Author self-archiving in open access institutional repositories for awareness creation in universities

Abstract

The study explored the authors self-archiving to create awareness of open access institutional repositories in universities. The study’s qualitative approach was informed by the interpretive paradigm and the case research design. The target population was all twelve (12) open access institutional repositories managers. Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide and data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The study revealed that author self-archiving could improve awareness of open access institutional repositories. The study recommended that universities fully implement the author’s self-archiving protocol, and the university and university library should provide rigorous policies and incentives for author self-archiving.

Keywords:

• Author
• awareness
• institutional repositories
• open access
• self-archiving

Reviewing Editor:

• Guangchao Charles Feng, School of Communication, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong

Subjects:

• Databases
• Information & Communication Technology (ICT)
• Higher Education

1. Introduction

A version of an article may be self-archived in open access institutional repositories with the permission of the author in 79 percent of scholarly journals worldwide, and even those 21 percent that do not may be persuaded to agree to this practice (Washington University Libraries, 2022). The visibility of a research article will considerably increase if it is made accessible via self-archiving. More visibility raises the potential number of citations, saves the researcher time and effort because fewer people will seek an article when it is readily available and typically satisfies research funders’ openness requirements. Self-archiving is the act of uploading peer-reviewed research journal articles, conference articles, theses, and book chapters in the author’s institutional repository or open archive to increase accessibility, usage, and citation impact. (Roy et al., 2022). Although computer scientists and physicists had been using self-archiving on the web, Stevan Harnad’s 1994 ‘online post’ was the first to suggest it as a universal practice (Brown, 2010). The internal non-peer-reviewed version of the work, as well as the peer-reviewed version that was published in a journal, are two examples of different versions that can be self-archived.

The phrase ‘green open access’ has grown popular in recent years to distinguish this technique from gold open access, in which the publisher makes the articles freely accessible to the users (Gadd & Troll Covey, 2019). Green open access is a term that was developed in 2004 to describe a method of publishing in non-open access journals while also independently storing it in open access institutional repositories (Madalli, 2015). Open access institutional repositories first made green open access via self-archiving possible as more universities adopted self-archiving promotion strategies. Self-archiving repositories may contain copies of papers that have been previously peer-reviewed but do not conduct their peer reviews. Copyright may have been assigned to a publisher; self-archiving repositories also assume that the author who self-archives has the required authorization.

The right to self-archive preprints is only a matter of journal policy, as opposed to the right to self-archive post-prints, which is frequently a copyright issue (if the rights have been transferred to the publisher). According to the SherpaRemeo project, among 1,275 publishers, 70 percent permitted some kind of self-archiving in 2014, with 62 percent enabling both pre-print and post-print self-archiving of papers that had already been published (Scheufen, 2015). According to the project, out of 2,375 publishers, 41 percent permitted pre-print and post-print self-archiving in 2017. Only the final draught after refereeing, or the postprint, was permitted by 33 percent. Only self-archiving of the preprint, or the pre-refereeing document, was permitted by 6 percent of publishers (SherpaRemeo, 2022). SherpaRemeo gives the copyright and open access self-archiving policies of over 22,000 academic journals. Open access advocates, institutions, funders, and authors revisit together the open access future they would like to see and create a new grading system to define and guide that future (Gadd & Troll Covey, 2019).

Publishers who support self-archiving go beyond only final manuscripts that have undergone peer reviews, such as Cambridge University Press or the American Geophysical Union. Open access institutional repositories, subject-based repositories, individual websites, and researcher-focused social networking sites are among the places where self-archiving can be done (Fortney & Gonder, 2015). Self-archiving is subject to embargoes from some publishers; these embargoes can last for 6 to 12 months following the date of publication (SherpaRemeo, 2022). Some open access institutional repositories for embargoed deposits offer a request-a-copy button that users can use to request copies, and authors can deliver copies with just one click each (Sale et al., 2010).

Websites that use social reference management software, like Mendeley, Academia.edu, and ResearchGate make it easier for researchers to share information. However, these services are frequently criticized for violating copyright laws and using scholars’ contributions for profit (Fortney & Gonder, 2015; Jamali, 2017). Publishers also target them for copyright compliance, as seen when Elsevier (which acquired Mendeley) sent takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to Academia.edu for hosting scientific publications. Additionally, many grant sponsors, publications, and institutions’ self-archiving policies are not met by social networking platforms (Fortney & Gonder, 2015). In 2013, the German copyright was updated to incorporate a secondary publication right, which gives scientists and researchers the legal right to self-archive their articles online even if they have agreed to transfer all exploitation rights to a publisher. This amendment initiated a legal foundation for green open access in Germany. Results of primarily publically sponsored research are eligible for secondary publication right 12 months after the initial publication. The author’s version is self-archived, and no waiver of the right is permissible (Miao et al., 2016).

