Spanish institutional repositories

Serrano-Vicente, Rocío, Melero, Remedios, Abadal, Ernest (2018). "Evaluation of Spanish institutional repositories based on criteria related to technology, procedures, content, marketing and personnel". Data Technologies and Applications, vol. 52, issue 3, p.384-404. <>

Purpose: To provide, through a set of indicators, an overview of the way in which Spanish institutional repositories are run and the services they offer their respective institutions and other users. The selected descriptors are based on aspects related to technology, procedures, content, marketing and the personnel responsible for managing repositories.

Design, methodology and approach: In order to establish the indicators, a thorough review of the literature was carried out to identify existing indicators that are used to assess repositories. These were divided into five categories (technology, procedures, content, marketing and personnel). An online survey was conducted with the repositories managers of 66 Spanish research institutions in order to verify the degree of fulfilment of the selected indicators.

Findings: The survey received forty-six responses, which represented a response rate of 69%. Of these, 44 came from universities and two from research centres. The most widely used software is DSpace (87%), followed by EPrints (5%). Sixty-five per cent of the repositories have the capacity to import data from and export data to other university systems, mainly CRIS (32%). Most repositories have mechanisms for the large-scale import and export of metadata and digital objects (83%). Those repositories that said they produce usage statistics use the program’s own module in 57% of cases, followed by Google Analytics, and Tasmania and the Universidade do Minho modules. The use of altmetrics in repositories is widespread (44%). Authors and librarians deposit most frequently (37% and 32%, respectively), in spite of the fact that 44% do not have full-time staff working in the repository. Librarians check records before making them publicly in 83% of cases; however, embargoes are managed automatically in almost half of the repositories (42%). Most respondents (74%) replied that they do not include an author identifier field in the metadata. It should be noted that 78% of the respondents stated that their repositories use open licences for the distribution of deposited items. In more than 80% of the repositories, between 90% and 100% of the deposits are full-text documents. With respect to the tools used to promote the repository within the institution, these are primarily face-to-face training sessions (82%), followed by support materials such as manuals and help pages  (65%). The academic authorities encourage open access among researchers in 56% of cases, a significant element in repository marketing. Other forms of raising awareness include printed materials such as leaflets (52%) and posters (40%). In terms of the mechanisms for promoting repositories among researchers, 40% prepare publicly accessible reports and statistics about the most consulted documents. Sixty-five per cent of the respondents said that they promote the repository in media outside the university, including press releases, conferences, blogs, seminars, information leaflets, Twitter and Facebook.