Chapter 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE - Shodhganga@INFLIBNET ...

Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Literature search is a vital part of all research. There are several benefits of such a
search. It provides a source of research ideas, gives an orientation to what is already
known, helps to develop a conceptual framework, indicates as assessment of
feasibility and provides information on the research approach to be used.
The aim of the study was to document the efforts now in progress i.e. Open access
movement with sharp focus on Institutional repositories, which is one of the important
means of achieving open access. The main objective of this study was to identify the
wide range of practices involved in developing and managing an institutional
repository and to investigate knowledge, practice and opinions about the IR among
the users of the institutions having institutional repositories.
The present study examined institutional repositories developed in India from two
perspectives: IR Development and Management; and Users of institutions having IR.
Relevant literature on both aspects were consulted. Over the past five years, the
implementation of IRs has been growing rapidly and the publications on IRs have
flourished accordingly. Therefore this chapter is divided into three sections namely IR
Development and Management, Users of institutions having IR and Institutional
repository initiatives in India.
The section on IR Development and Management begins with Scholarly
communication and then moves on to the specific areas of Institutional repositories.
While the section on Users of institutions having IR begins with general studies on
authors and then sheds light on specific areas such as Experience of IR, Contribution
to IR and Opinion about IR.

2.1 IR Development and Management
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Literature on IR Development and Management could be largely divided into studies
as follows:
2.1.1. Scholarly communication
2.1.2. Open access movement
2.1.3. Concept of Institutional Repository
2.1.4. Issues of IRs / Basic components of IR
a) Timeline
b) Exploratory activities
c) Anticipated benefits
d) Management
e) Contributors
f) IR System / Software
g) Number, types and rate of growth of digital documents
h) Inhibiting factors
2.1.1 Scholarly Communication
A few studies specifically related to scholarly communication were located. The
significant article by Van de Sompel, Payette, Erickson, Lagoze, and Warner (2004)
explored characteristics of the established scholarly communication system, and
observed emerging trends after studying changing nature of research. They tried to
distill some core characteristics of a future scholarly communication system.
Pöschl (2004) discussed the failure of traditional journal publishing and peer review
to provide efficient scientific exchange and quality assurance in today‘s highly
diverse world of science. He also proposed the most promising way to improve
matters is a two-stage (or multi-stage) publication processes with interactive peer
review and public discussion in new and traditional scientific journals.
Several studies explained how an IR would be a new strategy for facilitating changes
in electronic scholarly communication (Chan, 2004; Crow, 2002; Lynch, 2003;
Shearer, 2003).
25

2.1.2 Open Access Movement
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Awre (2003) described the advent and development of the open access movement. He
also argued that this movement poses a challenge to traditional journal publishing like
no other before and it is inevitable that current practice in publishing and purchasing
will be affected. Buckholtz, Dekeyser, Hagemann, Krichel, and Van de Sompel
(2003) gave the historical overview of Open Access Movement. The paper described
how the effects of open Access (OA) are being addressed, and what OA will mean for
publishers, librarians, and intermediaries.
Pellizari (2003) examined strengths and weaknesses of the Open Access strategy in
general and, more specifically, of the Open Archives Initiative, discussing
experiences, criticisms and barriers. Peter Suber (2004b) gave a brief overview of
Open Access especially for those who are new to the concept. Association of
Research Libraries (2003) in their article highlighted the key points to consider in
thinking about and discussing open access. This article gave examples of open access
implementation and provided sources for more information.
Davis et al. (2004) examined different aspects of the Open Access and offered
recommendations for Cornell University Library's involvement in the arena of Open
Access publishing. They concluded that the Open Access and subscription models can
coexist and are in fact likely to do so for the foreseeable future. Peter Suber (2004a) in
his report gave a brief overview of significant happenings of Open access movement
of 2003.
Meyers (2004) in her report highlighted the critical events that have taken place as the
issue had developed over the last few years, and provided extensive quotes of all
published perspectives relevant to the open access concept. Lamb (2004) reviewed
various models of open access publishing and recommended strategies for traditional
journal publishers
A book edited by Jacobs (2006) ―Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and
Economic Aspects‖ covered various aspects of open Access. The twenty chapters of
this book were grouped into five sections: Open access—history, definitions and
rationale; Open access and researchers; Open access and other participants; The
position around the world; and The future.
26

2.1.3. Concept of IR
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
A growing body of literature regarding IRs has emerged since 2002 when major
research universities in the U.S., such as MIT and the University of California
launched their own IR systems. Following are important research papers / reports
which has made significant contribution in the IR literature and gives valuable input
to IR developers, research scholars etc.
In 2002, Crow published a paper which provided an overview of the major issues that
institutions and consortia need to address during an implementation of an institutional
repository. The paper argued that IRs provide a critical component in reforming the
system of scholarly communication—a component that expands access to research,
reasserts control over scholarship by the academy, increases competition and reduces
the monopoly power of journals, and brings economic relief and heightened relevance
to the institutions and libraries that support them. IR have the potential to serve as
tangible indicators of a university‘s quality and to demonstrate the scientific, societal,
and economic relevance of its research activities, thus increasing the institution‘s
visibility, status, and public value.
Johnson (2002) gave his own opinion advocating IRs, arguing that they will enhance
scholarly communication. These two papers raised the question of why scholars
should support a new publishing model.
Lynch (2003) defined and described the current developments in institutional
repositories and tried to explain why IRs are so deeply and strategically important to
the enterprises of scholarship and higher education.
Lynch listed three concerns for IRs: that they will be used as tools for administrative
control, that they will be burdened by irrelevant policy baggage (e.g. peer-review or
gate-keeping policies), and that at least some IRs will fail to be supported,
diminishing the perceived value of all IRs. These three concerns represent potential
threats to successful population and management of IRs.
Branin (2003) in his draft paper on institutional Repositories in ―Encyclopedia of
Library and Information Science‖ described conceptual model and standards for a
digital repository and basic components of an institutional repository.
27

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Publisher and Library / Learning Solutions ( 2004) reported information on all aspects
of IRs such as issues facing those establishing IRs, problems of faculty take-up of
self-archiving services, and intellectual property rights. Other issues included
organisation and management, funding and business models, accession policies,
metadata, long-term preservation and access.
Shearer (2004) conducted a survey to determine the status of the institutional
repositories at CARL member libraries. She reported that majority of the CARL
libraries that are planning an IR intend to use the DSpace software. She also argued
that content recruitment remains one of the biggest barriers for the implementers at
CARL libraries. She reported that most of the CARL institutional repositories are
being managed by one or two staff members on a part-time basis and have few
dedicated resources for the institutional repository. In continuation Shearer (2005)
conducted another survey to evaluate the content, policies, software platforms, and
advocacy activities of member IR‘s.
Lynch and Lippincott (2005) surveyed academic institutions to examine the current
state of IRs in the United States. They found that out of 97 universities categorised as
Carnegie "doctoral universities", 40% already operated IRs. Among non-
implementers, 88% were found to be in the planning stage of IR implementation. This
finding indicated that IRs are becoming a component of the technical infrastructure in
doctoral research institutions. Whether they become a part of the intellectual
infrastructure depends on the extent of faculty contribution. IRs were found to be used
for a variety of materials beyond eprints. Responses indicated a strong preference for
libraries as sole administrators of IRs.
Another study by Westrienen and Lynch (2005) examined 13 countries, excluding the
US. Barriers of IR efforts were highlighted. This study argued that content
recruitment is the central issue for most institutional repositories.
Bailey et al. (2006) published the executive summary of ―Institutional Repositories".
Their research indicated that over half of ARL libraries may have IRs by the end of
year 2007. Less than one-quarter responded that they have no plans to implement an
IR. Institutions had generally taken less than one year on implementation.
28

