Click here to download

Learning from and participation to research evaluation processes: the role of Institutional Repositories
Journal Title: RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione 
Author/s: Serena Fabrizio, Emanuela Reale 
Year:  2016 Issue: 66 Language: Italian 
Pages:  17 Pg. 103-119 FullText PDF:  510 KB
DOI:  10.3280/RIV2016-066007
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 

The paper explores the potential role of Institutional Repositories for processes of evaluation of research results. It presents a methodology for the definition and classification of the content of Institutional Repositories that will be useful to outline the standards of comprehensive, comparable and defined outputs, to select those corresponding to the different mission and institutional activities carried out by research organizations (Universities and Public Research Institutions). The research question is: what is the value of the Institutional Repositories for the evaluation of public research organizations even beyond research activities? What kinds of output should an Institutional Repository contain to respond to both scientific requirements and comparability assumptions in the evaluation process, besides the sharing capacity and the flexibility inherent to the notion of Open Science? Through a case study on a specific Institutional Repository (CNR National Council), the paper proposes a conceptual framework to address the research questions, which is supposed to contribute outreach purposes, evaluation and sharing of science.
Keywords: Institutional Repositories; Open Access; Open Science; Research Evaluation; Publications; Output.

  1. AA.VV. (2015). D3–Report Finale. Tipologie di pubblicazioni e prodotti dell’Archivio Istituzionale. Progetto S&TDL. IRCRES-CNR.
  2. Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002). Interlending & Document Supply, 30(2). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  3. Caso R., Pascuzzi G. (2011). Valutazione dei prodotti scientifici nell’area giuridica e ruolo delle tecnologie digitali. RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione, XV, 49, 25-38
  4. Cassella M. (2008). I depositi istituzionali tra politiche mandatarie e strategie a sostegno dell’auto-archiviazione. AIDA Informazioni, 3-4, 13-28
  5. Crow R. (2002). The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper. Washington: SPARK. Ultimo accesso: 08/04/2016
  6. CRUI (2009). Linee guida per gli Archivi Istituzionali. CRUI, Roma. Ultimo accesso: 08/04/2016
  7. CRUI (2012). Linee guida per la creazione e gestione di metadati nei repository istituzionali. CRUI, Roma. Ultimo accesso: 08/04/2016
  8. CUN (2013). Proposta «Criteri identificanti il carattere scientifico delle pubblicazioni e degli altri prodotti della ricerca» ai sensi art.3-ter, comma 2, l. 9 gennaio 2009, n.1 e successive modificazioni. accesso:08/04/2016
  9. Day M. (2004). Institutional repositories and research asessment. A supporting study for the ePrints UK project v.0.1. December 2004.
  10. David P. A. (2003). The Economic Logic of “Open Science” and the Balance between Private Property Rights and the Public Domain in Scientific Data and Information: A Primer. In: P.Uhlir and J. Esanu (eds) National Research Council on the Role of the Public Domain in Science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  11. DRIVER 2008. Guidelines 2.0. Guidelines for content providers - Exposing textual resources with OAI-PMH. Ultimo accesso: 08/04/2016
  12. Force 11 (2012). Improving the future of research communications and e-scholarship. Force 11 white paper. Ultimo accesso: 08/04/2016
  13. Galimberti P. (2010). Verso un nuovo scenario per la valutazione della ricerca: potenzialità dell’Open Access e limiti imposti dal contesto., 1, 87-110
  14. Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny E., Schwartzman S., Scott P., Trow M. (2010). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: SAGE Publications Ltd., DOI: 10.4135/978144622185
  15. Guèdon J-C. (2009). It’s a repository, it’s a depository, it’s an archive: Open Access, digital collections and value. ARBOR Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura CLXXXV 737 Mayo-Junio pp. 581-595. Ultimo accesso: 08/04/2016
  16. Guerrini M. (2010). Gli archivi istituzionali. Editrice Bibliografica, Milano.
  17. Kennan M. A. (2008). Reassembling scholarly publishing: open access, institutional repositories and the process of change. PhD Thesis. Sidney: The University of New South Wales, Australian School of Business. Ultimo accesso: 08/04/2016
  18. King C. J., Harley D., Earl-Novell S., Arter J., Lawrence S., Perciali I. (2005-2006). Scholarly Communication: academic values and sustainable models. Berkley: Center for Studies in Higher Education., Ultimo accesso: 08/04/2016
  19. Jeffery K, Asserson A. (2008). Institutional Repositories and Current Research Information Systems. New Review of Information Networking, 14, 71-83
  20. Latour B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  21. Latour B. (2011). Networks, Societies, Spheres: Reflections of an Actor-Network Theorist. International Journal of Communication 5, 796–810. Ultimo accesso: 08/04/2016
  22. Law J. (1992). Notes on the Theory of the Actor Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity. Lancaster: Lancaster University. Centre for Science Studies., DOI: 10.1007/BF0105983
  23. Lynch, A. C. (2003). Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure For Scholarship In The Digital Age, in Portal: Libraries and the Academy 3.2, February, 327-336.
  24. Maness J. M., Miaskievicz T., Sumner T. (2008). Using Personas to Understand the Needs and Goals of Institutional Repository Users. D-Lib Magazine, 14, 9-10, 1-15
  25. OECD (2002). Frascati Manual. Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development.
  26. OECD (2015). Making Open Science a Reality in OECD Science, Tecnology and Industry Policy. Papers n. 25. OECD Publishing.
  27. Reale E., De Filippo D., Gómez I., Lepori B., Potì B., Primeri E., Probst C., Sanz Casado E. (2011). New uses of the institutional databases of universities: indicators of research activity. Research Evaluation 20(1), March, 47-60., DOI: 10.3152/095820211X129413718763
  28. Rieger O. Y. (2008). Opening Up Institutional Repositories: Social Construction of Innovation in Scholarly Communication. JEP The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11 (3)., DOI: 10.3998/3336451.0011.30
  29. Romary L., Ambruster C. (2009). Beyond institutional Repositories. SSRN, Available at
  30. Thomas G. (2010). Evaluating the Impact of the Institutional Repository or positioning innovation between a rock and a hard place. New Review of Information Networking 13(2), May 2008, 133-146
  31. Swan A. and Carr L. (2008) Institutions, their repositories and the Web. Serials Review, 34 (1), University of Southampton., DOI: 10.1080/00987913.2008.1076514
  32. Ware M. (2004) Institutional repositories and scholarly publishing. Learned publishing, 17(2). Wiley Online Library., DOI: 10.1087/09531510432295849

Serena Fabrizio, Emanuela Reale, Learning from and participation to research evaluation processes: the role of Institutional Repositories in "RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione" 66/2016, pp. 103-119, DOI:10.3280/RIV2016-066007


FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content