Here's an excerpt:

This study considers the effect of large-scale deposit on scholarly research publication and dissemination (sharing of research outputs), beginning with the analysis of publishers and institutions managing repositories and their sustainability. The study associates costs with specific activities, performed by key actors involved in research registration, certification, dissemination and digital management: authors, the scholarly community, editors, publishers, libraries, readers and funding agencies. Contrary to most of the existing literature, the study analyses cost structures of individual organizations. The focus of this study is therefore to provide context for the costs to specific organizations and to their choices in terms of scale and scope. . . .

This study analyses 22 organizations involved with journal article publication and dissemination. Data were gathered via literature and public document analysis, as well as through individual in-depth interviews in order to assess the cost structure of publishers, OA journal publishers and institutions managing repositories and the conditions for their sustainability.

| Digital Scholarship's Digital Bibliographies | Digital Scholarship |

Here's an excerpt:

Feelings about principles of OA: Participants were asked how they felt about the principles of OA. 1629 participants answered this question, and results showed that 63% (1026) were strongly in favour, 22% (358) were mildly in favour, 8% (132) were neutral, 3%(47) were mildly against, 2% (35) were strongly against, and 2% (31) did not know how they felt. . . .

Feelings about using OA repositories: Participants were also asked how they felt about using OA repositories. 1634 participants answered this question, and results showed that 56% (913) were strongly in favour, 24% (391) were mildly in favour,12% (197) were neutral, 3% (52) were mildly against, 2% (30) were strongly against, and 3% (51) did not know how they felt. . . .

If we collapse across those that responded they were strongly in favour with those that were mildly in favour, we find that the majority, 80% (1304), were in favour of using OA repositories.

| Digital Scholarship's Digital/Print Books | Digital Scholarship |

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Open access research is now more accessible as JISC has developed a new search engine to help academics, students and the general public navigate papers held in the UK's open access repositories.

JISC has funded the Open University's Knowledge Media Institute (KMi) to create an innovative new search facility which searches not just the abstract but the full text of the article.

When researchers use current systems like Google Scholar to search academic papers they can find themselves denied access to the full article, particularly when subscription fees are required. They also typically have to search across a number of open access repositories or use searches that harvest data from different sources.

But now, using the Connecting Repositories tool or CORE, people can search the full text of items held in all 142 approved Open Access repositories.

Once they've found what they're looking for, the CORE system stores these downloads, so that people can still get access to the papers they have found useful even if the original repository is offline. . . .

Search CORE with your research question.

| New: Institutional Repository and ETD Bibliography 2011 | Digital Scholarship |

The Institutional Repository and ETD Bibliography 2011 is available as a $9.95 paperback (ISBN: 146377429X) and an open access PDF file. All versions of the bibliography are available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

For further information about Digital Scholarship publications, see the "Digital Scholarship Publications Overview" and "Reviews of Digital Scholarship Publications."

| Digital Scholarship |

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

A joint publishing partnership between the libraries at Pacific University (Ore.) and California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo has announced a new open access, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to library-led scholarly communication initiatives, online publishing and digital projects.

The Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication will provide a focused forum for library practitioners to share ideas, strategies, research and pragmatic explorations of library-led initiatives related to such areas as institutional repository and digital collection management, library publishing/hosting services and authors' rights advocacy efforts. As technology, scholarly communication, the economics of publishing, and the roles of libraries all continue to evolve, the work shared in JLSC will inform practices that strengthen librarianship.

Marisa Ramirez (Cal Poly) and Isaac Gilman (Pacific University) will co-edit the journal in collaboration with an editorial board composed of experienced and respected library practitioners.

Founding board members include Allyson Mower (University of Utah), Amy Buckland (McGill University), Ann Lally (University of Washington), Faye Chadwell (Oregon State University), JQ Johnson (University of Oregon), Katherine Johnson (California Institute of Technology), Lisa Schiff (California Digital Library), Michael Boock (Oregon State University), Pamela Bluh (University of Maryland, School of Law), Paul Royster (University of Nebraska), Rebecca Kennison (Columbia University), Sarah Shreeves (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Shawn Martin (University of Pennsylvania), Susan Wells Parham (Georgia Institute of Technology) and Terry Owen (University of Maryland).

| Digital Curation and Preservation Bibliography 2010 | Institutional Repository Bibliography | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 |

Here's an excerpt:

Digital preservation starts with detailed knowledge and awareness of your own content. The scope for content of institutional repositories has grown from research papers to presenting data supporting the research, also covering teaching materials, and artistic creativity. Four repositories representing each content type—the exemplars—joined the KeepIt project to investigate how effectively each could support the goals of a general repository: trustworthy storage, and preservation. This final report from the project reveals the results, outcomes and implications of the work.

| Digital Curation and Preservation Bibliography 2010 | Institutional Repository Bibliography | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 |

The bibliography has the following sections (all sections have been updated except "3 Multiple-Institution Repositories"):

1 General
2 Country and Regional Surveys
3 Multiple-Institution Repositories
4 Specific Institutional Repositories
5 Digital Preservation
6 Library Issues
7 Metadata
8 Institutional Open Access Mandates and Policies
9 R&D Projects
10 Research Studies
11 Software
12 Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Appendix A. Related Bibliographies
Appendix B. About the Author

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Reviews of Digital Scholarship Publications |

Here's an excerpt:

This report is a summarisation of the responses to a recent survey of the UKCoRR membership concerning the use of full-text downloads as a repository performance metric within the SCONUL annual statistical survey. It hopes to present a representative snapshot of the current opinions in this area from repository managers.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Institutional Repository Bibliography |

Here's an excerpt:

In addition to its promotion and conservation objectives, Archimer, Ifremer’s institutional repository, offers a wide range of bibliometric tools described in this document.

As early as the recording stage, numerous automatic operations homogenize the information (author’s name, research body, department…), thus proving the quality of the bibliometric analyses.

Now, Archimer enables, among others, the automatic calculation of several indicators defined by Ifremer and the different ministries in charge in the framework of its four-year contract. It also offers various criteria aimed at analysing its document production (eg. distribution of the value of the journals' impact factors, evolution of the number of quotations in other publications, presentation of international collaborations…).

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Institutional Repository Bibliography |

This post examines whether AAU institutions have operational institutional repositories. Over 80% of the 62 AAU members now have such a repository (see the below list).

Institutions that do not have an institutional repository typically have an extensive digital library of curated digital materials (including works digitized by the library), and they may also have specialized digital repositories, such as departmental digital repositories (e.g., eprints and other digital research materials) or an ETD repository. Such digital libraries and repositories are not included here.

Institutional repositories were identified by OpenDOAR, ROAR, and, in some cases, Google and institutional website searches.

1. Brandeis University, Brandeis Institutional Repository
2. Brown University, Brown Digital Repository
3. California Institute of Technology, CaltechAUTHORS
4. Carnegie Mellon University, Research Showcase
5. Case Western Reserve University, Digital Case
6. Columbia University, Academic Commons
7. Cornell University, eCommons@Cornell
8. Duke University, DukeSpace
9. Georgia Institute of Technology, SMARTech Repository
10. Harvard University, DASH
11. Indiana University, IUScholarWorks
12. The Johns Hopkins University, JScholarship
13. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, DSpace@MIT
14. McGill University, eScholarship@McGill
15. New York University, Faculty Digital Archive
16. The Ohio State University, Knowledge Bank
17. Purdue University, ePubs
18. Rice University, Rice University Digital Scholarship Archive
19. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, RUCore
20. Stanford University, Stanford Digital Repository
21. Stony Brook University-State University of New York, State University of New York Digital Repository
22. Syracuse University, SURFACE
23. Texas A&M University, Texas A&M Digital Repository
24. The University of Arizona, UAiR
25. University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, UB Institutional Repository
26. University of California, Berkeley, eScholarship
27. University of California, Davis, eScholarship
28. University of California, Irvine, eScholarship
29. University of California, Los Angeles, eScholarship
30. University of California, San Diego, eScholarship
31. University of California, Santa Barbara, eScholarship
32. University of Colorado at Boulder
33. University of Florida, IR @ UF
34. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IDEALS
35. The University of Iowa, Iowa Research Online
36. The University of Kansas, KU ScholarWorks
37. University of Maryland, College Park, DRUM
38. University of Michigan, Deep Blue
39. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, digitalconservancy
40. University of Missouri-Columbia, MOspace
41. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Carolina Digital Repository
42. University of Oregon, Scholars' Bank
43. University of Pennsylvania, ScholarlyCommons Repository
44. University of Pittsburgh, D-Scholarship@Pitt
45. University of Rochester, UR Research
46. The University of Texas at Austin, University of Texas Digital Repository
47. University of Toronto, T-Space
48. University of Virginia, Libra
49. University of Washington, ResearchWorks
50. The University of Wisconsin-Madison, MINDS@UW
51. Vanderbilt University, DiscoverArchive

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography |

Here's an excerpt:

The stated aim of many repositories is to provide permanent open access to their content. However, relatively few repositories have implemented practical action plans towards permanence. Repository managers often lack time and confidence to tackle the important but scary problem of preservation.

