Document Type : Articles


University of North Bengal


The primary objective of this study is to assess the quality and performance of South and East Asian Open Access Library and Information Science Repositories. The study is segmented into four parts, the first of which is devoted to quality assessment and, the second is the repositories’ performance using the web analysis tool Nibbler and Alexa. In the third segment, the Revised Web Impact Factors (RWIF) was calculated, and the final part represents the Ranking of the repositories in terms of visibility, transparency, and excellence.The results indicate that the Chinese Institutional Repository of the Chinese Academy of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, and the Peking University Institutional Repository ranked as the first and the second, respectively, with Japanese repositories ranking the last. “Taiwan’s Chaoyang University of Technology Institutional Repository” has the most comprehensive collection of resources with varying levels of availability of resources in terms of quality assurance indicators. The authors of this paper are in the dire belief that this study may aid administrators in determining the repositories’ strengths and weaknesses to enhance their quality and performance.  


  1. Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., Fernandez, M., & Utrilla, A. M. (2010). Indicators for a webometric ranking of open access repositories. Scientometrics, 82(3), 477–486.
  2. Atenas, J., & Havemann, L. (2013). Quality assurance in the open: An evaluation of OER repositories. INNOQUAL - International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning., 1(2).
  3. Browne, T., Holding, R., Howell, A., & Rodway-Dyer, S. (2010). The challenges of OER to Academic Practice. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2010(1), 1–15.
  4. Chakravarty, R. (2019). National ETD repository evaluation using web analyser: A webometric analysis of Shodhganga, India. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 14(1), 54–68.
  5. Cho, J. (2019). Exploratory analysis of the operation of institutional repositories in Asian countries. Information Development, 35(2), 262–271.
  6. Clements, K. I., & Pawlowski, J. M. (2012). User-oriented quality for OER: Understanding teachers’ views on re-use, quality, and trust. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(1), 4–14.
  7. Clements, K., Pawlowski, J., & Manouselis, N. (2015). Open educational resources repositories literature review—Towards a comprehensive quality approaches framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1098–1106.
  8. Downes, S. (2007). Models for sustainable open educational resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning, 3., 029–044.
  9. Ghosh, S., & Roy, B. K. (2021). Webometric analysis of open access digital repositories of agricultural sciences in continents of Oceania. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2021, 1–15.
  10. Gul, S., Bashir, S., & Ganaie, S. A. (2019). Evaluation of institutional repositories of South Asia. Online Information Review, 44(1), 192–212.
  11. Hylen, J. (2006). Open educational resources: Opportunities and challenges. Proceedings of the Open Education.
  12. Kanwar, A., Uvalic-Trumbic, S., & Butcher, N. (2011). A basic guide to open educational resources (OER). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
  13. Maqbool, T. (2019). A webometric analysis of select knowledge portals of national repute in India. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2019.
  14. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of Open educational resources. OECD Publishing.
  15. Pal, A., Kar, S., & Sardar, S. (2020). DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska—Lincoln webometric analysis of ICSSR sponsored research institutions in India.
  16. Pawlowski, J. M., & Hoel, T. (2012). Towards a global policy for open educational resources: The Paris OER declaration and its implications what are open educational resources? de/giotto/OpenScout_df6f1252-bfa6-11e1-a668-e13baff9bd23.pdf. http://monet.informatik.rwthaachen
  17. Pegler, C. (2012). Herzberg, hygiene and the motivation to reuse: Towards a three-factor theory to explain motivation to share and use OER. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2012(1), 1–18. Retrieved from http://wwwjime.
  18. Petrides, L., Nguyen, L., Jimes, C., & Karaglani, A. (2008). Open educational resources: Inquiring into author use and reuse. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1/2), 98–117.
  19. Richter, T., & Ehlers, U. D. (2010). Barriers and motivators for using open educational resources in schools. Open Education, 1–12.
  20. Richter, T., & Mcpherson, M. (2012). Open educational resources: Education for the world? Distance Education, 33(2), 201–219.
  21. Rousidis, D., Garoufallou, E., Balatsoukas, P., & Sicilia, M. A. (2014). Metadata for Big Data: A preliminary investigation of metadata quality issues in research data repositories. Information Services and Use, 34(3–4), 279–286.
  22. SenGupta, S. (2012). Open access repositories:the Asian scenario with special reference to library and information science. In Redesigning Libraries & Information Centres in Digital Era, (104–111).
  23. Shueb, S., & Sofi, R. A. (2014) [Web]. 2.0 Interactivity in open access (OA) repositories: An analysis. Journal of Library and Information Sciences., 2(1) (pp. 29–38).
  24. Tuomi, I. (2006). Open Educational Resources: What they are and why do they matter Report prepared for the OECD.
  25. Wiley, D. (2007). On the sustainability of Open educational resource initiatives in higher education. Paper commissioned by the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI). OECD Publishing (p. 21).