Abstract
PurposeTo raise some unresolved questions about the practical implementation and management of institutional repositories – in particular, the level of resource needed to support the process of self‐deposit into institutional repositories.Design/methodology/approachAn opinion piece based on practitioner insights into their cataloguing practice and into digital preservation issues.FindingsThat metadata creation and the formulation of digital preservation policies for institutional repositories require significant resource, if they are to be carried out well. This level of resourcing may have been underestimated hitherto in the process of proselytising for institutional repositories.Research limitations/implicationsThis practice‐based supposition could be tested more rigorously by proper research investigation.Practical implicationsSuggests that libraries and librarians are well placed to give input to the metadata and digital preservation activities inherent in building institutional repositories. They should be resourced to give more attention to such tasks.Originality/valueThe paper tries to make a strong case for librarian‐mediated deposit rather than pure self‐archiving as the future of building institutional repositories.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
More From: Library Review
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
