Research Article

Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-Deposit in Institutional Repositories

---

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The literature of institutional repositories generally indicates that faculty do not self-deposit, but there is a gap in the research of reported self-deposit numbers that might indicate how widespread and common this is. METHODS This study was conducted using a survey instrument that requested information about whether a repository allowed self-deposit and what its rates of self-deposit were, if known. The instrument contained additional questions intended to gather a broader context of repositories to be examined for any correlations with higher rates of self-deposit. It also included questions about the kinds of labor required to populate an IR as well as satisfaction with the rates of self-deposit. RESULTS Of 82 respondents, 80 were deemed to fall within the study’s parameters. Of these, 55 respondents’ institutions allowed self-deposit, and 10 reported rates of self-deposit of more than 20 items per month. More than half the total respondents reported using at least three methods other than relying on self-deposit to add content to their repository. Respondents are generally unsatisfied with their deposit profiles, including one at a school reporting the highest rate of self-deposit. DISCUSSION From the responses, no profile could be formed of respondents reporting high rates of self-deposit that did not entirely overlap with many others reporting little or no self-deposit. However, the survey identifies factors without which high rates are unlikely. CONCLUSION The results of this survey may be most useful as a factor in administrative prioritizations and expectations regarding institutional repositories as sites of scholarly self-deposit.

Keywords: institutional repositories, self-deposit, labor, surveys, DSpace, Hydra, CONTENTdm, Digital Commons, Fedora

How to Cite:

Tillman, R. K., (2017) “Where Are We Now? Survey on Rates of Faculty Self-Deposit in Institutional Repositories”, Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 5(1), eP2203. doi: https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2203