Literature Repos

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/262775028
Institutional Repository Literature: A Bibliometric Analysis
Article in Science & Technology Libraries · May 2014

DOI: 10.1080/0194262X.2014.906018
CITATIONS READS
14 723
1 author:
Raj Kumar Bhardwaj

St. Stephens College
41 PUBLICATIONS 97 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Online Legal Information System (OLIS), accessible at: http://www.olisindia.in View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Raj Kumar Bhardwaj on 18 August 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Delhi]
On: 03 June 2014, At: 00:10
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Science & Technology Libraries

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wstl20
Institutional Repository Literature: A

Bibliometric Analysis
a
Raj Kumar Bhardwaj
a
St. Stephen’s College, College Library, Delhi University, Delhi, India
Published online: 07 May 2014.
To cite this article: Raj Kumar Bhardwaj (2014) Institutional Repository Literature: A Bibliometric
Analysis, Science & Technology Libraries, 33:2, 185-202, DOI: 10.1080/0194262X.2014.906018
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2014.906018
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Science & Technology Libraries, 33:185–202, 2014
Published with license by Taylor & Francis
ISSN: 0194-262X print/1541-1109 online
DOI: 10.1080/0194262X.2014.906018
Institutional Repository Literature:

A Bibliometric Analysis
RAJ KUMAR BHARDWAJ

St. Stephen’s College, College Library, Delhi University, Delhi, India
The Institutional Repository (IR) concept has given a new

dimension to information management in the Internet age. The
Downloaded by [University of Delhi] at 00:10 03 June 2014
introduction of an IR can help to redefine the production, dissem-

ination, and the use of resources. This study found that a total of
436 IR research papers published in 118 journals originated from
68 countries. These research papers contain 2,071 citations with
an average of ∼4.8 citations per publication. Moreover, out of the
total 159 institutions involved in IR research, a majority of them
are located in the United States and the United Kingdom. Mainly,
out of the fourteen most productive countries eight have recorded
TAIs of >100, and six countries recorded TAIs of <100. Most pub-
lished papers have a single author, i.e., 176 (40.4%), followed by
two authors: 152 (34.9%). Interestingly, India, Australia, Canada,
Germany, the Netherlands, Malaysia, and Italy have not published
any paper with more than five authors. Purdue University has
witnessed the highest (∼2) relative citations impact (RCI) on its
publications. Elizabeth Yakel from the University of Michigan has
published the most papers (7: 1.6%), which have received ∼34 cita-
tions. Overall, eight prolific authors have achieved a higher h-index
value than the group average.
KEYWORDS Institutional Repositories (IRs), Open Access, DSpace,

Greenstone, E-Print, Fedora, Digital Library, Transformative
Activity Index (TAI), Co-Authorship Index (CAI)
© Raj Kumar Bhardwaj

Address correspondence to Raj Kumar Bhardwaj, St. Stephen’s College, University
Enclave, Delhi, 110007 India. E-mail: raajchd@gmail.com
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.
tandfonline.com/wstl.
185
186 R. K. Bhardwaj
INTRODUCTION
Institutional repositories (IRs) are a development in managing digital objects

for effective utilization. IR establishment is a challenge as well as an opportu-
nity for information professionals. It may include a variety of research output
of any organization. An IR is a means to ensure that the published work of
scholars is available to the academic community even after increases in sub-
scription fees or budget cuts within libraries (Boufarss 2011). The majority
of research scholars do not provide free access to their research output to
their colleagues in an organization (Ahmed and Al-Baridi 2012). IRs provide
scholars with a common platform so that everyone in the institution can con-
tribute scholarly material to promote cross-campus interdisciplinary research.
Lynch (2003) defines an institutional repository in the following way:
A university-based institutional repository is a set of services that a uni-

versity offers to the members of its community for the management
and dissemination of digital materials created by the institution and its
community members. It is most essentially an organizational commit-
ment to the stewardship of these digital materials, including long-term
preservation where appropriate, as well as organization and access or
distribution.
The development of an IR redefines the production and dissemination

