
ABSTRACTThe documentation of seven academic institutional repositories (IRs) was compared and contrasted. This was followed by semi‐structured interviews with six practitioners experienced in the set‐up, management and maintenance of IRs, including representatives of three JISC FAIR projects. The aim was to identify the requirements of policy documentation provided by IRs. Although many issues were found to be handled differently, several common factors emerged. These included the importance of developing documentation in collaboration with academics, departments and senior management. Policies should be formulated only when the aims of the IR have been clearly defined and the documentation itself should be concise and understandable, with the rights and responsibilities of stakeholders clearly presented.
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 15 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
