between 75-99% of the researchers or faculty members and
4% indicated between 50-75%. One institution indicated that 100% of the
researchers or faculty members at their institutions have deposited
material in the repository (this institution has an OA mandate). <br>
<br> * Dspace is by far the most common software package, used by
57% of participating institutions. 9% use EPrints and 2% use Fedora.
13% use locally developed packages and 19% use other packages (including
Nitya Archive, Greenstone, dLibra (Poland), Socionet (Russia), and
Digital Commons).<br>
<br> * The following services were listed as priorities further
development at an international scale: General search
engines/gateways/portals (34%), Preservation services (34%), Advisory
services (Open Access advocacy) (30%), Disciplinary/ thematic search
engines/gateways/portals/repositories (27%), Citation index
services (27%), Usage statistics services (25%), Cataloguing or metadata
creation/ enhancement services (20%), Advisory services (technical
aspects) (18%), Personal services for the depositing scientists (16%),
Publishing services (14%), Research assessment/evaluation services
(11%), Printing-on-demand services (7%), Repository hosting services
(5%).<br>
<br> * The major challenge that the institutions faced in
implementing, promoting and running the repository was content
recruitment (42% of participating institutions). Other challenges
included: Engendering faculty awareness and engagement (50%); Securing
adequate funding and other resources (46%); Copyright issues (42%);
Communicating with faculty about the repository (41%); Integrating the
repository into workflow and other existing structures (35%); Staffing
issues (31%).<br><br>Iryna Kuchma<br><span>Open</span> Access program
manager<br>EIFL<br><br>Brian
Rosenblum <br>Scholarly Digital Initiatives Librarian<br>University of
Kansas