This is usually a memorandum of understanding between the repository management team and the institutions research office which is used by library top management to assess the quality of the repository and whether the repository is meeting the institutions business or academic objectives.
- 2014 - NISO DRAFT - OPEN ACCESS METADATA STANDARDS
- 2014 - KN - A SCALABLE AND SUSTAINABLE APPROACH TO OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING
- 2013 - DLIB - A VISION TOWARDS SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURES
- 2012 - CCSDS - REFERENCE MODEL FOR AN OPEN ARCHIVAL INFORMATION SYSTEM (OAIS) - PDF DOWNLOAD
- 2011 - CCSDS - AUDIT AND CERTIFICATION OF TRUSTWORTHY DIGITAL REPOSITORIES
- 2010 - GEORGIA STATE USA - PREFERRED PRACTICES FOR HISTORICAL REPOSITORIES
- 2007 - NISO - A FRAMEWORK OF GUIDANCE FOR BUILDING GOOD DIGITAL COLLECTIONS - PDF DOWNLOAD
- 2007 - NISO - A FRAMEWORK OF GUIDANCE FOR BUILDING GOOD DIGITAL COLLECTIONS - VIEW ONLINE
- 2003 - ARL - CLIFFORD LYNCH - INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORIES: ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SCHOLARSHIP IN THE DIGITAL AGE
- 2002 - RLG OCLC - TRUSTED DIGITAL REPOSITORIES
An audit tries to answer several of the following questions from users.
- How can I trust that the information in this repository is accurate and authoritative?
- How can I trust that the embargoes I request, will be properly enforced?
- How can I trust that the information I digitally store, will be available now and in the future, on the internet?
- How can I trust that my bibliography of electronic citations using the repository, will work today and in the future, on the internet?
- Accounting Analogy
We are very aware of the accounting audit function. In the course of an enterprise conducting business, records of account are kept by clerics and bookkeepers which are then managed by accountants. Auditors inspect the work of the accountants to determine if the accounts satisfy generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). If they do, then they sign the financial statements.
A similar process could be involved in the audit of open access publishing systems. A possible definition of the process could be as follows:
"In the course of a University conducting research, publications are produced by researchers which are then deposited into a research repository by research librarians. The research collections in the repository are managed by research repository managers. Auditors inspect the work of the research repository managers to determine if the repository satisfies generally accepted repository practice (GARP). If it does, then they certify the repository for an agreed period of time."
- GARP or Generally Accepted Repository Practice
Below are listed some sections that could form part of the audit and a draft GARP document, that would allow the audit to proceed in a generally accepted manner,
- Section 1: Policy
- Section 2: Preservation
- Section 3: Sustainability
- Section 4: Visibility
- Section 5: Security
- Section 6: Ingest
- Section 7: Customisation
- Section 8: Digitisation
- Section 9: Promotion
- Section 10: Legal
- Section 11: Community
- Example reports
Below are links to what an audit report may look like. These are very brief and are NOT authoritative at ALL.
If audits are conducted, using GARP as described above, as the accepted benchmark amongst library professionals, then the report would be a valuable tool for library top management, to assess the quality of the repository and to suggest where corrective strategic and tactical measures should be taken, to meet the academic or business objectives of the institution.
- Shortened Web Link