Evaluation of Three Open Source Software in Terms of Managing Repositories of Electronic Theses and Dissertations: A Comparison Study

Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs), as a new generation of scholarship resources, are gradually increasing in number and quality at higher academic institutions. Meanwhile, by introducing various types of software solutions for managing Institutional Repositories (IRs), selection of appropriate solutions has become a timeconsuming process for institutions. The goal of this paper was to appraise 59 features of three widely utilized open source IR solutions (DSpace, EPrints, Fedora) from the perspective of managing ETDs, via an in-depth evaluation of their important functionalities in this regard. For this purpose, all applications were installed and the features were tested in a test-bed environment (a benchmark machine) with a predefined set of ETD collections and registered users. Findings related to assessment of each feature were presented in the tabular format. Our comparison indicated that, although all three solutions are capable of managing ETD systems, in most of the comparative areas that are vital for an ETD repository DSpace was ahead of EPrints and Fedora.

[1]  Sanjo Jose.  Adoption Of Open Source Digital Library Software Packages: A Survey , 2007 .

[2]  Brenda Chawner.  F/OSS in the Library World: An Exploration , 2005 .

[3]  Brenda Chawner.  F/OSS in the library world: an exploration , 2005, ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes.

[4]  Mark Needleman.  The Shibboleth Authentication/Authorization System , 2004 .

[5]  Patricia Hswe,et al.  Using the Audit Checklist for the Certification of a Trusted Digital Repository as a Framework for Evaluating Repository Software Applications: A Progress Report , 2006, D Lib Mag..

[6]  Richard D Jones.  The Tapir: Adding E-Theses Functionality to DSpace , 2004 .

[7]  G. Mahesh,et al.  Digital libraries and repositories in India: an evaluative study , 2008, Program.

[8]  Clifford A. Lynch,et al.  Institutional Repository Deployment in the United States as of Early 2005 , 2005, D-Lib Magazine.

[9]  Edward A. Fox,et al.  MARIAN Searching and Querying across Heterogeneous Federated Digital Libraries , 2000, DELOS.

[10]  Chris Taylor.  Criteria for Choosing Repository Software , 2004 .

[11]  T. Howes,et al.  Understanding and Deploying LDAP Directory Services , 2003 .

[12]  Mlis,et al.  Cataloging and Treatment of Theses, Dissertations, and ETDs , 2003 .

[13]  Alton Yeow-Kuan Chua,et al.  A checklist for evaluating open source digital library software , 2006, Online Inf. Rev..

[14]  Margaret Beecher Maurer,et al.  Morphing metadata: maximizing access to electronic theses and dissertations , 2008, Libr. Hi Tech.

[15]  James Blustein.  Automatically generated hypertext versions of scholarly articles and their evaluation , 2000, HYPERTEXT '00.

[16]  Sunita A Barve.  An Evaluation of Open Source Software: for Building Digital Libraries , 2010 .

[17]  Dana McKay,et al.  Improving the Usability of Novel Web Software: An Industrial Case Study of an Institutional Repository , 2008, WISE Workshops.