2012 Census of
Open Access Repositories in Germany
SIZE
HOSTING
VALUE-ADDED SERVICES
Authors : Paul Vierkant, Michaela Voigt, Jens Dupski, Sammy David, Mathias Lösch Amount of Items in all German
Open Access Repositories
704.121
Average Size of a German Open Access Repository
4.994
38% of all German Open Access Repositories are hosted
96% of all hosted Open Access
Repositories are running OPUS
40% of all 53 hosted Open Access Repositories offer a German and English GUI
small 34 medium 14 large 5
Number of hosted Open Access Repositories
Best Practice
HeiDOK is the only repository offering all six types of value-added services plus print on demand.
Other value-added services provided by repositories were print on demand, link to Google Scholar and email to author.
The 2012 census of open access repositories is a snapshot of the current state of open access repositories in Germany looking at different aspects such as the size, software, value-added services, etc.
The charts and best practice examples shall help stakeholders to improve open access repositories on different levels in Germany.
In Collaboration with :
LANGUAGE
54% of all Repositories offer a German and English GUI
OPUS DSpace EPrints Other
61 % 42 %
78 % 51 %
Repositories running the respective software offering a German and English GUI
Repositories in
Germany Amount of Items in the Bundesländer
28 27
11
22
11
8
8
2
5 4
1
2
4 1
4
3
78k
198k
63k
117k
18k
8k
54k 31k
30k
60k
1k
6k
15k 7k
6k
10k
141 Open Access Repositories
Bibliographic Export
56 %
OPUS DSpace EPrints Other
36 % 42 %
33 % 71 %
The smaller a repository, the more likely it supports
bibliographic export.
24 %
Usage Statistics
OPUS DSpace EPrints Other
31 % 21 %
11 % 23 %
The bigger a repository, the more likely it offers
usage statistics.
48 %
RSS Feed
OPUS DSpace EPrints Other
31 % 74 %
78 % 45 %
There is no relation between the size of a repository and its
support of RSS.
11 %
Social Networks
OPUS DSpace EPrints Other
11 % 14 % 22 %
9 %
The bigger a repository, the more likely it has integrated
social network functions.
45 %
Social
Bookmarking
OPUS DSpace EPrints Other
31 % 21 %
33 % 60 %
The bigger a repository, the more likely it does not support
social bookmarking.
36 %
Checksum
The bigger a repository, the more likely it does not
show a checksum.
OPUS DSpace EPrints Other
5 % 25 % 53 % 0 %
Except where otherwise noted, content of this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
1
2,3 3
4
2
2
2
5 6
7 8
9 10
TOP 5
1. elib Publikationen des DLR 46.136 2. EconStor 45.268 3. German Medical Science 41.753 4. PUB - Universität Bielefeld 32.695 5. ePIC - AWI 29.480
33% 26%
small 41%
Other 11%
EPrints 9%
DSpace5%
OPUS 75%
Repositories with
0-1.000 Items Other 46%
EPrints 27%
DSpace 5%
OPUS 22%
Repositories with 5.000-50.000 Items
Other 28%
EPrints 9%
DSpace 9%
OPUS 55%
Repositories with 1.000-5.000 Items
medium large
1) For this survey the definition of Open Access Repository includes repositories that are institutional, cross-institutional or disciplinary providing (in the majority of cases) full-text open access scientific publications together with descriptive metadata through a GUI (with search/browse functionality). The repositories are registered with a functioning and harvestable base URL in at least one of the following registries:
ROAR, OpenDOAR, OAI, DINI and BASE. (Date of survey: 2012-02-14)
4) Date of survey: 2012-04-24; Sources were the websites of the hosting services of the KOBV, HBZ, BSZ and Open Repositories.
2) Date of survey: 2012-09-14
3) „k“ stands for 1.000; These maps were created using „Locator map Berlin in Germany.svg“
by NordNordWest, Wikimedia Commons, licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0-DE URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/legalcode
5) Bibliographic export (at least one format, e.g. RIS) is available on item or collection level.
6) Usage statistics (e.g. downloads, views) are available for unregistered users on item.
7) Checksums (e.g. MD5, SHA1) of full-text publications are available on item level.
8) A functioning RSS feed is available on the home or browsing page.
9) Social bookmarking (at least one service, e.g. connotea) is available on item level.
10) Social networking (at least one service e.g. facebook, twitter or AddThis button) is available on item level.
Authors : Paul Vierkant, Michaela Voigt, Jens Dupski, Sammy David, Mathias Lösch In Collaboration
with :
Except where otherwise noted, content of this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
2012 Census of
Open Access Repositories in Germany
SOFTWARE
METADATA FORMATS
OPEN ACCESS
DINI REGISTRIES
OPUS DSpace EPrints Other
Repositories
Bilingual (Ger/Eng)
Repositories supporting
Bibliographic Export 55 Usage Statistics 18 Checksum 41 RSS Feed 35 Social Bookmarking 46 Social Networks 7
OAN Validator Score Ø 72 /100
77 39 Repositories
Bilingual (Ger/Eng)
Repositories supporting
Bibliographic Export 3 Usage Statistics 1 Checksum 0 RSS Feed 7 Social Bookmarking 3 Social Networks 2
OAN Validator Score Ø 72 /100
9 7 Repositories
Bilingual (Ger/Eng)
Repositories supporting
Bibliographic Export 8 Usage Statistics 4 Checksum 1 RSS Feed 14 Social Bookmarking 4 Social Networks 5
OAN Validator Score Ø 79 /100
19 8 Repositories
Bilingual (Ger/Eng)
Repositories supporting
Bibliographic Export 13 Usage Statistics 11 Checksum 9 RSS Feed 11 Social Bookmarking 11 Social Networks 5
OAN Validator Score Ø 74 /100
36 22
24 10
6
13
4
6
3 0
3 0
0
0
1 0
4
3
0
2
0
0
5
0
1 0
0 1
0
0
0 0
0
0
2
6
2
5
1
0
1 1
0 1
0
0
0 0
0
0
2
9
3
4
1
2
3
1
2 2
1
2
1
3
0
0
Simple Dublin Core
99 %
Qualified Dublin Core
4 %
XMetaDiss
30 %
XMetaDiss - Plus
43 %
METS
13 %
Epicur
66 %
RDF
7 %
ORE
2 %
LINKED DATA
Ø 40%
Repositories registered in all five Registries
Coverage of all 141 German Repositories
BASE Open -
DOAR OAI
64 % 56 % 77 % 70 %
94 %
DINI ROAR
133 108 99 90 79
1) Date of survey: 2012-09-20; The repositories were validated on the basis of 200 radomly chosen items using the OAN validator, cf. http://oans2.cms.hu-berlin.de/validator/pages/validation_dini.xhtml 2) These maps were created using „Locator map Berlin in Germany.svg“ by NordNordWest, Wikimedia Commons, licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0-DE, URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/legalcode
1
2 2 2
1 1 1
2
3) Percentage of repositories that de facto offer the respective metadata format via OAI-PMH. The listed metadata formats (“?verb=ListMetadataFormats“) were validated. Only de facto functioning metadata formats were taken into account. Period of survey: 2012-06/07
3
Institutions signing the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities :
1 4
4
3 1
2 1
1 1 2
0
0 0 0 3 0
23
small medium large
14 2 7
2 2
3
1 3
2 0
1 0 2
0
0 0 1 0 0
Institutions being a Member of the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) :
17
small medium large
11 3
3
Best Practice
The Karlsruhe Institute of Technology with its institutio- nal repository EVA STAR, is the only institution to be a signa- tory of the Berlin Declaration, to have a DFG open access publication fund and to be a member of COAR.
34% 7%
30%
4 16 11
small medium
large
DINI certified Repositories and their Percentage of the
respective Size Category : 11
22 24
19% 47%
65%
small medium
large
4) Date of survey: 2012-04-27; Signatories according to: http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/berlin-prozess/signatoren/
5) Date of survey: 2012-04-26; Institutions according to: http://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/ „searching for Open Access Publizieren“
6) Date of survey: 2012-04-26; Members according to: http://www.coar-repositories.org/member-and-
partnership/members-and-partners-by-country/
4 Institutions offering an Open Access publication
fund supported by the DFG :
4 5
0
4 2
0 1
1 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
17
small medium large
9 5
3
5 6
TOP 5
MONARCH 100 QUCOSA 100 EconStor 100 Edoc (HU Berlin) 99 KLUEDO 99 Out of a maximum score of
100 these repositories reached the following scores in the
OAN validator check:
52
8
17
OPUS
8
11
EPrints
2
5 2
DSpace
1
