D-Lib Magazine November/December 2008
Volume 14 Number 11/12
A Study of Institutional Repository Holdings by Academic Discipline
By Peter A. Zuber
“The results from this research help to illustrate both an overall acceptance rate of institutional repositories as well as collection patterns in institutional repository content based on contributions from various academic disciplines.
H1. Institutional repositories do not yet demonstrate broad, discipline diverse contributions.
The assessment of collection diversity and coverage revealed only one institution whose content exceeded a fifty percent coverage rate. On average, of the institutions surveyed, only nineteen percent of the forty-seven disciplines were represented with at least one holding. Given that the disciplines included were only those encountered during the survey, the percentage would tend to drop even more if all known disciplines were included. The hypothesis is supported.
H2. Academic disciplines having prior history in pre-print and e-print practices contribute the greatest percentage of content.
Engineering contributed the majority of content of any discipline with thirty-six percent. Combining Physical and Social Sciences created a thirteen percent contribution; nearly twenty-three percentage points lower than Engineering. The combined disciplines ranked third nationally, two percentage points below Business, with fifteen percent. The hypothesis is not supported.
H3. The majority of institutional repositories do not provide incentives for publication, such as highlighting recent additions.
In total, eighteen institutions sponsored repositories, and fourteen, or seventy-eight percent of those provided incentives either as “Paper of the Day,” “Most recent,” or “Most popular.” The location of incentive(s) varied depending on the site, with all BePress installations having the incentive(s) on the main page, and most DSpace installations having a single incentive on sub-pages. The hypothesis is not supported.”