Transcript Open Acess Initiatives in Health Sciences : Indian

Institutional Repositories: Indian &
Global Perspectives
Surinder Kumar
Technical Director
National Informatics Centre
New Delhi
[email protected]
Scientific Communication Channel - Conventional
Journals





Over 20,000 peer-review journals
Number of papers published increases by 3.5% per
year
Journal prices have increased significantly more
quickly than inflation over last 20 years.
Even the wealthiest institution cannot purchase and
access to all the information that all of its
researchers require.
Many publishers charge extra for online access – so
causing more pressure on budgets
Scientific Communication: Stake holders

Authors
–
–
–
–
Their work is not seen by all their peers
they do not get the recognition they desire
Despite the fact they often have to pay page charges,
colour figure charges, reprint charges, etc.
Often the rights they have given up in exchange for
publication mean there are things that they cannot do
with their own work
Scientific Communication..contd

Researchers
–
–


They cannot view all the research literature they need
they are less effective
Libraries
– Cannot satisfy the information needs of their
users
Society
–
We all lose out if the communication channels are not
optimal.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm
OA Movement






July 4, 1971. Project Gutenberg launched by Michael Hart.
August 16, 1991. arXiv launched by Paul Ginsparg.
June 27, 1994. Self-archiving first proposed by Stevan Harnad.
June 26, 1997. The National Center for Biotechnology Information
launched PubMed. At the same time, Medline content, already
online, became free when incorporated into PubMed.
May 1998. African Journals Online (AJOL) launched by the
International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publication
(INASP).
1999. The Open Archives Initiative (OAI) is launched. 1999.



July 19, 2000. BioMed Central published its first free online article.
July 1, 2002. Eprints, the OA archiving software, went open source
and affiliated with GNU.
June 20, 2003. The Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing is
released.

October 13, 2003. The Public Library of Science launched its first
open-access journal, PLoS Biology.

February 24, 2004. The International Federation of Library
Associations and Institutions (IFLA) released the IFLA Statement on
Open Access to Scholarly Literature and Research Documentation.
June 3, 2004. Elsevier announced its new policy permitting authors
to post the final editions of their full-text Elsevier articles to their
personal web sites or institutional repositories.
June 15, 2004. The European Commission launched an inquiry into
the system for publishing European research. Among the major topics
are rapidly rising journal prices and open access to research findings.






July 14, 2004. The U.S. House Appropriations Committee adopted
language proposing that the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
require open access to NIH-funded research through deposit in the
NIH's PubMed Central.
July 20, 2004. The U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology
Committee issued a lengthy report based on its inquiry into journal
prices and open access. The report recommended that public funding
agencies require open access to publicly-funded research through
deposit in the authors' institutional repositories.
August 26, 2004. Twenty-five Nobel laureates from the U.S. wrote an
open letter to the U.S. Congress in support of the NIH open-access
plan.
October 5, 2004. Sage Publications adopted a new policy to allow its
authors to deposit their postprints on open-access institutional
repositories without case-by-case permission.




September 23, 2005. Participants at the 9th World Congress on
Health Information and Libraries, Commitment to Equity (Salvador,
Bahia, Brazil, September 20-23, 2005) issued two declarations on
access to knowledge. The first, The Declaration of Salvador Commitment to Equity, asks governments to promote equitable and
open access. The second, The Salvador Declaration on Open Access:
The Developing World Perspective, asks governments to require open
access to publicly-funded research.
October 1, 2005. The Wellcome Trust starts implementing its new
open-access mandate for Wellcome-funded research.
December 1, 2005. The Ukrainian Parliament adopted a resolution
identifying open access as a national priority (Ukranian text, English
summary).
January 2006. The European Research Consortium for Informatics
and Mathematics (ERCIM) published its Statement on Open Access.
November 22, 2006. Participants in a Bangalore conference (November
2-3, 2006) drafted a model National Open Access Policy for Developing
Countries.

