Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University Library Utrecht]On: 18 September 2013, At: 03:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Public Services QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wpsq20
Institutional Repositories and FacultyParticipation: Encouraging Deposits byAdvancing Personal GoalsBrigitte Burris aa The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAPublished online: 20 Apr 2009.
To cite this article: Brigitte Burris (2009) Institutional Repositories and Faculty Participation:Encouraging Deposits by Advancing Personal Goals, Public Services Quarterly, 5:1, 69-79, DOI:10.1080/15228950802634212
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228950802634212
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
FUTURE VOICES IN PUBLIC SERVICES
Nancy H. Dewald, Column Editor
The Future Voices in Public Services column is a forum for students ingraduate library and information science programs to discuss key issues theysee in academic library public services, to envision what they feel librariansin public service have to offer to academia, to tell us of their visions for theprofession, or to tell us of research that is going on in library schools. Wehope to provide fresh perspectives from those entering our field, in boththe United States and other countries. Interested faculty of graduate libraryand information science programs, who would like their students’ ideasrepresented in these pages, are invited to contact Nancy H. Dewald [email protected].
Brigitte Burris is a graduate student at Drexel University’s iSchool andalso works as a librarian at the University of Pennsylvania. At a time whenmany librarians hope for the expansion of open access to scholarlyresources, Burris here proposes a method of adding attributes to articles ininstitutional repositories in order to increase faculty members’ incentive fordepositing their scholarly articles.
�����
The iSchool at Drexel’s Master of Science in Library and InformationScience, MS(LIS), is the second oldest program of its kind in the nation,and one of just 56 ALA-accredited programs. More technologically orientedthan other programs, the MS(LIS) prepares graduates for a wide variety ofpositions including academic librarian, knowledge management specialist,systems librarian, digital librarian, Web developer, and competitive intelli-gence analyst. The 2009 edition of U.S. News & World Report’s ‘‘America’s BestGraduate Schools’’ rated the MS(LIS) program 11th in the nation overall, withspecialties in information systems and digital librarianship ranking fifthand sixth, respectively. The iSchool at Drexel’s faculty has been nationallyrecognized, ranked by Academic Analytics, a third party company bench-marking academic excellence, as 8th in the nation for scholarly productivity.
Address correspondence to Column Editor Nancy H. Dewald, Reference Librarian, PennState Berks, Tulpehocken Road, P.O. Box 7009, Reading, PA 19610-6009, USA. E-mail:[email protected]
Public Services Quarterly, 5:69–79, 2009Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1522-8959 print=1522-9114 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15228950802634212
69
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry U
trec
ht]
at 0
3:28
18
Sept
embe
r 20
13
Institutional Repositories and FacultyParticipation: Encouraging Deposits by
Advancing Personal Goals
BRIGITTE BURRISThe University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
For more than six years, a host of stakeholders in the academic sphere hasanxiously awaited the reform of scholarly communication with the adventof the open-access institutional repository. Its range of benefits, includingwider dissemination of scholarly research, the permanent archiving of aninstitution’s scholarly output, and the promise of a dramatic decrease in thecost and=or number of scholarly journal subscriptions, have inspired a num-ber of institutions to establish their own repositories, even at the expense ofconsiderable staff time and financial investment. Unfortunately, the leap fromestablishing the repository and radically altering the world of scholarly com-munication has not been as seamless as early proponents had hoped.
Despite the challenges facing those already established, institutionalrepositories have proliferated in relatively little time, especially at largeresearch institutions. A 2006 Ithaka study found that approximately 60% oflarge to very large libraries, 30% of medium libraries, and 20% of small tovery small libraries have institutional repositories in place. Among thoselibraries that do not yet have a repository, a significant proportion has plansin place to establish one (Housewright & Schonfeld, 2008, p. 25). With thismuch excitement from institutions and librarians surrounding the establish-ment of repositories, one would expect to find similar levels of activity inthe accumulation of material within them. This has not been the case (Ware2004, p. 119; Salo, 2007). Not only have deposits of content been scarce, butthe content that is of most interest to would-be reformers of scholarly com-munication, scholarly journal articles, tends to make up a small proportion ofthe total records in most institutional repositories. In addition, those reposi-tories that do contain scholarly journal articles are primarily at only largeresearch institutions (Housewright & Schonfeld, 2008, p. 24). Uncoveringthe major impediments preventing the growth of content in institutionalrepositories would aid tremendously the current efforts to create a sustain-able model for the future.
Address correspondence to Brigitte Burris, Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center, University ofPennsylvania, 3420 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206. E-mail: [email protected]
70 Future Voices in Public Services
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry U
trec
ht]
at 0
3:28
18
Sept
embe
r 20
13
Securing regular deposits of content from faculty has proven an uphillbattle for a number of reasons. Among them, many faculty are unaware thattheir institutions have a repository in place (Housewright & Schonfeld, 2008,p. 24) or worry that the learning curve to begin depositing will outweigh anyperceived benefit (Davis & Connolly, 2007). Some faculty have concerns,often unfounded, over violating copyright laws or contracts with theirpublishers for articles that have already been accepted for publication, orworries that depositing a preprint will decrease their future chances of accep-tance for publication (Davis & Connolly, 2007). Those faculty that deposit todisciplinary repositories, such as arXiv and PubMed Central, often feel thatdepositing to the institutional repositories is redundant, the disciplinaryrepository has already achieved any benefits they expect from a repository,and, when choosing between the two often feel a closer connection to theirdisciplines than their institutions (Davis & Connolly, 2007). Perhaps of mostimportance and the subject of this article’s discussion, however, is the factthat institutional repositories, as they currently exist, do not lend themselveswell to the achievement of faculty goals.
The success of institutional repositories inherently depends on the par-ticipation of faculty, be it voluntary or mandated, yet the standard argumentsused to persuade them to contribute—including wider dissemination ofresearch, permanent archiving of their scholarly output, and indexing insearch engines such as Google—have proven largely unsuccessful. Thecurrent incentives underlying librarians’ support of institutional repositories,particularly the crisis in scholarly communication as it relates to access toresearch, are simply not material, immediate, or personal enough for themajority of faculty to alter their current practices (Davis & Connolly,2007).1 A host of previous studies have outlined the primary goals of faculty,which are fundamentally linked to the advancement of their research andpublication. First and foremost, faculty seek to disseminate their researchas widely as possible, but particularly to their peers (Swan & Brown, 2005,p. 23; Housewright & Schonfeld, 2008, p. 20). This dissemination, in turn,promotes future research and continues the scholarly research cycle. Second,faculty seek success in their careers, especially as it relates to promotion andtenure (Swan & Brown, 2005, p, 23). Research and publication are funda-mentally linked to the promotion and tenure process; without publication,faculty cannot advance professionally. Third, faculty desire recognition fromtheir peers (Devakos, 2006, p. 181). Establishment in their fields hinges onthe dissemination and prominence of their research, as it is perceived byother scholars (Jenkins, Breakstone, & Hixson, 2005, p. 316). Institutionalrepositories have until now catered to these goals only minimally.
