Care and feeding of health sciences institutional repositories: funding and administration models

Introduction: As more hospitals/health care systems (H) and medical schools (MS) launch institutional repositories (IR), there has been little attention paid to differences in funding and administering. We formulated questions focusing on funding, administration, and barriers to starting an IR in two types of health sciences institutions. Methods: A 12-question survey (Survey Monkey) was sent to a list of bepress health care network customers as well as regional and state medical library list-servs. The survey was open for three weeks and four reminders were sent. A total of 45 responses were received (35 with IR, 10 without IR). Incomplete responses were included in the final data. Results: IR administration was primarily through the medical library in both institution types (H: 14, MS: 9). However other departments such as medical education (H: 1, MS: 1), research units (H: 2), and the university library (MS: 1) were represented. IR funding was also primarily through libraries (H: 14, MS: 9) with research entities also providing funds (H: 2). For places without an IR, the top two barriers for both health care and medical school IRs were funding (H: 5, MS: 3) and lack of support from administration (H: 3, MS 2). Conclusion: Among respondents, most IRs were funded and administered by medical libraries. However other departments including medical education, research, and a university-wide library also provide support. Since survey data identified a lack of funding as the primary barrier to an institution having a repository, one solution could be to approach other departments, particularly those already involved in scholarship, to help shoulder the costs. Medical education and research departments in hospitals could become additional sources of funding