Value of institutional repositories and their role in ethical scholarly communication

• Published in: Central Asian journal of medical hypotheses and ethics = Centralʹnoaziatskij žurnal medicinskich gipotez i etiki = Medicinalyk̦ gipoteza men ètikanyn̦ Orta Aziâlyk̦ žurnaly Vol. 5; no. 3; pp. 225 - 231
• Main Author: Teixeira da Silva, J.A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: South Kazakhstan Medical Academy 30.09.2024
• Subjects: academic social networking sites; access to information; copyright; open access publishing; peripheral scientific communities; scholarly and unscholarly output
• ISSN: 2708-9800; 2708-9800
• DOI: 10.47316/cajmhe.2024.5.3.09

An institutional repository (IR) serves as an open access digital repository to showcase the academic output of that institute’s faculty members, staff, and students. The IR is important for scientifically peripheral countries whose research output is poorly represented on major bibliographic databases. IRs may function on a voluntary basis, in which academics are encouraged – rather than mandated – to self-archive copies of their work, either published papers, theses, conference proceedings, or other scholarly output. IRs can thus serve as a proxy metric to highlight institutes’ productivity. However, absent a mandatory archival requirement, content in IRs may be skewed, and absent motivational objectives, only conscientious academics will practice self-archival. Conversely, mandatory archival might be met with resistance, especially if free, viable and sustainable alternatives exist, such as academic social networking sites (e.g., ResearchGate) or preprint servers. Thus, investment in the creation of an IR will need to offer greater value and benefit than these alternative platforms. Not all output by an institute’s academics may be scholarly, such as publications in predatory venues, or publication of pseudoscience, fake science or fraudulent science. IR managers, including librarians, will thus also need to faithfully represent retracted and grey literature. These latter challenges might discourage institutions from establishing an IR, or might demotivate the maintenance of existing IRs because ethical scholarly communication ultimately requires the recognition and archival of both scholarly and unscholarly output.