Charles,
Many thanks for your helpful replies to the three questions (though
in fact those weren't actually the three questions I had in mind!).
I was in fact wondering about the following three questions (though I
am not implying that you are the one who ought to know or provide
the answers!):
(1) Why, among all the means mentioned for recruiting content, ARL
did not mention the most powerful and successful of them all
(institution/funder mandates)?
http://eprints.utas.edu.au/375/
(2) Why were the average costs for start-up and annual maintenance
for ARL archives ($182,550; $113,543) so high?
Cf:
http://library.uncw.edu/web/faculty/kempr/documents/listserv-summary-IR-open-source-costs.xls
http://www.arl.org/sparc/pubs/enews/aug01.html#6
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4443.html
(3) Why does the distribution of softwares used to create ARL IRs in particular
seem to be so skewed, compared to the US and worldwide distribution:
dspace/bepress/eprints
ARL IRs: 23d/7b/0e
US total IRs: 36d/40b/33e
World IRs: 111d/47b/123e
Source: ROAR
http://archives.eprints.org/
Best wishes, Stevan
Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Charles W. Bailey, Jr. wrote:
> Stevan:
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> What is ARL?
> "ARL is a nonprofit organization of 123 research libraries
> at comprehensive, research-extensive institutions in the US
> and Canada that share similar research missions,
> aspirations, and achievements. It is an important and
> distinctive association because of its membership and the
> nature of the institutions represented. ARL member libraries
> make up a large portion of the academic and research library
> marketplace, spending more than one billion dollars every
> year on library materials."
> http://www.arl.org/arl/arlfacts.html
>
> What libraries are in ARL?
> http://www.arl.org/members.html
> The survey was restricted to ARL members, 71% of whom responded.
>
> How was an IR defined in the survey?
> "For the purposes of this survey an IR is simply defined as a
> permanent, institution-wide repository of diverse locally
> produced digital works (e.g., article preprints and
> postprints, data sets, electronic theses and dissertations,
> learning objects, technical reports, etc.) that is available
> for public use and supports metadata harvesting. If an
> institution shares an IR with other institutions, it is
> within the scope of this survey. Not included in this
> definition are scholars' personal Web sites; academic
> department, school, or other unit digital archives that are
> primarily intended to store digital materials created by
> members of that unit; or disciplinary archives that include
> digital materials about one or multiple subjects that have
> been created by authors from many different institutions
> (e.g., arXiv.org)."
>
> Best Regards,
> Charles
>
> Charles W. Bailey, Jr., Assistant Dean for Digital Library
> Planning and Development, University of Houston Libraries
> E-Mail: cbailey_at_digital-scholarship.com
> Publications: http://www.digital-scholarship.com/
> (Provides access to DigitalKoans, Open Access Bibliography,
> Open Access Webliography, Scholarly Electronic Publishing
> Bibliography, Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog,
> and other publications.)
>
> Stevan Harnad wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Charles W. Bailey, Jr. wrote:
> >
> >> [1] http://www.arl.org/pubscat/pr/2006/spec292.html
> >> [3] http://www.arl.org/spec/SPEC292web.pdf
> >> - Thirty-seven ARL institutions (43% of respondents) had an
> >> operational IR (we called these respondents implementers), 31 (35%)
> >> were planning one by 2007, and 19 (22%) had no IR plans.
> >
> > I don't know who is and who isn't in ARL, but according to ROAR, there
> > are at least 200 OAI-compliant archives in the US:
> >
> > Institutional/Departmental: 115
> > Theses: 18
> > Central: 11
> >
> > http://archives.eprints.org/
> >
> >> - The mean cost of IR implementation was $182,550.
> >> - The mean annual IR operation cost was $113,543.
> >
> > That would be a figure worth breaking down by software used
> >
> > http://archives.eprints.org/?action=browse#version
> >
> > A calculation by IR policy and content, with a quick calculation
> > of the cost per paper (full text!) might be revealing too.
> >
> >> - DSpace [6] was by far the most commonly used system: 20
> >> implementers used it exclusively and 3 used it in combination with
> >> other systems.
> >> - Proquest DigitalCommons [7] (or the Bepress software it is
> >> based on) was the second choice of implementers: 7 implementers used
> >> this system.
> >
> > The ROAR figures for total US archives are (again, with no index of what
> > is and is not an ARL IR):
> >
> > DSpace: 55
> > EPrints: 52
> > Bepress: 44
> >
> > The corresponding figures worldwide are:
> >
> > EPrints: 210
> > DSpace: 167
> > Bepress: 53
> >
> >> - Only 41% of implementers had no review of deposited
> >> documents. While review by designated departmental or unit officials
> >> was the most common method (35%), IR staff reviewed documents 21% of
> >> the time.
> >
> > It would be interesting to see the correlation between whether an
> > IR had a review-bottleneck in depositing and the number of
> > full-text deposits (eliminating proxy deposits).
> >
> > (Prediction: The unbottlenecked IRs will be much fuller.)
> >
> >> - In a check all that apply question, 60% of implementers said
> >> that IR staff entered simple metadata for authorized users and 57%
> >> said that they enhanced such data. Thirty-one percent said that they
> >> catalogued IR materials completely using local standards.
> >
> > Obviously library proxy depositing has to be analyzed separately from direct
> > deposits by authors (or their assigns).
> >
> >> - In another check all that apply question, implementers
> >> clearly indicated that IR and library staff use a variety of
> >> strategies to recruit content: 83% made presentations to faculty and
> >> others, 78% identified and encouraged likely depositors, 78% had
> >> library subject specialists act as advocates, 64% offered to deposit
> >> materials for authors, and 50% offered to digitize materials and
> >> deposit them.
> >
> > No US university yet has a self-archiving mandate. They ought to try
> > that: They might find it trumps all other factors (as Arthur Sale's
> > analyses have been showing):
> >
> > http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php
> >
> >> - The mean number of digital objects in implementers' IRs was
> >> 3,844.
> >
> > What percentage of those were full texts of OA target content
> > (peer-reviewed research)?
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> --
Received on Wed Aug 23 2006 - 06:00:35 BST