Skip to main content

Contribution of the institutional repositories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to the webometric indicators of their home institutions


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.


  1. 1. (accessed 1 March 2015).

  2. 2. (accessed 1 March 2015).

  3. 3. (accessed 1 March 2015).

  4. 4. (accessed 1 March 2015).

  5. 5. (accessed 1 July 2015).

  6. 6. (accessed 1 July 2015).

  7. 7. (accessed 1 March 2015).

  8. 8. (accessed 1 March 2015).

  9. 9. (accessed 1 July 2015).


  1. Aguillo, I. F. (2009). Measuring the institutions’ footprint in the web. Library Hi Tech, 27(4), 540–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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]. Accessed March 1, 2015.

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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. Accessed March 1, 2015.

  8. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Crow, R. (2002). The case for institutional repositories: A SPARC position paper. Washington, DC: The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition. Accessed March 1, 2015.

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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. Accessed March 1, 2015.

  13. 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). Accessed March 1, 2015.

  14. ISTIC (Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China). (2014). Statistical data of Chinese S&T papers 2014 [Technical report]. Accessed July 1, 2015.

  15. Kennan, M. A., & Wilson, C. S. (2006). Institutional repositories: Review and an information systems perspective. Library Management, 27(4/5), 236–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim, J. (2010). Faculty self-archiving: Motivations and barriers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1909–1922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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). Accessed 1 March 2015.

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shukla, S. H., & Poluru, L. (2012). Webometric analysis and indicators of selected Indian state universities. Information Studies, 18(2), 79–104.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Smith, A. G. (2008). Benchmarking Google scholar with the New Zealand PBRF research assessment exercise. Scientometrics, 74(2), 309–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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).

  26. Smith, A. G. (2013). Web based impact measures for institutional repositories. Proceedings of the ISSI 2013 conference (pp. 1806–1816). Viena (Austria).

  27. Thelwall, M. (2002). A research and institutional size-based model for national university Web site interlinking. Journal of Documentation, 58(6), 683–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Thomas, O., & Willet, P. (2000). Webometric analysis of departments of Librarianship and information science. Journal of Information Science, 26(6), 421–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang, D., Zhu, Z., Li, L., & Wang, L. (2013). Construction, promotion and service of CAS IRs. Library and Information Service, 57(1), 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Zuccala, A., Oppenheim, C., & Dhiensa, R. (2008). Managing and evaluating digital repositories. Information Research, 13(1) paper 333. November 21, 2007. Accessed March 1, 2015.

Download references


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).

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wenqiang Fan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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).

Download citation


  • Webometrics
  • Institutional repositories
  • Open access
  • Web presence
  • Web visibility
  • Web indicators
  • China