Although institutional repositories have failed to aid faculty in theachievement of their personal goals, the current scholarly journal publishingsystem has served faculty reasonably well in this endeavor (Crow, 2002,p. 22). The sheer length of time that publishers have held an integral role
Future Voices in Public Services 71
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry U
trec
ht]
at 0
3:28
18
Sept
embe
r 20
13
in the scholarly communication process has led to their seemingly inextric-able relationship with not just research publication, but the academic promo-tion process itself. This association has culminated in the very reputation ofthe journal becoming a stamp of quality on the articles and authors publishedwithin, one highly coveted by academic scholars and highly regarded byreview committees. In fact, the reputation of the journal, its impact factor,and readership are the top three characteristics for selection of a journalfor publication submitted by faculty respondents to a 2005 CIBER survey(Rowlands & Nicholas, 2005, p. 17) and frequently considered duringpromotion and tenure review. In addition, it is often mistakenly believed thatthe high cost of a journal is an indicator of its high quality, and that, as in thecase of open-access modes of research dissemination, the absence of a fee istherefore an indicator of poor quality (King, et al., 2006, p. 4). Not only is thebelief that repositories are low quality because of their cost widespread, butalso a belief among faculty that any content they would submit to a reposi-tory, regardless of its quality, would be tainted by association with lesser-quality materials (Van Westrienen & Lynch, 2005; Atkinson, 2003, p. B16;Rowlands & Nicholas, 2005, p. 50). At the very least, their work would notincrease in stature because of its placement in a repository, as it would ina high-profile journal. Because most institutional repositories have no poli-cies restricting types of submissions, practically all content is accepted,including preprints and other articles that have not undergone peer review.Most repositories have become a melting pot of what research is in them,with no mechanism for differentiation. The longstanding association withacademic journal publishers and the beliefs about repositories, erroneousor justified, are just a few of the factors preventing institutional repositoriesfrom successfully appealing to faculty as a means of attaining their personalgoals.
In his early case for institutional repositories, Raym Crow outlined thefour essential components of scholarly communication:
1. Registration—establishing the intellectual priority of an idea, concept orresearch;
2. Certification—certifying the quality of the research and=or the validity ofthe claimed finding;
3. Awareness—ensuring the dissemination and accessibility of research,providing a means by which researchers can become aware of newresearch; and
4. Archiving—preserving the intellectual heritage for future use (outlined byCrow, 2002, p. 7; see also Roosendaal & Geurts, 1998; Crane, 2001).
Though the ability of institutional repositories to achieve three of thesefour components, registration, awareness, and archiving, is widely acknowl-edged by librarians and faculty, the second, certification, has not been
72 Future Voices in Public Services
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry U
trec
ht]
at 0
3:28
18
Sept
embe
r 20
13
adequately demonstrated by existing systems. The limited response of theinstitutional repository to this factor is the key impediment to its acceptanceas a viable system of research dissemination (Jantz & Wilson, 2008, p. 194).Institutional repositories need the ability to qualify and certify content if theyare to aid substantially in the achievement of faculty goals. Proposed here isthe inclusion of various, extant forms of metadata and metrics (referred tohere as ‘‘attributes’’) with each item in the repository as a means to qualify,certify, and, ultimately, differentiate the repository’s content. Examples ofsuch attributes that could, with minimal effort, be provided for each article,where applicable, include:
1. Citations—the total number of times an article has been cited, where itwas cited, when, and by whom;
2. Downloads—the total number of times an article has been downloaded,when, and the location (e.g., country, city) of the download;
3. Impact factor—the impact factor of the article, calculated with the numberof times the individual article has been cited;
4. h-index—the author’s Hirsch-index, as determined by his total number ofpublications and citations;
5. Peer review—a statement indicating whether or not an article has beenpeer reviewed; and
6. Vetting by an outside organization—a statement indicating whether anarticle has been vetted by an outside organization or scholarly society.
All of these attributes are currently offered in one form or another from avariety of databases and services. Institutional repositories have the opportu-nity to enhance their value to the user by allowing searching by metrics (e.g.,search for all articles that have been cited more than three times in the lastyear) or existence of certification (e.g., search for all articles that have beenpeer reviewed). Although some repositories currently send authors reportson the use of their articles, these usage statistics should be made publicand a criterion for searching. This service is already provided on popular sitessuch as YouTube (allows the user to search for the most-viewed videos) andthe New York Times (allows the user to search for the most frequentlye-mailed, linked, and searched articles in its archive) but is not prevalentamong institutional repositories. This functionality would not only offer con-venience to the repository user but also help to differentiate and characterizein a meaningful way the content in repositories.
