Bijan Kumar Roy; Subal Chandra Biswas; Parthasarathi Mukhopadhyay
Abstract
This paper compared and contrasted the open access (OA) self-archiving policies of different organizations registered in OpenDOAR, ROAR and ROARMAP databases. It highlights and discusses key policies along with several issues to suggest an institute-specific model policy framework in the line of recommendations ...
Read More
This paper compared and contrasted the open access (OA) self-archiving policies of different organizations registered in OpenDOAR, ROAR and ROARMAP databases. It highlights and discusses key policies along with several issues to suggest an institute-specific model policy framework in the line of recommendations and best practises of IDRs (Institutional Digital Repositories) listed in global tertiary sources in green open access ROARMAP, OpenDOAR and ROAR. This paper focuses on IDR policy issues concerning rights, access, and user interfaces. A total of 66 repositories have been selected after overlap checking and based on the selection parameters mentioned in the methodology section. It has been discovered that most IDRs lack policies in the four areas mentioned. Several policy issues are missing, and some of the policy issues used by these repositories are still being developed and improved. Based on the study, some suggestions for the development of IDR policies have been made. It has implications for administrators, funding agencies, policymakers, and professional librarians in developing repository policies of their own.
Bijan Kumar Roy; Subal Chandra Biswas; Parthasarathi Mukhopadhyay
Volume 20, Issue 2 , April 2022, , Pages 102-126
Abstract
This paper analyzes and compares selected open access self-archiving policies of various repositories of elite organizations registered in OpenDOAR, ROAR, and ROARMAP databases to report a multi-faceted panoramic overview on open access archiving policy. This paper discusses three open-access policies, ...
Read More
This paper analyzes and compares selected open access self-archiving policies of various repositories of elite organizations registered in OpenDOAR, ROAR, and ROARMAP databases to report a multi-faceted panoramic overview on open access archiving policy. This paper discusses three open-access policies, viz. archiving policies, version policies, and withdrawal policies against different parameters. These policies and related issues have been discussed based on existing scholarly literature and best practice guidelines available at the national and international levels. The purpose of this paper is to suggest best practice guidelines and to provide a roadmap for developing an institute-specific IDR (the institutional digital repository) in the line of global recommendations. A total of 161 repositories were selected after overlap checking and based on the selection parameters mentioned in the methodology section. All these policies mentioned above must be formulated properly as it is found that the majority of IDRs do not have such policy guidelines. Some of the key issues are not properly covered and missing in literature even within the policy. Finally, recommendations have been made against each policy to develop IDRs globally. The paper's outcomes will be useful to future researchers and policymakers who will set up IDRs or have already developed IDRs for their organization. The outputs/results of this study may be used as a guiding tool and helpful to the open-access advocates, including policymakers library professionals, in developing repository policy for their organization. The policy framework could also be adapted to any institution irrespective of size and geographic location.https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20088302.2022.20.2.7.2
Bijan Kumar Roy; Subal Chandra Biswas; Parthasarathi Mukhopadhyay
Volume 20, Issue 1 , January 2022
Abstract
This paper analyzes open access (OA) self-archiving policies of open access repositories of different organizations registered in OpenDOAR, ROAR, and ROARMAP databases. The policies relating to content policies, collection organization policies, metadata policies, submission policies, and multilingual ...
Read More
This paper analyzes open access (OA) self-archiving policies of open access repositories of different organizations registered in OpenDOAR, ROAR, and ROARMAP databases. The policies relating to content policies, collection organization policies, metadata policies, submission policies, and multilingual policies, are required to be correctly formulated for the smooth functioning of any repository system on a global scale. The objective is to recommend institute-specific model policy with global recommendations and best practices. The methodology is twofold – first, to get an overview of policy issues as reflected in existing literature, and second, to analyze policy issues recorded in global registries and individual repositories. It was found that most of the organizations do not have a stated policy. Even within a specific policy, several key issues were missing. The outcomes of this research paper may help future researchers by providing a roadmap towards the successful policy implementation of open access repositories (OARs) in higher academic institutions. The paper may be helpful to the library professionals in devising institute-specific policy and may be a guiding tool to the policymakers.https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20088302.2022.20.1.2.5
Bijan Kumar Roy; Subal Chandra Biswas; Parthasarathi Mukhopadhyay
Volume 15, Issue 1 , December 2017
Abstract
The paper provides an overview over the functionalities of the proposed harvesting model (BURA – Burdwan University Research Archive) and describes the activities involved in harvesting resources from OAI compliant LIS (Library and Information Science) repositories. Repositories, registered in OpenDOAR ...
Read More
The paper provides an overview over the functionalities of the proposed harvesting model (BURA – Burdwan University Research Archive) and describes the activities involved in harvesting resources from OAI compliant LIS (Library and Information Science) repositories. Repositories, registered in OpenDOAR database, containing 'Library and Information Science' as one of the key subject have been considered and finally 117 repositories have been short listed on the basis of framed criteria. The purpose of this paper is to report an integrated Web-enabled distributed harvesting model that can extract and update metadata index efficiently from any OAI-PMH driven repositories on global scale. The findings suggest that LIS repositories are not up to the global standards and lack contents compared to others disciplinary repositories. It should follow open standards and should respect essence of interoperability. The model may be an interoperability solution to the professional librarians in designing and developing federated search option for multiple repositories from a single-window search interface. Thus, it may be concluded that this proposed harvesting framework may work as a guiding tool to those who plan to set up new OAI-based service provider.DOR: 98.1000/1726-8125.2017.15.73.0.1.68.101
Bijan Kumar Roy; Subal Chandra Biswas; Parthasarathi Mukhopadhyay
Volume 14, Issue 2 , July 2016
Abstract
Provides an overview of Subject Repositories (SRs) throughout the World in response to the open access movement (OAM). It mainly highlights the current trends of repository development in Library and Information Science (LIS) field. This paper covers all repositories in LIS field as registered in OpenDOAR ...
Read More
Provides an overview of Subject Repositories (SRs) throughout the World in response to the open access movement (OAM). It mainly highlights the current trends of repository development in Library and Information Science (LIS) field. This paper covers all repositories in LIS field as registered in OpenDOAR (Directory of Open Access Repository) database. The main objective of the paper is to select a set of parameters for evaluation of LIS repositories with other disciplinary repositories taking into consideration global recommendations and best practice guidelines. The paper also shows the growth of selected LIS repositories in terms of volume and number of objects, contents type, software pattern, subjects coverage etc. Lastly points out lacunas of LIS repositories in compare to other disciplinary repositories as well as recommends possible directions which can make the repository sustainable and will change the culture of information exchange pattern in the social science disciplines as a whole.
