Comparison of the Organizational Repository Resources of Iranian Universities of Medical Sciences in Terms of Indexing and Accessibility in Google Search Engine

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• kianoosh rashidi
• Javad abasspour

shiraz university

10.22067/riis.v0i0.66986

Abstract

INTRUDUCTION: In recent years, some universities and research institutions have built institutional repositories. These repositories save, preserve and give access to research works authored by students and researchers. As access to repository resources through search engines is important, indexing and accessibility of repository resources of Iranian universities of medical sciences were compared in this study.

METHODOLOGY:The study population included resources available in the organizational repositories of Iranian universities of medical sciences. These repositories were identified through the Directory of Open Access Repositories. In this directory, there were 9 repositories belonged to Iranian universities of medical sciences. Access to 2 repositories was not possible at the time of data collection, and resources were collected from 7 reminded repositories. The sample size was determined based on Morgan Table. Sampling was implemented through simple stratified sampling approach. 54 resources of each repository were chosen to form the sample. The systematic observation was utilized to collect data. Data were analyzed descriptively by using Chi-square test.

FINDINGS: More than 60% of the resources in the repositories of Iranian universities of medical sciences are full text, and there is a significant difference in access to the full text of the resources among the repositories. The results demonstrated that the indexing of English resources is higher than that of Persian resources in Google search engine, while there is not a significant difference between English and Persian resources in terms of indexing. However, there is a significant difference between English and Persian resources in terms of their accessibility. There is a significant difference between the repositories of Iranian universities of medical sciences in terms of their accessibility in Google.

CONCLUSIONS:The results revealed that the indexing of resources in Google does not guarantee their accessibility in it. In terms of the availability of resources in Google, the repository of Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran ranked first, that of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences ranked second, and the repositories of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences and Bushehr University of Medical Sciences ranked third. However, in terms of accessibility, the repository of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences ranked first and the repository of Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran ranked second and that of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences ranked third.

Keywords

• Institutional repositories
• University repositories
• Iranian universities of medical sciences
• Indexing
• Accessibility
• Google search engine

---

References

پریرخ، مهری، زاهدی نوقابی، مهدی (1390). بررسی مخزن سازمانی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد و سنجش میزان همخوانی آن با معیارهای تخصصی. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات. ۲۶ (۳) : ۵۱۹-۵۴۵.

پریرخ مهری، زاهدی نوقابی، مهدی (1394). چگونگی ارزیابی نرم افزارهای مخزن سازمانی: تجربه ای از یک مورد. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات. 30(3)، 785-822.

زاهدی نوقابی، مهدی (1394). تحلیل عامل های اثرگذار بر پیاده سازی مخازن سازمانی در دانشگاه‌ها و مراکز علمی بر پایه نظریه های سیستم های اطلاعاتی. پژوهشنامه کتابداری و اطلاع رسانی. 50(1)، 300-280.

شفیعی، مسعود (1393). ارزیابی فراداده‌های سامانه اطلاعات علمی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد از جنبه قابلیت جستجو، بازیابی و نمایه پذیری اطلاعات. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد.

سیدین، مریم سادات، جلالی دیزجی، علی (1391). واسپارگاه های دیجیتال انجمن‌های علمی جهان با دسترسی آزاد. فصلنامه مطالعات ملی کتابداری و سازماندهی اطلاعات. 23(1)، 164-181.

نوری میسا، ریحانه، حسن زاده، محمد (1394). تعیین عناصر تشکیل‌دهنده‌ مخزن دانش سازمانی در دانشگاه های کشور و ارائه یک چارچوب مفهومی. پژوهشنامه کتابداری و اطلاع رسانی. 5(1)، 171 -191.

Arlitsch, K., & O'Brien, P. S. (2012). Invisible institutional repositories: Addressing the low indexing ratios of IRs in Google Scholar. Library Hi Tech, 30(1), 60-81.

Bjork, B.C., Welling, P., Laakso, M., Majlender, P., Hedlund, T., & Gudnason, G. (2010). Open access to the scientific journal literature: Situation 2009. PLoS One, 5(6), 1-9.

Crow, R. (2002). The case for institutional repositories: A SPARC position paper. Washington, DC: The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition. http://www.sparc.arl.org/sites/default/files/media_files/instrepo.pdf.

Donovan, J. M., & Watson, C. A. (2011). Citation advantage of open access legal scholarship. Law Libr. J., 103, 553.

Directory of Open Access Repositories. available at: http://www.opendoar.org/

Fan, W. (2015).Contribution of the institutional repositories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to the webometric indicators of their home institutions.Scientometrics, 105(3), 1889-1909.

Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Larivie‘re, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., Brody, T., Harnad, S. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PLoS One, 5(10), e13636. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013636

Bhat, M. H. (2009). Open access repositories in computer science and information technology: an evaluation. IFLA journal. 35(3), 243-257.

Hughes, C.A. (2004), “Escholarship at the University of California: a case study in sustainable innovation for open access”, New Library World, 105 (3/4): 118-24.

Jacso, P. (2006). Open access to scholarly full-text documents. Online information review, 30(5), 587-594.

Jain, P., Bentley, G., Oladiran, M. T. (2009). The role of institutional repository in digital scholarly communications. Proceedings of African Digital Scholarship & Curation.

Lee, J., Burnett, G., Vandegrift, M., Baeg, J. H., & Morris, R. (2015). Availability and Accessibility in an Open Access Institutional Repository: A Case Study. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 20(1), n1.

Madhan, M., Rao, Y.S. and Awasthi, S. (2006), “Institutional repository enhances visibility and presented at the National Conference on Information Management in Digital Libraries IIT

Markland, M. (2006). Institutional repositories in the UK: What can the Google user find there?.Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 38(4), 221-228.

McCown, F., & Nelson, M. L. (2006). Evaluation of crawling policies for a web-repository crawler. In Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on Hypertext and hypermedia.157-168.

Orduna-Malea, E., & Lopez-Cozar, E. D. (2015). The dark side of Open Access in Google and Google Scholar: the case of Latin-American repositories. Scientometrics, 102(1), 829-846.

Registry of Open Access Repositories. Available at: http://roar.eprints.org/

Rieh, S. Y., Markey, K., Yakel, E., St Jean, B., & Kim, J. (2007). Perceived values and benefits of institutional repositories: a perspective of digital curation. In An International Symposium on Digital Curation (DigCCurr 2007), Chapel Hill, NC.

Tmava, A. M., & Alemneh, D. G. (2013). Enhancing content visibility in institutional repositories: Overview of factors that affect digital resources discoverability.

Web Ranking of Universities (2010), British Universities commitment to open access, available at: www.webometrics.info/openac.html (accessed).

Zuccala, A., Oppenheim, C., & Dhiensa, R. (2008). Managing and evaluating digital repositories. Information Research. 13(1), 333.