Kenning Arlitsch|Patrick OBrien
Invisible institutional repositories
purpose google scholar difficulty indexing contents institutional repositories authors hypothesize reason repositories use dublin core cannot express bibliographic citation information adequately academic papers google scholar makes specific recommendations repositories including use publishing industry metadata schemas dublin core paper aims test theory transforming metadata schemas institutional repositories lead increased indexing google scholar designmethodologyapproach authors conducted two surveys institutional disciplinary repositories across usa using different methodologies also conducted three pilot projects transformed metadata subset papers uspace university utahs institutional repository examined results google scholars explicit harvests findings repositories use gs recommended metadata schemas express html meta tags experienced significantly higher indexing ratios ease search engine crawlers navigate repository also seems affect indexing ratio second third metadata transformation pilot projects utah successful ultimately achieving indexing ratio greater 90 percent research limitationsimplications second survey limited 40 titles seven repositories total 280 titles larger survey covers repositories may useful practical implications institutional repositories achieving significant mass rate author citations repositories may affect university rankings lack visibility google scholar however limit ability irs play significant role citation rates social implications transforming metadata difficult tedious process institute museum library services recently awarded national leadership grant university utah continue seo research partner oclc inc develop toolkit include automated transformation mechanisms originalityvalue little research published improving indexing ratio institutional repositories google scholar authors believe first address possibility transforming ir metadata improve indexing ratios google scholar