of scholarly material within an academic community. The objective of such
a repository is to support the organization’s goals. Some institutions use an
IR as a positive marketing tool to enhance their reputation. The contents
available on the institute’s website usually are removed after a few weeks.
An IR can provide a platform to manage institutional information, including
web contents. IRs have a number of benefits, including access to resources,
visibility of research, and presentations of the contents (Nabe 2010). Raym
Crow (2003), a senior consultant at SPARC (The Scholarly Publishing &
Academic Resources Coalition) in Washington, DC, describes the contents
of IRs as institutionally defined, scholarly defined, cumulative and perpetual,
and open and interoperable.
Several studies of institutional repositories have been carried out in
various organizations around the world. One study by Allard, Mack, and
Feltner-Reichert (2005) observes that librarians are not required for institu-
tional repository functions. However, their primary role is to educate users
about how to access and how to deposit materials into the IR. An IR can also
provide a wide range of materials other than journal articles: books, data sets,
and presentations are just a few examples (Bauer 2005). Kashimura (2007)
describes an institutional repository as a system for preserving archived infor-
mation by digitizing this cultural material in a secure and reliable manner.
A number of IRs have been developed by using open source software
systems in different areas of the world. Some of these repositories have
Institutional Repository Literature 187
been very popular among scholars, such as the Networked Digital Library
of Theses and Dissertations (http://www.ndltd.org/) and the Shodhganga
(http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/) collection of Indian theses. Presently,
3,565 repositories are registered in the Registry of Open Access Repositories
(ROAR; http://roar.eprints.org). Nevertheless, no bibliometric study has been
carried out so far in this area. It is expected that this study will show benefits
to the academic community in many ways.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The present study was carried out to perform a quantitative assessment of

world research publications on institutional repositories. This study includes
the following parameters:
i.
To examine the pattern of research output in IR
ii.
To identify the most productive journal publishing research on IR
iii.To identify the languagewise distribution of publications in IR research
iv.To find out the countrywise distribution of publications in IR research
v.To verify the transformative activity index (TAI)
vi.To understand the authorship patterns in IR research
vii.To study the coauthorship index (CAI) in highly productive countries
viii.To study the citation pattern in IR research
ix. To identify the prolific institutes and their relative citation impact (RCI)
in IR research
x. To identify the most productive authors in IR research
xi. To identify the highly cited papers on IRs
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Research published in the form of journal articles and review papers

indexed in Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA; http://search.
proquest.com/lisa/) were selected to conduct this bibliometric study. The
study period was up to January 1, 2013. The following search string was
used to retrieve records related to institutional repositories: ANYWHERE
(“institutional repository”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“repository”), (“IR”), (“digital
archive”), (“IR software”), (“dspace”), (“E-print”), (“greetnstone”), (“gane-
sha”), (“bepress”), AND PUBDATE>before 1 January 2013. The records
selected for the study include peer-reviewed as well as non-peer-reviewed
journals articles. In addition, three conference papers on IR indexed in LISA
were excluded. The citation patterns of research articles were also identified
using the online version of LISA and SCOPUS. One-year citation windows
were used to define citation patterns: 2001–2002, 2002–2003, 2003–2004, and
so on.
188 R. K. Bhardwaj
RESULTS
Pattern of Research Output
A total of 436 articles on “institutional repository” indexed in LISA before
January 1, 2013, were selected for the study. These articles originated
from 68 countries with affiliations from 159 institutions. These articles and
review papers have been published in 118 journals. The 436 papers include
2,071 citations. The average number of publications per year was ∼36.3,
compared to ∼4.8 overall citations per publication. The data sets selected
for the study were analyzed from different parameters. Figure 1 shows the
number of publications and citations in the area of IR with a year-by-year
breakdown. The first paper on IR was published in 2001. The number of
papers in the subject area of institutional repositories was quite low until
2006. The research output accelerated after 2006, and overall, 366 (83.9 %)
of the papers were published between 2007 and 2012. The growth of pub-
lications in the subject is directly related to the establishment of IRs around
the world. During this particular time period, the open access movement also
found its momentum, and scholars started to submit research papers in the
repositories of their respective organizations. The highest number of research
papers (61: 14 %) was published in 2011. However, the maximum growth
rate (316.7%) was measured in 2006. It was found in this study that 246
(56.4%) papers were published during the four-year time span from 2009 to
2012. Using a one-year citation window, the most citations were recorded in
2007 (71). It is apparent that research papers published during the inception
of the IR concept have been popular among the library and information
science (LIS) community. The highest growth rate in citations (243.8%) was
observed in 2005; the decline in citation growth rate was –3.3%, –27.9%,
and –52.2% during the years 2008, 2011, and 2012 respectively.
Figure 2 shows that the highest average citation per publication was
recorded in 2002 (52). The minimum average citation per publication
FIGURE 1 Pattern of research output on institutional repository.

