Talk:Institutional repository

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

"An Institutional Repository is an online locus for collecting and preserving..."

wouldn't "...collecting, preserving and disseminating..." be better? 130.225.25.169 13:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Basically, yes--some IRs have a section for material of limited dissemination, but that level of detail isn't necessary for the lead sentence. I have made the change. DGG 20:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

postprint[edit]

I'd like an actual ref for the definition of postprint, from suitable authoritative source , not one of the editors. DGG 03:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Value[edit]

Ps07swt (talk · contribs) added the entire Institutional repository#Value of Institutional Repository for Student Learning section with only a single reference, which does not even really support the facts offered. The entire section is original research at best and unverifiable opinion at worst. I propose to remove it if there are no objections. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have modified the non-relevent information to something more useful. I look forward to seeing more progress in this section. 128.6.13.136 (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

definitely needs expansion[edit]

Reading this scholarly paper about institutional repositories in Japan, I came here to Wikipedia to get a quick overview of repositories in the West, the origins of the concept, differing modes of execution, differing attitudes towards their value, why some countries, and some universities within those countries, have leapt onto the concept, while others have not...

I always feel bad coming here on talk pages and telling others they need to do more work, but there it is. I have neither the expertise, nor the sources, nor, to be honest, the time, to work on this myself, so I can only place an "expand" tag on it and hope that others will come along and improve the article. The link I provided might be of help to anyone inclined to devote time and energy to this effort. Cheers. LordAmeth (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger with Repository (publishing)[edit]

Aren't those articles about the same topic? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think that it would be more appropriate to merge the other article with this one: the term 'institutional repository' is far more commonly used in the field. lebeq 22:05, 23 November 2011 (AEDT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebeq (talkcontribs)

Institutional repositories are based in the online world; whereas 'Repository (publishing)' can be based in the physical world or the online world and are often more general in scope than institutional repositories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.208.254 (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with IP 220. "Repositories" are, basically, specialist libraries which in the digital age have started to collect, in addition to the physical materials they have always collected, some electronic materials; whereas in my experience the term "institutional repository" is a relatively recent one, and is applied specifically and exclusively to digital libraries. There's clearly some overlap (and they're likely to converge further in future), but at present I think there's enough of a distinction to justify two articles. Maybe "Repository (publishing)" should be renamed though, as many of the materials they collect are unpublished papers, dissertations etc.: off the top of my head, how about "Repository (library)" or "Repository (academic)"? GrindtXX (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
If you read the Repository (Publishing) article, it doesn't really cover any of the objections above. While I agree that there are repositories for special libraries and physical collections which are quite distinct, the Repository article mentions institutional repositories, thesis deposit, disciplinary repositories, academic article aggregators, digital libraries. There are cursory mentions of archives and print manuscripts, but those topics are covered much more thoroughly elsewhere. In sum, the other article is about institutional repositories. And it's not a very good article, it could easily be merged into this one. So in the end that's where I side. Phette23 (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge for now and if some distinction surfaces later we split then. My understanding is that an "institutional repository" is something ad hoc made to allow self archiving when this has not happened before, and that a repository is something better maintained and prepared for archiving. However, I do not have sources to back that and see no reason to not merge. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the merge, as long as this article (Institutional repository) is the one that remains, and the other (Repository (Publishing)) is merged into this one. The Repository (publishing) article really only talks about two things of significance: institutional repositories, and disciplinary repositories. I think it is best that these two types of repository have their own articles, because they are now well established and quite distinct entities. I'm going to try and help get this article up to scratch. Lawsonstu (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it is safe to deprecate the Repository (publishing) article by moving relevant information from it into both this article and disciplinary repository. The objections above referring to physical collections are covered by the article Archive. 'Archives' for physical collections, 'repositories' for digital collections. It would be better to have two decent articles for disciplinary repositories and institutional repositories than have the Repository (publishing) article in anything like it's current form. - Lawsonstu (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This merger has now been completed. - Lawsonstu (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added a 'see also: Disciplinary repository' tag to the top of the article, because I realised that there are some instances of wikilinks which used to go to the 'Repository (publishing)' article now redirecting straight to this article even if they're not necessarily only referring to institutional repositories. - Lawsonstu (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Jargon use must be avoided or, at least, acknowledged[edit]

The term "institutional repository" is used intensely in Librariaship and related fields. This is not a problem per se, but using biased jargon is.

Jargon problem #1: Using the common term "institutional repository" as synonym of "institutional repository of peer-reviewed publications". I won't dig out the records, but it seems some folks met in an eastern European city long ago and decided that only peer-reviewed literature can be uploaded to an institutional repository. The problem is: as the term says, an institutional repository is an artifact in which an institution deposits things, whathever it wishes, even without the blessing of the folks who met in an eastern European city long ago.

Jargon problem #2: Redefining the common term "information professional" as if journalists, information systems software developers et al. were not professionals of information. "Information professional" is librarianese, meaning "us, a certain kind of information professional". Forcing its adoption inside the Librarianship community has been very moderately successful. I don't see how it could work since it lacks logic.

I won't edit the article. This is my comment. --Vmkern (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Institutional repository. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Institutional repository. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)