December 1, 2006. IFLA and UNESCO released the
IFLA/UNESCO Internet Manifesto Guidelines (dated September
2006), recommending open access as one way to implement
the 2002 IFLA Internet Manifesto (see August 2002 above).
Open Access-definition

What Open Access is
–

The Open Access research literature is composed of free, online
copies of peer-reviewed journal articles and conference
papers as well as technical reports, theses and working
papers. In most cases there are no licensing restrictions on
their use by readers. They can therefore be used freely for
research, teaching and other purposes.
What Open Access is not
–
It is not self-publishing, nor a way to bypass peer-review and
publication, nor is it a kind of second-class, cut-price publishing
route. It is simply a means to make research results freely
available online to the whole research community.

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=pub_openaccess
The B’s of Open Access





Budapest Open Access Initiative
(February 2002)
Bethesda Declaration (June 2003)
Berlin Declaration (October 2003)
Commitment to Equity (Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, September 20-23,
2005) issued two declarations on access to knowledge. The first, The
Declaration of Salvador - Commitment to Equity, asks governments to
promote equitable and open access. The second, The Salvador
Declaration on Open Access: The Developing World Perspective, asks
governments to require open access to publicly-funded research.
National Open Access Policy for Developing Countries
Definition of Open Access

The Budapest Initiative

There are many degrees and kinds of wider and
easier access to this literature. By ‘open access’, we
mean it’s free availability….. The only constraint
…authors’control over the integrity of their work and
the right to be properly acknowledged.
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shmtl

Definition-contd

The Bethesda Declaration

…let users “copy, use, distribute, transmit
and display the work publicly and to make
and distribute derivative works, in any digital
medium for any responsible purpose, subject
to proper attribution of authorship…”
Definition- contd

The Berlin Declaration

…let users “copy, use, distribute, transmit and
display the work publicly and to make and distribute
derivative works, in any digital medium for any
responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of
authorship…”
http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccessberlin/berlindeclaration.hmtl

Definition-contd.
Accoring to Directory of Open Access Journal:
 We define open access journals as journals that use
a funding model that does not charge readers or
their institutions for access. From the BOAI definition
[1] of "open access" we take the right of users to
"read, download, copy, distribute, print, search,
or link to the full texts of these articles" as
mandatory for a journal to be included in the
directory.
The Two Colors of Open Access
Budapest Initiatives

Gold –Open Access journals

Green –Author Self-Archiving
Open Access Journals; the Golden
Road






BioMed Central
Public Library of Science
European Geosciences Union
SciELO
ICAAP (International Coalition for the
Advancement of Academic Publishing)
medKNOW journals
Open Archives;
the Green Road


Centralized, subject archives
Institutional repositories (IRs)
Centralized, subject archives




arXiv.org
RePEc: Research Papers in Economics
Computing Research Repository (CoRR)
NIH PubMed Central
Institutional Repository –definition



http://www.library.uiuc.edu/scholcomm/glossary.htm “An online, searchable,
web-accessible database containing works of research deposited by scholars.
Purpose is both increased access to scholarship and long-term preservation.
Digital repositories are often built to serve a specific institution's community of
users, in which cases they are called institutional repositories. There are also
discipline-specific digital repositories, like arXiv.org. Most digital repositories
may be searched together via OAIster.”
http://www.bl.uk/about/strategic/glossary.html “An organisation that has
responsibility for the long-term maintenance of digital resources, as well as for
making them available to communities agreed on by the depositor and the
repository.”
http://www.edtechpost.ca/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GlossaryAnalysis
“A
collection of digital assets and/or metadata accessible via a network without
prior knowledge of the digital repository’s structure. A repository is a network
accessible server that can process the 6 OAI-PMH requests in the manner
described in this document. A repository is managed by a data provider to
expose metadata to harvesters.”
Institutional Repository –definition




