After two decades of repository development, some conclusions may be drawn as to which type of repository and what kind of service best supports digital scholarly communication. In this regard, four types of publication repository may be distinguished, namely the subject-based repository, research repository, national repository system, and institutional repository. Two important shifts in the role of repositories may be noted and in regard to content, a well-defined and high quality corpus is essential. This implies that repository services are likely to be most successful when constructed with the user and reader in mind. With regard to service, high value to specific scholarly communities is essential. This implies that repositories are likely to be most useful to scholars when they offer dedicated services supporting the production of new knowledge. Along these lines, challenges and barriers to repository development may be identified in three key dimensions, i.e., identification and deposit of content, access and use of services, and preservation of content and sustainability of service. An indicative comparison of challenges and barriers in some major world regions is offered.
TopRepositories And Services Mentioned (Selection)
ARROW, arXiv, BASE, CiteSeer X, DRIVER, HAL, HighWire Press, Japan DRF, MIT OCW, NARCIS, OAIster, PMC, PMC Canada, Recolecta, DLF Poland, RePEc, SSRN, UK PMC, Webometrics Ranking of Repositories
Two decades of immersion in digital worlds have led to the development of various repository solutions, notably the subject-based repository, research repository, national repository system and institutional repository. However, further development requires a critical appreciation of the current situation as well as an identification of challenges and barriers. In service of further analysis, the main repository solutions are here reconstituted as ideal types. Ideal types are abstract types, derived partly from the history of repositories, partly through logical reasoning. The relevant literature on scholarly communication, open access and repositories is appreciated (cf., Bailey, 2008, 2009, 2010), though the following is not a literature review but an argument that moves back and forth between abstract ideal types and specific cases. The idea is not to classify each and every repository as belonging unambiguously to a particular type. Rather, the purpose of creating ideal types is to compare and contrast the types so as to generate insight into repository development generally as well as for each individual instance. This implies that the new knowledge thus constituted may enhance the agency of stakeholders and managers in improving and adapting their repository solution.
The four proposed ideal types may be described as follows: