Abstract
Institutional repositories aim to gather, treat and disseminate information resources produced in a given institution. The adoption of an indexing policy aims to improve information retrieval by the user community of the institutional repository, by proposing elements that standardize the practices of librarians who work in subject cataloging. The objective of the research is to analyze the perception of managers and indexers of Brazilian institutional repositories about the indexing policy for information organization and representation, with the specific objectives of performing a compared evaluation of elements and variables (characteristics, processes, and instruments) of the indexing policy regarding indexing and retrieval, discussion of vocabulary control procedures, and obtaining an overview focusing on the perception of the need for an indexing policy in Brazilian institutional repositories. Semi-structured interviews were applied to nine participants from eight institutional repositories to investigate the requirements, elements and variables of the indexing policy in the practice of managers and librarians of institutional repositories. The results reveal the need for improvements in the practices of the analyzed institutional repositories regarding the activities of subject cataloging, standardization of subject metadata, and vocabulary control, queries, and in carrying out tests or trials for continuous evaluation of indexing and information retrieval with users. The study also revealed that this scenario can be more positive if institutional repositories adopt an indexing policy for the practices they perform in repositories to be understood by managers and librarians as a tool to improve information retrieval.
Introduction
Indexing policy in university libraries has requirements, variables and characteristic elements of the organizational culture and sociocultural context (Fujita and Santos, 2016). In institutional repositories, the indexing policy should be observed from different aspects, considering that institutional repositories do not use the same standards of representation in metadata and do not store information resources collected in a traditional way (by purchase, e.g.), as occurs in university libraries.
Leite et al. (2012: 7) understands that every open access institutional repository can be considered a type of digital library, but not every digital library can be considered an institutional repository. An open access institutional repository constitutes a scientific information service—in a digital and interoperable environment—dedicated to the management of the scientific and/or academic output of an institution (universities or research institutes). However, both libraries and institutional repositories are information systems with a common goal, which is to represent and retrieve information. That is why, in institutional repositories, the indexing policy should be investigated from the perspective of those who execute their practices, managers and information professionals.
Developing an institutional repository involves several aspects. Its management, however, deserves to be highlighted. Creating a repository is a collective work that has to count on many professionals. As the activity directly involves the organization and dissemination of institutional knowledge, the inclusion of librarians for its management becomes fundamental as these professionals can ensure the quality of the representation practices of digital information content, prepared by the institutions’ authors, and can develop metadata according to international standards to improve information organization. In addition, and especially, it is necessary to ensure the content will be retrieved in subject searches in their systems available and accessible to users. Another aspect of indexing policy is precisely vocabulary control and the use of controlled vocabulary to improve subject search that facilitates retrieval of all valid information content for the subject sought by the user.
These aspects and other important requirements for the existence of an indexing policy are necessary in information systems that provide for information storage, organization, and retrieval, such as institutional repositories. On the other hand, are the managers and executive teams of these institutional repositories aware of the need for an indexing policy in institutional repositories as information retrieval systems? What are the elements and variables of the existing indexing policy in institutional repositories and how are they applied?
With the objective of analyzing the perception of managers and indexers of Brazilian institutional repositories about the indexing policy for information organization and representation, the present investigation carried out a diagnostic study of practices in Brazilian institutional repositories with the specific objectives of comparative evaluation of elements and variables (characteristics, processes and instruments) of the indexing policy regarding indexing and retrieval, discussion of vocabulary control procedures and to obtain an overview focusing on the perception of the need for indexing policy in Brazilian institutional repositories. For this end, data collection applied the diagnostic questionnaire by Tartarotti (2020).
Institutional repositories management and the indexing policy
The accelerated production of born-digital information resources (created in a digital environment) and the concern with their preservation are two factors that point to the institutional repository as a safe deposit alternative for digital objects, since they allow “long-term accessibility of the nation’s social, economic, cultural, and intellectual heritage instantiated in digital format” (Commission on Preservation and Access and the Research Libraries Group, 1996: 3).
An institutional repository is a scientific information service (in a digital and interoperable environment) that manages the intellectual production of an educational and research institution and, therefore, responsible for the collection, storage, organization, preservation, retrieval, and especially the dissemination of the scientific information that is produced in the institution (Leite, 2009).
Repositories are also defined as data providers for information management and can be of two types:
Digital repositories can be used in public and private institutions for the dissemination of technical-scientific production and provide self-archiving that provides better dissemination of research. Lynch (2003: 328) argues that it is “a set of services that a university offers to the members of its community for the management and dissemination of digital materials created by the institution and its community members.” In addition, it contains an information retrieval system through access points of the information resource and the metadata, which enables access to the digital document contained in the repository.
The operation of the institutional repository aims to promote visibility, collection, and storage of academic and scientific production, especially the preservation of intellectual memory. The successful implementation of an institutional repository requires good planning, a phase that involves the formalization of the project, its costs, team, and competencies, in addition to the analysis of the needs of the entire community that will be served by the tool. Thinking about the choice and development of software, definitions of standards, metadata, flows, elaboration of operation policies and pilot project results in a successful implementation (Leite, 2009). The most used software for repositories in Brazil is DSpace:
Developed to enable the creation of digital repositories with functions of storage, management, preservation, and visibility of intellectual production, allowing its adoption by other institutions in federated consortium form. The system was created so that it can be easily adapted. The DSpace repositories allow the management of scientific production in any type of digital material, giving it greater visibility and ensuring its accessibility over time (Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia (IBICT), 2020).
Specific knowledge on the Open Access movement is required to coordinate an institutional repository. The librarian is usually present in the staff team and often in the institutional repository management (Ferreira et al., 2021).
The Open Access movement in Brazil started to be discussed around the first decade of the 2000s with the aim of democratizing access to scientific information. The current information and communication technologies that serve to disseminate scientific knowledge were essential for the evolution of the Brazilian Institute of Information in Science and Technology (IBICT), created in 1954 with the purpose of registering and disseminating Brazilian scientific production (Brasil, 1954). The emergence of information and communication technologies, together with open access to information movement, results in a scenario favorable for the Institute to fulfill its initial mission (Kuramoto, 2006: 93).