Written by, and aimed at, repository managers, this paper describes how the JISC-funded KeepIt project has been bringing together existing preservation tools and services with appropriate training and advice to enable repository managers to formulate practical and achievable preservation plans.

Three elements of the KeepIt project are described:

1. The initial, exploratory phase in which repository managers and a preservation specialist established the current status of each repository and its preservation objectives;
2. The repository-specific KeepIt preservation training course which covered the organisational and financial framework of repository preservation; metadata; the new preservation tools; and issues of trust between repository, users and services;
3. The application of tools and lessons learned from the training course to four exemplar repositories and the impact that this has made.

The paper concludes by recommending practical steps that all repository managers may take to ensure their repositories are preservation-ready.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Institutional Repository Bibliography |

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Save your work in perpetuity with a new tool called Libra. A joint project between ITC and the University Library System, and requested by the Faculty Senate, Libra allows any employee of the University who produces scholarly works to store their papers, and in the near future, theses and datasets, in a secure location. Libra was developed specifically as a repository for peer-reviewed, scholarly articles, although other works such as books may also be deposited, as long as sufficient rights have been retained by the authors.

Read more about it at "LIBRA: University of Virginia's Hydra-based Fedora Repository for Open Access Materials."

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography |

Here's an excerpt:

This final project report to the Provost summarizes the work of the Digital Repository Librarian and Digital Repository Assistant (LAII) during the three-year Provost-funded DigitalCommons@CalPoly service, during Academic Year (AY) 2007-2010. It is based on the subtask and annual reports that have been established during the project. Recommendations for future activities are also included.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography |

Here's an excerpt:

Recently some advocates for institutional repositories have noted that, in connection with the responsibilities that academic and research libraries may have for coordinating the scholarly output of author-researchers at their institutions, there are efficiencies to be gained in negotiating at an institutional level with journal publishers. . . .

STM publishers are of the view that content license negotiations deal appropriately with questions about the scope of content that will be accessible for each institutional subscriber as well as the scope of usage rights and relative costs for such accessibility and rights. These negotiations are often complex, especially given that in recent years efforts have been made to manage negotiations through procurement processes of different kinds. We hold the view that conflating author rights issues and institutional content licenses serves only to add greater complexity and possible legal uncertainty to such licenses without adding meaningful benefits for authors.

SPARC, SPARC Europe and COAR have issued a "Public Response on Behalf of SPARC, SPARC Europe and COAR Regarding Publishers Self-Deposit Policies."

Here's an excerpt:

We have recently noted that some journal publishers have sought to negotiate individually with universities and research institutes, seeking to increase embargo periods for authors depositing pre-prints of their articles into repositories, and requesting embargo periods that go beyond what is already stated in the publishers' own policies.

We strongly urge institutions not to enter into individual agreements with publishers that supersede the existing policies of the publisher or any previous licensing agreements.

We also call on the publishers not to further hinder the deposit—and accessibility—of pre-prints with additional restrictions, regulations and policies. Proliferation of this practice will result in an environment that is confusing to navigate for end users, and increasingly difficult for individual institutions to effectively maintain.

Read more about it at "Double Talk."

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography |

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

This new report investigates the drivers, costs and benefits of potential ways to increase access to scholarly journals. It identifies five different routes for achieving that end over the next five years, and compares and evaluates the benefits as well as the costs and risks for the UK.

The report suggests that policymakers who are seeking to promote increases in access should encourage the use of existing subject and institutional repositories, but avoid pushing for reductions in embargo periods, which might put at risk the sustainability of the underlying scholarly publishing system. They should also promote and facilitate a transition to open access publishing (Gold open access) while seeking to ensure that the average level of charges for publication does not exceed c.£2000; that the rate in the UK of open access publication is broadly in step with the rate in the rest of the world; and that total payments to journal publishers from UK universities and their funders do not rise as a consequence.

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography |