The institutions of higher education all over the world are experiencing the necessity of managing their education, research and resources in a more effective and open way. By making the research and scientific output easily available, they will support the development of new relationships between the academicians and both national and international research centres. Institutional Repository is an electronic archive of the scientific and scholarly output of an institution, stored in digital format, where search and recovery are allowed for its subsequent national or international use. The Institutional Repository (IR) is understood as an information system that collects, preserves, disseminates and provides access to the intellectual and academic output of the academic community. Nowadays, the IR is a key tool of the scientific and academic policy of the institution. On the other hand, access to the full text of the digital learning objects makes the repository become a fundamental support tool for teaching and research, whilst at the same time multiplying the institution's visibility in the international community. Within this scenario, it is the university libraries that must lead the implementation of the IRs to enhance the university's educational competitiveness, because of their experience in information management in all its forms and contact with knowledge.
1.1 Definition of IR
Crow define IR as (Crow, 2002) "Provide a critical component in reforming the system of scholarly communication-a component that expands access to research, reasserts control over scholarship by the academy, increases competition and reduces the monopoly power of journals, and brings economic relief and heightened relevance to the institutions and libraries that support them". According to Johnson while traditional publishing model limits readership, obscures institutional origin, costs much, the new model implies no monopoly, increase of output, awareness (Johnson, 2002).
Review of Literature
Abdelrahman, Omer Hassan (2017) indicated that, in order to enhance the usage of the repository by graduate students, there is a need for more awareness raising and advocacy programmes to be carried out by the library about the repository and its benefits to the academic community of the university. Bates, Melanie (2016) explored the rights and rewards associated with the deposit of materials into such repositories. The findings suggested what could be considered to be an 'ideal' repository from the contributors' perspective and also outline many of the concerns expressed by respondents in the survey. Sandy, H M (2016) conducted study among U.S.-based repository administrators from the OpenDOAR initiative were surveyed to understand aspects of the quality and creation of their metadata, and how their metadata could improve. The discussion argues that increased strategic staffing will alleviate many perceived issues with metadata quality. Tiemo, Pereware Aghwotu (2016) revealed that lecturers' awareness of institutional repository was high and most of the lecturers agreed that if the repository was established in the university it will enable them to deposit their work but this will violate the copy right law. It is recommended that librarians should create more awareness of IR and educate lecturers on the dangers of giving out the copy right of their work out to commercial publishers. Xia, Jingfeng (2016) stated that when people were happy with the success of mandate policies in digital repositories, it was equally important to carry out quality control over repository content by setting up guidelines for self-archiving and understand how scholars perform self-archiving in and what expectations readers have for a repository and to establish IRs since the lecturers have positive attitudes towards the establishment. Gross, Julia (2015) argued that OA publishing will continue to transform scholarship within the arts and humanities, especially through the role of institutional repositories. However, the ongoing training of university researchers and personnel is required to bring into balance their understandings of OA publisher and the demands of the broader Australian and international research environment. Lee, Jongwook (2015) confirmed the contribution of the IR in making papers available and accessible. The results also reveal some impediments to the success of OA: including impediments linked to contractual arrangements between authors and publishers, impediments linked to policies, practices, and technologies governing the IR itself, and the low level of faculty participation in the IR. Ogbomo, Esoswo Francisca (2015) concluded that universities should encourage promotional activities geared towards creating awareness of IR which will in turn enhance positive attitude towards IR establishment in universities. Safdar, Muhammad (2015) revealed that one third of the respondents came to know about PRR through library staff. The current study is first one in Pakistan of its type in terms of topic as no study has been conducted yet on this national program i.e. PRR. The study focuses on the importance of PRR from the users' point of view. Problems and users' satisfaction level with PRR are also discussed in the study.
Aim and Objectives of the study
The study attempted to study the positive perception of the engineering college faculty members towards depositing the works in the Institutional Repositories System. The study aimed to study the perception on various factors of academic parameters to deposit in the Institutional Repositories System.
This study is a descriptive study in which the sample was elected by means of random sampling. A survey was used as a method of collecting the data. The data analysis is descriptive in nature. A structured questionnaire designed to collect the data from the Arts & Science and Engineering College faculty members working in Coimbatore of South India. Questions were designed to analysis perception on willing towards depositing the works in Institutional repository system in the areas of advocacy, accessibility, Altruistic intention Positive impact of self-archiving, Professional recognition, Pre-print culture, University or department action, Grant awarding body, Influence of other actors, Preservation, Publishers' policies prohibiting self-archiving, Support (Additional time & effort) and Monetary incentive. 90 samples were collected from faculty members.
Analysis and Interpretation
The table no 1 shows the gender wise distribution of the respondents. It is inferred that majorities (74%) of the respondents were male and 26% of the respondents were female.
The table no 2 shows the distribution of the respondents by their age. It is clear from the table that majorities (30%) of the respondents were in the age group of 41-45. Around 26% of the respondents were in the age group of 36-40 and 21% of the respondents were in the age group of 31-35. 10% of the respondents were below 25 age. A 7% of the respondents were above 45 age and another 7% of the respondents were in the age group of 26-30.
The table no 3 shows the distribution of the respondents by their designation. It is clear from the table that majorities (67%) of the respondents were Assistant Professors. Around 26% of the respondents were Associate Professor and 8% of the respondents were Professors.
The table no 4 shows the type of institution where the respondents working. It is clear from the table that majorities (53%) of the respondents were working in Arts and Science colleges and 47% of the respondents were working in the Engineering Colleges.
The table no 5 shows the experience of the respondents. It is clear that majorities (24%) of the respondents had experience of 2-4 years and around 21% of the respondents had 5-6 years of experience. Around 20% of the respondents had below 2 years of experience and 13% of the respondents had above 10 years of experience. 11% of the respondents had 7-8 years of experience and 10% of the respondents had 9-10 years of experience.
The table no 6 shows the educational qualification of the respondents. It is clear that majorities of the respondents had PhD and 23% of the respondents had PG with MPhil. Around 19% of the respondents were pursing PhD and 11% of the respondents had PG degree.
The table no 7 shows the Availability of institutional repositories in their respective institutions. It is noticed that majorities (79%) of the respondents' institutions had institutional repositories and remaining 21% of the respondents' institutions not having institutional repositories.
The table no 8 shows the depositing the materials in the institutional repositories. It is noticed that majorities (73%) of the respondents were depositing their works in their institutional repositories and 27% of the respondents were not depositing their works in their institutional repositories.
The table no 9 shows the various sources to know about institutional repositories. It is noticed that majorities (38%) of the respondents were aware of institutional repositories from other Librarians and Library Staff. 29% of the respondents were aware of institutional repositories through internet. 19% of the respondents were aware of institutional repositories from colleagues and their friends and 14% of the respondents were aware of institutional repositories from their faculty.
The table no 10 shows the type of material are currently / willing in college's digital Repository. It is noticed that majorities (74%) of the respondents were depositing the research articles in their repository and 73% of the respondents were depositing the Full text thesis. 57% of the respondents were depositing books/books chapters. 43% of the respondents were depositing technical reports and 42% of the respondents were depositing
The table no 11 shows the awareness level about the Institutional Repositories...
A STUDY ON POSITIVE ATTITUDE TOWARDS CONTRIBUTION IN INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY SYSTEM AMONG THE FACULTY MEMBERS.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP
COPYRIGHT TV Trade Media, Inc.
COPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.