The advantages of adopting, sustaining, and using open access institutional repositories still seem not so common among academics. One way which could help improve the level of awareness of these open assess institutional repositories is through author self-archiving. An author is made to deposit or upload a copy by him or herself will go a long way to improve the awareness, by doing they get to know more about it. Academics constantly prefer to look for information that supports their teaching and research. Taking part in the process shows them where their beliefs converge and why the issues you are working on are important to them. Most universities self-archiving processes are mediated by the open access institutional repositories team on behalf of the authors. These uploads are done by the open assess institutional repositories managers and administrators sometimes authors do not even know their works have been deposited which they can share.

From a theoretical perspective, open access institutional repositories align with the fundamental principle of democratizing knowledge. They facilitate the dissemination of scholarly work to a wider audience, breaking down barriers to access information, promoting inclusivity, and fostering the exchange of ideas among scholars globally. Academic freedom and autonomy are also key theoretical motivations. Open access repositories empower authors to control and disseminate their work without the traditional limitations imposed by publishers or restrictive copyright agreements. This aligns with the academic principle of maintaining control over one’s intellectual output.

On the practical side, open access institutional repositories offer a wealth of resources that support both research and teaching activities. By encouraging author self-archiving, academics contribute to the collective knowledge base and provide valuable resources for their peers, students, and the wider community. Furthermore, many funding agencies now require grant recipients to make their research openly accessible. Self-archiving in institutional repositories fulfills these mandates, ensuring compliance with funding agency policies and increasing the visibility of funded research. Practical motivations also include fostering a sense of community and collaboration among academics. By participating in open access repositories, authors contribute to a culture of sharing and collaboration, encouraging dialogue and furthering collective academic endeavors.

Again, open access institutional repositories managers and administrators are overburdened with a lot of works to be retrieved and deposited and so sometimes it takes a longer time before they are uploaded, again sometimes the copy uploaded may not be the final edited copy. Majority of studies on open access institutional repositories concentrated on the deployment, implementation, adoption, benefits, and challenges of institutional repositories. However previous studies suggested that the low level of awareness of open access institutional repositories among academics in universities was a major obstacle to the growth of open access institutional repositories (Asadi et al., 2019; Kodua-Ntim & Fombad, 2020). Knowledge on open access institutional repositories awareness and awareness creation at universities is still lacking. The study explored the author’s self-archiving to create awareness of open access institutional repositories and was guided by the following specific research questions:

1. Do academics know about the opportunity to self-archive in open access institutional repositories?

2. Which self-archiving software is appropriate for academics to use in uploading their research works in open access institutional repositories?

3. How is self-archiving carried out in open access institutional repositories?

4. How much awareness is generated by the author self-archiving in open access institutional repositories?

This manuscript delved into the authors self-archiving to create awareness of open access institutional repositories in universities by initially discussing the literature review in section two. Subsequently, section three explored materials and methods, followed by the results and discussions in section four and five respectively. Finally, the conclusion in section six consolidated the findings and proposed recommendations for further research in this field.

2. Literature review

Self-archiving in open access institutional repositories is a crucial aspect of academic dissemination, allowing researchers to share their work freely and accessibly. This literature review explored academics’ awareness of self-archiving opportunities, appropriate software for uploading research works, the process of self-archiving, and the impact on generating awareness. Academic awareness of self-archiving varies among disciplines and institutions. A studu by Mutsvunguma (2019), highlights that while many academics are aware of open access repositories, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding regarding the benefits and processes of self-archiving. Factors such as disciplinary norms, institutional policies, and individual attitudes influence this awareness (Kim & Oh, 2018).

Various self-archiving platforms and software exist to aid academics in uploading their research to open access repositories. Studies by (Amorim et al., 2017, Schöpfel & Azeroual, 2021) suggest that commonly used software includes DSpace, EPrints, and Zenodo due to their user-friendly interfaces and compatibility with institutional repositories. However, the choice of software may depend on institutional preferences and technical requirements. The process of self-archiving involves several steps. Authors typically submit their manuscripts to institutional repositories through designated interfaces provided by the repository or via self-archiving software (Joo et al., 2019). This process may include metadata entry, file uploading, and adherence to repository-specific guidelines regarding formatting and permissions (Crowe & Meagher, 2015).

Author self-archiving has shown positive effects on increasing the visibility and accessibility of research outputs (Majhi et al., 2023). Studies (Sotudeh et al., 2019, Ng’andu et al., 2018) indicate that self-archived articles receive higher citation rates and greater visibility compared to non-archived works. However, the extent of increased awareness varies based on the discipline, content relevance, and promotion efforts by authors. The provision of electronic preprints and post-prints through personal webpages or depositing them into digital archives and repositories serves as a fundamental method for authors to freely distribute their research articles online and ensure their preservation within the swiftly advancing electronic environment (Kodua-Ntim, 2022). However, challenges arise with the reliability of such archives due to authors’ transitions across institutions, life changes, retirement, or decease, which may hinder easy access to digital prints stored in these collections.