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Kennan and Wilson (2006) reviewed the current literature and discussed institutional
repository (IR) and open access (OA) issues, to provide examples from the
Information Systems (IS) literature. They proposed the use of IS literature and further
research to understand about IR implementations by library managers.
A major study by Davis and Connolly (2007) reported findings of their study
regarding the IR at Cornell University. They conducted in-depth interviews with
eleven faculty members in the sciences, social sciences and humanities, to explore
their attitudes, motivations, and behaviors for non-participation in institutional
repositories. They found that Cornell's DSpace is largely underpopulated and
underused by its faculty. Many of its collections were empty, and most collections
contained few items. Lack of functionality in DSpace contributed to lack of use; in
particular, the poor quality of its discovery tools.
The noteworthy study done by Markey, Rieh, Jean, Kim, and Yakel (2007)
investigated the implementation of IRs in academic institutions to identify models and
best practices for the administration, technical infrastructure, and access to digital
collections.
There were few articles which documented the development of IR at their institutions
such as at MIT (Smith, 2002), the University of Glasgow (Nixon, 2002), the
universities of Edinburgh and Nottingham (Pinfield, Gardner, & MacColl, 2002)
University of Bath (Martin, 2003) and University of Southampton (Hey, 2004).
2.1.4 Issues of IRs
a) Timeline
Markey et al. (2007) queried to know how much time was required for planning and
pilot testing and the date when IR become operational i.e. available to authorised
users for submission and searching of digital content.
b) Exploratory activities
Markey et al. (2007) discussed various exploratory activities that institution exercised
before implementation of IR such as attending IR software implementation training &
workshops, demonstrating operational IRs to institution's decision-makers etc.
29

c) Anticipated benefits of IR
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Hayes (2005) discussed how IR supports research, learning, and administrative
processes. Especially discussed were the benefits IRs offered to the institutions, staff
and students. Pickton (2005) suggested undoubted benefits to institutions in building
up of repository as they are able to greatly extend the amount of material they can
offer to their researchers. Johnson (2002) in his article commented on short-term and
on-going benefits of IRs for universities and their faculty and how it is advancing the
transformation of scholarly communication.
Gibbons (2004) presented compelling reasons for why an organisation would want to
establish an IR including providing an infrastructure for preservation of digital
content, lowering the barrier to document distribution, creating a centralised digital
showcase in which research, teaching, and scholarship can be highlighted, and
facilitating wider distribution. Yeates (2003) also listed the benefits of IRs, such as:
extending the range of knowledge sharing. He also focused on leveraging existing
investment in information and content management systems and making more flexible
ways of scholarly communication available. Pickton and Barwick (2006) discussed in
detail benefits of IR to the institution and authors.
Rieh, Markey, Yakel, Jean, and Kim (2007) who carried out an empirical study
examined how library directors and others involved in IRs articulate their benefits.
According to the authors early identification of explicit benefits and value would
assist IR staff in justifying the establishment of an IR to the larger university and
provide a framework for IR development. The results of the survey and interviews
demonstrated that IRs require a digital curation perspective in order to achieve the
major benefits college and university libraries envision for them.
d) IR Management
Staff
Robinson (2007) identified staff and skills required for developing repository such as
to manage the repository budget, services, familiarity with software, ability to
customize software, preservation and metadata etc.
30

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Similar views were expressed by Bell, Foster, and Gibbons (2005), Carver (2003),
Jenkins, Breakstone, and Hixson (2005), Lyon (2003). They described how librarians
are involved in IR development, and how they provide a wide range of necessary
functions, including overcoming publisher and academic resistance, providing good
metadata standards, and pushing for inclusion in external search services. Bailey
(2005c) in his paper oriented reference librarians, library administrators, and others to
IRs and open access, providing a context for understanding how reference librarians'
jobs may be transformed by the emergence of IRs.
IR funding / Cost
According to Barton and Waters (2004) costs of Institutional Repository programme
depends on the scope of service requirements and the available resources. In their
workbook they had described the primary cost factors and issues to consider when
building a budget or cost model for institutional repository service.
However, staff costs including time spent drafting policies, arranging licensing
agreements, developing guidelines, promoting the repository, training and supporting
users and creating metadata, may be significant (Crow, 2002; Horwood, Sullivan,
Young, & Garner, 2004).
IPR
JISC funded a one-year project called RoMEO (Rights Metadata for Open archiving).
RoMEO, which took place between 2002–2003, specifically looked at the self-
archiving of academic research papers, and the subsequent disclosure and harvesting
of metadata about those papers using the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for
Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) by OAI Data and Service Providers. The project
highlighted a number of concerns about publishers' copyright agreements, which - if
dealt with - could greatly improve an author's rights under the current journal
publishing system (Gadd, Oppenheim, & Probets, 2003b).
Willinsky (2002) examined contradictions in how copyright works with the
publishing of scholarly journals. This paper reviewed the specifics of publishers'
contracts with editors and authors, as well as the larger spirit of copyright law in
seeking to help scholars to better understand the consequences the choices they make
31

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
between commercial and open access publishing models for the future of academic
knowledge.
IR policy
Gutteridge and Harnad (2002) discussed policy decisions which should be made when
implementing an archive, and also suggested a possible policy based on their
experience.
Arthur Sale (2006a) tried to understand researcher behavior in depositing research
articles in open access institutional repositories. He suggested that repository
managers should invest in promotion and follow-up for 2-3 years after a mandatory
policy is promulgated, after which the behavior becomes routinised.
Another paper of Arthur Sale (2006b) analysed the impact of high-level institutional
policy decisions on population of the individual repositories. The paper showed that
just like research article repositories, voluntary ETD deposition results in repositories
collecting less than 12% of the available theses, whereas mandatory policies are well
accepted and cause deposit rates to rise towards 100%.
Promotion
Jenkins, Breakstone, and Hixson (2005) discussed various attempts that they had
made at the University of Oregon to increase user awareness about their IR such as by
making links to the Scholars Bank through the online catalog, creating a record for the
IR and cataloging individual items in the repository. They also suggested that
reference librarians have vital roles to play in helping to recruit authors to submit their
content to institutional repositories, as well as in educating users to search such
repositories effectively and retrieve the scholarly content from them.
Mackie (2004) described some strategies that can be used to help populate an
institutional repository. He argued that filling a repository for published and peer-
reviewed papers is a slow process, and it is clear that it is a task that requires a
significant amount of staff input from those charged with developing the repository.
32

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Mark and Shearer (2006) listed number of promotional activities managers can
exercise such as passing out brochures, conducting presentations to faculty
committees, publishing articles in the library or campus newsletters / newspapers etc.
Assessment
Westell (2006) in his paper discussed variety of assessment techniques such as input
activity, usage, and citation analysis.
Xia and Sun (2007) evaluated the success of open access self-archiving in several
well-known institutional repositories. Two assessment factors were applied to
examine the current practice of self-archiving: depositorship and the availability of
full text. This research discovered that the rate of author self-archiving was low and
that the majority of documents had been deposited by a librarian or administrative
staff. Similarly, the rate of full-text availability was relatively low, except for
Australian repositories.
Peer-review and Quality Control
According to Day (2003) the focus of an institutional repository should be on content
that is either peer-reviewed or not, the choice being left to those who develop their
collection policies. In order to ensure a certain level of quality control, some
institutions may decide to separate peer-reviewed e-prints from those that have not
been reviewed. The importance of this varies between subject disciplines.
Houghton, Steele, and Henty (2003) and Genoni (2004) highlighted the important
issue of quality control in their papers.
e) IR Contributors
Crow (2002) suggested in his paper that works of faculty authors typically represent
an institutional repository's critical mass of intellectual output. However, there are, of
course, other populations within the institution-including students and non-faculty
researchers-whose works may be highly relevant and valuable to the repository
program, if not crucial to its success.
33

f) IR System / Software
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
A workbook by Barton and Waters (2004) contained detail guidelines on the
developing of Institutional Repository. It also offered practical advice as well as work
sheets one can use to get started with own repository programme.
A dozen of IR software‘s were described in workbook by Barton and Waters (2004)
with technical features. According to Lynch (2006) making a decision can be complex
and involves careful thought about factors such as what the repository will contain,
how it will be used, the features that are wanted, and the local technical environment.
There were two articles which compared IR software‘s (Budapest Open Access
Initiative, 2004; Canadian Association of Research Libraries, n.d.). Powell (2005)
attempted to identify some of the technical criteria that might be used to evaluate the
different institutional repository (IR) software platform options, particularly in terms
of the ‗machine‘ interfaces that the repository offers.
The report of Open Access Repositories in New Zealand project (OARINZ) project,
(2006) discussed the technical evaluation of six Open Source Repository system/s
including DSpace and EPrints. The report recommended that DSpace could be
accommodated within the national network of New Zealand because DSpace scored
well in the overall evaluation.
Digital preservation issues such as fear of technological obsolesce and need of
preservation were discussed in few articles (Pinfield & Hamish, 2003; Jones &
Beagrie, 2002). Several key initiatives were addressing digital preservation issue such
as SHERPA (http://www.sherpadp.org.uk/index.html) and the Digital Preservation
Coalition (DPC) were the most prominently initiatives. An excellent site for learning
about digital preservation was the Preserving Access to Digital Information (PADI)
(http://www.nla.gov.au/padi/about.html) site published by the Australian National
University. They offer a concise guide to the most often discussed strategies for
digital preservation – migration, adherence to standards, encapsulation and emulation
– along with additional resources for in-depth information.
34

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
There were papers (Lagoze & Van De Sompel, 2001; Suleman & Fox, 2001)
described in detail about technical standard for metadata harvesting and its
applications.
The detail information about interoperability standard - Open Access Initiative
Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) was available on their website
(http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html).
g) Number, types and rate of growth of digital documents
According to Crow (2002) institutional repositories were particularly well-suited for
various types of gray literature and other fugitive and unpublished material. Such gray
literature forms a part of the informal scholarly communication process.
Genoni (2004) in his paper addressed the issue of content in repositories, and
suggested that librarians need to approach the task of content development by
applying some of the procedures and skills associated with collection management
within more traditional environments.
Hirwade and Hirwade, (2006) enumerated variety of materials an Institutional
repository may contain produced by the researchers of the institution such as
preprints, postprints, teaching, material etc.
McDowell (2007) evaluated IR deployment in the U.S. since 2005 and its rate of
growth. The results indicated that the rate of growth per IR per six weeks was average
low of 4% and a high of 44%.
h) Inhibiting factors / IR Challenges
Chan (2004) examined emerging trend of university based IRs designed to capture
scholarly output of an institution and maximize the research impact of this output. The
relationship of this trend to the open access movement was discussed and challenges
and opportunities for using IRs to promote new modes of scholarship were provided.
Alma Swan (2008) in her paper discussed impediments to Open Access in India such
as lack of awareness, copyright restrictions etc.
35

2.2 Users of institutions having IR
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
In this section the literature has been discussed under the following broad sub
headings:
2.2.1 General studies on authors of open access journals / archives
2.2.2 Experience of IR
2.2.3 Contribution to IR
2.2.4 Opinion about IR
2.2.1 General studies on authors of open access archives / journals
Rowlands, Nicholas, and Huntingdon (2004) surveyed the views and attitudes of 3787
senior researchers from 97 countries in relation to what they wanted from the journals
regarding publication of their articles at a time of change and uncertainty. They found
that authors‘ attitudes towards the open access movement were generally positive,
although there were significant reservations about quality and preservation in an
increasingly digital information landscape.
In continuation, another survey was conducted by Rowlands and Nicholas (2005)
reported on the behaviour, attitudes and perceptions of 5,513 senior journal authors on
range of issues relating to a scholarly communication system. Key findings suggested
that research community is now much more aware of the open access issue. The
proportion of authors publishing in an open access journal has grown considerably
from 11 per cent (2004) to 29 per cent in 2005.
Another significant study was done by Pelizzari (2004) ―Academic Authors and Open
Archives: A Survey in the Social Science Field‖. This study discussed the following
issues: authors‘ general attitudes towards electronic publications, use or non-use of
IR, attitudes towards copyright and reasons for contribution or non-contribution of
documents to IR.
Swan and Brown (2004) studied authors who had published their work in open access
journals vis a vis authors who had not done so.
36

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Some studies surveyed authors (Houghton, Steele, & Henty, 2003; Swan et al, 2005)
regarding their requirements, views and usage of scholarly publishing including their
attitudes to IR.
Westrienen and Lynch (2005) surveyed institutional repository deployment in thirteen
nations: Australia, Canada, the United States and ten European countries – Belgium,
France, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Italy
and the Netherlands. They explored how national policies and strategies were shaping
this deployment.
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and the Open Society Institute (OSI)
surveyed journal authors. Their main aim was to investigated the authors‘ awareness
of new open access possibilities, the ease of identification of and submission to open
access outlets, their experiences of publishing their work in this way, their concerns
about any implications open access publishing may have upon their careers, and the
reasons why (or not) they chose to publish through an open access outlet. The study
reported that almost two-thirds of respondents were familiar with the open access
concept. The primary reason for choosing an open access outlet in which to publish is
a belief in the principle of free access to research information. These authors also
perceived open access journals as being faster than traditional journals, having a
larger readership and thus resulting in higher numbers of citations to their work. More
than half (55%) of the authors who had published their work in open access journals
had not paid a fee (JISC/OSI, 2004).
2.2.2 Experience of IR
Swan and Brown (2005) surveyed 1296 academics worldwide to determine the
current state of play with respect to authors‘ self-archiving behaviour. The survey also
briefly explored author experiences and opinions on publishing in open access
journals.
Wojciechowska (2007) had conducted a survey of mathematical and computer science
community (128 lecturers and researchers) belonging to twelve research centers in
France. The paper provided information about the knowledge of open archives,
information search, experience in self-archiving and copyright awareness of French
researchers in mathematics and computer science.
37

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Watson (2007) investigated authors‘ publishing behaviours, attitudes, concerns, and
their awareness and use of their institutional repository (IR), Cranfield QUEprints.
The findings suggested that despite a reasonable amount of advocacy many authors
had not heard of QUEprints and were not aware of its purpose.
2.2.3 Contribution to IR
A number of studies explored what inspires scholars to publish research and to go on
and self archive in IR (Houghton, Steele, & Henty, 2003; Swan et al., 2005).
Shearer (2003) conducted CARL institutional repositories survey to determine IRs
contribution to input activity and their use. She suggested that the success of IRs will
be determined eventually by "their uptake and use by researchers". She argued that
the success of an IR should be determined by its use, and one of the measures of
usefulness is contribution of content. Although potential contributors include faculty,
students and staff in universities, faculty members were considered the crucial
contributors of scholarly content. However, several studies noted that it was difficult
to get faculty members to contribute (Chan, 2004; Foster & Gibbons, 2005).
Foster and Gibbons (2005) had interviewed 25 professors at the University of
Rochester in order to investigate the factors affecting their contribution. In this study
they identified reasons why faculty did not submit their content. The most important
reasons were copyright infringement worries and disciplinary work practices (e.g., co-
authoring or versioning). Faculty members developed their own routines to create and
organise documents. Therefore faculty members perceived that IR contribution
involved additional work, such as metadata creation for contributed objects.
Pickton and McKnight (2005) investigated the potential role for research students in
institutional repository at Loughborough University. More than half of the
respondents selected ‗it is a good way of disseminating my work to the research
community and beyond‘. Half of the respondents selected ‗to get feedback or
commentary‘.
Kim (2006) in his survey discussed the problems surrounding faculty contribution to
Institutional Repositories (IRs) and proposed a theoretical model for studying the
diverse factors surrounding this issue.
38

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Through in-depth interviews with eleven faculty members in the sciences, social
sciences and humanities, Davis and Connolly (2007) explored their attitudes,
motivations, and behaviors for non-participation in institutional repositories. Authors
emphasized that reward systems, traditions, and norms are different across disciplines.
2.2.4 Opinion of users about access, copyright and management of IR
Swan and Brown (2003) investigated the authors‘ awareness of new open access
possibilities, the ease of identification of and submission to open access outlets, their
experiences of publishing their work in this way. Also their concerns about any
implications open access publishing may have upon their careers. The reasons why
(or not) they chose to publish through an open access outlet were also studied. They
found that the majority of authors felt that journals‘ publishers should make articles
available electronically for free. Later, they found that 92% of OA authors were
saying that the ‗principle of free access for all readers‘ was an important reason for
publishing in OA journals (Swan & Brown, 2004).
Bates, Loddington, Manuel, and Oppenheim (2006) gathered views on the use of an
institutional repository (IR) for the deposit of teaching and learning materials by
academic staff in UK Higher Education (HE) institutions and by specialists in the
field of Teaching and Learning (T&L). Authors found that over half of the
participants were in favour of peer review and about one third wanted to give
password access to registered users.
The traditional assignment of copyright to publishers was discussed as a possible
impediment to the success of institutional e-print repositories in the article written by
Day (2003).
From a survey of authors and publishers Gadd, Oppenheim, and Probets (2003b)
found that around a third of academics were not sure who owned the copyrights of a
research paper. The same study showed that while 41 % of the surveyed academics
freely assigned copyright to publishers, almost half (49%) did so reluctantly. They
proposed that one way of solving at least some of the copyright issues of institutional
repositories would be for universities and other educational institutions to assert
copyright ownership of the research outputs of employees.
39

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Gadd, Oppenheim, and Probets (2003a) investigated RoMEO project that surveyed
542 academic authors in 57 countries across a variety of disciplines. Some 60%
thought they initially owned copyright of their papers, though 32% admitted they
didn‘t know. Half i.e. 50% said 71-100% of their papers were co-authored, thus
creating scope for disagreement on self-archiving. More than 60% were happy for
others to display, print, save, excerpt from, and give away their papers, so long as
given attribution and quotes were verbatim. In fact, authors were prepared to grant
more liberal terms for the use of their own papers than they actually expected to be
available to themselves for the use of other papers.
Allard, Mack, and Feltner-Reichert (2005) identified six roles that are the
responsibilities of librarians in the IR environment: understanding software, project
planning and management, collection definition, metadata guidance, submission
review, and author training. Similarly Horwood, Sullivan, Young, and Garner (2004)
discussed role of librarians in the development and promotion of institutional
repositories as well as skills needed by library staff.
2.3 Institutional Repository Initiatives in India
As the concept Open Access gained popularity in India, number of articles started
being published about IR most after 2004.
One of the important articles written by the Rajashekar (2004) discussed the relevance
of open-access publishing in developing countries; the potential for open-access
publishing in India; and a few current open-access initiatives in India. He also
proposed a possible technical model to organise open-access publishing in India.
A broad outline on the growth of open access archiving, in developing countries,
focusing mainly on India and its benefits had been provided by Chan and his
colleagues on Scidev.net (Chan, Kirsop, & Arunachalam, 2005). One more article by
Chan and Kirsop (2001) and few articles by Professor Arunachalam were also
important in this regard (Arunachalam, 2005; Arunachalam, 2006). Specific Indian
initiatives especially open archive initiatives were mentioned in this context. Das,
Sen, and Dutta (2005) covered in their article the types of content and software used
in developing repositories. Some of the problems of the repositories were also
highlighted.
40

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
An article written by Harnad and Swan (2008) discussed the Indian contribution to
open access and increase in research impact. They recommended that India needed to
adopt a national OA self-archiving mandate for all of its research institutions and
funders. The recent article by Professor Arunachalam (2008) reviewed current status
of scientific research and progress made in open access – OA journals, OA
repositories and open course ware - in India.
A number of articles discussed the experience of developing and maintaining
institutional repository (Doctor, 2007; Jayakanth, Minj, Silva, & Jagirdar, 2008;
Jobish, Biswal, Minj, Rajashekhar, & Venkadesan, 2005; Krishnamurthy, 2005;
Laxminarsaiah & Rajgoli, 2007; Madalli, 2003; Patel, Vijayakumar & Murthy, 2006;
Sutradhar, 2006).
A paper by Ghosh and Das (2006) provided information about the present state of
open access Literature by various institutions of the country. A chapter in a book
written by Sahu and Parmar (2006) discussed OA archiving and especially the efforts
to popularise OA archives.
One of the important research papers was by Fernandez (2006) who evaluated the
growth and development of online research repositories in India within the broader
framework of open access. She conducted interviews with information professionals
responsible for creation and maintenance of online research repositories in India.
Open access journals, e-print archives and e-theses repositories were covered with an
emphasis on the sciences including the physical sciences, mathematics and the
biomedical sciences. The study explored the background of participants, institutional
culture, software selection, nature of funding, submission policies and future plans of
the repositories.
National Knowledge Commission (NKC) on ―Open Access and Open Educational
Resources‖ recommended the increase of Open Access content from India and to
increase the public awareness and utilisation of OA material (National Knowledge
Commission, 2007).
There were some research papers which explored current status of Open Access
journals in India (Pandita, 2005; Sahu, 2006; Sawant, 2008).
41

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
A book published by UNESCO authored by Anup Kumar Das (2008) gave very brief
overview of institutional repositories in India. Unfortunately no qualitative research
papers / reports or in depth study of Indian institutional repositories in this
publication. Many of the articles available were descriptive not analytical therefore
researcher did not find them very useful. No papers / reports were available on users
of IRs that could have been used to compare with the findings of the present study.
Apart from the research articles bibliographies also helped to locate research articles
and research reports. A bibliography titled ―Scholarly Electronic Publishing
Bibliography‖ compiled by Charles Bailey (2005b) was found to be important. This
bibliography presented selected English-language articles, books, and other printed
and electronic sources that were useful in understanding scholarly electronic
publishing efforts on the Internet. There was a separate section on Repositories, E-
Prints and OAI. Two more bibliographies by Ho and Bailey (2005) and by the Bailey
(2005a) were also helpful in this regard.
Through understanding the research methods and findings from these articles the
researcher could develop pertinent objectives and research methods.
The next chapter discusses the objectives of the current study.
42

REFERENCES
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Allard, S., Mack, T. R., & Feltner-Reichert, M. (2005). The librarian's role in
institutional repositories: A content analysis of the literature. Reference Services
Review, 33(3), 325 – 336. Retrieved June 1, 2006, from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00907320510611357
Arunachalam, S. (2005). India moving ahead with open access. Retrieved October 18,
2006, from
http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number54/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=02
Arunachalam, S. (2006). Open access - current developments in India. Proceedings
Berlin 4 Open Access: From Promise to Practice, Potsdam-Golm, Germany.
Retrieved March 18, 2007, from
http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1255/01/Berlin4SA.pdf
Arunachalam, S. (2008). Open Access in India: Hopes and Frustrations. Proceedings
ELPUB 2008 Conference on Electronic Publishing, Toronto, Canada, 271-279.
Retrieved December 15, 2008, from
http://elpub.scix.net/data/works/att/271_elpub2008.content.pdf
Association of Research Libraries. (2003). Framing the Issue: Open Access. Retrieved
October 18, 2005, from http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/framing_issue_may04.pdf
Awre, C. (2003). Open access and the impact on publishing and purchasing. Serials,
16(2), 205-208. Retrieved October 18, 2005, from
http://uksg.metapress.com/media/BA750YXUWQ0TRV768X2M/Contributions/C
/T/0/V/CT0VRTHJ6HNWJA56.pdf
Bailey, C. W. (2005a). Open access bibliography. Retrieved December 10, 2005, from
http://www.escholarlypub.com/oab/oab.pdf
Bailey, C. W. (2005b). Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography. Retrieved
October 18, 2005, from http://www.digital-scholarship.org/cwb/oaw.htm
43

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Bailey, C. W. (2005c). The Role of Reference Librarians in Institutional Repositories.
Reference Services Review, 33(3), 259-267. Retrieved June 10, 2006, from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00907320510611294
Bailey, C.W., Coombs, K., Emery, J., Mitchell, A., Morris, C., Simons, S. et al.
(2006). Institutional Repositories. SPEC Kit 292. Retrieved December 18, 2007,
from http://www.arl.org/spec/SPEC292web.pdf
Barton, M. R., & Waters, M. M. (2004). Creating an Institutional Repository:
LEADIRS Workbook. Retrieved October 18, 2005, from
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/26698/1/Barton_2004_Creating.pdf 2004
Bates, M., Loddington, S., Manuel, S., & Oppenheim, C. (2006). Rights and Rewards
Project: Academic Survey - final report. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from
http://hdl.handle.net/2134/1815
Bell, S., Foster N. F., & Gibbons, S. (2005). Reference Librarians and the Success of
Institutional Repositories. Reference Services Review, 33(3), 283-290. Retrieved
June 18, 2007, from
https://urresearch.rochester.edu/retrieve/4494/refserreview.pdf
Branin, J. (2003). Institutional Repositories. Draft Paper for Encyclopedia of Library
and Information Science. Retrieved September 18, 2006, from
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/441/1/inst_repos.pdf
Buckholtz, A., Dekeyser, R., Hagemann, M., Krichel, T., & Van de Sompel, H.
(2003). Open access: Restoring scientific communication to its rightful owners.
Retrieved October 18, 2005, from
http://www.esf.org/publication/157/ESPB21.pdf
Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2004). A Guide to OAI-compliant Institutional
Repository Systems. Retrieved October 18, 2005, from
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/software/
44

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Canadian Association of Research Libraries. (n.d.). Institutional Repository Pilot
Project list of tools and technology. Retrieved September 12, 2005, from
http://www.carl-abrc.ca/projects/ir/tools-e.htm
Carver, B. (2003). Creating an Institutional Repository: A Role for Libraries. Ex-
Libris, 181. Retrieved May 28, 2004, from
http://marylaine.com/exlibris/xlib181.html
Chan, L. (2004). Supporting and Enhancing Scholarship in the Digital Age: The Role
of Open-Access Institutional Repositories. Canadian Journal of Communication,
29, 277–300. Retrieved March 11, 2005, from
http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00002590/01/Chan_CJC_IR.pdf
Chan, L., & Kirsop, B. (2001). Open Archiving Opportunities for Developing
Countries: towards equitable distribution of global knowledge. Ariadne. 30.
Retrieved October 18, 2005, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue30/oai-chan/
Chan, L., Kirsop, B., & Arunachalam, S. (2005). Open access archiving: The fast
track to building research capacity in developing countries. Retrieved September
10, 2006, from www.scidev.net/ms/openaccess
Crow, R. (2002). The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper.
Retrieved May 19, 2004, from
http://www.arl.org/sparc/IR/IR_Final_Release_102.pdf
Das, A. K. (2008). Open Access to Knowledge and Information: Scholarly Literature
and Digital Library Initiatives – the South Asian Scenario. New Delhi: UNESCO.
Das, A., Sen, B. K., & Dutta, C. (2005). Collection development in digital
information repositories in India. Vishwabharat@TDIL, 17, 91-96. Retrieved
January 26, 2006, from eprints.rclis.org/archive/00005682/
Davis, P. M., & Connolly, M. J. L. (2007). Institutional Repositories: Evaluating the
Reasons for Non-use of Cornell University's Installation of Dspace. D-Lib
Magazine, 13(3/4). Retrieved January 10, 2008, from
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march07/davis/03davis.html
45

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Davis, P., Ehling, T., Habicht, O., How, S., Saylor, J. M., & Walker, K. (2004).
Report of the CUL Task Force on Open Access Publishing. Retrieved November
11, 2006, from
http://dspace.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/193/3/OATF_Report_8-9.pdf
Day, M. (2003). Prospects for institutional e-print repositories in the United Kingdom.
Retrieved August 4, 2004, from http://www.rdn.ac.uk/projects/eprints-
uk/docs/studies/impact/
Doctor, G. (2007). Knowledge sharing: developing the digital repository of SIPS.
VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems, 37(1), 64-
73. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/03055720710742043
Fernandez, L. (2006). Open Access Initiatives in India - an Evaluation. Retrieved
October 25, 2006, from
http://units.sla.org/division/dst/Annual%20Conference%20Contributed%20Papers
/2006papers/Leila%20Fernandez%20open%20access%20India.pdf
Foster, N. F., & Gibbons, S. (2005). Understanding Faculty to Improve Content
Recruitment for Institutional Repositories. D-Lib Magazine, 11(1). Retrieved
February 1, 2006, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.html.
Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., & Probets, S. (2003a). RoMEO studies 1: The impact of
copyright ownership on author-self-archiving. Journal of Documentation, 59(3),
243-277. Retrieved September 15, 2005, from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00220410310698239
Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., & Probets, S. (2003b). The Intellectual Property Rights
Issues Facing Self-archiving: Key Findings of the RoMEO Project. D-Lib
Magazine, 9(9). Retrieved September 20, 2005, from
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september03/gadd/09gadd.html
Genoni, P. (2004). Content in Institutional Repositories: A Collection Management
Issue. Library Management, 25(6/7), 300 – 306. Retrieved March 13, 2005, from
http://iris.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/01435120410547968
46

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Ghosh, S. B., & Das, A. (2006). Open access and institutional repositories – a
developing country perspective: a case study of India. Proceedings World Library
and Information Congress: 72 nd IFLA Council and General Conference, Seoul,
Korea. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from
http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00006391/01/157-Ghosh_Das-en.pdf
Gibbons, S. (2004). Establishing an Institutional Repository. Library Technology
Reports, 40(4), 11–14. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from
https://publications.techsource.ala.org/products/archive.pl?article=2538
Gutteridge, C., & Harnad, S. (2002). Applications, Potential Problems and a
Suggested Policy for Institutional E-Print Archives. Retrieved August 28, 2005,
from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/6768/01/eprintspolicy.pdf
Harnad, S., & Swan, A. (2008). India, Open Access, the Law of Karma and the
Golden Rule. DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology, 28 (1), 35-40.
Retrieved March 13, 2005, from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14432/1/india.pdf
Hayes, H. (2005). Digital Repositories: Helping universities and colleges. Retrieved
November 18, 2005, from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/HE_repositories_briefing_paper_2005
.pdf
Hey, J. (2004). Targeting Academic Research with Southampton's Institutional
Repository. Ariadne, 40. Retrieved September 12, 2005, from
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue40/hey/
Hirwade, M., & Hirwade, A. (2006). Institutional repositories : Challenge and
opportunity for LIS Professionals in digital age. Library Herald, 44(2), 146-151.
Ho, A. K., & Bailey, C. W. (2005). Open Access Webliography. Retrieved March 15,
2006, from www.escholarlypub.com/cwb/oaw.htm
47

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Horwood, L., Sullivan, S., Young, E., & Garner, J. (2004). OAI compliant
institutional repositories and the role of library staff. Library Management,
25(4/5), 170 – 176. Retrieved February 16, 2005, from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/01435120410533756
Houghton, J. W., Steele, C., & Henty, M. (2003). Changing Research Practices in the
DigitalInformation and Communication Environment. Retrieved February 1,
2005, from http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41581/2/c_res_pract.pdf
Jacobs, N. (Ed.). (2006). Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic
Aspects. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
Jayakanth, F., Minj, F., Silva, U., & Jagirdar, S. (2008). ePrints@IISc: India's first
and fastest growing institutional repository. OCLC Systems & Services, 24(1). 59
– 70. Retrieved December 16, 2008, from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/10650750810847260
Jenkins, B., Breakstone, E., & Hixson, C. (2005). Content In, Content Out: The Dual
Role of the Reference Librarian in Institutional Repositories. Reference Services
Review, 33(3), 312 – 324. Retrieved March 2, 2006, from
www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00907320510611348
Jobish, P., Biswal, H. K., Minj, F., Rajashekhar, T. B., & Venkadesan, S. (2005).
Etd@IISc: A DSpace-based ETD-MS and OAI compliant theses repository
service of Indian Institute of Science. Proceedings ETD 2005: Evolution through
discovery, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved July 16, 2007, from
http://adt.caul.edu.au/etd2005/papers/049Minj.pdf
Johnson, R. K. (2002). Institutional Repositories: Partnering with Faculty to Enhance
Scholarly Communication. D-Lib Magazine, 8(11). Retrieved February 8, 2005,
from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november02/johnson/11johnson.html
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) & the Open Society Institute (OSI).
(2004). Journal Authors Survey Report. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISCOAreport1.pdf
48

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Jones, M., & Beagrie, N. (2002). Preservation Management of Digital Materials: A
Handbook. Retrieved April 11, 2004, from
www.dpconline.org/graphics/handbook/
Kennan, M. A., & Wilson, C. S. (2006). Institutional repositories: review and an
information systems perspective. Library Management, 27(4/5), 236-248.
Retrieved March 29, 2007, from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article
&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0150270403.html
Kim, J. (2006). Motivating and Impeding Factors Affecting Faculty Contribution to
Institutional Repositories. JCDL Workshop: Digital Curation and Trusted
Repositories: Seeking Success, NC, USA. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from
http://sils.unc.edu/events/2006jcdl/digitalcuration/Kim-JCDLWorkshop2006.pdf
Krishnamurthy, M. (2005). Digital library of mathematics using DSpace: A practical
experience. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 42(3), 245-256.
Lagoze, C., & Van de Sompel, H. (2001). The Open Archives Initiative: Building a
low-barrier interoperability framework. Proceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE-CS
jointconference on Digital libraries, Roanoke, Virginia, USA. Retrieved March 10,
2005, from http://www.openarchives.org/documents/jcdl2001-oai.pdf
Lamb, C. (2004). Open access publishing models: opportunity or threat to scholarly
and academic publishers? Learned Publishing, 17, 143–150. Retrieved March 26,
2007, from
http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/cw/alpsp/09531513/v17n2/s9/p143.p
df?fmt=dirpdf&tt=885&cl=16&ini=connect&bini=&wis=connect&ac=0&acs=32
629,75000325&expires=1129969797&checksum=6DE386AE83CF5B7E5780351
117A8002A&cookie=1089202816
Laxminarsaiah, A., & Rajgoli, I. U. (2007). Building institutional repository: an
overview. OCLC Systems & Services, 23(3), 278-286. Retrieved May 16, 2008,
from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/10650750710776413
49

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Lynch, C. A. (2003). Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for
Scholarship in the Digital Age. ARL Bimonthly Report, 226. Retrieved June 10,
2004, from http://www.arl.org/newsltr/226/ir.html
Lynch, C. A. (2006). Open Computation: Beyond Human-Reader-Centric Views of
Scholarly Literatures. In N. Jacobs (Ed.), Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical
and Economic Aspects (pp. 185-193). Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
Lynch, C. A., & Lippincott, K. (2005). Institutional Repository Deployment in the
United States as of Early 2005. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9). Retrieved May 1, 2006,
from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/lynch/09lynch.html
Lyon, L. (2003). eBank UK: Building the Links Between Research Data, Scholarly
Communication, and Learning. Ariadne, 36. Retrieved September 6, 2005, from
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue36/lyon/
Mackie, M. (2004). Filling Institutional Repositories: Practical strategies from the
DAEDALUS Project. Ariadne, 39. Retrieved September 28, 2005, from
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue39/mackie/
Madalli, D. (2003). A digital library of library and information science using DSpace.
DRTC Workshop on Semantic Web, Bangalore, India. Retrieved February 11,
2007, from https://drtc.isibang.ac.in/handle/1849/56.
Mark, T., & Shearer, K. (2006). Institutional Repositories: A Review of Content
Recruitment Strategies. Proceedings World Library and Information Congress:
72 nd IFLA Council and General Conference, Seoul, Korea. Retrieved May 16,
2007, from http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla72/papers/155-Mark_Shearer-en.pdf
Markey, K., Rieh, S. Y., Jean, B. S., Kim, J., & Yakel, E. (2007). Census of
Institutional Repositories in the United States: MIRACLE Project Research
Findings. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub140/pub140.pdf
Martin, R. (2003). ePrints UK: developing a national e-prints archive. Ariadne, 35.
Retrieved July 10, 2005, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/martin/
50

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
McDowell, C. S. (2007). Evaluating Institutional Repository Deployment in
American Academe Since Early 2005 Repositories by the Numbers, Part 2. D-Lib
Magazine, 13(9/10). Retrieved December 18, 2007, from
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september07/mcdowell/09mcdowell.html
Meyers, B. (2004). Open Access: A Matter For Definition. Society for Scholarly
Publishing Issue Status Report June 2004. Retrieved October 11, 2006, from
http://www.sspnet.org/files/public/Open-Access-Report-Barbara-Meyers.pdf
National Knowledge Commission. (2007). Report of the Working Group on Open
Access and Open Educational Resources. Retrieved June 18, 2008, from
http://www.knowledgecommission.gov.in/downloads/documents/wg_open_course
.pdf
Nixon, W. J. (2002). The evolution of an institutional e-prints archive at the
University of Glasgow. Ariadne, 32. Retrieved March 8, 2004, from
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue32/eprint-archives/
Open Access Repositories in New Zealand (OARINZ) project. (2006). Technical
Evaluation of Selected Open Access Repositories in New Zealand. Retrieved
August 12, 2007, from
https://eduforge.org/docman/view.php/131/1062/Repository%20Evaluation%20D
ocument.pdf
Pandita, N. (2005). Open Access journals in India. International seminar on Open
access for developing counties, Salvador, Bahia - Brasil. Retrieved May 19, 2007,
from http://www.icml9.org/meetings/openaccess/activity.php?lang=en&id=10 97
Patel, Y., Vijayakumar, J. K., & Murthy, T. A. V. (2006). Institutional digital
Repositories/E-archives: INFLIBNET‘s initiative. In M. G. Sreekumar (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 7 th
MANLIBNET Annual National Conference on Digital
Libraries in Knowledge Management, Kochi, India. 312-318. Retrieved January
16, 2007, from http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00005683/.
51

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Pelizzari, E. (2003). Harvesting for Disseminating: Open Archives and Role of
Academic Libraries. Retrieved March 19, 2004, from
http://www.bci.unibs.it/biblio/harvesting_eprint.html
Pelizzari, E. (2004). Academic Authors and Open Archives: A Survey in the Social
Science Field. Libri, 54, 113-122. Retrieved October 26, 2005, from
http://www.librijournal.org/pdf/2004-2pp113-122.pdf
Pickton, M. J. (2005). Research students and the Loughborough institutional
repository. (Master's Dissertation, Loughborough University, 2005). Retrieved
January 10, 2006, from
http://magpie.lboro.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/2134/571/1/Miggie_dissertation.pdf
Pickton, M. J., & Barwick, J. (2006). A Librarian's guide to institutional repositories.
Retrieved May 10, 2007, from https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-
jspui/handle/2134/1122
Pickton, M., & McKnight, C. (2005). Research students and the Loughborough
institutional repository. Retrieved June 10, 2006, from
http://magpie.lboro.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/2134/1000/1/Pickton%26McKnight+J
oLIS2006%281%29.pdf
Pinfield, S., & Hamish, J. (2003). The Digital Preservation of e -Prints. DLib
Magazine, 9(9). Retrieved April 21, 2005, from
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september03/pinfield/09pinfield .html
Pinfield, S., Gardner M., & MacColl, J. (2002). Setting up an institutional e-print
archive. Ariadne, 31. Retrieved March 22, 2005, from
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue31/eprint-archives/
Pöschl, U. (2004). Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and
quality assurance. Learned Publishing, 17 (2), 105–113. Retrieved November 18,
2005, from
http://ninetta.ingentaselect.com/vl=2385048/cl=86/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/alps
p/09531513/v17n2/s5/p105
52

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Powell, A. (2005). Notes about possible technical criteria for evaluating institutional
repository (IR) software. Retrieved October 25, 2006, from
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/distributed-systems/jisc-ie/arch/ir-software.pdf
Publisher and Library/Learning Solutions (PALS). (2004). Pathfinder Research on
Web-based Repositories: Final report. Retrieved June 22, 2005, from
http://www.edtechpost.ca/wordpress/2004/03/01/pathfinder-research-on-web-
based-repositories-final-report/
Rajashekar, T. B. (2004) Open-Access Initiatives in India. Proceedings of Open
Access and the Public Domain in Digital Data and Information for Science, Paris,
France, 154-157. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091454/html/154.html
Rieh, S. Y., Markey, K., Yakel, E., St. Jean, B., & Kim, J. (2007). Perceived Values
and Benefits of Institutional Repositories: A Perspective of Digital Curation.
Retrieved June 18, 2008, from
http://ils.unc.edu/digccurr2007/papers/rieh_paper_6-2.pdf
Robinson, M. (2007). Institutional Repositories: Staff and Skills Requirements.
Retrieved October 22, 2007, from
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/documents/sherpaplusdocs/notts-
Repository%20Staff%20and%20Skills.pdf
Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2005). New journal publishing models: an international
survey of senior researchers. Retrieved March 16, 2006, from
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ciber/ciber_2005_survey_final.pdf
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., & Huntingdon, P. (2004). Scholarly Communication in
the Digital Environment: What Do Authors Want? Learned Publishing, 17(4),
261-273. Retrieved May 18, 2005, from
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2004/00000017/00000004/art00
002
53

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Sahu, D. K. (2006). Open access publishing in the developing world: economics and
impact. Asia Commons: Asian Conference on the Digital Commons, Bangkok,
Thailand. Retrieved July 11, 2007, from
http://openmed.nic.in/1598/01/Openaccess_Medknow.pdf
Sahu, D. K., & Parmar, R. (2006). The position around the world: Open Access in
India. In N. Jacobs (Ed.), Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic
Aspects (pp. 26-32). Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
Sale, A. (2006a). The acquisition of open access research articles. First Monday,
11(10). Retrieved March 14, 2007, from
http://eprints.comp.utas.edu.au:81/archive/00000375/01/Acquisition.pdf
Sale, A. (2006b). The impact of mandatory policies on ETD acquisition. D-Lib
Magazine, 12(4). Retrieved October 18, 2006, from
http://eprints.comp.utas.edu.au:81/archive/00000267/01/sale_final.doc
Sawant, S. (2008). Open Access Journals in India. In M. Kognurmath (Ed.),
International Conference on ‘Knowledge for All: Role of Libraries and
Information Centres proceedings (pp. 59-67). Mumbai: Sita publications.
Shearer, K. (2003). Institutional repositories: towards the identification of critical
success factors. In W. C. Peekhaus & L. F. Spiteri (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Bridging the Digital Divide: Equalizing Access to Information and
Communication Technologies, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Retrieved March 15, 2005,
from http://www.cais-acsi.ca/proceedings/2003/Shearer_2003.pdf
Shearer, K. (2004). CARL Institutional Repositories Project. Retrieved October 3,
2005, from http://www.carl-
abrc.ca/projects/institutional_repositories/pdf/survey_results_2004-e.pdf
Shearer, K. (2005). CARL Institutional Repositories Project. Retrieved May 4, 2006,
from http://www.carl-
abrc.ca/projects/institutional_repositories/pdf/survey_results_2005-e.pdf
54

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Smith, M. (2002). DSpace: An Institutional Repository from the MIT Libraries and
Hewlett Packard Laboratories. Retrieved May 13, 2004, from
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/26706/Smith_2002_DSpace.pdf?se
quence=1
Suber, P. (2004a). Open Access Builds Momentum. ARL Bimonthly Report, 232.
Retrieved May 18, 2005, from http://www.arl.org/newsltr/232/openaccess.html
Suber, P. (2004b). Open Access Overview: Focusing on open access to peer-reviewed
research articles and their preprints. Retrieved June 20, 2005, from
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
Suleman, H., & Fox, E. (2001). The Open Archives Initiative: Realizing Simple and
Effective Digital Library Interoperability. Retrieved May 10, 2004, from
http://www.dlib.vt.edu/projects/OAI/reports/jla_2001_article_oai.pdf
Sutradhar, B. (2006). Design and development of an institutional repository at the
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur. Program: electronic library and
information systems, 40(3). 244 – 255. Retrieved March 18, 2007, from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00330330610681321
Swan, A. (2008). Open Access for Indian Scholarship. DESIDOC Bulletin of
Information Technology, 28(1), 15-34. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14465/
Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2003). Authors and electronic publishing: what authors want
from the new technology. Learned Publishing, 16(1), 28–33. Retrieved July 18,
2004, from
http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/cw/alpsp/09531513/v16n1/s6/p28.pdf
?fmt=dirpdf&tt=885&cl=17&ini=connect&bini=&wis=connect&ac=0&acs=3262
9,75000325&expires=1130051429&checksum=830CAC88B14C125165C358F2E
B3ADD16&cookie=837943616
Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2004). Authors and open access publishing. Learned
Publishing, 17(3), 219-224. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from
http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/
55

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2005). Open access self-archiving: an author study. Retrieved
March 11, 2006, from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Open%20Access%20Self%20Archivi
ng-an%20author%20study.pdf
Swan, A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., O‘Brien, A., Oppenheim, C., et al.
(2005). Delivery, Management and Access Model for E-prints and Open Access
Journals within Further and Higher Education. Retrieved May 18, 2006, from
http://cogprints.org/4122/01/E-prints%5Fdelivery%5Fmodel.pdf
Van de Sompel, H., Payette, S., Erickson, J., Lagoze C., & Warner, S. (2004).
Rethinking Scholarly Communication: Building the System that Scholars
Deserve. D-Lib Magazine, 10 (9), Retrieved February 1, 2006, from
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september04/vandesompel/09vandesompel.html
Watson, S. (2007). Authors‘ attitudes to, and awareness and use of, a university
institutional repository. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from
https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/2017/3/Authors%20attitudes-
awareness-and%20use%20of%20IR%27s-2007.pdf
Westell, M. (2006). Institutional repositories: proposed indicators of success. Library
Hi Tech, 24(2), 211-226. Retrieved June 18, 2007, from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article
&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/2380240205.html
Westrienen, G., & Lynch, C. A. (2005). Academic Institutional Repositories:
Deployment Status in 13 Nations as of Mid 2005. D-Lib Magazine, 11(9).
Retrieved September 18, 2006, from
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/westrienen/09westrienen.html
Willinsky, J. (2002). Copyright Contradictions in Scholarly Publishing. First Monday,
7(11). Retrieved October 18, 2007, from
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_11/willinsky/
56

Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Wojciechowska, A. (2007). Analysis of the use of open archives in the fields of
mathematics and computer science. OCLC Systems & Services, 23(1), 54-69.
Retrieved December 16, 2007, from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/10650750710720766
Xia, J., & Sun, L. (2007). Assessment of Self-Archiving in Institutional Repositories:
Depositorship and Full-Text Availability. Serials Review, 33(1), 14-21. Retrieved
October 18, 2007, from http://dlist.sir.arizona.edu/1829/01/Assessment%5F-
%5Fdlist.doc
Yeates, R. (2003). Institutional repositories. VINE: The Journal of Information and
Knowledge Management Systems, 33(2), 96-100. Retrieved December 14, 2004,
from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/03055720310509064
57