Chapter 2 summary

The DRIVER inventory study aimed at making a complete inventory of the current state of digital repositories in the 27 countries of the European Union. It is a follow up of an earlier SURF study carried out in 2005, which included 10 European countries. The study was started in June 2006 and completed in February 2007. By a combination of a web survey, publishing results on a wiki and telephone interviews, an attempt was made to make the inventory as complete as possible and to generate feedback amongst participants in the study. In total, 114 respondents with digital repositories participated in the web survey. This study focused on OAI-compliant repositories containing research results.

Deployment status

Number of universities (according to Braintrack) 11

Number of universities (EUA) 16

Number of institutes with DR (source: OpenDOAR) 3

Number of participants this survey 2

◻ yes, one digital repository for research output itself

◻ yes, more than one digital repository for research output itself

◻ yes, outsourced to a third party

◻ no, please fill in another form available via the link below

Please comment:

◻ articles (full text and metadata)

◻ articles (metadata only)

◻ books/ book chapters (full text and metadata)

◻ books/ book chapters (metadata only)

◻ theses (full text and metadata)

◻ theses (metadata only)

◻ proceedings (full text and metadata)

◻ proceedings (metadata only)

◻ working papers (full text and metadata)

◻ working papers (metadata only)

◻ primary data sets

◻ images

◻ video

◻ music

◻ other

Please comment

Chapter 7 summary

Factors influencing repositories

In two questions, the respondents were asked to select the three most important stimulants for the development of their digital repository and the three most important inhibitors out of 14 factors.

More than 25% of the respondents listed as the most important stimulants for the development of digital repositories: (1) the increased visibility for the publications of the academics; (2) a simple and userfriendly depositing process; (3) awareness campaigns for academics; and (4) interest from decision makers in the institute.

More than 25% of the respondents listed as the most important inhibitors for the development of digital repositories: (1) the lack of an institutional policy of mandatory depositing; (2) the situation with regard to copyright of (to be) published materials and the knowledge about this among academics in our institute; and (3) the lack of requirements of research funding organisations about depositing research output in Open Access repositories.

Highest priority issue on European agenda

In an open question the respondents were asked to state which issues should be highest on the priority list for the development of digital repositories in Europe. The need for (specific) services was mentioned most (n=16), followed by issues with regard to copyright (n=11), the need for mandatory policies with regard to depositing (n=10), coordination and harmonisation issues (n=8) and issues of advocacy (n=7).

Chapter 6 summary

Search engines

Via which channels is the digital repository searchable/accessible? It appears that over 50% of the participating digital repositories are searchable via general Internet search engines such as Google, Yahoo or MSN, via OAIster and via Google Scholar. All other search engines or portals access less than 50% of the participating digital repositories. It has to be emphasised that these findings reflect the answers of the respondents to the questionnaire and not actual searches using the search engines/ gateways/ portals mentioned. Therefore the results might reflect only the awareness of respondents about the searchability of their repositories. However, if their awareness is accurate, there appears to be no single search engine, portal or gateway that can access all participating digital repositories.

Other services on top of the digital repositories

The spread of possible services on top of the digital repositories appeared to be as follows:

Many repositories have their contents listed in a library catalogue: in the catalogue of the library of the institution (54%) and/or in a regional or national catalogue (47%).

A small minority of the repositories has added a printing-on-demand service to their repository (12%, while 13% have plans to develop such a link to a printing-on-demand service. A large majority (75%) has presently no plans for such a printing-on-demand service.

About one-third of the repositories have a service of displaying usage statistics per digital item (31%), while 25% have plans for such a service. Nearly half of the repositories (45%) have presently no plans for such a service.

About one third of the repositories have personal services for the depositing scientists, such as an automatically generated publication list, added to their repository (35%), while 18% have plans for such personal services. Nearly half of the repositories (47%) have presently no plans for such a service.

Services desired at a European level

In addition, the respondents were asked which services should have priority for further development at a European scale. The top three answers (selected by more than 33% of the respondents) were (1) general search engines, gateways and portals; (2) disciplinary and thematic search engines, gateways and portals; and (3) citation index services.

Chapter 4 summary

Software packages

Which software package is used for the digital repository? The main results are:

• – The top two of the most frequently used software packages are GNU Eprints (24%) and DSpace (20%).

• – Locally developed software packages are also frequently used (17%).

• – The OPUS software package is also quite frequently used (10.5%), but its usage is mainly restricted to Germany.

• – 14 other software packages were mentioned by the respondents.

In total 17 different software packages have been mentioned, while 19 respondents reported a locally developed software package. This means that digital repositories in the European Union use at least 18 and probably more than 30 different software packages.

Persistent identifiers

Is a persistent identifier assigned to each document? According to the respondents, it appears that approximately 75% of the digital repositories have a persistent identifier, while 15% do not have a persistent identifier. Eleven per cent answered with “don't know”. Several experts in the field have commented on these results: they think some respondents have misinterpreted the question, as they believe that the percentage of repositories with a persistent identifier in place will be much lower in reality.

Long-term availability

Is the long-term availability of the materials in the repositories secured? It appears that nearly 73% of the digital repositories do have the longterm availability of their materials secured while 16% do not. About 11% of the respondents answered this question with “don't know”.

From the comments of the respondents it appears that (1) a number of digital repositories try to guarantee the long-term availability by internal procedures, (2) a number of digital repositories have delegated the long-term availability issue to their national libraries (the national libraries of Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden are specifically mentioned) and 3) a number of digital repositories plan to act on this issue in the near future.

Statistical data on access and usage

Are statistical data on access to the repository and usage of the materials logged? It appears that the majority of the digital repositories (70%) does log the statistical data on access to the repository and the usage of the materials; 22% do not and 8% of the respondents answered this question with “don't know”.

Chapter 3 summary

Qualitative contents

It appears that the large majority of the participating institutes (70%) maintains one digital repository for their research output themselves. A minority (23%) maintains more than one digital repository, while 7% have outsourced the maintenance of a digital repository. Of those digital repositories, the large majority contains full text of textual materials, such as journal articles, theses, working papers, books or book chapters and proceedings. A minority also contains metadata of these textual materials without the full text. Only two repositories were identified that consisted solely of metadata-only records. In addition, a small minority contains non-textual materials, such as images, video or primary data sets.

Quantitative contents

Based on figures given by 104 repositories, it appears that average digital repositories contained nearly 9,000 records (8,984, as assessed in the second half of 2006). The large majority of these records (90%) relates to textual research materials: these records can be split in metadata- only records (61%) and full text records (29%).

Five per cent of the records relate to non-textual materials such as images, video, music and primary data sets. The 5% of ‘other materials’ relate to learning materials, student papers, etc.

Type of textual materials

What type of textual research materials is deposited? More than half of the textual materials relate to journal articles (53%), a smaller share are for books or book chapters (18%). Theses, proceedings and working papers – often labelled as “grey literature” – have a share of 30%.

Access forms offered by the repositories

What forms of access for full text records are offered by the repositories? Is Open Access the only form of access, or are other variants also offered? The most important other variants are Open Access with embargo for a certain time period, campus access or not publicly accessible at all (archival purposes only). It appears that most repositories (95%) offer Open Access accessibility. Open Access with an embargo period for full-text records is only offered by 18% of the repositories. About a quarter of the repositories (26%) offer campus access or contain records with no access (14%). Other forms of access are offered by 8% of the repositories, such as available for a fee, after an email request or restricted to members of a project team.

Chapter 5 summary

Mandatory versus voluntary depositing

What kind of policy is followed by the institute maintaining the digital repository towards the academics with regard to depositing material? It appears that 51% of the participating digital repositories have a policy of voluntary depositing, while 25% have a policy of (partly) mandatory depositing. The others have no official policy or a different one. From the comments of the respondents it appears that (1) at a number of institutes the academics are obliged to deposit the metadata of their publications (2) at a number of institutes the PhD students are obliged to deposit their theses in the repository and (3) in some UK institutes the deposited articles are used for the country-wide Research Assessment Exercise, which is important for research funding.