2012 0.4
Year wise Average Citations 2011 1.8
2010 2.6
2009 4.4
2008 5.6
2007 5.6
2006 8.4
2005 17.4
2004 12.7
2003 5
2002 52
2001 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Average Citations Per Publication
FIGURE 2 Average citations per publication in IR research.
(∼0.4) occurred in 2012. The average citation per publication (ACPP) was
recorded higher for seven years than the overall average (∼4.8) in twelve
years. Seven times during the twelve-year period (2001–2012), the aver-
age citations per publication remained higher compared to the average
(∼4.8) citations.
Most Common Journals Used for Publishing IR Research

The 436 papers on IR research found in this study were published in 118 jour-
nals. Table 1 shows the 20 most common journals used for publishing
research in 2012 using SJR (SC-Imago Journal Rankings) and SNIP (Source
Normalized Impact per Paper). The journals with the highest ratings for pub-
lishing IR articles include OCLC Systems and Services (32 articles: 7.3 %)
followed by D-Lib Magazine (25 articles: 5.7%), and Serials Review (17 arti-
cles: 3.9%). The top 20 most journals published 216 articles (49.5%) of the
total research publications. The remaining 98 journals published 220 articles
(50.5%) of the total research publications. The journal Serials Librarian had
the highest SJR in 2012 (1.577) and SNIP value (1.641) in 2012.
Distribution of Articles by Language

IR articles indexed in LISA were published in nineteen languages. English
remains the major language around the world for publishing research on
IRs. Overall, 376 (86.2%) papers were written in the English language,
followed by Japanese (17: 3.9%), Chinese and Spanish (6 each: 1.4%),
German (4: 0.9%), Portuguese (4: 0.9%), Italian (3: 0.7%), and Turkish (3:
0.7%). Danish, Croatian, Hungarian, Malay, Slavic, and Catalan each have
two (0.5%) papers. In addition, five languages—Dutch, French, Lithuanian,
Polish, and Swedish—each have one (0.2%) paper.
190 R. K. Bhardwaj
TABLE 1 Most Common Journals Used for Publishing IR Research
SJR (SCImago
Sr. Number of journal rankings) SNIP (Source Normalized
no Journal title papers 2012 Impact per Paper) 2012
1 OCLC Systems and 32 0.246 0.316

Services
2 D Lib Magazine 25 0.392 0.860
3 Serials Review 17 0.629 0.708
4 Library Hi Tech 13 0.996 0.995
5 Program 13 0.657 1.084
6 Learned Publishing 11 0.763 0.898
7 Serials Librarian 10 1.577 1.641
8 Journal of Academic 9 0.874 0.918
Librarianship
9 Library Trends 9 0.876 1.082
10 Library Hi Tech 8 0.437 0.527
News
11 Cataloging and 8 0.369 0.602
Classification
Quarterly
12 Journal of Digital 8 0.430 0.777
Information
13 Library Review 7 0.695 1.194
14 Electronic Library 7
15 Reference Services 7 0.595 1.573
Review
16 International 7 1.546 1.256
Information and
Library Review
17 New Review of 7 0.772 1.209
Academic
Librarianship
18 Information 7 0.374 0.560
Technology and
Libraries
19 New Review of 6 0.258 1.092
Information
Networking
20 Grey Journal 5 0.137 0.487
Total 216 − −
Other journals 220 − −
Grand total 436
Distribution of Articles by Country

The largest number of papers (156: 36.5%) were published in the United
States, followed by 52 (12%) papers in the United Kingdom. India was
third in the list and produced 27 (6.3%) papers, followed by Australia (19:
4.4%), Spain (18: 4.0%), Canada (15: 3.5%), and Germany (8: 1.9%). Figure 3
displays a pie chart depicting the distribution of countries publishing IR
research.
South Other
Africa, countries,
21.5% United
1.4%,
Taiwan, 1.2%, States,
35.6%
Hong Kong, 1.6%
Brazil, 1.6%
Italy, 1.6%
Malaysia, 1.6%
Germany, 1.9%
Canada, 3.5%
United Kingdom,
Series1, Spain, 12%
4.20%, 4% Australia, 4.4% India, 6.3%
FIGURE 3 Countrywise share of publications on IR.
Transformative Activity Index (TAI)

