Research Article: “Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-Deposit in Institutional Repositories”

The following article was published about one month ago by the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication (JLSC).
Title
Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-Deposit in Institutional Repositories
Author
Ruth Kitchin Tillman
Penn St. University
Source
Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication (JLSC)
Vol. 5 No. 1 (2017)
doi: 10.7710/2162-3309.2203
Abstract

INTRODUCTION
The literature of institutional repositories generally indicates that faculty do not self-deposit, but there is a gap in the research of reported self-deposit numbers that might indicate how widespread and common this is.
METHODS
This study was conducted using a survey instrument that requested information about whether a repository allowed self-deposit and what its rates of self-deposit were, if known. The instrument contained additional questions intended to gather a broader context of repositories to be examined for any correlations with higher rates of self-deposit. It also included questions about the kinds of labor required to populate an IR as well as satisfaction with the rates of self-deposit.
RESULTS
Of 82 respondents, 80 were deemed to fall within the study’s parameters. Of these, 55 respondents’ institutions allowed self-deposit, and 10 reported rates of self-deposit of more than 20 items per month. More than half the total respondents reported using at least three methods other than relying on self-deposit to add content to their repository. Respondents are generally unsatisfied with their deposit profiles, including one at a school reporting the highest rate of self-deposit.
DISCUSSION
From the responses, no profile could be formed of respondents reporting high rates of self-deposit that did not entirely overlap with many others reporting little or no self-deposit. However, the survey identifies factors without which high rates are unlikely.
CONCLUSION
The results of this survey may be most useful as a factor in administrative prioritizations and expectations regarding institutional repositories as sites of scholarly self-deposit.

Direct to Full Text Article
28 pages; PDF.
See Also: Complete Table of Contents For JLSC 5(1)

Filed under: News, Open Access, Profiles