Starting from the perspective of Webometrics, this paper explores the improvement effect of institutional repositories (IRs) on their home institutions with respect to web presence and visibility. Taking 19 IRs from institutions affiliated to the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) as study samples, we calculate the contribution of IRs to the webometric indicators of their home institutions in terms of four indicators: page counts, PDF counts, URL mention counts, and link counts. According to their open-access (OA) status, the IRs of CAS were divided into an OA group and a non-OA group, which were compared with respect to differences in the above indicators as well as browse counts and download counts. The results of the study show that: (1) IRs showed a relatively significant positive improvement with respect to Google page counts, Scholar page counts, and Google PDF counts, although the improvement effect with respect to Scholar PDF counts was almost nonexistent; (2) repositories presented a certain improvement effect with respect to URL mention counts, but the contribution of link counts was limited; and (3) OA repositories manifested noticeable advantages in terms of Google PDF counts, URL mention counts, and download counts. We conclude that IRs can improve the web presence and visibility of their home institutions, while OA IRs offer more benefits to their home institutions.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
http://repositories.webometrics.info (accessed 1 March 2015).
http://www.opendoar.org/ (accessed 1 March 2015).
http://roar.eprints.org/ (accessed 1 March 2015).
http://roarmap.eprints.org/ (accessed 1 March 2015).
http://www.irgrid.ac.cn/CAS.pdf (accessed 1 July 2015).
http://blekko.com/ (accessed 1 July 2015).
https://moz.com/researchtools/ose (accessed 1 March 2015).
http://www.scimagoir.com/ (accessed 1 March 2015).
http://www.cspace.org.cn/sites/default/files/CSpace.pdf (accessed 1 July 2015).
Aguillo, I. F. (2009). Measuring the institutions’ footprint in the web. Library Hi Tech, 27(4), 540–556.
Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., Fernández, M., & Utrilla, A. M. (2010). Indicators for a webometric ranking of open access repositories. Scientometrics, 82(3), 477–486.
Archambault, E., Amyot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A., Rebout, L., & Roberge, G. (2013). Proportion of open access peer-reviewed papers at the European and world. Science-metrix [Technical report]. http://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/SM_EC_OA_Availability_2004-2011.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2015.
Arlitsch, K., & O’Brian, P. S. (2012). Invisible institutional repositories: Addressing the low indexing ratios of IRs in Google. Library Hi Tech, 30(1), 60–81.
Armbruster, C., & Romary, L. (2010). Comparing repository types: Challenges and barriers for subject-based repositories, research repositories, national repository systems and institutional repositories in serving scholarly communication. International Journal of Digital Library Systems, 1(4), 61–73.
Björk, B. C., Laakso, M., Welling, P., & Paetau, P. (2014). Anatomy of green open access. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 237–250.
Björk, 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), e11273. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011273. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011273. Accessed March 1, 2015.
Chan, L. (2004). Supporting and enhancing scholarship in the digital age: The role of open access institutional repository. Canadian Journal of Communication, 29(3), 277–300.
Chan, D. L. H., Kwok, C. S. Y., & Yip, S. K. F. (2005). Changing roles of reference librarians: The case of the HKUST institutional repository. Reference Services Review, 33(3), 268–282.
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. Accessed March 1, 2015.
Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., & Probets, S. (2003). Romeo studies 3: How academics expect to use open access research papers. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 35(3), 171–187.
Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Larivie`re, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., et al. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PLoS One, 5(10), e13636. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013636. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013636. Accessed March 1, 2015.
Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., Oppenheim, C., et al. (2004). The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access. Serials Review, 30(4). http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/impact.html. Accessed March 1, 2015.
ISTIC (Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China). (2014). Statistical data of Chinese S&T papers 2014 [Technical report]. http://www.igg.cas.cn/xwzx/kyjz/201409/W020140930590329672866.pdf. Accessed July 1, 2015.
Kennan, M. A., & Wilson, C. S. (2006). Institutional repositories: Review and an information systems perspective. Library Management, 27(4/5), 236–248.
Kim, J. (2010). Faculty self-archiving: Motivations and barriers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1909–1922.
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055–1065.
Nie, H., Wei, C., & Cui, H. (2013). CALIS institutional repository: Construction and promotion, reflection and prospects. Journal of Library Science in China, 39(2), 46–52.
Orduña-Malea, E. (2013). Aggregation of the web performance of internal university units as a method of quantitative analysis of a university system: The case of Spain. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(10), 2100–2114.
Orduña-Malea, E., & López-Cózar, 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.
Organ, M. K. (2006, November). Download statistics-what do they tell us? The example of research online, the open access institutional repository at the University of Wollongong, Australia. D-Lib Magazine, 12(11). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/organ/11organ.html. Accessed 1 March 2015.
Ruiz-Conde, E., & Calderón-Martinez, A. (2014). University institutional repositories: Competitive environment and their role as communication media of scientific knowledge. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1283–1299.
Shukla, S. H., & Poluru, L. (2012). Webometric analysis and indicators of selected Indian state universities. Information Studies, 18(2), 79–104.
Smith, A. G. (2008). Benchmarking Google scholar with the New Zealand PBRF research assessment exercise. Scientometrics, 74(2), 309–316.
Smith, A. G. (2012). Webometric evaluation of institutional repositories. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on webometrics informetrics and scientometrics and 13th collnet meeting (pp. 722–729). Seoul (Korea).
Smith, A. G. (2013). Web based impact measures for institutional repositories. Proceedings of the ISSI 2013 conference (pp. 1806–1816). Viena (Austria).
Thelwall, M. (2002). A research and institutional size-based model for national university Web site interlinking. Journal of Documentation, 58(6), 683–694.
Thelwall, M., & Harries, G. (2003). The connection between the research of a university and counts of links to its web pages: An investigation based upon a classification of the relationships of pages to the research of the host university. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(7), 594–602.
Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2011). A comparison of methods for collecting web citation data for academic organizations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(8), 1488–1497.
Thomas, O., & Willet, P. (2000). Webometric analysis of departments of Librarianship and information science. Journal of Information Science, 26(6), 421–428.
Zhang, D., Zhu, Z., Li, L., & Wang, L. (2013). Construction, promotion and service of CAS IRs. Library and Information Service, 57(1), 20–25.
Zuccala, A., Oppenheim, C., & Dhiensa, R. (2008). Managing and evaluating digital repositories. Information Research, 13(1) paper 333. November 21, 2007. http://InformationR.net/ir/13-1/paper333.html. Accessed March 1, 2015.
The author wishes to thank the two anonymous referees for their valuable comments and helpful suggestions. This paper is supported by Research Funds from the Ministry of Education for Humanities and Social Sciences (China, No. 12YJCZH038) and Fundamental Research Funds of the Central Universities (China).
About this article
Cite this article
Fan, W. Contribution of the institutional repositories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to the webometric indicators of their home institutions. Scientometrics 105, 1889–1909 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1758-4
- Institutional repositories
- Open access
- Web presence
- Web visibility
- Web indicators