The Transformative Activity Index (TAI) suggested by Guan and Ma (2004)
and subsequently followed by Garg, Dwivedi, and Kumar (2013) is used
in this study to interpret the relative research efforts between different
countries. The following formula is used to calculate the TAI = [(Ci/Co)/
(Wi/Wo)] ×100, where
Ci is the number of publications of the specific country in the ith block
Co is the total number of publications of the specific country
Wi is the number of publications of all countries in the ith block, and
Wo is the number of publications of all the countries.
The TAI was used to understand the progress of research among top
countries in two time periods: 2001–2006 and 2007–2012. Using the TAI, it
was found that Spain, Malaysia, Brazil, and South Africa have not published
any papers on IRs. Hence, their TAI remains at zero during 2001–2006. But
these countries recorded TAIs of 118 each and remain highest during the
second time period (2007–2012). The TAI for Taiwan (203) was the high-
est recorded during the period 2001–2006, followed by Hong Kong and
the Netherlands (145 each), Germany (127), and the United States (69).
India’s TAI was calculated at 56 during this period. In the second time
period (2007–2012), a maximum TAI was given to the publications of Spain,
Brazil, Malaysia, and South Africa (118 each), followed by India (105), and
the United States (102). The lowest TAI was measured with the publica-
tions of Taiwan and Canada (71 each). Out of the fourteen most productive
countries eight displayed a TAI >100. However, the remaining six countries
have recorded a TAI <100.
192 R. K. Bhardwaj
TABLE 2 Research Articles by Different Countries
No of papers No of papers Change No of

Country 2001–2006 & TAI 2007–2012 & TAI in TAI papers Share (%)
United States 21 (69) 133 (102) 32 154 35.6

United Kingdom 8 (78) 44 (100) 21 52 12.0
India 3 (56) 24 (105) 48 27 6.3
Australia 3 (80) 16 (99) 19 19 4.4
Spain 0 (0) 18 (118) 118 18 4.2
Canada 6 (68) 9 (71) 3 15 3.5
Germany 2 (127) 6 (88) −39 8 1.9
Netherlands 2 (145) 5 (84) −61 7 1.6
Malaysia 0 (0) 7 (118) 118 7 1.6
Italy 1 (73) 6 (101) 28 7 1.6
Brazil 0 (0) 7 (118) 118 7 1.6
Hong Kong 2 (145) 5 (84) −61 7 1.6
South Africa 0 (0) 6 (118) 118 6 1.4
−133
Taiwan 2 (203) 3 (71) 5 1.2

Other countries 35 (203) 78 (71) −93 93 21.5
Total 85 367 432 100.0
150
100
50
Change in TAI
0
Germany
Netherlands
United States
United Kingdom
India
Australia
Canada
Malaysia
Brazil
Hong Kong
Spain
South Africa
Taiwan
Other countries
Italy
–50
–100
–150
FIGURE 4 Change in value of TAI.
During the second time period (2007–2012), Germany, the Netherlands,

Hong Kong, and Taiwan witnessed a decline in TAI compared to the first time
period (2001–2006). Table 2 shows the TAI of the most productive countries
in IR research. Figure 4 shows the change in the TAI among productive
countries in the area of study.
Authorship Pattern and Co-Authorship Index (CAI)

The pattern of coauthorship was calculated and is presented in Figure 5.
It shows that most papers were published by a single author (176: 40.4%),
FIGURE 5 Pattern of coauthorship in IR research.

FIGURE 6 Countrywise coauthorship index (CAI) in IR publications.
followed by two authors (152: 34.9%). Interestingly, a majority of the papers

with multiple authors (three to five) originated in developed countries. This
trend is not apparent in IR research within developing countries.
The Co-authorship Index (CAI) was first described by Schubert and
Braun in 1986. A similar study by Sahar, Kademani, and Bhanumurthy
appeared in 2013. The main purpose of using the CAI in this study is to
identify the publications by single authors, double authors, multiple authors
(three to four authors), and mega-authors (five or more authors). The CAI is
calculated in a similar manner to the TAI. A CAI > 100 indicated higher than
the average, and a CAI <100 means lower than the average.
Figure 6 shows that only Spain has exceeded the CAI >100 in the cat-
egory of mega-authored publications. Interestingly, India, Australia, Canada,
Germany, the Netherlands, Malaysia, and Italy have not published any
papers with more than five authors. The United States and United Kingdom
194 R. K. Bhardwaj
published seven (CAI 80.4) and three (CAI 86.5) papers respectively in the
category of mega-authored. Single-authored publications from the United
Kingdom, India, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Malaysia, and Italy were
higher than the average. The majority of work in IR research has come from
single and double authors. Within the double-authored category the United
States, India, Australia, and Germany have CAIs of more than the aver-
age. However, in the multiauthored category only Spain, the Netherlands,
Malaysia, and Italy have shown a higher CAI than the average.
Citation Pattern in IR Research

