Skip to main content

“Knock Knock! Who’s There?” A Study on Scholarly Repositories’ Availability

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS,volume 13541)


Scholarly repositories are the cornerstone of modern open science, and their availability is vital for enacting its practices. To this end, scholarly registries such as FAIRsharing, re3data, OpenDOAR and ROAR give them presence and visibility across different research communities, disciplines, and applications by assigning an identifier and persisting their profiles with summary metadata. Alas, like any other resource available on the Web, scholarly repositories, be they tailored for literature, software or data, are quite dynamic and can be frequently changed, moved, merged or discontinued. Therefore, their references are prone to link rot over time, and their availability often boils down to whether the homepage URLs indicated in authoritative repository profiles within scholarly registries respond or not.

For this study, we harvested the content of four prominent scholarly registries and resolved over 13 thousand unique repository URLs. By performing a quantitative analysis on such an extensive collection of repositories, this paper aims to provide a global snapshot of their availability, which bewilderingly is far from granted.


  • Scholarly repositories
  • Availability
  • HTTP resolution
  • Scholarly communication
  • Open science

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-16802-4_26
  • Chapter length: 7 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-031-16802-4
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)


  1. 1.

    FAIRsharing –

  2. 2.

    re3data –

  3. 3.

    OpenDOAR –

  4. 4.

    ROAR –

  5. 5. {ks, hig, hiak, politihs, hsf, hive, misjon, hinesna, hvo, hibo, histm, dhh, hint, hibu, bdh}.

  6. 6.,,,,,

  7. 7.,,,,,,

  8. 8.

    Selenium WebDriver –


  1. Bar-Yossef, Z., Broder, A.Z., Kumar, R., Tomkins, A.: Sic transit gloria telae: Towards an understanding of the web’s decay. In: Proceedings of the 13th Conference on World Wide Web - WWW 2004, p. 328. ACM Press, New York, NY, USA (2004).

  2. Cho, J., Garcia-Molina, H.: Estimating frequency of change. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 3(3), 256–290 (2003).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Fielding, R., Reschke, J.: Hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP/1.1): semantics and content (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jones, S.M., de Sompel, H.V., Shankar, H., Klein, M., Tobin, R., Grover, C.: Scholarly context adrift: three out of four URI references lead to changed content. PLoS One 11(12), e0167475 (2016).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. Klein, Martin, Balakireva, Lyudmila: On the persistence of persistent identifiers of the scholarly web. In: Hall, Mark, Merčun, Tanja, Risse, Thomas, Duchateau, Fabien (eds.) TPDL 2020. LNCS, vol. 12246, pp. 102–115. Springer, Cham (2020).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Klein, M., Balakireva, L.: An extended analysis of the persistence of persistent identifiers of the scholarly web. Int. J. Digit. Libr. 23(1), 5–17 (2021).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Klein, M., Balakireva, L., Shankar, H.: Who is asking? humans and machines experience a different scholarly web. In: 16th International Conference on Digital Preservation. Open Science Framework, Amsterdam (2019).

  8. Klein, M., et al.: Scholarly context not found: one in five articles suffers from reference rot. PLoS One 9(12), e115253 (2014).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Lawrence, S., et al.: Persistence of web references in scientific research. Computer 34(2), 26–31 (2001).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Mannocci, A.: Analysis of scholarly repositories’ availability. Data and notebooks (2022).

  11. Pampel, H., et al.: Making research data repositories visible: the registry. PLOS One 8(11), e78080 (2013).

  12. Sansone, S.A., et al.: FAIRsharing as a community approach to standards, repositories and policies. Nat. Biotechnol. 37(4), 358–367 (2019).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was partially funded by the EC H2020 OpenAIRE-Nexus (Grant agreement 101017452).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Mannocci .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Mannocci, A., Baglioni, M., Manghi, P. (2022). “Knock Knock! Who’s There?” A Study on Scholarly Repositories’ Availability. In: , et al. Linking Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries. TPDL 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13541. Springer, Cham.

Download citation

  • DOI:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-16801-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-16802-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)