The institutional repository sustainability does not depend only on the application of a specific software. It takes a set of requirements to be provided by an institutional entity that supports it, comprising physical and logical infrastructure, equipment, and human resources. In addition to the infrastructure requirements, the policies define the entire development and maintenance of any information system, especially institutional repositories created in an open access scientific policy context that aims to overcome the commercial barriers of multinational publishers (Anuradha, 2005).
The open access policy also needs policies of information organization and representation to have scientific communication. Repositories have the advantage of being built by scientific communities adept of open access, which, according to Lei Zeng and Mai Chan (2004) allowed the development of new guidelines and architectures with new metadata standards and knowledge organization systems without following conventional standards, however, aiming at ensuring consistency in indexing and information seeking. Hjørland (2021: 1) considers that “Information retrieval (IR) is about making systems for finding documents or information” and “Knowledge Organization (KO) is the field concerned with indexing, classification, and representing documents for IR, browsing and related processes, whether performed by humans or computers.”
The operation of the institutional repository, as well as all information systems, depends on the institution’s internal policies guided by guidelines, standards and pre-existing norms that aim at information organization, representation, and retrieval (Leite, 2009; Leite et al., 2012). For Almeida (2000: 6), “Policies or guidelines are general action plans, generic instructions that establish master guidelines, guide decision-making and grant stability to the organization.”
Considering the goal of managing an institution’s intellectual production so that it can be preserved and retrieved, the team of professionals performs management and information organization and representation activities specific to the institutional repository’s context and informational culture aiming at subject retrieval in addition to preservation purposes in the digital environments.
The purpose of indexing is to represent content in a way it can be retrieved. For a more satisfactory result, a policy aligned with the demands of the institution is necessary. The indexing policy, therefore, is formulated by the professional staff considering the institutional context with its infrastructure requirements, user community, and institutional goals and interests.
Indexing is a process of subject analysis for representing the significant content of printed or digital information resources, whose goal is subject-specific and/or exhaustive access and retrieval with and without vocabulary control in information systems. Subject determination, whether by keyword or descriptor, is indexing. Considering that institutional repositories need to provide broad subject access to the content it stores to give visibility to the scientific knowledge of the institution that maintains it, subject indexing becomes a highly strategic process because subject access is a result of subject indexing (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), 2011). Therefore, libraries, museums, archives, and digital databases perform the indexing process.
Subject indexing is needed because publication titles and tables of contents do not always offer sufficient information; sometimes they even contain misleading terms. Subject indexing is the basis for finding relevant information successfully by offering synonym search terms and standardising natural, ambiguous language. [. . .] Today’s enormous amount of published information can be reduced and categorized using one of several available indexing methods (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), 2011: 6).
On the other hand, it is necessary to understand that, as it is an intermediate processing operation, indexing is not carried out unless other cataloging conditions of the stored information resources are performed, and indexing does not reach the necessary standardization for precision, specificity, exhaustiveness and correctness in subject access without vocabulary control tools, controlled vocabularies and thesauri. Therefore, it is not an isolated process from other processes, but a dependent one.
For indexing to take place, a policy that ensures its operational conditions and, consequently, the access to the subject by searches is needed. The formulation of the indexing policy should be conducted by all those who plan, execute, use, and evaluate, that is, managers, information professionals, and internal or external users so that management activities, and the activities of information organization and representation are discussed (Bourdon and Landry, 2007). According to Fujita (2012: 22) indexing policy is “a set of procedures, materials, norms and techniques guided by decisions that reflect the practice and theoretical principles of the organizational culture of an information system.”
From the perspective of standardization and systematization of conduct and practices, networks of Brazilian libraries such as the Superior Court of Justice (BRASIL, Superior Tribunal de Justiça, Secretaria de Documentação, 2009), São Paulo State University (Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho; Coordenadoria Geral de Bibliotecas, 2017), Federal University of São Carlos (Sistema Integrado de Bibliotecas/UFSCar, 2021) have developed and implemented an indexing policy based on Rubi’s (2008) methodology to ensure better visibility of all actors (user, indexer, authors, and managers) in the evaluation of cataloging, indexing and document retrieval operations in their catalogs. The indexing policy methodology originates from Carneiro’s (1985) study, who recommends the evaluation of requirements, elements and indexing variables existing in information retrieval systems. The elaboration and implementation of the indexing policy realized in the network of university libraries at UNESP (Fujita, 2016) was evaluated after implementation and considered essential for achieving specificity and exhaustiveness in the development of the UNESP Thesaurus and in the retrieval of information in the online catalog (Rosas et al., 2016)
According to Carneiro (1985), management activities evaluate the requirements that provide the infrastructure of the institutional repository and support the activities of information organization and representation on which the elements and variables of the indexing policy will be evaluated and defined. The requirements comprise, according to Carneiro (1985), the organization and environment in which the information retrieval system is inserted, the clientele and the financial, material, and human resources. The activities of information organization and representation comprise, according to Carneiro (1985), seven elements (coverage of subjects, selection and acquisition of source documents, indexing process, search strategy, system response time, form of output, and evaluation of the information retrieval system) and five variables of the indexing policy (exhaustiveness, specificity, choice of indexing language, recall, and precision).
Gomes (1989: 162), when referring to documental activity, here seen as an activity of information organization and representation, states that it develops “[. . .] on two perpendicular axes: on the horizontal axis corresponding to the activities of planning, administration, evaluation, and on the vertical axis, there included the activities of indexing/retrieval and/or the elaboration of documentary languages” and considers that “the set of these activities integrates and interrelates, being a system; one can discuss, in practice, each component of the information system, but one cannot do it in isolation.”
The vertical and horizontal axes by Gomes (1989) and the activities by Carneiro (1985) are visualized in Figure 1:
Axes of the indexing policy.
Based on the conception of the indexing policy for information retrieval systems by Carneiro (1985), we updated the composition of both activities considering the current Internet context and the institutional repository environment to apply in the semi-structured interview scripts based on the Tartarotti (2020) Questionnaire according to Chart 1:
Indexing policy updated according to Carneiro (1985) and its application in the semi-structured interview with managers and IR catalogers/indexers.
Source: By the authors, 2022.
The management activity in the updated conception is composed of the organization requirements (institution that provides the institutional infrastructure), user community, and financial, material, and human resources. The information organization and representation activities are divided into elements (subject coverage, selection and collection of source documents, physical description process, indexing process, search strategy, subject access, and system evaluation for subject retrieval) and indexing policy variables (level of specificity, level of exhaustiveness, choice of controlled vocabulary, recall capability and system precision, consistency, and correctness).
The formulation of the indexing policy in institutional repositories depends on previous evaluation of the general functioning, and this study needs to be conducted with the management team and information professionals who take care of the management activities and information organization and representation. A questionnaire should be applied, preferably with a semi-structured interview, to learn about the various aspects that contribute to the information retrieval system of the institutional repository. With this purpose, we conducted a diagnostic study of the indexing policy in Brazilian institutional repositories with analysis of the perception of managers and indexers by collecting data through semi-structured interviews.
Methodology
The methodology adopted for this study has a descriptive exploratory character and qualitative nature, considering that a questionnaire with semi-structured interviews was used to collect data and its analysis is descriptive accompanied by inferences and interpretations based on the referenced literature.
The sample of repositories to apply the questionnaire was selected from the list of repositories obtained by Fujita and Tolare (2019), who carried out their research on the analysis of vocabulary control in institutional repositories in the list of the Brazilian Institute of Information in Science and Technology (IBICT 1 ) which included 107 repositories, 91 of which were selected due to the unavailability of websites and others that were not repositories. The analysis of vocabulary control was performed by Fujita and Tolare (2019) in the search interface of the repositories and aimed to identify the type of controlled vocabulary used by the repositories from the IBICT list considering the classification by Zeng (2008) with four categories:
- List of terms: glossaries, dictionaries, selection lists, synonym rings;
- Metadata-like templates: authority files, directories, gazetteers;
- Classification and categorization: lists of subject headings, library classification schemes, taxonomies and category schemes;
- Relationship models: thesauri, semantic networks and ontologies.
The results of this investigation reveal that only six repositories use thesaurus and lists of subject headings that correspond to models of relationship and classification and categorization (Zeng, 2008), 74 (86%) use a list of authorized subjects in alphabetical order available in the search interface corresponding to the list of terms (Zeng, 2008) and 11 do not provide an alphabetical or structured list of authorized terms in the search interface.
The institutional repositories were selected based on three main categories defined by Fujita and Tolare (2019): A-vocabulary control with controlled vocabularies of the relationship-model type; B-use of controlled vocabularies of the metadata-like model type; and C-use of uncontrolled or free vocabulary. However, only the first two categories have representative repositories in the data collection, according to Chart 2:
Repositories selected for the interview.
Source: Fujita and Tolare (2019).
In a previous step to the semi-structured interview, data collection was conducted on the websites of the eight institutional repositories to analyze information about aspects of vocabulary control available to users of the repository, comprising used controlled vocabularies, search interface features, metadata format, document typology, tutorials, and languages.
As an instrument for data collection, the semi-structured interview script by Tartarotti (2020, Supplemental Appendix) containing a list of open questions was used. It was applied to the institutional repositories of CRUESP (Council of Rectors of the State Universities of São Paulo), which encompass the scientific production of USP (Digital Library of the Intellectual Production of the USP - BDPI), UNESP (UNESP Institutional Repository), and UNICAMP (Repository of Scientific and Intellectual Production of UNICAMP).
For the semi-structured interviews with the institutional repositories’ managers and indexing librarians, a script was used, based on the methodology of the introspective technique Verbal Protocol (VP) to characterize the institutional repositories adapted from Tartarotti (2020), divided into: procedures prior to the application of the interview, procedures during the application of the interview, and procedures after the application of the interview.
Procedures prior to the application of the interview
Definition of the research universe identifying the context of the institutional repositories for data collection; selection of participants (managers and indexing librarians); definition of the interview (conducting a pre-test to better fit the following interviews and collection of documentation on institutional repositories); selection of base-text (use of two questionnaires, one for managers to identify the profile of the chosen institutional repositories and another one for indexing librarians); informal conversation with the participants (before starting the interview, the participants were informed about the research objectives and its importance for the indexing policy in institutional repositories). It was explained that the identity of the participants would be preserved, and the Informed Consent Form (ICF) was sent for signature.
Procedures during the interview
The Google Meet tool was used to record the semi-structured interviews with the institutional repository managers and indexing librarians, totaling nine interviews from eight different institutional repositories. The interviews were carried out from April 17 to June 15, 2020.
Procedures after the interview
Literal transcription of the interviewees’ speeches, preserving the identity through initialisms for the institutions’ manager (M) or indexing librarian (I). Then, a detailed reading was performed in search of significant data representative of the created and adopted categories.
The categories of analysis, outlined by Tartarotti (2020), were defined in this research based on the context of the institutional repository operation, in view of the management activities (horizontal axis) and the activities of information organization and representation (vertical axis):
Categories of the management activities: (1) Implementation of the institutional repository; (2) Operation policy and documentation of the institutional repository; (3) The user of the institutional repository.
Categories of information organization and representation activities: (4) Descriptive cataloging in the institutional repository and (5) Subject cataloging in the institutional repository; and (6) Adoption of controlled vocabularies in the Institutional Repository, and (7) Improvement actions in the descriptive and subject cataloging.
With the intention of performing comparative evaluation of characteristics and main tools regarding indexing and retrieval, discussion of vocabulary control procedures, and obtaining an overview focusing on indexing policy in Brazilian institutional repositories, the results of the analysis categories of the eight institutional repositories are discussed based on the theoretical underpinnings presented in Section 2 to identify needs and possibilities for advancement regarding indexing policy for repositories.
Results
The results of the interview analysis are preceded by the analysis of the structural characteristics and vocabulary control of each of the eight repositories whose presentation is in item 4.1 and serve as a complement to the results of the transcripts analysis presented in item 4.2. The results of the transcript analysis are organized in the categories previously defined for the analysis of the characteristics, processes, and instruments of descriptive cataloging and subject cataloging as to indexing and retrieval, discussion of vocabulary control procedures and obtaining a panorama focused on the indexing policy of the eight Brazilian institutional repositories.
Analysis of the structural and vocabulary control characteristics of the sample institutional repositories
The sample repositories were first analyzed for their structural characteristics and then, more specifically, for their vocabulary control characteristics from observation and description of the information available on their websites such as used controlled vocabularies, search interface features, metadata format, document typology, tutorials, and languages. The results of this analysis presented in Chart 3 complement the information derived from the analysis of the transcripts of the interviews with managers and librarians.
Comparative synthesis of structural characteristics and vocabulary control.
Source: Research data.
In Embrapa Open Access Repository of Scientific Information (ALICE) 2 the information resources are grouped by authors, titles, subjects, and date of submission to the repository. On the tab above the repository page, one can find a search menu for the Embrapa units, document date, author, title, typology, and subject; and for metadata standardization, the Dublin Core format is used.
In Fiocruz Institutional Repository (ARCA) 3 In the tab above the repository’s page, one can find a search menu for communities and collections, document date, authors, title, subject, type of document, and access; and Dublin Core is the metadata format with terms in Portuguese and English in the keywords.
In Collection of Educational Resources in Health (ARES), 4 on the right side of the repository page, one can find a search menu for institution, author, title, DeCS keywords, target audience, subject area, and educational level; DeCS keywords presents an alphabetical list of 3729 terms in Portuguese and English present in the keywords of the information resources’ metadata. It presents an instruction guide for filling out the metadata.
In Virtual Health Library - Health Economics (BVS-ECOS), 5 in the tab above the repository page, one can find a search menu for collection, date, author, title, and subject; the metadata format is not informed. The performed retrieval informs the title, abstract, and terms assigned in the subject.
In Repository of the Minas Gerais Legislative Assembly (ALMG), 6 on the right side of the repository page, one can find a search menu for communities and collections, document date, authors, titles, and subjects; and Dublin Core is the metadata format with the use of terms in Portuguese.
Digital Library of the Chamber of Deputies 7 uses DSpace version 6.3, the descriptive metadata follows the Dublin Core standard, it uses permanent identifiers that ensure the preservation of the items, and adopts the Creative Commons copyright license for most of the information resources. On the left side of the repository page, one can find a search menu for collections, dates, authors, titles, and subjects Dublin Core is the metadata format with terms in Portuguese.
In FGV Digital Repository, on the left side of the repository page, one can find a search menu for FGV community, author, advisor, subject, title, date, and keyword; keyword presents an alphabetical list of 40,091 terms present in the titles of the information resources; Dublin Core is the metadata format terms in Portuguese.
In Institutional Repository of the Federal University of Minas Gerais (RI-UFMG), 8 on the left side of the repository page, one can find a search menu for communities and collections, submission date, author, title, subject, and keywords; Dublin Core is the metadata format with terms in Portuguese. The subject field retrieves the document for the subject indexed in the metadata.
Analysis of the indexing policy from the perception of institutional repositories’ managers and librarians
The perception of managers and indexers regarding the indexing policy in institutional repositories was analyzed based on the transcripts of their recordings collected during the semi-structured interview. From the reports, information was extracted and presented in six categories of analysis divided into two axes: Management activities (categories 1–3) and Information organization and representation activities (categories 4–7), presented below:
Category 1—Implementation of the institutional repository
Regarding the historical path of implementation of the repositories, they were implemented in different years and all of them had strong institutional support mainly because of the need for digital preservation (Chart 4):
Comparative synthesis of the historical path of implementation.
Source: Research data.
ALICE was developed between 2007 and 2008 as Embrapa had, at that time, born-digital information resources and in line with the Open Access Movement. In 2005, BVS-ECOS started from the initiative of the Department of Health Economics of the Ministry of Health to create an area of Health Economics, currently the Department of Health Economics, with the purpose of disseminating and managing data and information related to the Health area.
ARES was conceived in late 2010 and early 2011, and its planning involved a metadata study, choice of platforms, and DSpace customization, being implemented in early 2012. ARCA repository at Fiocruz was institutionalized in 2014 through an ordinance, however, it began as a project of the Scientific and Technological Information Laboratory in 2009. UFMG Institutional Repository was started in 2010 in the Information Governance Directorate sector and implemented in 2019 when it encompassed the theses and dissertations library and expanded the archiving of other documentary types.
ALMG repository transitioned from the printed version with the beginning of activities in 1982 to the digital environment, through a partnership between the Legislative Assembly and the Computing and Data Processing Center of the Federal Senate - Prodasen. The Repository of the Chamber of Deputies had its first project in 2008 and was launched in October 2009 named the Digital Library of the Chamber of Deputies.
Category 2—Institutional repository operation and documentation policy
Regarding the general guidelines and respective formalized information resources that govern the operation of the repositories (Chart 5):
Comparative synthesis of operation and documentation policies.
Source: Research data.
FGV has a recent policy available for access on the repository page with guidelines for researchers to deposit articles and information resources in the environment but does not have a formalized operation instruction manual. BVS-ECOS’ and RI-UFMG’s policies are described in their internal rules, but they are not formalized in their own document with a publication decree. Created during the implementation period, the ARES collection development policy is available for consultation in the environment and in the UNASUS portal.
Neither ARCA nor the Digital Library of the Chamber of Deputies have a formalized policy of exclusive use to the internal team. The same reality is observed for ALICE and RI-UFMG, but actions in this direction will be conducted by the management team. ALMG has an internal policy with guidelines dedicated to the inclusion of new information resources in the repository, in addition to presenting information about the types of information resources relative to the institutional memory of the Legislative Assembly.
As for the operation team, in ARES, BVS-ECOS, and Chamber of Deputies Library repositories the participants are librarian managers, in FGV and RI-UFMG repositories the participants function as coordinators, in ALMG both are operational managers responsible for managing and feeding the database. The librarians at ARCA are public health technologists who work in the technical coordination of the repository, information management, management of the underlying units, user service, and curation. In addition to having a degree in Librarianship, the professionals interviewed from the institutional repositories of ALMG, ARES and FGV have specialization courses, while the professionals at ARCA and the manager of RI-UFMG have academic master’s degrees. In ALICE, there are two Information Technology professionals, one of them a systems analyst and the other specialized in data management and research in data organization.
FGV has the largest number of professionals, five in total. ARES had a team of five librarians once, and had the support of an intern, but now only one professional runs the activities. In ALMG, the team is composed of two librarians, who participated in the interviews. In ARCA, the team is made up by the two interviewed librarians who work with the management of the institutional repository and have other collaborators, including library technicians, systems analysts, interns, and a librarian who works with the management of the repository. RI-UFMG counts with four librarians, including the manager, two interns and other collaborators, and in BVS-ECOS, the professional works in the repository management together with the BIREME team.
Category 3—The user of the institutional repository
Perspective about the academic and user community of the investigated institutional repositories (Chart 6) in relation to information resources retrieval through improvements in standardization, vocabulary control, and tests or trials to evaluate indexing and information retrieval.
Comparative synthesis on the user in information retrieval.
Source: Research data.
As for the perception about the user of the repository in the information resource retrieval, the Chamber of Deputies repository is concerned about AACR2 standardization and use of the controlled vocabulary by the Library Network. The awareness that the ARCA repository serves a scientific community of specialized domains has a lot of influence on the repository staff’s understanding of the need for specificity in indexing. If these professionals do not have this awareness, indexing will become generalist and that will impair retrieval, as reported: “[. . .] one of the barriers of a good indexing and even the understanding of an indexing policy construction [what the indexer needs to understand is that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between indexing and subject retrieval] yes, exactly, so I consider this a problem today in indexing, in the specificity of indexing” (M-ARCA).
This specificity situation is analyzed because the vocabulary is rigid in terms of not creating new terms, which prevents the user from retrieving information: “It’s been a year and we still don’t have the term (. . .) another problem we have, and I think this one is very serious, is in relation to authority control, which does not exist in the thesaurus (. . .) we group the words so as to give the idea of the institution, so, for example, if it is a . . . Labor’s Party, instead of creating an institution within the vocabulary, within the controlled language, we would put it like this: Party "little dash" Labor . . . I have the impression that, if we look deeper into semantics, this is not the same thing, and it hampers when it comes to seeking. I think that the thesaurus, the controlled language has serious problems . . . that hinders retrieval” (M-ALMG).
Regarding tests or trials for periodic evaluation of indexing in the institutional repository, FGV, ARCA, and RI-UFMG do not perform them. ARES performed a review of the indexing of certain fields such as controlled vocabulary, keyword, and author in 2015. BVS-ECOS constantly conducts training to update professionals on how to index but does not perform periodic evaluation of indexing. The periodic evaluation of indexing in ALMG is a conference conducted by the professional in the indexes, but it is not a decision-making tool. In ALICE, the terms entered by users in the search interfaces are verified by the log system that EMBRAPA’s IT sector supervises, but no analysis of these terms is performed. As for tests or trials for periodic evaluation of information retrieval with users in the institutional repository, none of the repositories claimed to perform or to have performed them.
Category 4—Descriptive cataloging in the institutional repository
Descriptive representation in institutional repositories, including issues related to the insertion of materials, self-archiving, descriptive representation instructions, and standardization of authors’ names (Chart 7):
Comparative synthesis on descriptive cataloging.
Source: Research data.
ARES has an instruction manual for filling in metadata with detailed guidelines for fillling in, in addition to tutorials for users with information on each functionality of the repository.. ALMG has an instruction manual targeted at descriptive cataloging and an instruction manual for subject cataloging. In another ALMG unit, the librarian reported the existence of several manuals, but none of them consolidated in a formal document.
BVS-ECOS does not have an instruction manual for metadata filling, but the team is working on the creation of a tutorial for the user with information about the search process in the BVS portal and another tutorial for access to the databases through the portal. The Digital Library of the Chamber of Deputies has only one internal manual. ARCA has a detailed manual for the filling of metadata for the existing collections and for the open educational resources, with guidelines on registration, self-archiving, metadata defined per collection, certification, glossary, file conversion, used metadata standard, characteristics and mandatory fields. RI-UFMG has a tutorial for students on self-archiving and a manual for the normalization of academic papers to be deposited in the institutional repository.
In self-archiving, a procedure in which the authors themselves deposit their technical-scientific production in the institutional repository, half (50%) of the eight investigated repositories adopt this practice. In ARCA, any user with a login and password is enabled for self-archiving, and a librarian must validate the metadata and check for information resource duplicity to be authorized to enter the system. In ALMG self-archiving is enabled for academic papers, and in RI-UFMG, the students carry out the submission of the paper themselves, with validation of the record by the institutional repository team. In FGV, the information resource deposit is performed by students and librarians, and “implemented for theses, dissertations and final papers. For articles and other types of documents, normally the units and the secretaries of the units are responsible, but nothing prevents a professor or researcher from doing it” (M-FGV).
Regarding metadata control, before validating the information resource deposit, one of the FGV units reviews it to correct errors. In ARES, metadata control occurs in two stages, at submission and at publication, to be followed by validation. Each of these steps is conducted by different professionals. ALMG does not control metadata before publication, and the review process is conducted after the technical-scientific production is made available in the system. In BVS-ECOS, there is metadata control, which is BIREME’s responsibility. In ALICE, the information resource description is executed by EMBRAPA and the metadata review is the librarian’s responsibility, similarly to RI-UFMG. In practice, when a student carries out a submission, the institutional repository staff checks if it complies with the self-archiving guidelines, validates the document, and forwards it to the librarians of the library system, who checks the indexing, the metadata, and assign the subjects by controlled vocabulary. In the Digital Library of the Chamber of Deputies, the responsibility for the metadata control belongs to the head librarian of the sector, in which a professional enters the information in the system and another one performs the metadata checking and validation. The complete cataloging of information resources is carried out by the librarians participating in the interview together with their respective teams.
In ALICE, database feeding is carried out by the systems analyst and the information technologist, whereas in ARCA each of the units has an open access hub to manage the information and select the data that enter and leave the repository. The professionals who perform these activities include members of the academic office, reference librarian, a professional responsible for industrial secrecy, in addition to other librarians. However, the interviewed librarians provide support and curate the data, perform indexing, and conference work. In RI-UFMG, cataloging is shared among the library systems professionals and the librarians interviewed who perform the initial check of information resources, for example, if theses and dissertations submitted by students in the system follow the standards, to be subsequently validated by other professionals on the team, in addition to the administrative part that includes support in training.
Category 5—Subject cataloging in the institutional repository
Aspects about subject cataloging in the investigated institutional repositories, indexing policy and/or instruction manual and number of assigned terms (Chart 8):
Comparative synthesis on subject cataloging.
Source: Research data.
In ALICE, although there is no formalized indexing policy, guidelines are sent to professionals by e-mail. In ALMG, the document is not formalized, specific policies are adopted by each repository of the Legislative Assembly, but the development of a single document is under discussion by a study group: “There is (an indexing policy), well, informal, but there is . . . that’s another problem, each repository in the Assembly has its specific indexing policy” (M-ALMG).
The Digital Library of the Chamber of Deputies has an indexing policy that covers all sectors of the Legislative House. The need for an indexing policy arises because the Legislative House presents several repositories, whose document was prepared by a committee that regularly discusses best indexing practices when new information resources are incorporated into the repositories. As reported by the interviewed professional, the Member’s Office, or the Speechwriting Area responsible for the speeches insert the information resources into the repositories, and the indexing is not performed by librarians: “The House has several repositories (. . .) that’s why it was necessary to create this indexing policy. There is an indexing committee in the House, an indexing group in the House (. . .) responsible. . . for the indexing policy, for taking the best indexing practices to the various people in the House who are submitting a bill for a deputy and doing an indexing (. . .) it is not information professionals who are doing this treatment, it is the deputy’s own office or the House’s own shorthand area that is responsible for the speeches ((laughes))” (M-DL Chamber of Deputies).
The other ARES and BV-ECOS repositories have a formalized indexing policy and adopt the tutorial to guide the information representation process created by BIREME. Considering the key role that indexing policies assume, librarians from both repositories claim to make use of the policy in their daily practices. In FGV and RI-UFMG repositories there is no formalized indexing policy.
ALMG manager points out that the indexing policy is not formalized in an indexing manual and is not standardized: “There is, well, informal, but there is . . . that is another problem, each repository in the Assembly has its own policy of specific indexing” (M-ALMG), but a study group is analyzing the possibility of creating an indexing policy. In the FGV and RI-UFMG repositories there is no formalized indexing policy, as one of the managers reports: “No (. . .) each librarian of each unit, according to the area of knowledge, inserts it in a different way in the subject repository” (M-RI-UFMG).
Most of the analyzed institutional repositories define the number of terms assigned for indexing. In FGV, for theses and dissertations, the average is four to five terms, and the ideal is to put the maximum number of allowed terms, that is, five terms and never fewer than two terms. In ARES there is a limit of terms in each category of used vocabulary (DeCS). In ALICE “[. . .] we stated that there should be no fewer than three and that the terms should respect that specificity issue (. . .) I do not use a broader descriptor so that whoever seeks that information has access. For example, Agriculture – Brazil, in our base, is the same as nothing because we are at Embrapa. So, we ask it be more exhaustive and that at least three expressions” (M-ALICE).
In ALMG, ARCA, RI-UFMG, BVS-ECOS, and the Digital Library of the Chamber of Deputies, there is no guidance regarding the limit of the number of terms, being at the librarian discretion, although in the latter there is concern about the level of specificity of the terms, as exemplified: “[. . .] There is no such thing, this is free, at the librarian discretion, you can have a document with two subjects. You can have document with 15 subjects. This, we did not determine because we consider that the librarian is responsible for determining what is important for that document. So, we did not determine a minimum or maximum number of subject”s (M-ARCA); “[. . .] There is no defined number of terms (. . .) I will stick to specific terms that direct to the interest within Health Economics” (M-BVS-ECOS); “[. . .] “No, there is no question of minimum or maximum. We are really with the indexer’s criteria to see if that number of terms represents the document well” (M-DL Chamber of Deputies).
A point to highlight is the issue of specificity in indexing of controlled vocabulary terms. The indexer of the Digital Library of the Chamber of Deputies reports that in the indexing practice of the institution, the terms are assigned mostly in a more generic way, depending on the type of information resource, in view of the possibility of generating their abstracts, as reported: [. . .] “In fact, we do not do a very deep indexing, depending on the document, because as it is research on the general document and if we cannot do a more specific indexing, we make an abstract, we have the possibility to put an abstract, which is what happens in practice” (I-BD of the Chamber of Deputies).
As for the ARCA manager, the level of specificity achieved by the terms assigned by the professionals is linked to their professional training and to their understanding of the differences between generalist indexing, that is, using more generic terms rather than specialized indexing, consistent with the scientific specialty areas: “[. . .] the difficulty is in terms of forming the understanding of information professionals about specialized information. . . this makes the specificity of indexing difficult (. . .) if they do not have the understanding that it is a specialized information institution there, for example, they mistaken it as if it were an institution or a university library, indexing is harmed because it is confirmed in a generalist indexing. So, the issue of training is very difficult (. . .) I see this as a problem for indexing. . .~~ it often becomes a generalist indexing, it impairs the retrieval and understanding of this professional about what is specificity and about the which is specialized information. So, I see that this macro problem is. . . one of the barriers to good indexing and even understanding the construction of an indexing policy” (M-ARCA).
In this sense, the relationship between cause and effect in the process of indexing and subject retrieval needs to be clear to professionals who work with subject cataloging, that is, generic indexing will also cause generic retrieval.
Category 6—Adoption of controlled vocabularies in the institutional repositories
After an interview with managers and indexers, the results demonstrate that vocabulary control can be confirmed by the adoption of controlled vocabularies, such as thesauri, list of authorized terms or list of subject headings by most of the selected institutional repositories (Chart 9):
Controlled vocabularies in Brazilian Institutional Repositories.
Source: Research data.
The data analyzed from the interviews on controlled vocabularies adopted by the institutional repositories demonstrate that there has been a significant change in the classification of Chart 2, and that controlled vocabulary and natural language coexist in all repositories.
Embrapa Open Access Repository of Scientific Information (ALICE) presents an alphabetical list of 98,345 terms in Portuguese and English that are present in the keywords of the information resource metadata. It uses two controlled vocabularies: Thesagro and NAL Thesaurus (National Agricultural Library Thesaurus). Fiocruz Institutional Repository (ARCA) presents an alphabetical list of 76,713 terms that are present in the keywords of the information resource metadata. It has a type of vocabulary (alphabetical list of terms taken from keywords), but does not display the name. The used controlled vocabulary is the Health Sciences Descriptors (DeCS).
Collection of Educational Resources in Health (ARES) The controlled vocabulary is DeCS and the metadata formats are Dublin Core and UNASUS with the use of terms in Portuguese and English in the keywords. The metadata has the DeCS descriptors and another field filled with natural language keywords. Virtual Health Library - Health Economics (BVS-ECOS) presents an alphabetical list of 30,282 terms in Portuguese and English that are present in the keywords of the information resource metadata. The controlled vocabularies used in the subject search and indexing are the Thesaurus of the Federal Senate, the WEBTHES vocabulary and the Health Terminology.
Repository of the Minas Gerais Legislative Assembly (ALMG) in subject, it presents an alphabetical list of 29,242 terms that are present in the keywords of the information resource metadata. The used controlled vocabulary is not informed, but it provides an alphabetical list of terms taken from the keywords. Digital Library of the Chamber of Deputies The subject field presents an alphabetical list with 2826 terms. The used controlled vocabulary is not informed, but it provides an alphabetical list of terms taken from the keywords.
FGV Digital Repository in subject, it presents an alphabetical list of 13,917 terms that are present in the metadata subject. There is a list of knowledge areas on the page. The used controlled vocabulary is the BIBLIODATA Subject Heading List, but it provides an alphabetical list of terms taken from the keywords. Institutional Repository of the Federal University of Minas Gerais (RI-UFMG) in subject, it presents an alphabetical list of 1935 terms that are present in the keywords of the information resources metadata and, in keywords it presents an alphabetical list of 130 terms that are present in the information resource metadata. The used controlled vocabulary is not informed, but it provides an alphabetical list of terms taken from the keywords.
The controlled vocabularies adopted by the repositories presented in Chart 10 are classified with different models according to Zeng (2008): relationship, classification and categorization, and list of terms by the types of informed controlled vocabularies.
Controlled vocabulary models adopted in Brazilian Institutional Repositories.
Source: Research data.
Controlled vocabularies are the solution to the issues of information organization, seeking, and filtering. Currently, vocabulary control provides and adds value to information systems when it gives the opportunity to provide the user with answers during the information seeking. However, the results of the investigation by Fujita and Tolare (2019) and this investigation indicate that institutional repositories do not adopt controlled vocabularies as the storage model is done through automatic population of large-scale scientific production, and in the short or medium term that makes it impossible to verify subject metadata, and subject extraction is done with keywords without vocabulary control, in natural language.
Category 7—Improvement actions in the activities of cataloging and subject cataloging
In the interviewees’ perception regarding the actions that can offer improvements in the activities of cataloging and subject cataloging, the compared data stand out (Chart 11):
Comparative synthesis of actions to improve cataloging and subject cataloging.
Source: Research data.
In ALMG, the improvements include preparation of manuals, semi-automatic collection to improve the way of entering the information about the information resources in the system from the creation of more specific description fields for a more efficient registration, control and retrieval, as well as working better the indexing instruments and controlled vocabularies, in addition to conducting studies on the use of the institutional repository.
In ARCA, it is understood that the elaboration of an indexing policy is one of the main actions to be implemented to improve the information resource representation, in which, even with the presence of controlled vocabulary, the lack of this document in the perception of the interviewees affects the DSpace technology itself and makes information retrieval difficult. This understanding is shared by the RI-UFMG professionals, for whom the creation of a formalized policy is also a crucial step, as well as actions directed toward the improvement of the information seeking and retrieval process. In a complementary way, they understand that the construction of a database to work together with DSpace dedicated to the vocabulary control of the publishers’ names would facilitate the team’s work, as well as the importation of data from Pergamum. In the context of the Digital Library of the Chamber of Deputies, incorporating controlled vocabulary into DSpace is a necessary action to improve the standardization of records and information retrieval, in addition to minimizing typing errors.
The BVS-ECOS librarian did not present considerations directed to the improvement of the descriptive or thematic representation because the institutional repository undergoes periodic updates, and the FGV librarian did not indicate actions that offer improvements for the information resource representation. In ARCA, the understanding falls on the importance of the indexing policy as a necessary action for the improvement and standardization of the information resource representation, despite using the DeCS controlled vocabulary: [. . .] “I consider having an indexing policy for the repository (. . .) because if the library network already had an indexing policy it would make it much easier because it would add to the DeCS controlled vocabulary” (M-ARCA).
In ALICE, an important action consists of expanding the way of entering the information resources into the system, through the semi-automatic collection of information from the technical-scientific information resources via DSpace. The interviewee also highlights the creation of more specific description fields for the creation of more structured data, which favors information retrieval, and the construction of more adequate controlled vocabularies, given the scientific language dynamics.
Analysis of results
The article presents an exploratory investigation into institutional repositories practices to verify various aspects of an indexing policy that matter for the organization of knowledge, in particular about the indexing process based on the quote by Hjørland (2021: 1) “Information retrieval (IR) is about making systems for finding documents or information” and “Knowledge Organization (KO) is the field concerned with indexing, classification, and representing documents for IR, browsing and related processes, whether performed by humans or computers.”