Spread of various institutional policies

What kind of other policies have been realised within the institutes with regard to the repository?

The most widespread institutional policies (realized in more than 50% of the digital repositories) relate to awareness-raising campaigns among academics and integration and linking of the repository all with other systems in the institute.

Less widespread policies (30% to 50% of the digital repositories) relate to (1) contact with a coordinating national body (2) guidelines for the selection of material for inclusion in the digital repository (3) high interest from the decision-makers within the institute in the repository (4) safeguarding the long-term preservation of the deposited material and (5) a link to a national central gateway.

A number of policies have only been carried out in a small minority of the repositories (less than 20%). These policies relate to (1) some academics are required to deposit research output by the research funding organisations in the country (2) financial support from a national funding program for the setting-up of the repository and (3) the usage of the deposited materials to measure the output of the individual researchers for evaluation purposes.

In the comments of the respondents research evaluation is mentioned several times as an important purpose for the digital repository and as an important motivational factor for academics to deposit materials.

Chapter 9 summary

In this chapter the results of the DRIVER inventory study are summarised (9.1) and discussed in detail (9.2). Furthermore, these findings are discussed in light of a European agenda for digital repositories (9.3). This last part of this chapter is summarised below.

Towards an agenda for establishing an infrastructure for digital repositories in the European Union

What is the current state of digital repositories for research output in the European Union? From this inventory study it is clear that digital research repositories are already well established throughout many countries in the European Union. In 2006 approximately 230 institutes had implemented one or more digital repositories for research output. In addition, from the contacts with respondents in various EU countries it appears there is a growing and active interest in implementing digital repositories at other institutes. Recent surveys in the US show similar results. Clearly, digital repositories for research output are on their way to become a permanent part of the scholarly communication and documentation infrastructure.

Next steps in stimulating an integrative infrastructure for repositories

What are the next steps to stimulate a connecting and integrative infrastructure for digital repositories at a European level? The further deployment and development of the digital repositories will follow a two-tier approach:

• – Deployment of digital repositories at research institutions that do not have one yet.

• – Increasing the coverage of the existing digital repositories of published and unpublished textual research output, with a possible future expansion of the coverage of digital repositories to other, nontextual types of research output (e.g. images, video, and research data sets).

Seven items for the European repository agenda

With regard to such a two-tier approach, an agenda for activities at the European level can be formulated. Based on the results of this inventory study, such an agenda should include the following seven items:

• 1. Increased visibility by increasing retrievability

• 2. Best practices for the depositing processes

• 3. A nuanced approach to effective mandatory depositing policies

• 4. Flexibility in forms of access

• 5. Awareness and interest among academics and decision makers at research institutes

• 6. Development of services, such as citation index services or preservation services.

• 7. Development of further technical standards and a possible close collaboration between the various software solutions’

Chapter 8 summary

Situation per EU country

What is the situation per country in the European Union with regard to digital repositories with research output? Based on this study it is estimated that there are approximately 230 institutes with a digital repository for research output in the countries of the European Union.

The situation per country differs greatly. In seven EU countries there appear to be no research institutions with a digital repository for research output. Five EU countries seem to be in a starting phase, where a few institutions have set up such a repository. In 15 EU countries a sizeable proportion of the research universities have implemented a digital repository for research output: in seven of these countries it is estimated that more than half of the research universities have done so.

Conclusion

Although the categories are arbitrary and the categorisation of each country is arbitrary as well and often based on limited data, it seems safe to conclude that in a majority of the EU countries (15 of the 25) a sizeable part of the research-oriented universities have implemented a digital repository for their research output. These countries include the larger EU countries with the largest research efforts.