SPARC
“An institutional repository is a digital archive
of the intellectual product created by the faculty, research
staff, and students of an institution and accessible to end
users both within and outside of the institution, with few if
any barriers to access. In other words, the content of an
institutional repository is:
Institutionally defined;
Scholarly;
Cumulative and perpetual; and
Open and interoperable.”
URL:http://www.arl.org/sparc/IR/ir.html
Institutional Repository –definition
JISC It is “as a managed storage system with
content deposited on a personal, departmental,
institutional, national, regional or consortia
basis, providing services to designated
communities, with content drawn from the range
of digital resources that support learning,
teaching and research.”
URL:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded/digital-repositories2005.pdf
Institutional Repository –definition
Clifford Lynch (2003), Executive Director of
the Coalition for Networked Information
“IR is described as “a set of services that
a university offers to the members of its
community for the management and
dissemination of digital materials created by
the institution and its community members.
URL:http://www.arl.org/newsltr/226/ir.html

Institutional Repository –common
features




Content is deposited by content creator, owner or by
proxy
Manages content as well as metadata
The repository offers a minimum set of services such
as put, get, search, access control
The repository must be sustainable and trusted, well
supported and well managed
Institutional Repositories - benefits
• “Some proponents of the open access movement see the IR or
open access archive as the most cost effective and immediate
route to providing access to the results of publicly funded
research, thereby maximizing the potential research impact of
these publications”.
• “Some research libraries see IRs as a means to expand on the
amount and diversity of scholarly material that is collected and
preserved, thus enhancing teaching, learning and research at
the host institution and beyond.”
Institutional Repositories - benefits



“Some see IRs as a way to enhance an institution’s
prestige or branding by showcasing its faculty’s
research output.”
“IRs is considered as an essential infrastructure for
the reform of the entire enterprise of scholarly
communication and publishing.”
“Remedying the weakness of current local self
archiving; running personal or departmental web
servers is wasteful of academics’ time and
academics frequently lack essential”
Institutional Repositories - benefits

Widely disseminating academic products and ideas of faculty,
and enhancing paper’s cited rate

Creating ease of access for peer group, and enhancing
possibility of easy searching by adopting OAI-compatible
standards

Demonstrating to funding bodies the breadth and depth of
research output from a university or institute to stake or further
a leadership claim in a specific subject areas
Institutional Repository-Challenges

Social
–
–
–
creating a work group or working as a group
mobilizing the content
feeling of burden of unnecessary work and
additional learning of technology.
IR-Stakeholders Involved


Development of IR is collaborative efforts involved
number of stake holders such Scientists,
Researchers, IT personnel, computer services and
the library.
Institutional repository should require a large amount
of digital storage, powerful servers, and technical
expertise that is likely to be found within a computer
services division.
Setting Up Institutional Repository

Challenges
–
Technical




selection of hardware,
communication bandwidth
suitable software
operational problems like loading Software uploading,
uploading data, set-up test server, manage process,
maintenance and preservation.
IR-Stakeholders Involved



a centralized computer services have already a large digital
storage system in which IR can be integrated, as well as
firewalls and authentication.
IT training department is another important wing in which IR
can be integrated so that training to further development can be
organized.
library has to offers as much as computer services and IT
training division. The library needs to be involved in an IR
project because of the following reasons:
– The core functions of the IRs such as metadata submission,
metadata application, discovery mechanism, preservation
etc are identical with the core functions of the libraries.
– The libraries have the existing relationship with the
researchers
– The level of trust that researchers have for the libraries
IR-Stakeholders Involved

Ideally, it should have the following persons in the establishment of a
trusted and successful IRs.
– Participation of persons in expertise in metadata and preservation
– Persons with good graphic and visual design
– Persons with network abilities as it requires a lot of work in
authentication, firewalls
– Parsons with a good knowledge of database and data storage,
backup facilities
– Persons with marketing and personal relationship as it is required
for making aware IRs usefulness
– Parsons with good knowledge of copyright law
– Moreover, support from users group
Top-down support must be required for implementing the IRs project.
IR-Users of IRs


Developers of IRs should aware of the potential user
of IRs.
It could be ascertain by adopting informal survey of
the researchers.
–
–
–
–
How many researchers are keeping their research papers in
their websites
How many times they are sending e-mails to their
colleagues by sending their papers
Ask them whether they have ready reference to their
papers
Where are they currently store their papers
IR-Type of contents




Research Communities
along with the developer
of IRs have to decide what
kind of collections have to
deposit in the IRs. type of
contents found in the IRs
is described below:
EPrints – Preprints/Postprint
Working Papers and
Reports
Conference papers &
Proceedings








Electronic Thesis and
Dissertations
DataSets
Supplementary
Materials
Online and overlay
journals
Books
Learning Objects
Multimedia Collections
Electronic Portfolios
IR- Types of Services

IRs can offer its members a number of
services to enhance more number of deposit
in the repositories]. These are:
–
–
–
–
–
Digitization
Metadata Enhancement
Batch Import facility
Proxy services (for some members initially)
User Support & Training
IR: Enabling Technology
The leading open source as well Proprietor IR software available
to choose among the best.
The Open Source IR Software:






Archimede
CDSware
DSpace
EPrints
Fedora
Greenstone
Archimede


URL:http://www1.bibl.ulaval.ca/archimede/index.en.html
Description: Developed at Laval University Library, Archimede
is open source software for building institutional repositories. It
has been developedwith a “multilingual perspective,” offering
English, French and Spanish interfaces.
Availability


Free, open source software, delivered under the GNU general
public licence.
Download Archimede software from SourceForge:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/archimede
Archimede..contd
Features
 Using communities and collections of content.
 The search engine is based on open source Lucene,
using LIUS(Lucene Index Update and Search), a
customized framework developed.
Technical support:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/archimede/
Example site
Laval University Library
CDSware (CERN Document Server Software)
URL: http://cdsware.cern.ch
Description: Developed by CERN, the European Organization for
Nuclear Research, based in Geneva, CDSware is designed to run an
electronic preprint server, online library catalogue, or a document
system on the web.
Availability
 Free, open source software distributed under the GNU General
Public Licence
Download location: http://cdsware.cern.ch/download/
Features

OAI compliant

MARC 21 metadata standard

Full text search

Database: MySQL

Powerful search engine with Google -like syntax

User personalization, including document baskets and email alerts



















CDSware (CERN Document Server Software)
URL: http://cdsware.cern.ch
Description: Developed by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear
Research, based in Geneva, CDSware is designed to run an electronic
preprint server, online library catalogue, or a document system on the web.
Availability
Free, open source software distributed under the GNU General Public
Licence
Latest version: CDSware v0.3.3
Download location: http://cdsware.cern.ch/download/
Features
OAI compliant
MARC 21 metadata standard
Full text search
Database: MySQL
Extensibility: API available
Powerful search engine with Google -like syntax
User personalization, including document baskets a nd email
notification alerts
CDSware (CERN Document Server Software)
Technical support
 Free email support at [email protected] or
through mailing list:[email protected]
Paid technical support is also available.
Example site
 CERN document server: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/
 At CERN, CDSware manages over 400 collections
of data, consistingof over 600,000 bibliographic
records, including more than 250,000 full text
documents.
DSpace
URL: http://www.dspace.org
Description: DSpace is a digital library system
designed to capture, store, index, preserve, and
redistribute the intellectual output of a university’s
research faculty in digital formats. Developed jointly
by HP Labs and MIT Libraries.
 Availability
 Free, open source software jointly developed by MIT
and Hewlett Packard Labs.
 Distributed through the BSD open source licence
 Download at http://sourceforge.net/projects/dspace/
DSpace
URL: http://www.dspace.org...contd
Features
 All content types accepted
 Dublin Core metadata standard
 Customisable web interface
 OAI compliant
 Workflow process for content submission
 Import/export capabilities
 Decentralised submission process
 Extensible through Java API
 Full text search using Lucene or Google
 Database: PostgreSQL, Oracle
DSpace
URL: http://www.dspace.org...contd
Technical support

