Identifying the criteria of institutional repositories: examining the institutional repository of Al-Zahra University

Document Type : Research Paper


1 associate Professor; Tehran University

2 assistant Professor;allame- tabatabee University of Tehran;

3 associate Professor; Tehran univercity



Objective: The purpose of this article is to identify the institutional repository evaluation indicators and to evaluate the compliance of the institutional repository of Al-Zahra University with it.

Methodology : This research has used the qualitative method., the meta-combined method has been used to create the indicators. And the panel of experts has been identified to refine the criteria and a last part of the researcher-made checklist has been used to check the realization of the selected criteria using descriptive statistics.

Findings: The findings showed that a total of 70 elements divided into six categories (technology, policy, content, marketing, personnel and user application) are among the evaluation indicators which was obtained from the meta-synthesizing and the institutional repository of Al-Zahra University was evaluated according to these criteria.

Conclusion: According to the research findings, institutional repository indicators were conceptualized in 6 dimensions of technology, procedure, content, marketing, personnel and user, which serves the analysis of institutional repositories. The result is that the condition of Al-Zahra University repository corresponds to 3/4 standards in terms of standards. And a slight weakness is seen in some areas such as procedure and line and policy and content management and technology and personnel. Which should be carefully reviewed in weak areas and try to improve the quality of the institutional repository such as Spark.


Barrueco, J. M., et al. (2010). Guía para la evaluación de repositorios institucionales de investigación. Availableat:  
Barrueco- Cruz, J. M. et al. (2014) .Guía para la evaluación de repositorios institucionales de investigación, RECOLECTA, FECYT–CRUE–REBIUN.  Acceso. Available at: contenido/documentos/GuiaEvalua
Carr, L., & Brody, T. (2007). Size isn’t everything. Sustainable repositories as evidenced by sustainable deposit profiles. D-Lib Magazine, 13(7–8), 1–21.
Casal, M., et al. (2013). El acceso abierto en las universidades españolas : estado de la cuestión y propuestas de mejora. Mei, 4(6), 55–90
Cassella, M. (2010). Institutional repositories : An internal and external perspective of the IRs value for the researchers ‘communities’, LIBER Quarterly, 20(2), 210–225.
Cassella, M., & Morando, M. (2012) .Fostering new roles for librarians: Skills set for repository managers ‐ results of a Survey in Italy. LIBER Quarterly, 21(3–4), 407.
CAUL (2014). 2014 Research Publications Repository Survey Report. Acton: CAUL.
COAR (2015). Promoting Open Knowledge and Open Science Report of the Current State of Repositories.
COAR (2017). Next generation repositories: behaviours and technical recommendations of the COAR next generation repositories working group.Göttingen: COAR, pp. 1–32,
Crow, Raym. (2002). The case for institutional repositories: A SPARC position paper. (Washington, DC: Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition). Available at
Guédon, J.‐C. (2017). Open access: Toward the Internet of the mind, Budapest Open Access Initiative. Available at:
 Johnson, R. (2002). Institutional repositories: partnering with faculty to enhance scholarly communication. D-Lib Magazine, 8(11), Available at:  
Kim, Y. H., & Kim, H. H. (2007). An evaluation model for the national consortium of institutional repositories of Korean Universities. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43 (1). Available at:
Kim, Y. H., & Kim, H. H. (2008). Development and validation of evaluation indicators for a consortium of institutional repositories: A case study of dCollection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(8), pp. 1282–1294.
Lagzian, F., Abrizah, A., & Wee, M. C. (2015). Measuring the gap between perceived importance and actual performance of institutional repositories. Library and Information Science Research, 37(2), 147–155.
Melero, R. (2015). Altmetrics – a complement to conventional metrics’. Biochemia medica, 25(2), 152–160.
Melero, R., Abadal, E., Abad, F., Rodríguez-Gairín, J.M. (2009). The situation of open access institutional repositories in Spain: 2009 report. Information Research, 14(4), paper 415. Available at  
 Open Access Repository Ranking (OARR) (2015) Open Access Repository Ranking (OARR). Available at:  
OpenAIRE (2015) OpenAIRE Guidelines — OpenAIRE Guidelines 3.0 documentation. Available at:   
Primary Research Group (2012). The survey of institutional digital repositories. 2012‐13 edition. New York, NY : Primary Research Group, cop. 2012.  
Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J.(2003). Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. First Edition. Springer publishing company.
Serrano-Vicente, R., Melero, R., & Abadal, E. (2018). Evaluation of Spanish institutional repositories based on criteria related to technology, procedures, content, marketing and personnel. Data technologies and applications.
Swan, A. (2008). The business of digital repositories. in Weenink, K., Waaijers, L., and van Godtsenhoven, K. (eds). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press (A DRIVER’s Guide to European Repositories), p. 28 pp. Available at:
Thibodeau, K. (2007). If you build it, will it fly? Criteria for success in a digital repository. Journal of Digital Information, 8(2), 1–5.
Uhrenfeldt, L., H. Aagaard, E. Hall, L. Fegran, M. Ludvigsen, and G. Meyer. 2013. A qualitative meta synthesis of patients’ experiences of intra- and inter-hospital transitions. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69 (8), 1678-1690.
Vierkant, P. (2013). 2012 census of open access repositories in Germany: Turning perceived knowledge into sound understanding. D-Lib Magazine, 19, 1–14. Available at:
Waltz C.F., & Bausell, R.B. (1981). Nursing research: Design, statistics and computer analysis. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis.
Westell, M. (2006). Institutional repositories: proposed indicators of success. Library Hi Tech, 24(2), 211–226.