Purpose: The purpose of this study was to bring to light the obstacles to collecting contents from faculty members in universities in Nigeria and South Africa. Design/methodology/approach: The study adopted a survey research design. OpenDOAR database search, online questionnaire, and IRs investigation methods were used to collect data from 41 institutional repositories in universities in Nigeria and South Africa. Findings: The study found that the most popular content submitted to IRs in Nigeria and South Africa are electronic theses and dissertations, journal articles, special items (Africana collections, images, artifacts, paintings), conference and workshop papers, and research and technical reports. The comparison of institutional repository development between the two countries revealed that, South Africa is far ahead of Nigeria in terms of institutional repository development using contents emanating from the universities. South Africa is a leading African country in terms of Open Access (OA) policies and South Africa embraced open access movement earlier than Nigeria. The study identified some factors such as: lack of awareness of the existence of institutional repositories by faculty members; lack of mandatory self-archiving policy by institutions or funding bodies; considering copyright and intellectual property issues; some faculty members are skeptical on the principle of open access; some faculty members are not interested in IR; some faculty members believe it is too risky to submit their research work to IR; lack of technical skills for some faculty members to self-archive as obstacles which are peculiar to collecting contents from various contributors in both counties. Research Implication: The findings will inform University Librarians, University management and policy makers on possible ways to overcome the obstacles to recruiting content to IRs. Originality/value: The study reported on the obstacles of recruiting content from faculty members in universities in Nigeria and South Africa and the findings will inform stakeholders by designing strategies to overcome such obstacles and populate the IRs with different contents.
AbrizahANoorhidawatiAKiranK (2010) Global visibility of Asian universities’ open access institutional repositories. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science15(3): 53–73.
2.
ArlitschKGrantC (2018) Why so many repositories? Examining the limitations and possibilities of the institutional repositories landscape. Journal of Library Administration58(3): 264–281.
3.
BaileyCWCoombsKEmeryJ, et al. (2006) SPEC Kit 292 Institutional Repositories. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries. http://works.bepress.com/ir_research/2/ (accessed 10 June, 2021).
4.
BanganiS (2018) The impact of electronic theses and dissertations: a study of the institutional repository of a university in South Africa. Scientometrics115(1): 131–151.
5.
BankierJGSmithC (2010) Digital repositories at a crossroads: achieving sustainable success through campus-wide engagement. In: VALA2010 conference proceedings. http://works.bepress.com/jean_gabriel_bankier/8.
6.
BaroEETralagbaECEbiagbeEJ (2018) Knowledge and use of self-archiving options among academic librarians working in universities in Africa. Information and Learning Science119(3/4): 145–160.
7.
BevanS (2007) Developing an institutional repository: Cranfeld QUEprint—a case study. OCLC Systems and Services23(2): 170–182.
8.
BosahGOkejiCCBaroEE (2017) Perceptions, preferences of scholarly publishing in open access journals: a survey of academic librarians in Africa. Digital Library Perspective33(4): 378–394.
9.
CaseyAM (2012) Does tenure matter? Factors influencing faculty contributions to institutional repositories. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication1(1): 34–33.
10.
ChenKHsiangJ (2009) The unique approach to institutional repository: practice of national Taiwan university. The Electronic Library27(2): 204–221.
11.
CoveyDT (2011) Recruiting content for the institutional repository: the barriers exceed the benefits. University Libraries. Available at:http://repository.cmu.edu/lib_science
DavisPMConnollyMJL (2007) Institutional repositories: evaluating the reasons for non-use of Cornell University’s installation of DSpace. D-Lib Magazine13(3/4): 45–52.
14.
Davis-KahlS (2016) Faculty self-archiving. In: CallicottBSchererDAndrew WesolekA (eds) Making Institutional Repositories Work. Charleston Insights in Library, Archival, and Information Sciences. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, pp. 20–31.
15.
DlaminiNNSnymanM (2017) Institutional repositories in Africa: obstacles and challenges. Library Review66(6/7): 535–548.
16.
DubinskyE (2014) A current snapshot of institutional repositories: growth rate, disciplinary content and faculty contributions. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication2(3): 12–24.
17.
EriksonJSRutherfordJElliottD (2008) The future of the institutional repository: making it personal. In: Third international conference on open repositories 2008. http://pubs.or08.ecs.soton.ac.uk/125/.
18.
EzemaIJOkaforVN (2016) Open access institutional repositories in Nigerian academic libraries: advocacy and issues in scholarly communication. Library Collections, Acquisitions and Technical Services39(3–4): 45–58.
19.
FriedaNYuleW (2019) Usage and impact of the institutional repository at the university of Namibia. Research Journal of Library and Information Science3(4): 12–20.
20.
GenoniP (2004) Content in institutional repositories: A collection management issue. Library Management25(6/7): 300–306.
21.
GulSBashirSGanaieSA (2020) Evaluation of institutional repositories of South Asia. Online Information Review44(1): 192–212.
JelagatSLOdiniCWamukoyaJ (2021) Content recruitment and institutional repositories in Kenyan Universities. Regional Journal of Information and Knowledge Management6(1): 76–96.
24.
JohnsonRK (2002) Institutional repositories: partnering with faculty to enhance scholarly communication. D-Lib Magazine8(11): 12–26.
25.
KaranjaM (2017) Development and management of institutional repositories in selected university libraries in Kenya. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya.
26.
KimJ (2010) Faculty self-archiving: motivations and barriers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology61(9): 1909–1922.
27.
LiYBanachM (2011) Institutional repository and digital preservation: assessing current practices at research libraries. D-lib Magazine17(5/6): 1–11.
28.
LoanFASheikhS (2016) Analytical study of open access health and medical repositories. The Electronic Library34(3): 419–434.
MarkTShearerK (2006) Institutional repositories: a review of content recruitment strategies. In: World library and information congress: 72nd IFLA general conference and council, Seoul, Korea, 20–24 August 2006. http://Www.Ifla.Org/Iv/Ifla72/Index.htm
31.
MarshRM (2015) The role of IRs in developing the communication of scholarly research. OCLC Systems and Services: International Digital Library Perspective31(4): 163–195.
32.
McDowellC (2007) Evaluating institutional repository deployment in American academe since early 2005: repositories by the numbers, part 2. D-Lib Magazine13(9): 19–25.
33.
MoahiK (2009) Institutional repositories: towards harnessing knowledge for African development. In: 1st international conference on African digital libraries and archives (ICADLA-I), Addis Ababa, 1–3 July.
34.
MutulaS (2012) Library automation in sub Saharan Africa: case study of the University of Botswana. Program46(3): 292–307.
35.
NgureMSharifAGatitiP (2015) Cross-border implementation of institutional repository: a case of Aga Khan University. The IFLA Library. Available at:http://library.ifla.org/.
36.
OmeluzorSU (2014) Institutional repository (IR) awareness and willingness of faculty staff to deposit research work: a study of faculty staff in selected public and private university in Nigeria. Open Access Library Journal1: 12–23.
37.
PinfieldS (2004) Self-archiving publications. In: GormanGERowlandF (eds) International Yearbook of Library and Information Management 2004-2005: Scholarly Publishing in an Electronic era. London: Facet, pp.118–145.
38.
RajuRRajuJClaassenJ (2015) Open scholarship practices reshaping South Africa’s scholarly publishing roadmap. Publications3(4): 263–284.
ShajithaCAbdul MajeedKC (2018) Content growth of institutional repositories in South India: a status report. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication67(8/9): 547–565.
