3-DAY INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY WORKSHOP USING DSPACE FOR MEMBERS OF AUNILO MAY 2009 INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORIES Nor Edzan Che Nasir UM Library

DEFINITIONS Crow (2002) - digital collections that capture and preserve the intellectual output of university communities Johnson (2002) - any collection of digital material hosted, owned or controlled, or disseminated by a college or university, irrespective of purpose or provenance Johnson (2002) - a digital archive of the intellectual product created by the faculty, research staff, and students of an institution; accessible to end users both within and outside of the institution, with few if any barriers to access University libraries worldwide - developing and maintaining IRs as a means of managing and disseminating digital materials. Materials - created by university staff IRs - disseminate information on the academic activities of the university community. There is a conscious move amongst universities worldwide to develop and maintain their own institutional repositories. Crow (2002) attributes this to the “new scholarly publishing paradigm” and the “institutional visibility and prestige”. IRs are able to “display full texts for research results” and IR systems are able to “preserve research histories and results” and “is an excellent platform for knowledge preservation and sharing” (Chen, 2008). Usually - university library maintains the IR with a collection size ranging from hundreds to thousands

DEVELOPMENT OF IR Bailey, Charles W Institutional repositories : tout de suite. University libraries given the task to build and maintain IRs Need to come out with a policy – covers everything from submission to copyright Use proprietary software – Digital commons Or use open source – EPrint – University of Southampton, UK – Greenstone – University of Otago, NZ – DSpace – MIT, USA – Fedora

MONITORING OF IRS ON THE WEB Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR) Directory of Open Access Repositories (DOAR) ml ml

RANKING Ranking Web of World Repositories - ranks repositories in order to support “Open Access initiatives and therefore the free access to scientific publications in an electronic form and to other academic material” Web indicators - measure global visibility and impact of the scientific repositories Use ROAR and DOAR to identify open access repositories but they discard repositories which are journal portals, non- scientific or archival in nature Query these repositories using the four largest search engine namely, Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead Ranking is calculated based on visibility (50%), size (20%), rich files (15% ) and scholar (15%) For 2008, UTM = 82 out of 300, For 2009, UTM = 85 out of 300 UTM has done it correctly and should now be in a position to assist other university libraries to perform just as well if not better.

REFERENCES Brody, Tim Registry of Open Access Repositories. Southampton: University of Southampton. Chen, Kuang-hua Institutional Repository at National Taiwan University. DRF International Conference Osaka: DRF. Crow, Raym The Case for Institutional Repositories: a SPARC Position Paper. ARL Bimonthly Report, 223. Johnson, R Institutional Repositories: Partnering with Faculty to Improve Scholarly Communication. D-Lib Magazine, vol. 8, no. 11. University of Nottingham OPENDOAR: the Directory of Open Access Repositories. Nottingham: University of Nottingham. Cybermetrics Lab Ranking Web of World Repositories. Madrid: Cybermetrics Lab.

THANK YOU