Abstract

While many institutions may have a repository without a campus or departmental open access (OA) policy, an OA policy often requires the institutional repository (IR) for implementation, as noted in Harvard’s guide to “Good practices for university open-access policies.” However, this relationship is sometimes misunderstood when using the IR to discuss the success or failure of an OA policy, similar to the discussion in Catherine Mitchell’s October 2016 blog post on repository metrics and open access policies. When creating assessment models to evaluate the success of an IR or OA policy, it is crucial to understand the strengths and weaknesses of repository operation and campus culture. The IR can generate useful metrics for understanding self-archiving practices by faculty, but it is increasingly being used as a stand-in for an OA policy’s overall success or failure. However, this interchange of IR metrics for OA policy success ignores local culture, institutional resources, and librarian practices that may play a larger role in repository deposits than the policy alone. Ignoring these factors prevents repository managers from learning how practices at other institutions can be translated to their own location.

Comments

Full-Session Presentation

Share

COinS
 

Toward a Better Understanding of Open Access Policy Assessment

While many institutions may have a repository without a campus or departmental open access (OA) policy, an OA policy often requires the institutional repository (IR) for implementation, as noted in Harvard’s guide to “Good practices for university open-access policies.” However, this relationship is sometimes misunderstood when using the IR to discuss the success or failure of an OA policy, similar to the discussion in Catherine Mitchell’s October 2016 blog post on repository metrics and open access policies. When creating assessment models to evaluate the success of an IR or OA policy, it is crucial to understand the strengths and weaknesses of repository operation and campus culture. The IR can generate useful metrics for understanding self-archiving practices by faculty, but it is increasingly being used as a stand-in for an OA policy’s overall success or failure. However, this interchange of IR metrics for OA policy success ignores local culture, institutional resources, and librarian practices that may play a larger role in repository deposits than the policy alone. Ignoring these factors prevents repository managers from learning how practices at other institutions can be translated to their own location.