Online First

Firstly, the study revealed the IR developments in Ghana leapfrogged over the past ten (10) years through the support of organizations such as the Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Ghana (CARLIGH) and International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publication (INASP). These organizations sponsored the operations of the academic institutions through a workshop on IR and DSpace. Out of the sixteen (16), academic institutional repositories in Ghana indicated in this study. The Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) was the first to implement its institutional repository. It must be noted that six months after the implementation of KNUST IR, it was ranked 52nd on the webometrics ranking for 100 best universities in Africa. This achievement compelled CARLIGH and INASP to assist four other academic institutions to implement repositories. The four academic institutions from Ghana that benefited from the initiative are listed below:

• ㆍMethodist University College (MUCG)
• ㆍUniversity of Cape Coast (UCC)
• ㆍGhana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA)
• ㆍThe University of Education, Winneba (UEW)

Other academic institutions with IRs in Ghana are University of Development Studies, University of Ghana, Legon, Ashesi University, Regent University College, Central University College, Presbyterian University College, University of Mines & Technology, Regional Maritime University, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Wisconsin International University College and University of Health and Allied Sciences. These are public and private academic institutions in Ghana. Despite the benefits associated with IR in Ghana, the study indicated that there are many challenges at the implementation stage. Lack of institutional policy and budgetary support for the operation, bandwidth, lack of public IP addresses, software problems, lack of qualified staff, etc. were some of the challenges faced by academic institutions in the implementation of IR in Ghana. To counter these numerous challenges, some respondents in academic libraries in Ghana stated that, stakeholders should realize that the IRs are the bedrock for undertaking research outputs and that their impact on the institutions’ visibility worldwide. others indicated that IRs are also good means of providing access to research findings to the communities where such research was carried out. Table 1 shows the history of IRs in Ghana.

The study revealed that these academic IRs were established between the years 2008 to 2014. In this study, the contents of all the seven IRs were evaluated by the contents on its browse, diversity of the materials and the number of submissions on the repository’s websites. A total of 36818 collections were found on these seven (7) IRs during the period of the research. It is not yet certain in this research to determine a successful repository to how much content or collections on an IR or the diversity of its collections compared to another repository.

DSpace was the software used by these seven IRs. Li and Banach (2011), Xia and Opperman (2010) asserted that DSpace is one of the dominant and preferred IR software platforms for the management and preservation of digital archives globally. Similarly, Ukwoma and Okafor (2017), Singh (2016) and Loan (2014) also revealed that DSpace and EPrints are the preponderance preferred software for the development of IR.

Examining the various websites of selected academic institutional repositories in Ghana revealed that a total of 36818 collections were uploaded on their various IRs (Table 1). However, the University of Ghana, Legon, constituted 18,766 (51%) of the total collections; Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology constituted 11,635 (32%), University of Development Studies with 2,264 (6.1%); the University of Cape Coast constituted 2,090 (5.6%); Presbyterian University College followed with 1,117 (3.0%); the University of Education, Winneba, and Ashesi University, with 560 (1.5%) and 386 (1.0%) respectively. This finding indicates that the University of Ghana digital collection contributes more than half of the total collections for the seven (7) IRs examined. This finding is consistent with a study by Transparent Ranking: Institutional Repositories by Google Scholar (8th Edition, February 2020) which ranked the University of Ghana, Legon, IR as the Number One in Ghana with the rest of the IRs in Ghana not ranked. This finding is inconsistent with a study by CARLIGH in February 2019 with a perspective on IRs in Ghana, where Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology was leading with 10900 records as compared with the University of Ghana, which had 8757 records.

The diversity of materials on an IR is measured by the different types of collections on the IR. To explore the diversities of materials on the various IR platforms, it was revealed that these academic institutions restored different types of materials for their IR. Although all IRs had their total number of collections on their homepage and the diversity of their collections, not all represented the total number of the diversity of their collections. The "//" symbol was used to represent IRs which show the diversity of their collections, but not the actual numbers they had on their websites. The symbol "0" in the table also indicates that the IR had that category of the collection, but has not uploaded any material in them. Table 2 illustrates the different types of digital content on the seven IRs.

Out of 36818 total collections for the seven (7) IRs, 33,026 (90.0%) diversity of materials were represented with their current numbers. Therefore, for this analysis, a total of 33,026 collections were used for the study. Analyzing the diversity of the collection on the IRs homepage, all the seven (7) institutions had theses in their collections constituting 50.25% (n=16601), followed by six IRs with Researcher Articles 38.1% (n=12600), five IRs had Journals constituting 5.1% (n=1681) collections, Lectures and Speeches constituting 1.9% (n=640) on four IRs, conference proceeding constituted 1.3% (n=443) on four IRs. Heritage Materials followed with 0.9% (n=300) on the IR, University Publications constituted 0.5% (n=173) on two IRs, United Nations publications constituted 0.5% (n=157) on IR, Work in Progress, Other Specific (University of Ghana Reading, Testing, University Archives, Africa Leadership Lectures, etc.) and Collaborative Research followed with 0.2% (n=72), 0.2% (n=71), 0.2% (n=70) respectively. Book Chapters and Review had 0.2% (n=50) collections on three IRs, E-books, Newsletter sand Newspapers and Past Questions received the fewest number constituting 0.1% (n=43), 0.1% (n=18) and 0.0% (n=1) collections respectively on one IR. The findings indicate that theses and dissertations are the leading digital content on the IR, followed by Research Articles, Journals, Lecture and Speeches, Conference Proceedings, etc.

These findings are consistent with Ukwoma and Okafor (2017), who ascertained that Theses and Dissertations were the most prevalent content archived in his research on IRs followed by Journal Articles and Conference Proceedings. This is also in accordance with the study by Bangani (2018) who opined that Theses and Dissertations are the major digital archives deposited to academic IRs with Journal Articles, Conference Proceeding following. These findings were also inconsistent with a study by Gul (2019) who asserted that the Journal article was the leading digital contentin IRs.

Introductions of social media and Web 2.0 in recent years, have improved communication between various individuals, communities, institutions and organizations (Ofori et al., 2020). Web 2.0 interactive features offer websites and applications to generate content for end-users in a more interactive way. RSS feed, Atom, Blog, Wiki, Youtube, Facebook, E-mail, Twitter, Pinterest and Reddit are some examples of Web 2.0 interactive features that IRs have incorporated to alerts and send instant messages to enhance usage on IR. Rich Site Summary or Really Simple Syndication (RSS) is a web feed that enables applications and users of a website to get updated for new content in a standardized format. For IR, the RSS feed syndicates frequently the information uploaded on the IR to the website to keep up to date with the latest addition for its users. The user also benefits from receiving new and timing updated information when subscribed to the IR website to avoid manually checking the service page for new content. The news aggregator is the software used in presenting RSS feeds built into a website to users. Table 3 shows the Web 2.0 interactive features offered on various IR websites.

In tune with the findings of our study, five institutions; the University of Ghana, Ashesi University, Presbyterian University College, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology and the University of Education, Winneba have incorporated RSS feeds into their IRs to share timely updates of contents with its users. This shows that the majority of the IRs had RSS feeds incorporated in them. This finding is consistent with a study by Gul, Bashir, and Ganaie (2019) in which they asserted that 77% (54 out of 70) IRs evaluated on South Asia Nations have incorporated various types of Web 2.0 tools in them. Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh had the highest scores in incorporating Web 2.0 features in them.

Similar to RSS is Atom feed which is a lightweight XML format. It also syndicates web content. Out of the five IRs with RSS feed, 3 which include the University of Ghana, Legon, Ashesi University and University of Education, Winneba have incorporated Atom feed which also provides a timely update of content on a web page to users. This finding is also consistent with research by Gul, Bashir, and Ganaie (2019), that the majority of repositories in Southern Asia countries are incorporated with RSS feeds followed by Atom, Facebook, Twitter, etc. It is also evident that some Web 2.0 tools such as Blog, Wiki, Youtube, Facebook, E-mail, Twitter, Pinterest and Reddit were not embedded in the seven (7) IRs studied.

The University of Cape Coast and University of Development Studies repositories were found to have links to another repository representing 29.0% (n=2 out of 7). The University of Cape Coast had links to the University of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, University of Education, Winneba and the Presbyterian University College repositories. On the other hand, the University of Development Studies has a link to the University of Ghana and Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology. This service enables users to link to another repository without leaving the repository’s page or website. It is a quick way of searching for materials on multiple repositories.

It is evident from the findings that, interface language for the seven IRs studied was English. Indeed, it is a prerogative language. Kim and Lee (2014), Loan and Sheikh (2016), Singh (2016) and Loan (2014) also found that the dominating content language usage on the majority of IRs was in English. It is also consistent with research by Ahmed (2014)that, English is the preferred content language on the IRs. Loan and Sheikh (2016) observed that few repositories interface content language that is multilingual in nature.

