Problems and Perspectives of Institutional Repositories in India: A Descriptive Study
Questionnaire for IR Managers/Librarians

1.0 General Information
1.1 Name ,Title and E-mail id:
1.2 Name of the Institution / URL:
1.3 Name and Email address of IR Manager/ Administrator:
1.4 Library website:
1.5 IR website:
2.0 Institutional Repository (IR)

2.1 IR General

2.1.1 Total number of items in your IR
   
2.1.2 Number of different kinds of digital document in your IR          
DIGITAL DOCUMENTS No.   DIGITAL DOCUMENTS No.
Preprint articles   Post-print articles
Doctoral Theses   Books/Book chapters
Master Theses   Book review
Lecture, PPTs   Course Material
Conference Papers   Technical Reports/Working papers
In house publications   Images/Photographs
Audio   Video
Patents   Standards
Annual Reports   News Paper Clippings
Manuscripts    
        Any other, please specify:
   
2.1.3 Approximately what percentage of your institutional research output has been made available through your IR?

2.2 IR Technology

2.2.1 Which IR software is being used at your institution?    (Please Tick Mark)
        GNU E prints
        DSpace
        Fedora
        CODA
        Greenstone
        Dispute
        CDSWare
        ARNO
        DIVA
        i-TOR
        Harvest Road Hire
        Digit Tool
        OPUS
        MyCore
        Virginia Tech ETC Software
        Dpubs
        Bepress
        HAL
        Any other, please specify:
   
2.2.2 Do you have plan to migrate to other IR Software: YES     NO

2.2.3 Your preference of rating IR Software for the following functionalities?    (Most Adequate-1, Adequate-2, Least Adequate-3, Not Useful-4)

   1  2  3  4
        Browsing contents
        Searching contents
        Front-end interface
        Supporting desired file formats
        Open access standards
        Flexibility in choosing metadata
        Customization
        Contributor authentication
        Access control at different levels
        Scalability
        Continuous updation
        Technical documentation
        Any other, please specify:          

2.2.4 What interoperability standards your IR supports?
OAI-PMH
Open URL
Metadata Encoding & Transmission standards (MEJS)
Any other, please specify:   

2.2.5 Have you implemented any modifications/ customization for software chosen for your IR
NO
YES
If Yes, in what aspect (Please Mark all that apply)
Metadata
Functionality/Features
Front end
Any other, please specify

2.2.6 Which file formats your IR supports (Select all applicable)
Text (HTML, PDF, Postscript, etc)
Images (TIFF, GIF, JPEG, etc)
Audio (WAV, MP3)
Video (MPEG, AVI)
Database
Computer Program

2.2.7 Format preferred for downloadng full text (Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)
   1   2  3  4
HTML
PDF
Word
RTF
Postscript
Image (gif, jpeg, tif)
PPT
Excel Spreadsheet

2.3 IR Access

2.3.1 Access control of material in your IR (Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)
   1   2  3  4
Open Access Worldwide
Password access to registered users
Open access to all in your institution
Password access to all in your institution
Selective access depending upon nature of material
                Classified material
                Patentable material

2.3.2 Search/browse key preferred by your users (Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)
   1   2   3   4
Title
Author
Department
Year
Subject
Any other, please specify:

2.4 IR Budget

2.4.1 Total cost involved in setting up of your IR
   2.4.1.1 Infrastructure like IR Server
   2.4.1.2 Recurring Budget like Manpower

2.4.2 Please mention your preference for source of funding of IR (Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)
   1   2  3  4
a. Part of library budget
b. Part of publication budget
c. Departmental sharing
d. As a Special Project
e. Apex Organisation (like CSIR, DST, ICAR)
f. External grant
g. Contributory basis / IR membership
h. Combination of the above options, please specify:

2.4.3 Your opinion about the repercussion of IR on library budget (Most Affected-1, Affected-2, Least Affected-3, Not Affected-4)
 
   1   2  3  4
Results in reduction of regular library budget
Hampers other documents collection development
Enhances the library buying capacity due to low cost approach
Any other please specify:

2.5 IR Staff

2.5.1 Did you take external help in setting up of your IR YES     NO 
   
2.5.2 Did your institution form IR Implementation Committee YES     NO 
If Yes, who are members of this committee  
Librarian
Head/Staff of Computer Centre
Faculty/Scientists
Research Students
   
2.5.3 Preferred staff for IR Implementation  
a. Regular Library staff
b. Regular IT Staff
c. Project assistants (contract)
d. Graduate Trainees
e. Combination of above, please specify

2.6 IR Benefits

2.6.1 Please mention your preference of anticipated advantages/benefits that can be derived from IR (Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)
   1   2  3  4
Wider access /visibility
Free access to gray literature
Inter-Operability of similar discipline institutions
Enhances prestige of your institution
Enhanced service to contributors
New service to research community outside your institution
Increase in citation counts of publications
Reducing the publication delay of research findings
New communication link facilitating collaborative research
Preservation and management of institution’s property
Changing library culture with IT advancement
Author positive attitude
New and innovative channel of scholarly communication
Being part of Open Access Initiative
User’s positive response
New role for library in scholarly communication

2.6.2 Factors responsible for success of IR (Most Applicable-1, Applicable-2, Least Applicable-3, Not Applicable-4)

2.6.2.1 Implementation

    1   2   3   4
Time to Time training of the operational staff
Incentive given to the staff
Participation by faculty / scientists
   