DSpace-Tech mailing list for technical questions, discussions:

http://www.dspace.org/feedback/mailing.html
Example sites

Cambridge University

Cranfield University

Drexel University

Duke University

University of Edinburgh

Erasmus University of Rotterdam

Glasgow University

Hong Kong University of Science & Technology Library

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Université de Montréal (Erudit)

University of Oregon
EPrints
URL: http://software.eprints.org
Description: GNU EPrints is free, open source
software developed at the University of
Southampton. It is designed to create a pre-print
institutional repository for scholarly research, but can
be used for other purposes.
Availability
 Distributed under the GNU general public licence
Download software at
http://software.eprints.org/download.php
 Demo server: http://software.eprints.org/demo.php

EPrints
URL: http://software.eprints.org
Any content type accepted
Web-based interface
 Workflow features: content goes through
“moderation process” for approval, rejection, or
return to author for amendment.
 MySQL database
 Extensible through API using Perl programming
language.
 Full text searching
 RSS output

EPrints
URL: http://software.eprints.org
Technical support
 EPrints-tech mailing list:
http://software.eprints.org/maillist.php
 General announcements and “underground”
discussion list also
 Available at http://software.eprints.org/maillist.php.
 EPrints wiki: http://wiki.eprints.org/w/
EPrints
URL: http://software.eprints.org
Example sites
 California Institute of Technology

CogPrints Cognitive Science Eprint Archive

Digitale Publikationen der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

Glasgow ePrints Service

Institut Jean Nicod - Paris

National University of Ireland (NUI) Maynooth Eprint Archive

Oxford EPrints

Psycoloquy

University of Bath

University of Durham

University of Southampton
Fedora
URL: http://www.fedora.info/index.shtml

Description: Jointly developed by University of
Virginia and CornellUniversity, Fedora (Flexible
Extensible Digital Object Repository) serves as a
foundation for building interoperable web-based
digital libraries, institutional repositories, and other
information management systems.
Availability

Free, open source, Distributed under the Mozilla
open source licence, Download at
http://www.fedora.info/
Fedora
URL: http://www.fedora.info/index.shtml
Features
 Any content type accepted, Dublin Core metadata
 OAI compliant, XML submission and storage
 Extensibility: APIs for management, access, web services
 Content versioning
 Migration utility
Technical support
 Free online support through mailing list:
 https://comm.nsdlib.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-users
 Fedora WIKI:
http://www.fedora.info/wiki/bin/view/Fedora/WebHome
Fedora
URL: http://www.fedora.info/index.shtml
Example sites
 Indiana University
 Kings College, London
 New York University
 Northwestern University
 Oxford University
 Rutgers University
 Tufts University
 University of Virginia
 Yale University
Greenstone
URL: http://www.greenstone.org/cgi-bin/library
Description: Developed by the New Zealand Digital
Library Project at the University of Waikato, It is a
suite of software for building digital library
collections and developed and distributed in
cooperation UNESCO and the Human Info NGO.
Availability
 Free multi-lingual, open source software, Distributed
under the GNU General Public Licence, Download at
 http://www.greenstone.org/cgi-bin/library?e=penhome-utfZz-8&a=p&p=download
Greenstone
URL: http://www.greenstone.org/cgi-bin/library
Features
 Multilingual: Four core languages are English,French, Spanish
and Russian. Over 25 additional language interfaces available
Includes a pre-built demonstration collection
 Offers an “Export to CDROM” feature
 Technical support
General user discussion list:
 https://list.scms.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/green
stone-users
Commercial support is available for a fee.
Greenstone
URL: http://www.greenstone.org/cgi-bin/library
Example sites
 Books from the Past/ Llyfrau o'r Gorffennol
 Gresham College Archive
 Peking University Digital Library
 Project Gutenberg at Ibiblio
 Texas A&M University: Center for the Study of Digital
Libraries
 University of Applied Sciences, Stuttgart, Germany
CONTENTdm™
URL: http://contentdm.com/










