Institutional Repositories, number 292 in the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) SPEC Kit series, is based on the findings from a survey that was distributed to 123 member libraries of ARL in January 2006. The survey was implemented to collect baseline information regarding ARL members’ activities about institutional repositories. The authors explain that the survey defines “institutional repository” as a “permanent, institution-wide repository of diverse locally produced digital works” (23) for public use that also supports metadata harvesting. Their definition also includes repositories that are shared among institutions.

The SPEC survey was designed by an impressive team of individuals from the University of Houston who represent a wide array of expertise, including electronic resources acquisitions, metadata creation, Web development, and special libraries (law and pharmacy). That team included Charles W. Bailey Jr., who was the Assistant Dean for Digital Library Planning and Development at that time (Bailey left the University of Houston in January 2007), and Jill Emery, director or the Electronic Resources Program, both recognized experts in their respective fields of work.

An examination of the survey responses yields some interesting figures. First, there was a 71 percent response rate (eighty-seven libraries responded), which is quite high. While the responding libraries are primarily American institutions, respondents also included Canadian member libraries.

When the survey was implemented, thirty-seven institutions had an operational institutional repository, another thirty-five had a target date of 2007 to make their repositories fully operational, and nineteen libraries had no immediate plans to develop an institutional repository. The volume was published in 2006, and it would be worth investigating how these libraries are now faring in terms of content (both level of content and success in recruiting it), if their policies have changed in any way and why, and how many of them are still using their original repository software. Additionally, it would be an interesting exercise to determine if any of the responding libraries that have indicated that they had no immediate plans to develop a repository have changed their plans and how.

Institutional Repositories is divided into three broad areas: (1) survey results, which includes an executive summary, the survey questions and responses, and a list of the institutions that responded to the survey; (2) representative documents from various responding libraries, which include institutional repository home pages, usage statistics, deposit policies, deposit agreements, metadata policies, digital preservation policies, institutional repository proposals, and promotion; and (3) the last section, which consists of selected resources, including general works and information specific to DSpace, eScholarship, and Fedora. The documents in the second section, such as deposit policies and agreements, are quite detailed and provide a wealth of information for institutions seeking sample documents for use in formulating their own policies.

The bulk of the volume consists of the full questionnaire, responses, and selected comments from the responses. The survey questions address a range of topics that include planning, implementation, assessment, staffing, units responsible for ongoing operation of the repository, budget, hardware and software, policies and procedures, content recruitment, and assessment. The executive summary examines these topics in detail and provides analysis and percentages.

The questions run the gamut of potential issues an institution needs to consider when planning to launch an institutional repository or when assessing progress and addressing areas of need.