Designing for Dual Submission of ETDs

The main objective is to get participants thinking about how they can solve problems associated with a dual submission of ETDs. Many institutions choose to archive ETDs in their repositories, but also mandate, insist, or permit ETDs to be submitted to ProQuest via the UMI ETD Administrator. The Administrator offers a no-submission-fee route for ETD inclusion in ProQuest’s ubiquitous subscription databases. At FIU, after deciding on a mandatory ETD Policy in July 2011, we considered moving from a payment/snail mail submission to altogether scrapping submission to ProQuest; however, our librarians made a case for keeping at least an option for ProQuest submission. After consideration of all the options, implementing the UMI ETD Administrator seemed the most logical because it relieves payment, paperwork, and snail mail. Unfortunately, the UMI ETD Administrator creates as many problems as it solves e.g., the dual submission. According to the Berkman Center’s Good Practices for University Open-Access Policies, the university should offer to make additional deposits outside of the institutional repository. Thus, we sought to find a way for the students to only submit once to our DigitalCommons Institutional Repository. By June 2012, we manually triaged our first batch of ETDs from our DigitalCommons to the UMI ETD Administrator; however, since that first batch we have identified problems with metadata submission, entering student information, and the ETD Administrator default setup. For instance, with our second batch, we eliminated discrepancies with the department field; in our third batch, we eliminated concerns with FERPA and submitting student information; in our fourth batch, we look to cut down the time of each manual submission. Attendees, with institutions considering the ETD Administrator, should expect to anticipate and solve several issues associated with implementing the system in conjunction with an institutional repository. Attendees, who work with both the ETD Administrator and an Institutional Repository, should expect to gain new ideas for eliminating a dual submission for students, a quicker publication turn around, and/or decreased workflow time.