Example sites
Full list of organisations using CONTENTdm at
http://contentdm.com/customers/customer-list.html including:
§ University of Arizona
§ University of Iowa
§ University of Oregon
§ University of Washington Libraries
§ Oregon State University
§ Colorado State University Libraries
§ Brigham Young University
Open Repository
URL:
http://www.openrepository.com/default.asp








Features
Accepts wide variety of content formats
Conversion utility to create PDFs
OAI-based metadata
Feature list available at
http://www.openrepository.com/Open.Rep.Sales.Flye
r.pdf
Technical support
Full technical support available
Understanding Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR) for Institutional Repositories

Copyright offers protection to content creators to control how
their materialcan be used and distributed.

Institutional repositories deal with copyright issues
on two fronts: in collecting content from scholars,
by which they must secure the rights to distribute
and preserve the content, and in distributing
content to end users, by which they must balance
the tenets of open access with copyright protection.
Understanding Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR) for Institutional Repositories…contd

As you work with faculty who want to submit
their content to an institutionalrepository, you
might want to encourage them to retain
copyright to their work or at least retain
rights to publish their work electronically
when they publish their papers.
Content Licences
An institutional repository might have these two
licences:
Deposit licence: An agreement between the creator
(or copyright holder) and the institution giving the
repository the right to distributeand preserve the
work.
 Distribution licence: An agreement between the
author or creator or copyright holder and the end
user governing the uses that can be
 made of the work.
Creative Commons Licence
The Creative Commons Licences offer content
creators and distributors a variety of licences, letting
the content creator stipulate conditions for using the
licenced content. See the Creative Commons site at
http://creativecommons.org/ for information on the
licences offered and tools
For content creators/distributors.
 The Creative Commons site also offers excellent
background information onthe legal concepts of
fundamental intellectual property concepts:
http://creativecommons.org/learn/legal/.

Copyright Guidelines for Scholars

Scholars who place their research in
institutional repositories may need additional
information on copyright issues. Several
organisations provide excellent information
and guides to understanding copyright for
scholarly research.
..contd
The Creative Commons group offers important
information on content licensing for faculty,
researchers, and authors
(http://creativecommons.org/learn/licenses/).
 Publishers usually will agree to an author’s request
to retain rights to postcontent to a website or
institutional repository. Faculty should be
encouraged to retain these rights before and after
publishing their work so they can contribute their
content to online repositories.

..contd


Project RoMEO offers excellent guidance for
scholars interested in selfarchiving. Their
website provides valuable information on
negotiating content agreements with
publishers, with a guide to how publishers
commonly licence content from faculty.
www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php
…contd





ROMEO colourArchiving policy
greencan archive pre-print and post-print or
publisher's version/PDF
bluecan archive post-print (ie final draft postrefereeing) or publisher's version/PDF
yellowcan archive pre-print (ie prerefereeing)
whitearchiving not formally supported
IPR..contd


The EPrints project publishes extensive
information and guidance on self
archivingand open archives, as well as a
glossary of terms in this area
(http://www.eprints.org/glossary/) and links to
the most important sites for research
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/.
Rights Management
For institutional repositories,
Rights Management generally refers to how
content is distributed in accordance with
copyright rules and to indicate whoowns the
copyright for the content. Institutional
repositories usually aim foropen access.
However, there may be instances where
access needs to berestricted, such as
information related to patentable materials.
Policy Guidelines for Institutional
Repositories




Creating Policy Guidelines
Forming a Policy Advisory Group
Issues to Consider
Technology Implications
Creating Policy Guidelines