Data sets related to citations of papers were analyzed to calculate the citation
impact and are presented in Table 3. The citation analysis revealed that these
436 papers received 2,071 citations until December 31, 2013. The average
citation per publication was identified ∼4.8. Interestingly, 147 papers have
not yet been cited as of December 31, 2013. However, the remaining 289
(66.3%) papers received one or more citations. Two papers received 172
(87 and 85) citations, and 121 papers have received 5 or more citations.
A total of 191 (45.6%) papers have received one to four citations. The papers
that received more than ten citations are very low (46: 10.6%). Fourteen
papers out of the twenty highly cited papers are from United States. Table 6
displays the twenty highly cited research papers of IRs.
In addition, the average number of citations per publication of prolific
countries was measured to analyze their impact in the area of IR. Figure 7
shows the average citation per publication of the top fourteen countries. The
United States and Canada have shown an ACPP of more than the average.
South Africa has recorded the lowest average citations per publication.
Prolific Institutions and Relative Citation Impact (RCI)

Total IR research publications were contributed by 159 institutes around
the world. Table 4 shows that the top 16 institutes produced 82 (18.8%)
TABLE 3 Citation Pattern of IR Publications
Number of Number of Total Number of Number of Total

citations papers citations citations papers citations
0 147 147 21 − 30 5 199

1 79 79 31 − 50 5 304
2 53 106 51 − 60 1 52
3 35 105 61 − 80 1 64
4 32 128 81 − 90 2 172
5 22 110 91 − 100 0 0
6−10 53 490 > 100 1 115
11−20 31 481
Note. Total papers = 436 and total citations = 2,071.
FIGURE 7 Average citations per publications of top countries on IR research.

TABLE 4 Prolific Institutions in IR Research
Number of No of
Rank Name of institution publications citations CPP
1 Loughborough University 11 (2.5) 52 (2.5) 4.7

2 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 8 (1.8) 27 (1.3) 3.4
3 Ohio State University 6 (1.4) 16 (0.8) 2.7
4 University of Strathclyde 6 (1.4) 18 (0.9) 3.0
5 University College London 5 (1.1) 25 (1.2) 5.0
6 University of Malaya 5 (1.1) 17 (0.8) 3.4
7 Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey 5 (1.1) 3 (0.1) 0.6
Women’s University
8 Icfai Business School 4 (1.1) 6 (0.3) 1.5
9 University of Michigan 4 (0.9) 20 (1.0) 5.0
10 Universitat de Barcelona 4 (0.9) 10 (0.5) 2.5
11 Victoria University of Wellington 4 (0.9) 12 (0.6) 3.0
12 Purdue University 4 (0.9) 37 (1.8) 9.3
13 Robert Gordon University 4 (0.9) 5 (0.2) 1.3
14 University of Massachusetts Amherst 4 (0.9) 5 (0.2) 1.3
15 Indiana University 4 (0.9) 28 (1.4) 7.0
16 University of Utah 4 (0.9) 13 (0.6) 3.3
Other 143 institutes 354 (81.2) 1, 777 (85.8) 5.1
Total 436 (100.0) 2, 071 (100.0) 4.8
of the publications. The remaining 143 institutes produced 354 (81.2%) of

the papers in the area of IRs. These sixteen prolific institutes belong to
academia (universities and colleges). Loughborough University was identi-
fied as the most productive institute in publishing research on this subject
and produced eleven (2.5%) papers. The majority of the prolific institutes are
in the United States.
Four of these institutes out of the sixteen most prolific have a higher
citation per publication (CPP) compared to the average CPP (∼4.8). These
institutes are Purdue University (9.3), Indiana University (7.0), University
College London (5.0), and University of Michigan (5.0).
196 R. K. Bhardwaj
FIGURE 8 Relative citation impact of top productive institutes in IR research.
TABLE 5 Most Prolific Authors in IR Research Output
Sr. No of No of
no Author Affiliation papers citations ACPP h-Index
1 Yakel, University of Michigan, School 7 34 4.9 4

Elizabeth of Information, Ann Arbor,
MI, USA
2 Kim, Oregon Health and Sciences 6 47 7.8 4
Jihyun University, Historical
Collections and Archives,
Portland, OR, USA
3 Markey, University of Michigan, School 6 34 5.7 4
Karen of Information, Ann Arbor,
MI, USA
4 Xia, Indiana University, School of 6 81 13.5 6
Jingfeng Library and Information
Science, Bloomington, IN,
USA
5 Sawant, Shreemati Nathibai Damodar 5 3 0.6 1
Sarika Thackersey Women’s
University, SHPT School of
Library Science, Mumbai,
India
6 Kennan, Charles Sturt University, School 4 34 8.5 3
Mary of Information Studies,
Anne Bathurst, Australia
7 Doctor, Icfai Business School, 4 6 1.5 2
Gayatri Ahmedabad, India
8 Rieh, Soo University of Michigan, School 4 29 7.3 4
Young of Information, Ann Arbor,
MI, USA
(Continued)
TABLE 5 (Continued)
Sr. No of No of
no Author Affiliation papers citations ACPP h-Index
9 Reznik- University of Massachusetts 3 2 0.7 1

Zellen, Amherst, W.E.B. Du Bois
Rebecca Library, Amherst, MA, USA
10 Jean, University of Michigan, School 3 31 10.3 3
BethSt of Information, Ann Arbor,
MI, USA
11 Dunsire, Independent Consultant, 3 6 2.0 1
Gordon Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
12 Chan, Hong Kong University of 3 24 8.0 3
Diana Science and Technology,
Hong Kong, China
13 Ivanović, University of Novi Sad, Faculty 3 7 2.3 1
Dragan of Technical Sciences, Novi
Sad,
14 Abrizah, University of Malaya, Kuala 3 14 4.7 2
Abdullah Lumpur, Malaysia
15 Adamick, University of Massachusetts 3 2 0.7 1
Jessica Amherst, Polymer Science
and Engineering Department,
Amherst, MA, USA
16 Johnson, Robert Gordon University, 3 1 0.3 1
Ian M. Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
17 Nicholas, University of Calgary, Calgary, 3 20 6.7 2
David Canada
Bruce
18 Oppenheim, Loughborough University, 3 19 6.3 2
Charles Department of Information
Science, Loughborough,
England, UK
19 Organ, University of Wollongong, 3 7 2.3 1
Michael Wollongong, Australia
20 Rowlands, University of Leicester, David 3 20 6.7 2
Ian Wilson Library, Leicester,
England, UK
21 Rumsey, University of Oxford, Oxford, 3 4 1.3 2
Sally England, UK
22 Schöpfel, Universite Charles de Gaulle 3 2 0.7 1
Joachim Lille 3, Villeneuve-d’Ascq,
France
23 St. Jean, University of Maryland, College 3 13 4.3 2
Beth of Information Studies,
College Park, MD, USA
24 Surla, University of Novi Sad, Faculty 3 7 2.3 1
Dušan of Science, Novi Sad, Serbia
In addition, relative citation impact (RCI) was calculated. It was found

that Purdue University had the highest (∼2) RCI, followed by Indiana
University (∼1.6). Six prolific institutes have more than ∼1 RCI. The low-
est RCI recorded (∼0.1) is from Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey
198 R. K. Bhardwaj
Women’s University, Mumbai (India). Figure 8 shows the RCI of sixteen

prolific institutes producing IR research.
Most Productive Authors in IR Research

Table 5 shows the 24 most productive authors. It was found that Elizabeth
Yakel from University of Michigan has published the most papers (7: 1.6%),
which have been cited 34 times. Jihyun Kim, Karen Markey, and Jingfeng Xia
have published six papers (1.4%) each in this area of study. These twenty-
four most productive authors produced collectively 90 (20.6%) papers of
the total research, and publications by these authors received 447 (21.6%)
citations. Of the twenty-four most productive authors, eight are from the
United Kingdom. This distribution shows the dominance of these countries
in IR research publications. The performance of these authors was measured
on the basis of the h-index: eight authors have achieved a higher h-index
value than the group average (∼2.3). These are Jingfeng Xia (∼6) Elizabeth
Yakel (∼4), Jihyun Kim (∼4), Karen Markey (∼4), Mary Anne Kennan (∼3),
Soo Young Rieh (∼4), Beth St.Jean (∼3), and Diana Chan (∼3) (see Table 5.).
Highly Cited Research Papers on IRs

The citation status of these 436 papers reveals that 289 papers have been
cited at least once since publication; this constitutes 66.3% of the total cited
papers. These 289 papers were cited 2,071 times. Table 6 presents the list
of top 20 highly cited papers since their publications. These papers have
been cited 18 or more times through December 31, 2013. The article enti-
tled “Understanding Faculty to Improve Content Recruitment for Institutional
Repositories” published in D-Lib Magazine is highly cited (114 times).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The development and maturity of institutional repositories during the past

