Report on Repository Survey in Europe, November 2023
Page 31 of 36
aware of the standards, this often leads to lower quality metadata records8. While
most repositories do undertake basic metadata curation and checking, this may
not be sufficient to optimise discovery and reuse of repository resources. There are
opportunities to improve the quality of metadata - either through data curation
activities at the repository, or by introducing machine extraction of metadata
information - but this may require greater commitment in terms of staff and
technical resources at the repository.
Technologies and functionalities
Respondents seemed overall satisfied with the repository platforms they are using
and their functionalities, with the exception of a few respondents who felt that
the platform was not able to respond and adopt new technologies quickly
enough. Some respondents mentioned their current repository was not fit for
purpose (in particular several who are using a CRIS system as their main
repository). However, the requirement to continually upgrade repository software
to newer versions is a challenge. Upgrading repository software is not a trivial task
and requires significant technical resources, often taking several months to
complete. Adding to this, over 50% of respondents indicated that there have
been changes made to the standard code base of the platform at their
repository, contributing to the complexity of upgrades and making it more difficult
to transition to newer versions. More than 60% of respondents either upgraded in
2022 or plan to upgrade in 2023. 20% of respondents will undergo an upgrade two
years in a row: 2022 and 2023. Notably, DSpace, the most widely used platform
(representing just under half of the repositories in the survey), has announced that
their support for earlier versions will be ending in 2023, and this may account for a
higher number of respondents who are upgrading now. Open-source platforms
regularly develop new versions to remain competitive in the market and support
technological expectations of users. Yet, this introduces technical demands that
consume a large amount of staff time and may be diverting resources away from
other important repository operations such as engaging with researchers on
campus, improving metadata quality, or engaging with value added services.
8 Numerous studies have found that mediated deposit by librarians and repository staff improve the quality of the metadata in the repository record. See for example: Roy, Bijan Kumar, "Institutional Digital Repositories: a systematic review of literature" (2021). Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 4855. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4855
Report on Repository Survey in Europe, December 2023
Page 32 of 36
Certification
Most repositories do not make use of existing certification frameworks, either
because the assessment process is too resource intensive or existing requirements
are deemed as unattainable. An alternative, perhaps lighter-weight self-
assessment framework may be more widely applicable for the majority of
repositories, perhaps based on the “COAR Community Framework for Good
Practices in Repositories”9 (which has already been adapted into a self-
assessment tool in the Japanese context). Certification patterns are aligned at
the national level - that is, there are a few countries where certification rates are
much higher - therefore certification may be most effectively propagated via
national agencies or communities.
Sustainability and funding
Sustainability of repository operations was considered quite high by respondents,
with only 3% of respondents indicating that there is a risk to their operations. This
may be related to the fact that most repositories are affiliated with an institution -
usually the university library - and therefore have a dedicated budget and stable
staffing (as opposed to being funded by project grants or other short-term
means). That said, 31% indicated that the repository was only “somewhat”
sustainable for a number of reasons related to several challenges, most notably
the problem of managing software (both internally at the institution, or the high
costs of paying an external provider).
Just over 50% of repositories have staffing levels of under 2 full time employees,
after combining the time from all the different staff positions. This could be
considered quite low, given the operational requirements of a repository
(although this depends on a number of other factors, such as external hosting and
size of repository). Increased staffing at these repositories could help to address
many of the challenges being experienced and ensure there is widespread
adoption of good practices and next generation repository functionalities.
Shared infrastructure models, which have already been adopted in a few
countries, are another approach that offer economies of scale and could relieve
some of the burden from individual institutions.
9 https://www.coar-repositories.org/coar-community-framework-for-good-practices-in-repositories/
Report on Repository Survey in Europe, November 2023
Page 33 of 36
Conclusions
Collectively, European repositories acquire, preserve and provide open access
to tens or possibly hundreds of millions of valuable research outputs and represent
critical, not-for-profit infrastructure in the European open science landscape. They
are used for sharing articles that may be paywalled in published journals, but also
for providing access to a variety of other types of research outputs including
theses/dissertations, conference papers, research data, preprints, code, and so
on. They will be critical infrastructure as Europe collectively advances open
science and research reform that incentivises the sharing of all valuable research
outputs.
Many repositories are based at universities making them quite sustainable and,
by every indication, their collections are being well-used by the research
community and beyond. Given the general concerns about fragility of open
science infrastructures, a distributed approach, with national and regional nodes,
seems to be a viable model for other types of scholarly communications
infrastructures.
We see massive use of our thesis repository – no way people
would get to read these theses were we not making them available
in this way.
- Survey respondent The number and range of value added services to which repositories are contributing demonstrates that European repositories have been progressing towards the vision of the next generation repository, which is about moving beyond the repository as an institutional service, to the networked repository that is an integral part of the broader ecosystem. However, to fully achieve our collective vision, there is still work to be done. The survey has exposed a number of important areas where the current repository landscape could be strengthened. In particular, we found that repositories struggle with three main challenges: (1) maintaining up-to-date, highly functioning software platforms, (2) applying consistent and comprehensive good practices in terms of metadata, preservation, and usage statistics; and (3) gaining appropriate visibility in the scholarly ecosystem. These challenges can be traced to several interrelated underlying factors:
Report on Repository Survey in Europe, December 2023
Page 34 of 36
Managing local software: Open-source software is the obvious preference for
most repositories, as it enables the institution to participate in the governance of
the software, make changes to the code to support local needs (e.g., language,
functionalities, integrations with other systems), and belong to a community of
practice with other software adopters. Yet, managing software locally requires
local technical expertise and a significant time commitment. Many repositories
have difficulty keeping up with the newest version of their software platform,
which can have an effect on the service provision, as requirements change and
user expectations evolve. In addition, there is an inherent tension in the repository
ecosystem where - on the one hand - there is a need to ensure widespread
interoperability and maintain ease of upgrades by not introducing special
functionalities - and on the other hand - being responsive to the needs of various
local and national communities that request certain tailored services (for
example, local languages). Maintaining this balance can present a challenge for
repositories, as they seek to provide a high quality service to their local
communities while maintaining a modern repository platform.
Staffing levels: In terms of staffing, repositories have quite low numbers. This can
contribute to the problems identified above with not having the capacity to
upgrade to new versions when needed, but also can result in only a basic level
of support for other services, such as user support, metadata curation, and
awareness of the repository in the community. As the needs of the user
community expand and evolve with open science becoming mainstream, there
will be an increasing strain on repository staff. Low staffing levels are due to the
fact that repositories have not been a high priority service for universities and that
they are also competing with the commercial sector for skilled technical staff.
Distributed nature of repositories: One of the great strengths of the repository
ecosystem in Europe and beyond is its distributed nature. This contributes to the
sustainability of the network as it is collectively funded by many universities and
research centres, as well as circumvents a situation where there are only a few
points of failure. However, this highly distributed environment also creates a
situation where repositories can have low visibility, are isolated, and are working
in silos with little opportunity to share expertise and learn from colleagues. To some
extent, repositories are replicating services across many institutions. That said, over
the several years, a number of countries have adopted a more coordinated
approach
to
repositories
through
national
discovery
services,
shared
infrastructure models, and hosting communities of practice. This allows institutions
to benefit from some economies of scale and address some of the challenges of
the distributed environment.
Report on Repository Survey in Europe, November 2023
Page 35 of 36
Opportunities and Next Steps
Despite the challenges, the current climate offers exciting opportunities for
repositories. Many funders are actively promoting the repository route for articles
because of their role in supporting equitable access to content (i.e., no fees to
access or deposit). The value proposition for open science is growing and
repositories are increasingly recognised as the main mechanism for collecting
and providing access to a wide range of research outputs. Add to this, the
nascent, but growing, interest in the publish-review-curate model in which
repositories have a central function10, and it seems they are well placed to
expand their current role in the ecosystem.
To support this evolving role for repositories, OpenAIRE, LIBER, SPARC Europe and
COAR have identified three areas in which we can work together to help
advance and strengthen repositories in Europe:
- Highlighting the value proposition for repositories and advocating for the critical role of repositories in Europe
- Propagating best practices for repositories across the continent
- Assisting with the creation and coordination of national networks In the coming months, our organisations will develop more concrete plans for advancing each of these areas.
Data Availability Statement The anonymised data that support these findings and the survey questionnaire are openly available in Zenodo. DOI: https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10213483.
10 From cOAlition S: To illustrate how a scholar-led communication system can (and already does) work in practice and supports the principles of Open Science, we highlight the Publish, Review, Curate (PRC) model, which we find particularly promising. https://www.coalition-s.org/wp- content/uploads/2023/10/Towards_Responsible_Publishing_web.pdf
Report on Repository Survey in Europe, December 2023 Page 36 of 36
Current State and Future Directions for
Open Repositories in Europe
Results of Survey of Open Repositories in Europe
December 2023