1. Policies that your project team can resolve
internally – for example, a list of supported
formats.
2. Policies related to library policies – such
as collections or access to collections.
3. Policy decisions related to the institute’s
policies – user authentication and
identification, privacy policies, theses, etc.
Forming a Policy Advisory Group

Most successful institutional repository
projects form a Policy Group to adviseon all
policy decisions. The Policy Group can help
to determine your institutional repository’s
policies on content submission and
distribution, privacy and licensing issues, and
other policy guidelines.
Policy Issues to Consider



Content – formats, kinds of content you’ll collect,
etc.
Collections – what constitutes a collection, how
collections are managed and administered, if you’re
organising your content by department or clusters,
etc.
Copyright – intellectual property agreements and
rights issues.
Policy Issues to Consider





Preservation formats. Which formats are
supported, and to what
degree?
Withdrawal of items. Can items ever be
deleted, or only hidden?
Metadata. Who is authorised to enter
metadata? Only library staff or
faculty and contributors?
Technology Implications of Policy
Decisions

Build your service flexibly to accommodate
policy shifts where feasible.
Cost Modelling for
Institutional Repositories


No Easy Answers
there are no shortcuts or “turn key
solutions” to building an institutional
repository. You still need to design
aservice, apply the proper technology
platform, create policies, recruit content
communities, enlist faculty participation,
and market the service to your users.
Institutional Repositories..contd

Separation of content and service components

Content layer [data providers]
–
–

Registration, certification, archiving
Examples: Over 1,000 data providers today
Service layer [service providers]
–
–
–
Cross-archive searching (OAI metadata std./ harvesting)
Citation linking, alerting services, overlay journals, etc.
Examples: ARC, OAIster, CiteBase
IR-Indian Scenario

At present, the University of Southampton’s
worldwide registry of OAI compliant open access
repositories lists more than 1000 repositories.
Number of IRs produced by India is around 50.
To make it available as single virtual archive and
also means of providing seamless search, it is
becoming essential to form a network of
connected research repositories and resource
discovery services to form National digital
repository system. Examples are CARL, ARROW,
DRIVER etc
Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR) lists 52
repositories have been registered, however, this
number may be higher as certain repositories have
yet not been registered with ROAR.
Analysis of IRs in India
 Out of 52, 13 were not functional at the time of
writing paper
 Number of them have not been updating
 To look further, it is not reaching the critical mass

As per survey conduced by Webometrics
2010 for latest ranking of World’s open
access repositories for visibilities, quality and
available items[18], there are seven
repositories listed from India out of 400 IRs
surveyed and their details as given in the
following table.
Sr No.
Rank
Name of IR
Year
1
82
Indian
Institute
Science
of
05-042004
21472
2
148
OpenMed,
National
Informatics Centre
22-032005
2645
3
180
Indian
Institute
Library
17-012004
188
4
218
Indian
Institute
Astrophysics
of
11-112004
2468
5
245
National Institute
Oceanography
Digital library
of
06-042010
3528
6
278
Raman
Institute
Library
Research
Digital
19-042005
3731
6
278
National
Aerospace
Laboratories
Institutional
Repository
9-112004
3164
Statistical
digital
of
estab
lish
ment
No of records
Barriers to IRs

Scholars as authors have concerns
–
–
–
–
–
peer review (or lack of it)
Cost: Authors have to pay
Prestige
Archiving (not proven)
Information overload

Copyright issues: Trend for publishers to accept articles
that are not posted prior to publication

Not everyone has access to the web –especially in
developing countries

It merely shifts the costs from libraries to the funding
agencies or employers
Conclusion





Librarians have to play a major role not only in
establishing IR but also help in populating IRs by
forming a bridge between faculty and IR.
Conduct regular seminar
Invite expert to clear the doubt of faculty
Continuous Awareness is needed
Librarians keep themselves upto date with the
development of IR
http://www.insa.ac.in/