decade occurred because of a need for institutions to better manage
their collections and information assets, as well as to retain the knowl-
edge held in these collections. The countries with the highest IR research
include the United States with 516, the United Kingdom with 234, and
Germany with 175 (ROAR 2013). Developing countries are lagging behind
not only in building IRs but also in publishing research about them.
A total of 436 research papers have been published in 118 journals around
the world since January 1, 2013. These research papers have been cited
2,071 times, with an average of ∼4.75 citations per publication. Out of
the total 159 institutes involved in IR research, a majority of them are
located in the United States and the United Kingdom. Most of the prolific
TABLE 6 Highly Cited Research Papers
Sr. no Title Source Country collaboration Times cited
1 Understanding Faculty to Improve Content 2005. D-Lib Magazine 11 (1). United States 114
Recruitment for Institutional Repositories
2 Fedora: An Architecture for Complex 2006. International Journal on Digital United States 87
Objects and Their Relationships Libraries 6 (2): 124–138
3 Institutional Repository Deployment in the 2005. D-Lib Magazine 11 (9). United States 85
United States as of Early 2005
4 Institutional Repositories: Evaluating the 2007. D-Lib Magazine 13 (3–4) United States 64
Reasons for Non-use of Cornell
University’s Installation of DSpace
5 Institutional Repositories: Partnering with 2002. D-Lib Magazine 8 (11) United States 51
Faculty to Enhance Scholarly
Communication
6 Academic Institutional Repositories: 2005. D-Lib Magazine 11 (9) United States 48
199
Deployment Status in 13 Nations as of
Mid 2005
7 Open Access to Scientific Publications—An 2004. Information Research 9 (2) Finland 39
Analysis of the Barriers to Change?
8 Scientific Journal Publishing: Yearly Volume 2009. Information Research 14 (1) Finland 38
and Open Access Availability
9 Innkeeper at the Roach Motel 2008. Library Trends 57 (2): 98–123 United States 37
10 Participation in the Global Knowledge 2005. New Library World 106 (3–4): Canada-Brazil 28
Commons: Challenges and Opportunities 141–163
for Research Dissemination in
Developing Countries
11 Assessment of Self-Archiving in Institutional 2007. Serials Review 33 (1): 14–21 United States 25
Repositories: Depositorship and Full-text
Availability
12 Institutional Repositories and Scholarly 2004. Learned Publishing 17 (2): United Kingdom 25
Publishing 115–124
(Continued)
TABLE 6 (Continued)
Sr. no Title Source Country collaboration Times cited
13 Evaluating Institutional Repository 2007. D-Lib Magazine 13 (9–10) United States 24

Deployment in American Academe since
Early 2005: Repositories by the Numbers,
Part 2
14 Institutional Repositories: Proposed 2006. Library Hi Tech 24 (2): 211–226 Canada 22
Indicators of Success
15 A Comparison of Subject and Institutional 2008. Journal of Academic United States 20
Repositories in Self-archiving Practices Librarianship 34 (6): 489–495
16 Motivating and Impeding Factors Affecting 2007. Journal of Digital Information United States 20
Faculty Contribution to Institutional 8 (2)
200
Repositories
17 Carrots and Sticks: Some Ideas on How to 2008. D-Lib Magazine 14 (1–2) Portugal 19
Create a Successful Institutional
Repository
18 The Librarian’s Role in Institutional 2005. Reference Services Review 33 (3): United States 19
Repositories: A Content Analysis of the 325–336
Literature
19 Where There’s a Will There’s a Way?: 2009. College and Research Libraries United States 18
Survey of Academic Librarian Attitudes 70 (4): 315–335
about Open Access
20 The Open Access Initiative: A New 2005. Information Technology and United States 18
Paradigm for Scholarly Communications Libraries 24 (4): 157–162
journals are published in the United States and Europe. Out of the fourteen
most productive countries, eight had a TAI of >100 and six countries had a
TAI of <100. Single-authored papers were the majority (176: 40.4%), followed
by the double-authored (152: 34.9%). Interestingly, India, Australia, Canada,
Germany, the Netherlands, Malaysia, and Italy have not yet produced any
papers with more than five authors. A total of 147 papers have not received
any citations. Elizabeth Yakel from the University of Michigan has published
the most (seven papers: 1.6%), which have received ∼34 citations.
It is expected that more authors will participate in depositing research
into their own organization’s IR. LIS professionals should communicate the
objectives and values of institutional repositories to their organization, offer
information management services to make these repositories robust and
worthwhile, and evangelize the knowledge-sharing principles of submitting
publications into institutional repositories.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, S. S., and S. Al-Baridi. 2012. An overview of institutional repository devel-

