The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis
Keywords:Institutional Repositories, Medical Schools, Academic Health Centers, Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries, AAHSL, Survey
Objective: This study uses survey research methods to gain a deeper understanding of the institutional repository (IR) landscape in medical schools and academic health centers.
Methods: Members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) were surveyed about their IRs. The authors used a mixed-methods approach of a survey and qualitative content analysis to identify common themes.
Results: Survey results indicate that a large majority of responding medical schools and academic health centers have or are implementing an IR (35 out of 50, 70%). Of these, 60% (21 institutions) participate in an institution-wide IR rather than administer their own repositories. Much of the archived content is grey literature that has not already been published, but the percentage of original content varies greatly among institutions. The majority (57.1%) of respondent institutions are not considering an open access policy or mandate. Most institutions (71.4%) reported that repository staff are depositing materials on behalf of users. dSPACE and bepress Digital Commons are the most popular repository platforms in this community. The planned enhancements that were most frequently reported were implementing a discovery layer and ORCID integration. The majority of respondents (54.3%) do not plan to migrate to a different platform in the foreseeable future. Analysis of respondent comments identified the following themes: integration, redundancy, and reporting; alternatives and exploration; uniqueness; participation; and funding and operations.
Conclusions: The study results capture a view of the IR landscape in medical schools and academic health centers and help readers understand what services their peers have in place as well as their plans for future developments.
This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program.
Jisc. OpenDOAR statistics [Internet]. Jisc; 2019 [cited 24 Apr 2019]. <http://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/view/repository_visualisations/1.html>.
Krevit L, Crays L. Herding cats: designing DigitalCommons @ the Texas Medical Center, a multi-institutional repository. OCLC Syst Serv. 2007 23(2):116–24. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/1065075071074844.
Fay B, Deal J, Budzisz V. An institutional repository experience at a large health care system. Med Ref Serv Q. 2017 Jul–Sep;36(2):280–91. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2017.1332264.
Ilik V, Hebal P, Olson A, Wishnetsky S, Pastva J, Kubilius R, Shank J, Gutzman K, Chung M, Holmes K. DigitalHub: a repository focused on the future. Med Ref Serv Q. 2018 Jan–Mar;37(1):31–42. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2018.1404386.
Pickett KM, Knapp MM. A global snapshot of the state of digital collections in the health sciences, 2013. J Med Libr Assoc. 2014 Apr;102(2):121–5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.2.013.
Loan FA, Sheikh S. Analytical study of open access health and medical repositories. Electron Libr. 2016;34(3):419–34. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EL-01-2015-0012.
Odell J, Palmer K, Dill E. Faculty attitudes toward open access and scholarly communications: disciplinary differences on an urban and health science campus. J Librariansh Sch Commun. 2017 5(1):eP2169. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2169.
Schoening P, Singarella T. AAHSL institutional repositories (IR) survey summary and analysis: 2008 survey, 2005–2008 comparison [Internet]. Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries [cited 2 Apr 2019]. <https://www.aahsl.org/assets/documents/IR_Survey_Summary_2008.pdf>.
Palmer LA. Cultivating scholarship: the role of institutional repositories in health sciences libraries. Against Grain. 2014 Apr;26(2). DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.6695.
Kipnis DG, Palmer LA. Medical institutional repositories in a changing scholarly communication landscape. Against Grain. 2018 Sep;30(4):33–4, 36. (Available from: <https://www.against-the-grain.com/2018/10/v304-medical-institutional-repositories-in-a-changing-scholarly-communication-landscape/>. (cited 14 Jun 2109]).
Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries. Annual statistics of medical school libraries in the United States and Canada, resources & services survey, 2017. The Association; 2017.
Schonfeld RC. Elsevier acquires bepress. Scholarly Kitchen [Internet]. 2017 [cited 21 Mar 2018]. <https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/08/02/elsevier-acquires-bepress/>.
Coalition of Networked Information. Rethinking institutional repository strategies [Internet]. The Coalition; 2017 [cited 24 Apr 2019]. <https://www.cni.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/CNI-rethinking-irs-exec-rndtbl.report.S17.v1.pdf>.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377–81. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
Mears K, Bandy SL. Investigating the need for scholarly communications positions in Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries member institutions. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Apr;105(2):145–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5195/jmla.2017.208.
Tooey MJ, Arnold GN. The impact of institutional ethics on academic health sciences library leadership: a survey of academic health sciences library directors. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 Oct;102(4):241–6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.4.005.
Buhler AG, Ferree N, Cataldo TT, Tennant MR. External reporting lines of academic special libraries: a health sciences case study. Coll Res Libr. 2014 Sep;71(5):467–94. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl-49r1.
Simpson SN, Coghill JG, Greenstein PC. The electronic resources librarian in the health sciences library. J Electron Resour Med Libr. 2005;2(1):27–39. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J383v02n01_03.
Luther J. The evolving institutional repository landscape [Internet]. 1 Feb 2018 [cited 25 Mar 2019]. <https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/70>.
Confederation of Open Access Repositories. Next generation repositories [Internet]. The Confederation; 2019 [cited 2 May 2019]. <https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/advocacy-leadership/working-group-next-generation-repositories/>.