2.6.2.2 Funding
 
   1   2  3  4
Assured long term funding and adoption of suitable funding model
   
2.6.2.3 Management
 
   1   2  3  4
Institutional commitment
Well planned IR
Well planned implementation
Management support
Well defined Governance/Management/Advisory Committee Structures
IR leadership

2.6.2.4 Manpower
   1   2  3  4
Clearly defined mandate      
Consistent with institutional goals/needs
Growth Plan
Mandated deposition of items as institutional policy
Co-operation/ Participation of faculty and researchers                           
Adequate funding

2.6.2.5 Nature of repository
Multipurpose
Mandated
Discipline Specification                                                                         
Faculty Centric
Format Specific

2.6.2.6 Technology
   1   2  3  4
Suitable IT infrastructure and Internet bandwidth
Inter operability with other national international and
subject repositories and Internet indexing tools like Google                    
User friendly IR software
Simplified deposition procedure for researchers/ authors
Uploading of digital documents
        • Faculty / Scientists
       • IR managers / Library staff
Updating the changing needs of technology
Search engines, ease of access and use of resources
Authentication and Security
Cohesiveness / standards of IR
Suitable IR Software
Shared infrastructure
Shared systems
Linking technologies

2.6.2.7 Users
   1   2  3  4
Information literacy / familiarization of / for users                                    
User interface
Innovative populating programs

2.6.2.8 Others
    1   2   3   4
Born digital items                                                                                 
Subject coverage of IR
Any other please specify

2.7 IR Concerns

2.7.1 To what extent the following constraints / factors affect IR (Large Extent-1, Likely-2, Small Extent-3, Least Affected-4)
    1   2   3   4
Lack of IR expertise among library staff
Archiving problems and costs for archiving
Different language / cultures
Diversity of content
Multidisciplinary content
Standards for inter operability among institutions
Ignorance of contributor about IR
Absence of institutional policy on IR
Non availability of user friendly IR System
Time consuming of IR deposition system
Contributors concern about IPR
Inadequate technical expertise about IR
Inadequate funds for setting IR

2.8 IR Policy

2.8.1 Please mention the preference of IR models (Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)
    1   2   3   4
Completely Centralized IR
Decentralized IR / Harvesting at one institution
Homogeneous of IR
       • By administering apex body
       • By subject
       • By type of library (academic / research)
       • Any other please specify:

Heterogeneous IR                                                

2.8.2 Your preference for authorized person for deposition of items for IR (Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)

Library Staff
IT Staff
Faculty/Scientists
Research students

2.8.3 What is your policy for inclusion of articles to your IR from journals with rigid copyrights.

No articles/s of this category added to IR
Submit preprint only
Do not bother about copyright restriction from publishers
Include in IR, but make accessible only through Institutes Intranet
Obtain permission from concerned publishers

2.8.4 Your preference of policy on Quality Control for your IR (Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)

    1   2   3   4
Accept all on submission – no review process
Technical and legal review on submission
Review by select peers on Quality and Originating of materials
Facility for users for additional comments and rating of IR materials
Subject scope of IR

2.8.5 Your IR policy for the following (Adopted-1, Being Drafted-2, No Policy yet=3, not required-4),
   1   2   3   4
Digital content
Authorised contributor
File formats
Access control
Metadata
Updating contents
Withdrawal of contents
Intellectual property rights
Content preservation

2.8.6 Your preference of person to check the copyright policy of publisher before acceptance of submission (Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)
    1   2   3   4
Library Staff
IR administrator
Faculty / Scientists / Researcher
Legal section / department at your institute
Others (Please Specify)

2.9 IR Management

2.9.1 Preferred authority for setting up of IR
(Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)

    1   2   3   4
Library Manager
Institution Management
Group of Libraries
Apex bodies like UGC, CSIR
Scientist / Faculty
Combination of above / Any other please specify

2.9.2 Preferred administrative group for your IR (Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)
    1   2   3   4
Library
Computer Centre
Separate archival unit
Others, Please specify

2.9.3 Please mention the preference of Governance structure of IR (Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)
    1   2   3   4
Governing Board / Council (Policy level)
Task forces (Quality Control, Training)
Interest groups
Coordinating Committee (administration)
All Heads of libraries

2.9.4 Please mention the preference of staffing the IR management and operation (Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)

    1   2   3   4
Decentralised staffing with distributed member responsibility
Adhoc / Project staff
Partly Central and decentralised
Existing library professional for information service
Computer professional for maintenance of IT infrastructure
Any other please specify

2.9.5 Please mention preference of the role you want in the IR (Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)

    1   2   3   4
Leader / hosting the IR
Member
One / more roles like training of staff, infrastructure
            ;maintenance, information literacy programmes
Any other please specify

2.9.6 Your preference for assessing success of your IR (Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)
    1   2   3   4
Total number of downloads recorded periodically
No. of different countries accessing/downloading the content
No. of users
No. of contributors
Survey of IR users
Survey of IR contributors

2.10 IR Marketing

2.10.1 Your preferred marketing strategy for popularizing IR in your organization (Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)
    1   2   3   4
User education about importance of IR
Personal contact
Promotional brochure
Short term workshop on IR
Article in institutional newsletter
Links from institutional/library website

2.10.2 Please mention the preference of trainer for user education or information literacy about IR (Most Preferred-1, Preferred-2, Least Preferred-3, Not Preferred-4)

    1   2   3   4
Library staff
IT department
Exclusive trained faculty

3.0 Any other remarks/suggestions: