depends on the value of its coefficient. The cut-off limit is
usually 0.5. First Factor consists of variables whose coeffi-
cients take values more than 0.5. It can be seen from Table
7 that the coefficient of variables representing Factor 1,
i.e., Wider Exposure, Quick Dissemination, and Audience
Accessibility are 0.692, 0.733, and 0.839, respectively
(Column 2). Similarly, Factor 2 is being represented by
Reviewer Comments Posted and Counted Among Quality
Publications whose coefficients are 0.836 and 0.705
respectively (Table 7; Column 3).
It was observed during the survey that Users are of the
opinion that they get comments from readers quickly by
depositing academic output in IRs and incorporation of such
comments leads to improvement in the quality of publication.
On the other hand, some Users opined that publication
in an IR is considered as good quality of publication. In
any case, both the variables deal with the quality of
publication. Hence we can infer from the findings that
Wider Readership and Quality Aspect of publication have
emerged as major incentives for many users to deposit their
research output in IRs. Again, we must emphasize that the
majority of Faculty members and Research scholars do not
deposit their research output in IRs.
b. Policy to be adopted by Institutional Repositories
In order to identify appropriate policies, related to IR, to
be adopted by institutions, data on the following aspects
were collected from the users -
i Peer reviewed;
ii. Protection from plagiarism;
iii. No alterations in articles;
iv. Can be referred in other publication with due
acknowledgement;
v Inclusion in various indexing system for retrieval;
vi. Interoperability with other IRs;
vii. Permanent storage.
The Factor Analysis results are presented in Table 8.
Factor Analysis results, presented in Table 8 reduced
seven policy options into two factors. First factor is related
to Quality and copyright issues consisting of two variables,
i.e., Peer reviewed and Protection from plagiarism and,
the Second factor encompassing Academic Value includes
five options (i.e., No alterations, Can be referred in other
publication with due acknowledgement, Inclusion in
indexing system for retrieval, Interoperability with other
IRs and Permanent storage). It can be seen from Table 8
depends on the value of its coefficient. The cut-off limit is
usually 0.5. First Factor consists of variables whose coeffi-
cients take values more than 0.5. It can be seen from Table
7 that the coefficient of variables representing Factor 1,
i.e., Wider Exposure, Quick Dissemination, and Audience
Accessibility are 0.692, 0.733, and 0.839, respectively
(Column 2). Similarly, Factor 2 is being represented by
Reviewer Comments Posted and Counted Among Quality
Publications whose coefficients are 0.836 and 0.705
respectively (Table 7; Column 3).
It was observed during the survey that Users are of the
opinion that they get comments from readers quickly by
depositing academic output in IRs and incorporation of such
comments leads to improvement in the quality of publication.
On the other hand, some Users opined that publication
in an IR is considered as good quality of publication. In
any case, both the variables deal with the quality of
publication. Hence we can infer from the findings that
Wider Readership and Quality Aspect of publication have
emerged as major incentives for many users to deposit their
research output in IRs. Again, we must emphasize that the
majority of Faculty members and Research scholars do not
deposit their research output in IRs.
b. Policy to be adopted by Institutional Repositories
In order to identify appropriate policies, related to IR, to
be adopted by institutions, data on the following aspects
were collected from the users -
i Peer reviewed;
ii. Protection from plagiarism;
iii. No alterations in articles;
iv. Can be referred in other publication with due
acknowledgement;
v Inclusion in various indexing system for retrieval;
vi. Interoperability with other IRs;
vii. Permanent storage.
The Factor Analysis results are presented in Table 8.
Factor Analysis results, presented in Table 8 reduced
seven policy options into two factors. First factor is related
to Quality and copyright issues consisting of two variables,
i.e., Peer reviewed and Protection from plagiarism and,
the Second factor encompassing Academic Value includes
five options (i.e., No alterations, Can be referred in other
publication with due acknowledgement, Inclusion in
indexing system for retrieval, Interoperability with other
IRs and Permanent storage). It can be seen from Table 8
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