First, the analysis of the structural characteristics showed that all sample repositories are institutional, one belongs to a university, and they all archive information resources differently according to the document typology and institutional features where they are generated, such as the ALMG and of the Chamber of Deputies that archive legislative information resources and specialized collections or, as is the case of repositories in specialized domain areas in Agricultural Sciences and Health Sciences. The architecture of the sites includes in all analyzed repositories a search menu for different modalities: communities or collections, author, title, subject, document type, keywords. Regarding vocabulary control features, Dublin Core is the metadata format adopted in seven repositories, and one of them could not obtain the information on the site; Chart 10 shows a difference with Chart 2 in the classification of controlled vocabularies, according to Zeng (2008), used in institutional repositories because five repositories are two thesauri of specialized areas and three lists of subject headings, but in three repositories the use of controlled vocabulary is not informed on the website, but make use of controlled vocabulary similar to lists of terms that are available to the user. We highlight the availability of alphabetical lists of terms in the eight repositories, and in four repositories in Portuguese and English.
In the management activities of the eight repositories, analyzed in categories 1–3, it was observed, through the report of managers and librarians, that implementations of the institutional repositories (category 1) were conducted during a broad period, ranging from 2005 by BVS-ECOS to 2019 by RI-UFMG. Institutional implementation occurred after 2 or more years of the investigated repositories’ inception, for example, ALICE was developed between 2007 and 2008 and the official launch was in April 2011.
Regarding the operation and documentation policies of the institutional repositories (category 2) and their visibility, there is no recorded formalization of the operation policy in internal and external manuals, and, in some institutions, this operation policy is internal, and its guidelines are not visible externally. The indexing manuals developed by library networks (BRASIL, Superior Tribunal de Justiça, Secretaria de Documentação, 2009; Sistema Integrado de Bibliotecas/UFSCar, 2021; Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho; Coordenadoria Geral de Bibliotecas, 2017) bring discussed and evaluated proposals (Fujita, 2016) that can be used as examples for these repositories for adaptations in the practice of organization and representation of knowledge.
The operation of the repositories has teams equal to or fewer than five professionals with diverse backgrounds, but all of them have librarians according to Ferreira et al. (2021). The professionals’ perspective about the institutional repository user (category 3) in relation to information resource retrieval does not derive from periodic qualitative and quantitative evaluations but from observations about the need for specificity in indexing, cataloging standardization, and vocabulary control in indexing with the use of controlled vocabularies that are continuously updated. In general, the repositories have been operating for a brief period of time after the open access policy, with multi-professional teams and an operating policy still in transition due to the lack of formalization in most cases.
In the activities of information organization and representation, analyzed in categories 4–6, it was observed that some repositories do not allow self-archiving by authors. There are tutorials for authors and users in 50% of the repositories that allow self-archiving of academic papers such as theses, dissertations, and final papers. In most of the repositories, metadata is filled out, corrected, and evaluated by staff librarians according to descriptive and thematic standards.
As for subject cataloging, it was observed that the followed indexing policy is that of the libraries that maintain the repository, in the case of the Digital Library of the Chamber of Deputies, which interacts with a network of libraries connected to the Chamber of Deputies, or comes from an implemented and consolidated information system as the BVS-ECOS, ARES, and ARCA cases that follow the indexing policy created by BIREME, currently named Virtual Health Library. The interviewed librarians value the indexing policy and use it in their subject cataloging practices in the repositories for determining the number and specificity of assigned terms and use of controlled vocabulary. However, in two repositories, the policy is not formalized. Finally, the indicated improvement actions in the activities of cataloging and subject cataloging (category 6) are the development of a formalized indexing policy adopted in daily practice, application of authorship and vocabulary control through the incorporation of controlled vocabulary and authorities file in DSpace to assist both the librarian and the author with metadata standardization and information retrieval.
Overall, it was found that many actions need to be taken by the investigated repositories to standardize and improve information organization and representation according to Lei Zeng and Mai Chan (2004). The positive aspect of this analysis is that managers and librarians are aware of all the necessary aspects of descriptive cataloging and subject cataloging and are committed to make improvements.
Conclusions
Institutional repositories act to make scientific and technical production available through open access. The institutional repositories play a crucial role in digital preservation but should also be thought and managed to act as important information retrieval tools.
Understanding that the adoption of an indexing policy in institutional repositories improves the quality of the indexing activity and the performance of librarians working in them, with effects on information retrieval, semi-structured interviews were conducted with managers and indexers for a diagnostic study of the indexing policy in Brazilian institutional repositories. This study explored the characteristics, processes, and instruments of the indexing policy regarding indexing and information retrieval, as well as vocabulary control procedures.
The results show that the indexing policy is perceived as a strategic resource for information management and organization and representation activities in the investigated Brazilian institutional repositories. Although managers and indexers are aware of the importance of the indexing policy in the indexing activity and in the management of institutional repositories, the results also reveal that little efforts are conducted for its elaboration, formalization, and institutionalization.
It is believed that this condition is a result of the recent implementation of institutional repositories in the Brazilian context, and the managers’ culture of conceiving institutional repositories much more for the purpose of digital preservation of information resources from the institution than as a tool for information retrieval.
A better performance of the indexing practiced and, consequently, of the information retrieval in institutional repositories contributes to more institutional visibility and professional valuation. Therefore, managers and indexers should take efforts to develop and implement an indexing policy in the institutional repositories in which they work. Therefore, further research is needed to establish a proposal for the implementation of an indexing policy in institutional repositories.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-lis-10.1177_09610006221145544 – Supplemental material for The indexing policy in the practices of Brazilian institutional repositories: A diagnostic study from the perception of managers and indexers
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-lis-10.1177_09610006221145544 for The indexing policy in the practices of Brazilian institutional repositories: A diagnostic study from the perception of managers and indexers by Mariângela Spotti Lopes Fujita, Roberta Cristina Dal’Evedove Tartarotti, Paula Regina Dal’Evedove and Jéssica Cristina Panuto in Journal of Librarianship and Information Science
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors, Mariângela Spotti Lopes Fujita and Jessica Cristina Panuto received financial support of the government agency, National Council of Scientificand Technological Development (CNPq) of Brazil, to the research.
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
Author Biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
