Asking Difficult Questions about Institutional Repositories: Factors for Success and New Directions for Development and Research

Asking Difficult Questions about Institutional Repositories: Factors for Success and New Directions for Development and Research (3:30-5:00)

Catherine Mitchell, University of California
Carole L. Palmer, UIUC
Soo Young Rieh, University of Michigan
Moderator: June Abbas, University of Oklahoma

This panel was composed of one IR practitioners and two IR researchers.  The IR practitioner, who leads the #1 ranked IR,  stated that the traditional definition of an IR needed to die, and in fact the term “institutional repository” needed to die.  The most important thing is to identify the core audience, then define a value proposition that actually appeals to those users (in this case, faculty), then target messages to them.  Faculty are not interested in “repositing.” Both IRs are now refocusing on providing open access and scholarly publishing services.  At the University of Calfornia, they are also focusing on putting publications in the repository that don’t currently have a home, such as working papers. They are completely re-branding and remarketing.  They are also collaborating with the University Press.

The two researchers presented some results from grant-based efforts which aimed to identify IR successes.  Carole Palmer found that two important success predictors were involvement of liaison librarians and using one’s local culture to build on strengths.  Report of this group: (http://Hdl.handle.net/2142/8981) and Library Trends 57(2) 2008

Similarly to the practitioners, Soo Young Rieh concluded that libraries need to move from a repository-centric to a service-centric model, providing services such as help with copyright issues, consulting on author rights, and providing users with usage reports and hit counts from the IR to demonstrate how it increases visibility.

A comment from the audience came from the lead person at a web site that ranks and links to institutional repositories.  He noted that many IRs to not set themselves up to be attractive publicly searchable and linkable web sites: for example their URLs are ugly; often the page the article is on lacks the institutional branding.  He urged IRs to focus on end users which are just everyday people, not librarians or faculty at the institution.

Another comment from the audience was from a woman who had done a case study of a mandatory IR.  She said this university had 80% of its publications in repository and she could not find one person who didn’t like it. There were a few grumblers but they still liked it overall.

Takeaway: “STOP talking about the repository!!”