The usefulness and credibility of download and citation metrics havealready been accepted by many faculty and academic institutions. In JihyunKim’s 2007 study of faculty motivations for future contribution to institutionalrepositories, he found the second-highest motivation of seven after the pre-servation of an author’s research, to be ‘‘if the IR shows how many times mymaterials in the IR were viewed and downloaded’’ (Kim, 2007, Table 3). The
Future Voices in Public Services 73
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry U
trec
ht]
at 0
3:28
18
Sept
embe
r 20
13
value of usage statistics to authors has been demonstrated in other studies aswell. In a 2005 CIBER Survey, 61.5% of respondents agreed that ‘‘the numberof citations and the number of downloads are a good measure of the useful-ness of research’’ (Rowlands & Nicholas, 2005, p. 26). Citation analysis haslong been of interest to administrators since its development in the 1950s(Hitchcock et al., 2003) and, in some countries (e.g., Belgium), is now beingadvocated as the sole metric to inform authorities making decisions on howto allocate funding within institutions (Van Westrienen & Lynch, 2005). Withthe development and prevalence of an increasing number of tools thatprovide metrics such as citation analysis, h-index, and impact factor, accep-tance of these metrics among faculty and administrators has the possibility ofbecoming more widespread. Indication of whether an article has been peerreviewed is a feature crucial to the certification of content in institutionalrepositories and central to the academic promotion and tenure process.Not only does peer review vet the quality of new research, but it also helpsto filter the excess of information available to the researcher (Rowlands &Nicholas, 2005, p. 19; King et al., 2006, pp. 4, 10). Though questions ofwhether the journal publisher should continue to be responsible for arran-ging the peer review process remain unanswered, the value placed on peerreview by scholars is clear. To scholars, it is the system for quality assessmentand the means by which they evaluate information (King et al., 2006, p. 10).
There are a host of reasons why the inclusion of metrics and statementsof certification improve substantially on both the current system of thescholarly journal publishing industry and institutional repositories. Let usexamine a few benefits over the publishing industry’s system:
1. Currently, the impact factor of journals, which has become increasinglypopular with the preponderance of the Institute for Scientific Information(ISI) products, gauges only the impact of the journal in which an article ispublished, not the impact of the individual article (Adam, 2002, p. 728;Chan, 2004). Journal impact factor is really only an inferior surrogate forarticle citation counts and one that perpetuates the system of quality-certification based on the prestige of a journal (Sale, 2006, p. 4). Theproposed system of providing metrics for each article would allow for amore accurate assessment of the usefulness and impact of an individualarticle rather than the entire journal.
2. Promotion and tenure committees regularly incorporate journal impactfactors into their decision making. Providing metrics on an individual arti-cle’s impact, the actual quality of an article, could instead be analyzed asperformance indicators rather than simply the impact of the journal thathappened to accept that article for publication (Crow, 2002, p. 23; Harnad& Brody, 2004).
3. The proposed system would allow multiple levels of certification andmetrics to exist concurrently (Crow, 2002, pp. 13-14). Not only could an
74 Future Voices in Public Services
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry U
trec
ht]
at 0
3:28
18
Sept
embe
r 20
13
article be vetted by peer review but could also be qualified by an unlim-ited number of metrics or certification by other research-vetting bodies.
4. The institutional repository system would ultimately allow more work to bedisseminated. The current publishing system often declines research that isnot popular or ground-breaking enough, while at the same time perpetuat-ing ‘‘bandwagon’’ research. Publishers are in the business to profit fromscholarly research; institutions are not. Considerations of the marketabilityof an article would not affect an institution’s decision to disseminate it.
5. Finally, the measurement of an individual article’s impact over time wouldhelp to make the academic review process more equitable. Due to limitedcapacities for assessment, frequently the impact of a scholar’s work ismeasured by review bodies in quantity, not quality (Johnson, 2002).Because the nature of their disciplines is to publish less frequently,scholars in fields such as the humanities are punished by such a system,while the scholars in fields such as the sciences can seem unduly prolific.Providing a means for the measurement of the impact and quality of ascholar’s individual article would do much to improve this often biasedcriterion for evaluation.
The system proposed here not only improves upon the current publish-ing industry but also the current state of institutional repositories. Followingare some of the important differences:
1. First, with a system to rate the quality of research, even more materialcould be included without a scholar’s fear of negative association with les-ser-quality content. Each article would be differentiated by the attributeswith which it is associated, allowing the entire corpus of an institution’soutput to be deposited, including preprints, teaching materials, and thework of undergraduate and graduate students. Some repositories havepolicies in place to accept only peer-reviewed articles, but those policiesgreatly limit the amount of content in a repository and defeat its funda-mental purpose (Lynch, 2003, p. 333). In contrast, some institutions, fru-strated by the challenges of recruiting faculty content, have given upentirely on filling their repositories with peer-reviewed articles and havesought to fill them with only other material and the library’s digitizedarchives. This has served only to exacerbate faculty’s already wary percep-tions of the repository as an archive of only older material (Bankier &Perciali, 2008, p. 21), a place where content goes in but does not comeout (Salo, 2007). Providing attributes on each article allows the repositoryto fill up with material without appending a stigma to high-qualitycontent.
2. Receiving feedback about the use of their research is popular with faculty.Its provision would help to persuade them to submit their work simply
Future Voices in Public Services 75
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry U
trec
ht]
at 0
3:28
18
Sept
embe
r 20
13
to analyze their metrics. Not only will they discover what veins oftheir research are the most popular with other researchers (Sale, 2006,pp. 6-7), but they can also use those metrics to advance their careersand even to support their grant applications (Sale, 2006, p. 8).
3. Repositories have been criticized by faculty for appearing to supportinstitutions rather than the individual. Even their very name implies aninstitutional focus (Foster & Gibbons, 2005). Providing attributes that indi-vidualize each article will help to make the repository seem more orientedto the goals of the individual and less to those of the institution.
4. Institutional repositories can only compete with the scholarly journalindustry if they are able to replace the value that authors stake on theirprestige and the part their prestige plays in achieving their professionalgoals. The prestige of journals is essentially artificial; they are only worththe value that authors and readers place on them. The attributes providedabout each article by this system, especially the usage metrics, are a valid,and in many ways better, substitute for that qualification system. In theend, faculty will begin to voluntarily submit their content if the repositorybegins to serve their goals. Once that purpose has been fulfilled, participa-tion should only increase. As faculty begin to realize that their work in therepository is being downloaded, cited, and used by review committees,they will be motivated to contribute even more (Bell et al., 2005, p. 289).
This proposed system holds the promise of benefits for the full range ofstakeholders in the academic sphere, but particularly scholars (producersand consumers), institutions, and libraries. The current arguments to per-suade scholars to deposit their work are good ones, but with the enhance-ments to the repository described above, its appeal to the individual willbe even greater. In addition to wider dissemination and permanent preserva-tion of their own research, they will also have greater and permanent accessto other scholars’ research. Numerous studies have documented that open-access articles have higher download, impact, and citation rates (Lawrence,2001, p. 7; Chan, 2004; Xia, 2007, p. 647; Harnard & Brody, 2004; Johnson,2002). Their availability to scholars around the world, including less devel-oped countries where access has been substantially limited, will furtherincrease the use and impact of a scholar’s research. Institutions, too, benefitfrom the proposed system, and not simply by having a record of the institu-tion’s total output, but also because it is a measure of the value and relevanceof its scholars’ research and thereby the institution itself (Crow, 2002, p. 4;Swanepoel, 2005, p. 14; Johnson, 2002). The glory of researchers’ achieve-ments belongs not to the industry that publishes them but to the authorsand the institutions that fostered these researchers. Libraries clearly havemuch to gain from increased faculty participation in their repositories.Although the elimination of costly journal subscriptions would indeed be agreat benefit, the continued existence of scholarly journal publishers would
76 Future Voices in Public Services
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry U
trec
ht]
at 0
3:28
18
Sept
embe
r 20
13
not necessarily negate the value of the institutional repository to the library. Awell-populated repository does not necessarily displace the traditional scho-larly publishing industry; at the very least, it can provide librarians with a bar-gaining point for decreased subscription rates (Crow, 2002, p. 15). Finally,this new role promises to make libraries and librarians valid in yet anotherrole for the 21st century, a time when traditional roles are constantly beingchallenged. The roles of arbiter, gateway, and preserver of research belongto librarians. They have cultivated an unmatched understanding of the needsof academic scholars through their participation in each step of the scholarlycommunication cycle, from research to dissemination (Phillips et al., 2005,p. 308). An institutional repository, when constructed with scholars’ goalsin mind, can revolutionize the system of scholarly communication, even ina relatively short time (Crow, 2002, p. 6). However, none of these changescan be expected to have an immediate effect on faculty practices or scholarlycommunication. Nowhere is inertia more deeply felt than academia. Changewill only be possible if institutions and libraries take the first steps to createsystems for recording and presenting these metrics and certification attributesand acknowledge them in ways that are meaningful to faculty. Librarians whosupport the reform of scholarly communication are not lacking; they haveadequate incentive to do so. What is needed is the incentive for faculty to par-ticipate, incentive that can only come through alignment with their goals.
NOTES
1. The word ‘‘personal’’ has been a problematic choice for the purposes of this article. What is meant
by ‘‘personal,’’ in terms of faculty goals, are simply those goals that are directly beneficial to the individual,
including professional advancement, recognition, and tenure.
REFERENCES
Adam, D. (2002). The counting house. Nature, 415(6873), 726–729.Atkinson, R. C. (2003, November 7). A new world of scholarly communication. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(11), B16. Retrieved August 22, 2008, fromhttp://chronicle.com/free/v50/i11/11b01601.htm.
Bankier, J., & Perciali, I. (2008). The institutional repository rediscovered: What can auniversity do for open access publishing? Serials Review, 34(1), 21–26.
Bell, S., Foster, N. F., & Gibbons, S. (2005). Reference librarians and the success ofinstitutional repositories. Reference Services Review, 33(3), 283–290.
Chan, L. (2004). Supporting and enhancing scholarship in the digital age: The role ofopen-access institutional repositories. Canadian Journal of Communication,29(3). Retrieved August 5, 2008, from http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/1455/1579.
Crane, G. (2001). Commercial digital libraries and the academic community. D-LibMagazine, 7(1). Retrieved August 16, 2008, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january01/crane/01crane.html.
Future Voices in Public Services 77
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry U
trec
ht]
at 0
3:28
18
Sept
embe
r 20
13
Crow, R. (2002). The case for institutional repositories: A SPARC position paper. ARLBimonthly Report, 223. Retrieved August 22, 2008, from http://works.bepress.com/ir_research/7.
Davis, P. M., & Connolly, M. J. L. (2007). Institutional repositories: Evaluating the rea-sons for non-use of Cornell University’s installation of DSpace. D-Lib Magazine,13(3=4). Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march07/davis/03davis.html.
Devakos, R. (2006). Towards user-responsive institutional repositories: A case study.Library Hi-Tech, 24(2), 173–182.
Foster, N. F., & Gibbons, S. (2005). Understanding faculty to improve content recruit-ment for institutional repositories. D-Lib Magazine, 11(1). Retrieved August 18,2008, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.html.
Harnard, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine, 10(6). Retrieved August 18,2008, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/06harnad.html.
Hitchcock, S., Woukeu, A., Brody, T., Carr, L., Hall, W., & Harnard, S. (2003).Evaluating Citebase, an open access web-based citation-ranked search andimpact discovery service. Technical Report ECSTR-IAM03-005, Electronics andComputer Science, University of Southampton (unpublished). Retrieved August12, 2008, from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/8204/.
Housewright, R., & Schonfeld, R. (2008). Ithaka’s 2006 studies of key stakeholders inthe digital transformation of higher education. Retrieved August 25, 2008, fromhttp://www.ithaka.org/research/Ithakas%202006%20Studies%20of%20Key%20Stakeholders%20in%20the%20Digital%20Transformation%20in%20Higher%20Education.pdf.
Jantz, R. C., & Wilson, M. C. (2008). Institutional repositories: Faculty deposits,marketing, and the reform of scholarly communication. Journal of AcademicLibrarianship, 34(3), 186–195.
Jenkins, B., Breakstone, E., & Hixson, C. (2005). Content in, content out: The dualroles of the reference librarian in institutional repositories. Reference ServicesReview, 33(3), 312–324.
Johnson, R. K. (2002). Institutional repositories: Partnering with faculty to enhancescholarly communication. D-Lib Magazine, 8(11). Retrieved August 25, 2008,from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november02/johnson/11johnson.html.
Kim, J. (2007). Motivating and impeding factors affecting faculty contribution to insti-tutional repositories. Journal of Digital Information, 8(2). Retrieved August 20,2008, from http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/rt/printerFriendly/193/177.
King, C. J., Harley, D., Earl-Novell, S., Arter, J., Lawrence, S., & Perciali, I. (2006).Scholarly communication: Academic values and sustainable models. Berkeley,CA: Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley.Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/docs/scholarlycomm_report.pdf.
Lawrence, S. (2001). Online or invisible? Nature, 411(6837), 521.Lynch, C. A. (2003). Institutional repositories: Essential infrastructure for scholarship
in the digital age. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(2), 327–336.Phillips, H., Carr, R., & Teal, J. (2005). Leading roles for reference librarians in
institutional repositories. Reference Services Review, 33(3), 301–311.
78 Future Voices in Public Services
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry U
trec
ht]
at 0
3:28
18
Sept
embe
r 20
13
Roosendaal, H. E., & Geurts, P. A. T. M. (1998). Forces and functions in scientificcommunication: An analysis of their interplay. Paper presented at the FirstInternational Workshop, Cooperative Research Information Systems in Physics:CRISP 97, Oldenburg, Germany. Retrieved from http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/conferences/crisp97/roosendaal.html.
Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2005). New journal publishing models: An interna-tional survey of senior researchers. Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ciber/ciber_2005_survey_final.pdf.
Sale, A. (2006). A researcher’s viewpoint. Preprint. In N. Jacobs (Ed.), Open access:Key strategic, technical and economic aspects. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://eprints.utas.edu.au/257/1/Chapter.pdf
Salo, D. (2007). Innkeeper at the roach motel. Preprint. Retrieved September 14,2008, from http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1793/22088.
Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2005). Open access self-archiving: An author study. Cornwall,UK: Key Perspectives Limited. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from http://www.jis-c.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Open Access Self Archiving-an author study.pdf
Swanepoel, M. (2005). Digital repositories: All hype and no substance? New Reviewof Information Networking, 11(1), 13–25.
Van Westrienen, G., & Lynch, C. A. (2005). Academic institutional repositories:Deployment status in 13 nations as of mid 2005. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9). Ret-rieved August 8, 2008, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/westrie-nen/09westrienen.html.
Ware, M. (2004). Institutional repositories and scholarly publishing. Learned Publish-ing, 17(2), 115–124.
Xia, J. (2007). Assessment of self-archiving in institutional repositories: Acrossdisciplines. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(6), 647–654.
Future Voices in Public Services 79
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry U
trec
ht]
at 0
3:28
18
Sept
embe
r 20
13
