OpenDOAR logo   Directory of Open Access Repositories


This is a legacy version of OpenDOAR that is running to allow the graceful migration of our users' API-based applications.

Records are no longer being updated, and this version will be turned off on November 21st, 2018.

Please use

The fate of suggestions to OpenDOAR 2008 to date

OpenDOAR aims to provide a quality assured list of academic repositories containing full-text materials that are openly accessible. OpenDOAR administrators check each suggestion manually to determine if it meets our Criteria for Inclusion & Exclusion.

As part of this quality assurance, OpenDOAR administrators carry out a detailed investigation of each site, to ensure that the site is both accessible and provides access to full-text content, without the need for a subscription or registration. In addition open access journals or sites which only provide access to collections of locally accessible materials are excluded. Repositories where both full-text and metadata entries are available in an open access manner, may be included, where all other inclusion criteria are met.

OpenDOAR currently rejects about one quarter of the suggestions it receives. Rejected sites are primarily spam, metadata only repositories, duplicate suggestions or open access journals.

Outcomes of OpenDOAR Suggestions 2008 to date

We may receive more than one suggestion per repository. For instance, we may be sent an initial suggestion plus one or more subsequent updates. These are all recorded separately. However, if two or more are received at the same time, the extra suggestions are discarded as duplicates.

Outcome of suggestions over time

Outcomes of OpenDOAR Suggestions 2006 to 2009

The overall annual number of suggestions has grown steadily, but the rejection rate has remained steady at about 22% of suggestions. There was a significant problem with spam during OpenDOAR's first two years. We added spam blocking functions to the Suggestions form in 2007, which significantly reduced the amount of spam received, and which seems to be staying at a reassuringly low level. (The proportion of spam in 2006 may have been greater than shown, because we did not initially differentiate between it and other reasons for rejection.)

© 2010-2014, University of Nottingham, UK. Charting program last updated: 24-Apr-2014 Privacy