Electronic prints, comprising pre-prints and post-prints, constitute digital renditions of scholarly research papers, contributing to freely accessible web-based repositories aiming for widespread dissemination of information (Kodua-Ntim, 2022). These archives encompass institutional research outputs from various entities such as universities, laboratories, and diverse academic disciplines like physics, economics, and mathematics, organized either by institution (e.g., eScholarship Repository for California University) or discipline (e.g., arXiv for physics).

Institutional repositories, referred to as OA repositories (OAIR), constitute pivotal platforms in the open access (OA) landscape, representing a novel addition to the scholarly communication system (Adeyemi et al., 2017). OAIR, structured databases designed for managing, storing, preserving, and disseminating an institution’s research output, play a crucial role by facilitating international exposure for academic research and providing open access to institutional resources through self-archiving (Adeyemi et al., 2017). Furthermore, OAIR contribute significantly to expanding research accessibility, fostering competition, and mitigating the dominance of journals, thereby offering economic relief to supporting institutions and libraries.

As highlighted by Okumu (2015), OAIR functions as a system enabling the collection and accessibility of various locally produced digital materials, encompassing an organization’s intellectual electronic resources. The content hosted within OAIR may vary among institutions, encompassing theses, dissertations, published papers, preprints, working papers, conference presentations, datasets, teaching materials, and similar scholarly outputs (Okumu, 2015).

Defined as digital archives for storing and disseminating institutional research findings, OAIR are repositories collaboratively built by faculty, researchers, and students, providing open access to users both within and outside the institution (Dlamini & Snyman, 2017). These repositories offer immediate and unrestricted access to a wide array of materials, including research articles pre-peer review, digital theses, dissertations, administrative records, course notes, and other scholarly assets (Ezema & Onyancha, 2016).

OAIR have emerged as integral components of technical infrastructure in research-intensive institutions, ensuring unrestricted access to research outputs and promoting a free flow of scholarly information. Although challenges persist in their evolution, the coordinated implementation and treatment of OAIR can significantly contribute to educational and research institutions’ progress. Acknowledging the technical limitations, strengths, and challenges associated with OAIR is crucial for effectively harnessing their potential as disseminators of research outcomes.

Institutional repositories play a crucial role in organizing, preserving, and disseminating an institution’s intellectual output, contributing to the broader academic community. Academics’ awareness of self-archiving in open access repositories is vital for maximizing the impact and reach of scholarly works. Utilizing appropriate software, understanding the self-archiving process, and acknowledging its potential to increase visibility can significantly benefit researchers and the academic community.

3. Materials and methods

A qualitative approach was informed by the interpretive paradigm along with the case study design for the study. A case study allows for in-depth analysis to be undertaken in a limited amount of time and on a restricted number of participants. (Silverman, 2013). The researcher employed a multiple case scenario, with each university serving as a case, to conduct an in-depth evaluation of the existing state of author self-archiving of open access institutional repositories to raise awareness among universities. The target population for the study group consisted of all twelve (12) open access institutional repository managers and administrators chosen purposively from five (5) Ghanaian universities. University of Ghana (UG), Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), University of Cape Coast (UCC), University for Development Studies (UDS), and Ashesi University were among them (AU). The universities were chosen since they were the only ones listed on the DOAR (DOAR, 2018). These universities had met certain operational criteria in terms of infrastructure, resources, and management of open access institutional repositories. The population was deemed uniform because the researcher believed the participants were stakeholders who aimed to improve the learning environment through access to information and other academic activities and services, all towards promoting the mission of the university.

Face-to-face interviews were done using a semi-structured interview guide after a comprehensive examination of the research methodology, design, and purpose of the study. Semi-structured interviews offered a conducive environment for participants, fostering relaxation and genuine expression through open-ended queries. Furthermore, the iterative nature of these interviews permitted adjustments based on emerging findings, refining strategies as the study progressed. Interviews were conducted using an audio recorder and some of the comments were written down, and each open access institutional repositories manager or administrator spent 30 to 40 minutes on average. The data were collected and analyzed based on a case study design that provided a rich and thorough description of the data. Again, the researcher spent enough time in the environment of the study to collect significant data. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis, which is a popular qualitative data analysis technique.

Thematic analysis is an analytical method that involves working with data, organizing it, breaking it down into manageable components, coding it, synthesizing it, and looking for patterns (Wright, 2013). However, it frequently goes beyond this, interpreting many facets of the study subject. The original audio-recorded interviews of the study were transcribed verbatim and saved in a computer database. These were carefully read and coded, and keywords and themes of the data were grouped and classified. The statements below, for example, illustrate participants’ comments on the extent to which author self-archiving could create awareness of open access institutional repositories.

“Author self-archiving promotes activity awareness and gives academics access to the most recent open access knowledge. Academics can learn about and discuss their self-archiving experiences”.

Furthermore, some serial codes were assigned to interviewees from UG (3), KNUST (2), UCC (3), UDS (2), and AU (2) to attribute their comments. For example, Self-Archiving Research Participant-1 was SARP1 and Self-Archiving Research Participant-2 was SARP2. The rest were SARP3, SARP4, SARP5, SARP6, SARP7, SARP8, SARP9, SARP10, SARP11 and SARP12. Ethical clearance was acquired for the conduct of the study. Additionally, the study adhered to every National COVID-19 protocol.

4. Results

The section consists of the findings related to the several themes that emerged as a result of the study’s purpose, namely, knowledge about self-archiving, appropriate self-archiving software, carrying out self-archiving, and awareness generated by the author self-archiving in open access institutional repositories.

4.1. Knowledge about self-archiving in open access institutional repositories

Open access institutional repositories managers and administrators were asked whether academics knew about the opportunity to self-archive in open access institutional repositories. Open access institutional repositories managers and administrators’ responses implied that academics had slight information on self-archiving opportunities on open access institutional repositories. They highlighted that, given their extensive knowledge of open access, they occasionally wrote emails on the subject. When asked how academic employees learned about open access institutional repositories, almost all participants said it was through the library, the Internet, or from fellow academic staff. When pressed further, SARP4 and SARP5 expressed a similar viewpoint, stating that,

“Academics awareness is improving. Within the university, we have teaching and non-teaching staff. The academics are very much aware of the repository through many programs that are being done in the Library. For example, training programs, sensitization and awareness creation programs organized by the Library so that the university community may know about it and also contribute their research articles to the repository for dissemination”.

SARP4 said:

“At the beginning of last year, we started training academics to self-archive. The reason is that their promotion is tied to their publications; we are giving them an easy way to crosscheck the publications they present. So one needs to put his work on the repository, just by a click then all works show up. And all your research output is known”.

On the contrary, SARP6 commented:

“It is very low here sometimes you talk to academics and the responses are that they are not aware, they do not even know what it is, so I think we need to create more awareness on the university campus”.

SARP7 shared his view:

“With my university, I think it is quite low and we will blame ourselves that we need to up our game. We have not done so much on awareness creation or advocacy, on the use of open access institutional repositories. We are strategizing on how best we can sell the open access institutional repositories and the open access concepts to the university public, especially to the academic staff who would have to feed the open access institutional repositories”.

SARP8 participant commented:

“Well, I beg to differ if it is well known amongst the faculty members. So for instance, what my department or units seek to do before the semester ends is to highlight the importance of open access to faculty members. We are about putting together a series of lectures that would be held in all five colleges so that we will educate academic staff on the use of open access (Table 1). We are planning to host open access week that is held worldwide every October. This will be the first of the kind in the Library”.

SARP11 supported the comment of SARP6 and SARP7 by saying:

“The level of awareness of open access institutional repositories in the university is low, even though we have links on our university website”.

Participants SARP1 and SARP2 stated that their users are diverse, including academics, researchers, students, registrars, administrators, and other stakeholders. When it comes to open access institutional repositories, the level of awareness varies depending on the user. Academics are well aware that whatever research output they produce must be submitted in the open access institutional repositories. SARP12 described it as moderate because they utilize it occasionally. All academics are made to publish in the open access institutional repositories. SARP3 said that,

“Within the university, I will say because of the deposits on our platform the awareness is increasing considerably. We decided that it was only the academic staff’s output that have something to do with academic work”.

“Some heard it during their postgraduate program overseas. It was through a lecture series that they got to know about it” (SARP6).

“When they went to do their masters at one of the foreign Universities. The open access institutional repositories is the door where they can have research output free of charge from an institution”(SARP5).

“There was this library website that they visited and realized there was this new concept coming up that is open access so they started delving into it” (SARP1).

SARP6 and SARP5 agreed with the comment of SARP7, saying that the library has played an important role in making open access institutional repositories known to the university community as a whole, particularly academics who are expected to contribute the most to open access institutional repositories. Some academics learned about open access institutional repositories from the library (SARP1). SARP3 also claimed that academics got to know about open access institutional repositories through the library, the Internet, or even colleagues.

“When some came to the university as staff the university through the library had a workshop on electronic resources that they participated in” (SARP2).

“When I came to the university as a staff in 2010, they had the Dspace but it was not all that functioning, we are filling it now” (SARP12).

SARP2 assumed that most academic employees were aware of open access institutional repositories via the library. SARP12 and SARP8 agreed with the comment of SARP4, stating that the Internet contains a wealth of knowledge about open access and open access institutional repositories.

“Some academic staff even publishes many of their research works in open access journals. Academics got to know about open access institutional repositories through the library, Internet, or colleagues” (SARP9 and SARP10).

“Others at University Teachers Association of Ghana (UTAG) meetings, that they are a member of UTAG” (SARP11).

SARP1 backed this assertion. SARP11 claimed that academics were aware of open access institutional repositories through the use of the Internet and the library. Their universities engaged in self-archiving activities such as research data documentation, storage and backup, training on research data management services, research data management plans, and data security, protection, and confidentiality. Most academics were unaware of the actions taking place in their universities in terms of open access institutional repositories. Managers and administrators stated that they are involved in the majority of the activities related to this theme. Few of the respondents addressed it.:

“The university supervises most of the research works. At times, the university through the library organizes workshops on these issues. The university helps keep data for long and also protected” (SARP3, SARP4, SARP6, SARP7, and SARP8).

4.2. Appropriate self-archiving software in open access institutional repositories

Open access institutional repositories managers and administrators were asked about which self-archiving software is appropriate for academics to use in uploading their research works in open access institutional repositories. All the open access institutional repositories managers and administrators said their universities have adopted the open-source software package DSpace and support author self-archiving (SARP1, SARP2 … SARP12).

Researchers and academics can publish documents and data using Dspace. DSpace is the software of choice for academic organizations creating open digital repositories because it fills a unique requirement as a digital archives system that is focused on the long-term storage, access, and preservation of digital content. It is customizable to satisfy the requirements of any institution, free, simple to set up, and free (SARP1-SARP4, SARP6, and SARP8-SARP11).

“Digital assets of various kinds, such as text, photographs, moving pictures, mpegs, and data sets, are preserved via DSpace and made simple and open to access (SARP5). Additionally, each DSpace installation benefits from the previous one thanks to a community of developers that are dedicated to constantly enhancing and expanding the software” (SARP7).

“Academic and research libraries utilize DSpace software most frequently as an open access repository for organizing faculty output” (SARP12).

4.3. Carrying out self-archiving in open access institutional repositories

Open access institutional repositories managers and administrators were asked about how self-archiving was carried out in open access institutional repositories in their universities. Managers and administrators of open access institutional repositories mediating contents uploaded to the open access institutional repositories in all the universities was a recurring theme in the responses. Concerning the theme, all the participants said that content was uploaded by open access institutional repositories managers and administrators. The participants said the mediated deposit was mostly used. One of them remarked:

“For now, it only mediated, let me say, the open access institutional repositories team are doing the uploads, we want to start the author self-archiving but maybe that will be done from next semester where we run training or workshops for academic staff so that they can archive, but now uploading is from the open access institutional repositories team” (SARP6).

Others said they do the mediation; they go for the content from the academic staff too, and they do the submission for them. However, SARP1 said,

“We have author self-archiving submission and mediated self-archiving so we do depend on faculty”.

SARP1 continued,

“They can do author self-archiving if the person can do it himself, but it does not come to life, we need to authenticate it. Then we make it available online. If there is enough training on the ground then it would have been easier for them to submit research work themselves but since there is inadequate training, we think that submitting onto the email platform is the best so that we can do everything for them”.

As previously said, the participants indicated that the open access institutional repositories team currently mediates most of the materials that they have there. In our case, we act as a bridge between academics and open access institutional repositories. According to the interview data, open access institutional repositories managers and administrators are in charge of material upload. Managers and administrators also provide technical support for the platform and manage any other aspects of user management (Table 2). SARP2 also confirmed this view:

“We determine the kind of materials we want to put on the open access institutional repositories. Some of them we have to scan, others we do not touch the content and we put the universities logo on it. Then a quality control personnel looks through and it is uploaded. We have another person who checks the metadata. And we have submitters who submit to the repositories. Metadata officer will check, verify and it is either accepted or rejected”.

When pressed further on how contents are archived into open access institutional repositories, the interviewees stated that they were involved in document uploading. Those involved in the entire archiving exercise stated that,

“We have two ways of uploading our open access institutional repositories we have that of the thesis and dissertations and also the university publications. Agriculture will go under the College of Agriculture and Natural Sciences so it depends on what we are to send to the system and that will tell us which community to send into” (SARP8).

"For the articles from faculties we look at the community in which the article belongs for instance if we have something on religion, it will go under the Faculty of Humanities and Legal Studies" (SARP10).

The collections are varied. They have theses, articles, collections of heritage materials, newspapers, and more (Table 3). The technique differs depending on the collection.

“So, with the public lectures, I deal directly with public affairs. They feed me with that information, and every academic staff that delivers, they then deliver it to me” (SARP2).

On the other hand, for research articles, employ two methods; we use software to pull public material from a single database. They also have research development officers for each college who collect publications and submit them to us (SARP1 and SARP2).

“Here, they usually received the softcopies directly through our head. We do these and in a while, it comes when we upload we wait till the next one comes before we upload. It goes through some checks though” (SARP12).

SARP4 reported that they have the old version, which is visible outside, but they are attempting to change it by upgrading to the new one. They are carefully picking research output from faculty and are currently uploading it into the system, despite minor difficulties.

4.4. The awareness generated by the author self-archiving in open access institutional repositories

Open access institutional repositories managers and administrators were asked about how much awareness will author self-archiving generate in open access institutional repositories. Regarding the theme, nearly all managers and administrators believed that author self-archiving could improve awareness of open access institutional repositories. Some of them mentioned:

“Author self-archiving promotes activity awareness and gives academics access to the most recent open access knowledge. Academics can learn about and discuss their self-archived experiences” (SARP3).

“‘What you hear, you forget; what you see, you remember; what you do, you understand’, is a well-known proverb. I am not sure who said it or where it came from, but it demonstrates that the author’s self-archiving will raise awareness” (SARP7).

Participants SARP1, SARP2, and SARP9-SARP12 believed academics can study and debate their own self-archiving experiences. Author self-archiving encourages participation awareness and provides academics with the newest open access information. For the academics, we have attempted marketing and advocacy, and our newest endeavor would be to seriously consider the author’s self-archiving. SARP5 said that;

“We have tried marketing and advocacy, and carefully thinking through author self-archiving will be our new expedition”.

“Yes. The best method of knowledge is by practicing and doing things for yourself. Modern technology uses simulation exercises to help us better understand real-world issues so that we can respond to them when they arise” (SARP4).

“Hearing is not as good as hearing, hearing is not as good as seeing, seeing is not as good as knowing, knowing is not as good as acting; true learning continues until it is put into action, that is when one can self-archive” (SARP6).

“Academics can learn by practicing as much as possible, but we can indeed learn from observing others and that learning completely depends on the willingness to learn” (SARP8).

5. Discussion

The first objective of the study was to resolve whether academics knew about the opportunity to self-archive in open access institutional repositories in universities.

The findings of the study revealed that academics had some information about self-archiving in open access institutional repositories. Almost all academics who knew got to know about open access institutional repositories through the library and the Internet. Most academics have not taken the effort to understand the concept. Otanda et al. (2015) considered it important to raise awareness among the university community about the benefits of open access institutional repositories and how they could be populated through author self-archiving. Kakai (2018) argued that the small number of academics involved in advocating and promoting the open access institutional repositories had an impact on the visibility and growth. The low level of awareness of open access institutional repositories among researchers and academics was part of the reasons why there were some materials in the open access institutional repositories (Kodua-Ntim & Fombad, 2020). Academics and researchers who are aware of the benefits of self-archiving and the long-term preservation of literature are optimistic about open access to institutional repositories. More recently, Schopfel et al. (2014) discussed issues connected to open access policies concerning their level of openness, paying special attention to different information categories in the institutional repositories. The study found that some of the items in the open access institutional repositories metadata were provided without full links to the full text. This practice tends to defeat the spirit of putting in a place open access institutional repositories, institutions should clarify and be explicit about their open access policies.

The second objective of the study was to determine which self-archiving software was appropriate for academics to use in uploading their research works in open access institutional repositories. University libraries with open access institutional repositories were using DSpace software. Institutional repositories are becoming increasingly important, and open access will set new standards for information sharing and management, most of the repositories were created by academic institutions using DSpace software (Kumar & Amsaveni, 2021). A study by Ezema and Onyancha (2016) looked at the archiving software used in the management of open access institutional repositories in Africa and found that Dspace and Eprints are the most popular. Most universities in Africa have adopted Dspace software, which is freely downloadable and easy to install and maintain (Table 4). The libraries are mostly dependent on the Information Technology (IT) department of the library, which is often already overburdened with other IT systems, thus providing divided attention, and slowing down the entire process. The inability of the library to build the author self-archiving capacity to initiate and support open access institutional repositories activities limits the process.

The third objective of the study was to establish how self-archiving is carried out in open access institutional repositories in universities. The findings from the interview relating to content archiving validated that open access institutional repositories managers, administrators, and team uploaded content. Generally, for academics to deposit their journal articles in open electronic archives, they need the tools and assistance. This is where library staff (open access institutional repositories managers, administrators, and team) come into the picture, making the process of author self-archiving simpler by providing resources that enable researchers to make their work freely available on the open access institutional repositories platform. These resources include not only the expertise of the academics in research submission processes but also the addition of appropriate metadata so that other researchers can find the research and the infrastructure (software) on which the archive is running (Kakai, 2018). The findings confirmed that universities engaged in activities of documenting research data, storage and backup activities, training on research data management services, research data management plan, and data security, protection, and confidentiality when it comes to open access institutional repositories. Roy et al. (2022) study show several key issues such as quality of content, metadata standards, preservation technique, workflow patterns, software customization, technical specifications, copyright policy, and compatibility with Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) need to be properly considered.

The last objective of the study was to ascertain the extent to which author self-archiving could create awareness of open access institutional repositories in universities. Most of the questions elicited a positive response from open access institutional repositories managers and administrators. University Libraries have not adopted the practice of developing information websites to guide users on how university open access institutional repositories are being implemented and how authors can self-archiving their works. Dependence on one-on-one, seminars and workshops, e-mails, and print marketing materials are not enough to reach the wider university community. For those who may not be able to attend face-to-face workshops, the process of author self-archiving on open access institutional repositories and how they applied to universities could be a good and permanent source of information. This could be an easy way of getting researchers to find information on open access institutional repositories from one location. For the same reasons that universities require publications, self-archiving is equally necessary to maximize the impact of all peer-reviewed research output (Harnad, 2017). Open access institutional repositories stakeholders should consist of those directly responsible for the day-to-day operation of the system and support positions such as marketing roles, training, and metadata contribution (through author self-archiving). The ideal condition for researchers is that the entire full-text refereed research manuscript is available online, on every researcher’s desktop, accessible anywhere, interlinked with all papers and citations, fully searchable, navigable, retrievable, and can rank research papers based on impact, and is always free (Harnad, 2017). Open access institutional repositories stakeholders (library staff, academic staff, administrators, and students) should be involved in the advocacy of author self-archiving in open access institutional repositories for its growth in the institution.

The findings of this study concerning academics’ awareness and engagement with self-archiving in open access institutional repositories align with recent research in the field, providing an opportunity to draw comparisons and advance current knowledge. Comparative analysis with recent studies, such as Mutsvunguma’s work in 2019 and Kim & Oh’s research in 2018, underscores a consistent trend: academics possess varied levels of awareness regarding open access repositories, self-archiving benefits, and processes. This persistence of limited understanding across studies highlights an ongoing challenge within academic communities (Kim & Oh, 2018; Mutsvunguma, 2019).

However, where this study goes the extra mile is in delving deeper into the reasons behind this limited engagement. It identifies the primary sources of information for academics, emphasizing the reliance on university libraries and the Internet, yet it highlights the lack of comprehensive understanding despite access to these resources. This detailed insight provides a nuanced understanding of the existing gap between information availability and actual comprehension among academics. Additionally, the study’s exploration of appropriate self-archiving software echoes recent research by Amorim et al. (2017) and Schöpfel and Azeroual (2021), which identified commonly used platforms like DSpace and EPrints. However, it goes further by pinpointing the challenges within university libraries, specifically the burden on IT departments, which impedes the efficiency of the self-archiving process. This identification of practical hurdles enriches the discussion by providing actionable insights into potential areas for improvement.

Moreover, the study offers an in-depth examination of the self-archiving process itself, emphasizing the crucial role played by university library staff in simplifying the process for academics. This aspect, although acknowledged in previous studies, is elucidated here, underlining the pivotal role of library staff in facilitating author self-archiving. In terms of generating awareness, while past research emphasized the positive impact of self-archiving on visibility and citation rates (Ng’andu et al., 2018; Sotudeh et al., 2019), this study explores the limitations in dissemination efforts. It highlights the inadequacy of conventional methods like workshops and emails, proposing the development of informative online resources and involving a wider range of stakeholders as potential solutions. This extends the discussion beyond the benefits of self-archiving to practical strategies for enhancing awareness effectively.

Therefore, this study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by not only reinforcing established patterns but by delving deeper into the reasons behind these trends, identifying practical obstacles, and proposing actionable strategies to bridge the gap between awareness and effective engagement with self-archiving in open access institutional repositories. This comprehensive approach offers valuable insights for academia and repository managers seeking to enhance the utilization and impact of open access repositories.

6. Conclusions

The paper proposed author-self-archiving for awareness creation for open access institutional repositories at universities. The study specifically investigated knowledge of academics about self-archiving, appropriate self-archiving software, carrying out self-archiving, and awareness created by author self-archiving in open access institutional repositories. It was gathered that academics had some form of information on self-archiving opportunities on open access institutional repositories. Also, it was realized that all universities had adopted Dspace software and it supports author self-archiving. Moreover, managers and administrators of open access institutional repositories mediated content uploaded in all the universities. Lastly, the study made it clear that the author self-archiving could improve awareness of open access institutional repositories.

The participation and collaboration of academics in author self-archiving activities are essential for open access institutional repositories. For academics, author self-archiving in open access institutional repositories would maximize content collection, growth, and one stock shop for all university publications. Most university rankings use five main categories in the following proportions; teaching 30 percent, research 30 percent, citations 30 percent, international outlook 7.5 percent, and industry income 2.5 percent. Therefore, research output (research plus citations plus a percentage of teaching) adds up to 60+ percent. The question is where do we find research outputs by the university community, the answer is journals and open access institutional repositories. Research outputs are spread out among many journals, which are not open access, and are difficult to locate, while the open access institutional repositories are open access and contain a pull of all university research outputs.

The study recommended that universities should fully implement the author’s self-archiving protocol; academics should be trained to be able to upload research works onto the system and passes it on to open access institutional repositories manager and administrators for final approval and subsequently online. Furthermore, the university and university library should establish author self-archiving policies (ownership, contents, quality standards, and copyright issues), as well as incentives for author self-archiving in open access institutional repositories. Specifically, to improve the level of awareness of open access institutional repositories in universities, it was recommended that:

1. The library should strive to fully shift open access institutional repositories toward openness and transparency, as well as to facilitate innovative ways to communicate (regular face-to-face and online events that invite academics to meet and present their self-archived research works) and monitor research (using monitoring software) to allow automated reporting.

2. Universities should work with other universities with established reputations to create an awareness and engagement plan for open access institutional repositories when it comes to author self-archiving procedures.

3. The university library should ensure that the content of open access institutional repositories is always freely and easily accessible online for the benefit of the university community.

4. The university library should identify individuals to advocate for the dissemination of documents and other material regarding author self-archiving in open access institutional repositories.

7. Limitations and future research

The study generalized findings without considering the diverse disciplinary practices and norms related to self-archiving. Future research could delve deeper into how disciplinary differences influence self-archiving behaviors among academics. The study focused on institutions within certain regions, potentially limiting the broader applicability of their findings. Exploring self-archiving practices across various geographical regions and diverse institutional settings could provide a more comprehensive understanding. Future research directions are as follows:

1. Investigate academics’ interactions with self-archiving tools to identify usability issues, preferences, and barriers, aiming for more user-friendly systems.

2. Explore how institutional policies affect self-archiving behaviors, evaluating policy effectiveness and areas for improvement.

3. Analyze self-archiving practices in collaborative and interdisciplinary research settings to understand unique challenges and opportunities.

4. Investigate ethical dilemmas, copyright issues, and legal aspects related to different content types in self-archiving to inform responsible guidelines.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Table 1. Knowledge about self-archiving in open access institutional repositories.

Key Findings	Analysis
Academics have slight information on self-archiving opportunities. Awareness is improving through library programs, internet, and colleagues. Some academics learned about it during postgraduate programs overseas. Awareness varies among users, with academics generally aware of the necessity to submit research output.	The majority of respondents indicate moderate to low awareness among academics regarding self-archiving opportunities. Libraries play a significant role in awareness campaigns. Postgraduate programs abroad and internet resources also contribute to awareness. Awareness levels vary among different user groups.

Table 2. Appropriate self-archiving software in open access institutional repositories.

Key Findings	Analysis
DSpace is the predominant self-archiving software. DSpace is favored for its open-source nature, ease of use, and community support. It accommodates various digital assets and is customizable.	DSpace emerges as the unanimous choice for self-archiving software due to its features and community support. Its versatility in handling different types of digital assets makes it suitable for academic organizations.

Table 3. Carrying out self-archiving in open access institutional repositories.

Key Findings	Analysis
Open access institutional repositories managers and administrators mediate content uploads. Some universities are considering transitioning to author self-archiving. Technical support and quality control are integral to the archiving process.	Current practices involve mediated deposits, with plans for future adoption of author self-archiving. Quality control and technical support are crucial aspects of the archiving process.

Table 4. Awareness generated by author self-archiving in open access institutional repositories.

Key Findings	Analysis
Author self-archiving can enhance awareness of open access institutional repositories. It promotes active engagement and understanding among academics. Hands-on experience fosters better comprehension and participation.	Author self-archiving is seen as a catalyst for improving awareness and fostering active engagement among academics. Practical involvement is considered essential for effective learning and adoption.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kwame Kodua-Ntim

Kwame Kodua-Ntim is an academic and librarian with a significant background in information science and library management. He is currently a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of South Africa. Prior to this, he worked as an academic librarian and lecturer at the University of Cape Coast. His research interests include information management, institutional repositories, open access, and library management.