opments in the Arabian Gulf Region. OCLC Systems & Services: International
Digital Library Perspectives 28 (2): 79–89.
Allard, S., T. R. Mack, and M. Feltner-Reichert. 2005. The librarian’s role in institu-
tional repositories: A content analysis of the literature. Reference Services Review
33 (3): 325–336.
Bauer, C. 2005. Institutional repositories. In Technology for the rest of us: A primer
on computer technologies for the low-tech librarian, ed. N. Courtney (109–122).
Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Boufarss, M. 2011. If we build it, will they come? A survey of attitudes toward
institutional repositories among faculty at the Petroleum Institute. International
Journal of Library Science 3 (J11). http://www.academia.edu/5849464/If_
We_Build_It_Will_They_Come_A_Survey_of_Attitudes_Toward_Institutional_
Repositories_Among_Faculty_at_the_Petroleum_Institute
Crow, R. 2003. The case for institutional repositories: A SPARC position paper.
Learned Publishing 16 (3): 228–30.
Garg, K. C., S. Dwivedi, and S. Kumar. 2013. Scientometric profile of vector borne
diseases: A case study of global Japanese encephalitis research. SRELS Journal
of Information Management 50 (5): 543–554.
Guan, J., and N. Ma. 2004. A comparative study of research performance in computer
science. Scientometrics 61 (3): 339–359.
Kashimura, M. 2007. Digital archiving of rare books by HUMI Project: An introduc-
tion to the digital archives of rare books and their publication. The Journal of
Information Science and Technology Association 57 (2): 89–93.
Lynch, C. 2003. Institutional repositories: essential infrastructure for scholarship in
the digital age. ARL Bimonthly Report 226: 1–7. http://www.arl.org/storage/
documents/publications/arlbr-226.pdf.
Nabe, J. A. 2010. Starting, strengthening and managing institutional repositories: A
how-to-do it manual. New York: Neal-Schuman.
202 R. K. Bhardwaj
Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR). http://roar.eprints.org

Sagar, A., B.S. Kademani, and K. Bhanumurthy. 2013. Dark energy: A scientometric
mapping of publications. Journal of Scientometric Research 2 (1): 15–29.
Schubert, A., and T. Braun. 1986. Relative indicators and relational charts for com-
parative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics
9(5–6): 281–291.
View publication stats

Literature Repos

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Literature Repos

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Institutional Repository Literature: A Bibliometric Analysis

Article in Science & Technology Libraries · May 2014

Raj Kumar Bhardwaj

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Science & Technology Libraries

Institutional Repository Literature: A

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2014.906018

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Institutional Repository Literature:

RAJ KUMAR BHARDWAJ

The Institutional Repository (IR) concept has given a new

introduction of an IR can help to redefine the production, dissem-

KEYWORDS Institutional Repositories (IRs), Open Access, DSpace,

© Raj Kumar Bhardwaj

Institutional repositories (IRs) are a development in managing digital objects

A university-based institutional repository is a set of services that a uni-

The development of an IR redefines the production and dissemination

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The present study was carried out to perform a quantitative assessment of

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Research published in the form of journal articles and review papers

FIGURE 1 Pattern of research output on institutional repository.

FIGURE 2 Average citations per publication in IR research.

Most Common Journals Used for Publishing IR Research

Distribution of Articles by Language

TABLE 1 Most Common Journals Used for Publishing IR Research

1 OCLC Systems and 32 0.246 0.316

Distribution of Articles by Country

FIGURE 3 Countrywise share of publications on IR.

Transformative Activity Index (TAI)

Ci is the number of publications of the specific country in the ith block

Co is the total number of publications of the specific country

Wi is the number of publications of all countries in the ith block, and

Wo is the number of publications of all the countries.

TABLE 2 Research Articles by Different Countries

No of papers No of papers Change No of

United States 21 (69) 133 (102) 32 154 35.6

Taiwan 2 (203) 3 (71) 5 1.2

FIGURE 4 Change in value of TAI.

During the second time period (2007–2012), Germany, the Netherlands,

Authorship Pattern and Co-Authorship Index (CAI)

FIGURE 5 Pattern of coauthorship in IR research.

FIGURE 6 Countrywise coauthorship index (CAI) in IR publications.

followed by two authors (152: 34.9%). Interestingly, a majority of the papers

Citation Pattern in IR Research

Prolific Institutions and Relative Citation Impact (RCI)

TABLE 3 Citation Pattern of IR Publications

Number of Number of Total Number of Number of Total

0 147 147 21 − 30 5 199

FIGURE 7 Average citations per publications of top countries on IR research.

TABLE 4 Prolific Institutions in IR Research

1 Loughborough University 11 (2.5) 52 (2.5) 4.7

of the publications. The remaining 143 institutes produced 354 (81.2%) of

FIGURE 8 Relative citation impact of top productive institutes in IR research.

TABLE 5 Most Prolific Authors in IR Research Output

1 Yakel, University of Michigan, School 7 34 4.9 4

9 Reznik- University of Massachusetts 3 2 0.7 1

In addition, relative citation impact (RCI) was calculated. It was found

Women’s University, Mumbai (India). Figure 8 shows the RCI of sixteen

Most Productive Authors in IR Research

Highly Cited Research Papers on IRs

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION