DSpace conducted an informal survey of its open source community in October 2006. Here are some highlights:

• The vast majority of respondents (77.6%) used or planned to use DSpace for a university IR.
• The majority of systems were in production (53.4%); pilot testing was second (35.3%).
• Preservation and interoperability were the highest priority system features (61.2% each), followed by search engine indexing (57.8%) and open access to refereed articles (56.9%). (Percentage of respondents who rated these features "very important.") Only 5.2% thought that OA to refereed articles was unimportant.
• The most common type of current IR content was refereed scholarly articles and theses/dissertations (55.2% each), followed by other (48.6%) and grey literature (47.4%).
• The most popular types of content that respondents were planning to add to their IRs were datasets (53.4%), followed by audio and video (46.6% each).
• The most frequently used type of metadata was customized Dublin Core (80.2%), followed by XML metadata (13.8%).
• The most common update pattern was to regularly migrate to new versions; however it took a "long time to merge in my customizations/configuration" (44.8%).
• The most common types of modification were minor cosmetics (34.5%), new features (26.7%), and significant user interface customization (21.6%).
• Only 30.2% were totally comfortable with editing/customizing DSpace; 56.9% were somewhat comfortable and 12.9% were not comfortable.
• Plug-in use is light: for example, 11.2% use SRW/U, 8.6% use Manakin, and 5.2% use TAPIR (ETDs).
• The most desired feature for the next version is a more easily customized user interface (17.5%), closely followed by improved modularity (16.7%).

For information about other recent institutional repository surveys, see "ARL Institutional Repositories SPEC Kit" and "MIRACLE Project’s Institutional Repository Survey."

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 14th, 2006 at 2:58 pm and is filed under DSpace, E-Prints, Institutional Repositories, Open Access, Scholarly Communication. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.