Institutional Repositories: Indian &

Global Perspectives

Surinder Kumar
Technical Director
National Informatics Centre
New Delhi
suri@[Link]
 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.
[Link]
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 Publicati
on
(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 Resear
ch 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.
 [Link]
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.
 [Link]
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…”
 [Link]
[Link]
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

 [Link]
 RePEc: Research Papers in Economics
 Computing Research Repository (CoRR)
 NIH PubMed Central
Institutional Repository –definition

 [Link] “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 [Link]. Most digital repositories
may be searched together via OAIster.”
 [Link] “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.”
 [Link] “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:[Link]
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:[Link]
[Link]
Institutional Repository –definition

 CliffordLynch (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:[Link]
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
 selectionof 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  Electronic Thesis and
along with the developer Dissertations
of IRs have to decide what  DataSets
kind of collections have to 
deposit in the IRs. type of Supplementary
contents found in the IRs Materials
is described below:  Online and overlay
journals
 EPrints – Preprints/Postprint  Books
 Working Papers and
Reports  Learning Objects
 Conference papers &  Multimedia Collections
Proceedings  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:[Link]
 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:
[Link]
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:
[Link]
Example site
Laval University Library
CDSware (CERN Document Server Software)

URL: [Link]
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: [Link]
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: [Link]
 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: [Link]
 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 [Link]@[Link] or
through mailing list:project-cdsware-users@[Link]
Paid technical support is also available.
Example site
 CERN document server: [Link]
 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: [Link]

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 [Link]
DSpace
URL: [Link]

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: [Link]

Technical support
 DSpace-Tech mailing list for technical questions, discussions:
 [Link]
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: [Link]

 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
[Link]
 Demo server: [Link]
EPrints
URL: [Link]

 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: [Link]

Technical support
 EPrints-tech mailing list:
[Link]
 General announcements and “underground”
discussion list also
 Available at [Link]
 EPrints wiki: [Link]
EPrints
URL: [Link]

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: [Link]

 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
[Link]
Fedora
URL: [Link]

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:
 [Link]
 Fedora WIKI:
[Link]
Fedora
URL: [Link]

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: [Link]

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
 [Link]
utfZz-8&a=p&p=download
Greenstone
URL: [Link]

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:
 [Link]
greenstone-users
Commercial support is available for a fee.
Greenstone
URL: [Link]

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: [Link]

 Example sites
 Full list of organisations using CONTENTdm at
 [Link] 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:
[Link]

 Features
 Accepts wide variety of content formats
 Conversion utility to create PDFs
 OAI-based metadata
 Feature list available at
 [Link]
[Link]
 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
[Link] 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:
[Link]
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
([Link]
 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

 ProjectRoMEO 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.
 [Link]/[Link]
…contd

 ROMEO colourArchiving policy

 greencan archive pre-print and post-print or
publisher's version/PDF
 bluecan archive post-print (ie final draft post-
refereeing) or publisher's version/PDF
 yellowcan archive pre-print (ie pre-
refereeing)
 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
 ([Link] and links to
the most important sites for research
[Link]
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 of No of records
estab
lish
ment
1 82 Indian Institute of 05-04- 21472
Science 2004

2 148 OpenMed, National 22-03- 2645

Informatics Centre 2005

3 180 Indian Statistical 17-01- 188

Institute digital 2004
Library
4 218 Indian Institute of 11-11- 2468
Astrophysics 2004

5 245 National Institute of 06-04- 3528

Oceanography 2010
Digital library

6 278 Raman Research 19-04- 3731

Institute Digital 2005
Library
6 278 National Aerospace 9-11- 3164
Laboratories 2004
Institutional
Repository
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
[Link]