It came to light that some IRs undertaken did not have any modern system to check the number of downloads, cited, commented, etc., per article. Usage statistics feature incorporated in repositories were not found in all these IRs in Ghana. This finding is consistent with a study by Tripathi and Jeevan (2011) they opined that alow record of the repository has incorporated the usage statistic features. Usage statistics are a tool usedin evaluating the success of material or content on a repository. Incorporating this tool helps to reflect the relevance of content, how many users are using that content and also helps there pository administrator and manager to know the information needs and wants of specific content by its users. Gul, Bashir, and Ganaie (2019) ascertained that "Usage Statistics can be an effective tool to endorse and benchmark institutional output".

It is worth noting that the digital contents on all the IRs studied were mostly published from the period of 2000 to 2020. From the chart, 92.2 % (n= 34164) contents were published from 2000 to 2020. The period 1900-1999 constituted 7.3% (n= 2719), 1800-1899 constituted 0.2% (n= 74); 170 constituted 0.2% (n= 71); 1600-1699 constituted 0.1% (n= 34); 1500-1599 constituted 0.02% (n= 7); 1400-1499 constituted 0.0% (n= 1) records. This indicates that publication and research outputs have increased in recent years. This can be attributed to the impact of research out for academic institutions and the university ranking. The Open Access concept, visibility of institutions, impact on citation have all contributed to these growths in research outputs by institutions and showcasing their research on their IRs.

Fig. 1. 
Total Number of Collections per the Issued date (Source: Fieldwork, May 2020)

Some faculty members of these institutions were asked how often they used the IR and whether it was meeting their information needs. The rationale behind this question was to ascertain the frequency of usage of the IR by faculty members and whether it was meeting their information needs. The findings revealed that most of them did not use the IR very often and they also reiterated that the IR was not meeting the information needs of its patrons and faculty members. Some reactions from the faculty members are shown below:

⋯. "I used the IR every day to check on things being done and I do not think the IR is meeting the information needs of its clients". (FM 1)
⋯. "I used the IR often and I am not very sure the IR is meeting the information needs of its patrons and faculty members". (FM 7)
⋯. "I hardly use the IR and it should meet the information needs of patrons because that is the purpose of it, but as to if it is used or not is another issue". (FM 5)
⋯ "I use it not very often and I will say yes, it is somehow meeting the information needs of faculty members and users". (FM 6)
⋯ "I have never used the IR before, never". (FM 3)

IRs have been touted by many authors and include increased knowledge sharing, control over the digital assets of the university, and preservation (Leuchter, 2018). Oguche (2018) also presented compelling reasons why an organization would want to establish an IR including providing an infrastructure for preservation of digital content, lowering the barrier to document distribution, creating a centralized digital showcase in which research, teaching, and scholarship can be highlighted, and facilitating wider distribution. The researcher deemed it necessary to find out some importance of IR from faculty members to their institution’s research output. It was revealed in the interview that;

⋯." Apart from preservation of the institution’s intellectual outputs, I think that IR can increase the institution’s visibility and this will positively affect the ranking of the University". (FM 3)
⋯ "It also acts as a platform for advertisement, this will attract funding sources for the institution". (FM 5)
⋯. "Increasedissemination of information and also create the potential for a global network with other institutions and researchers". (FM 2)
⋯. "Promotion of institutional research outputs and prestige I think are some of the benefits of IR". (FM 1)
⋯ "to provide open access to institutional research outputs by self-archiving in an open access repository and it also to create global visibility for an institution's scholarly research outputs "(FM 6)

Faculty members were also asked whether they have deposited their research output to populate the IRs of their respective institutions. Among the twenty-one interviewees, 12(57.1%) of the faculty members stated that they have deposited their research output in their IR. While 9(42.9) also indicated that, they have never deposited their materials on their IR. The following were some comments made by some faculty members on why they have deposited their materials on their IR. For instance, respondents indicated:

⋯ "to make my work easily accessible, to widen my research output readership and to promote the institutional research outputs and prestige" (FM 4)
⋯ "to enhance the accessibility of my research to other researchers and for promotion of my research". (FM 6)
⋯ "to increase the potential impact of my research output and it will also increase my external recognition". (FM 1)
⋯ "it will boost my image within and outside of my university and it will help me to make useful contacts with experts". (FM 5)
⋯" depositing my work in IR will protect it from plagiarism and also promote my work locally and internationally". (FM 7)
⋯ "for the preservation of my work digitally, in other words, it will serve as a backup in the future; in case I misplace the hard copy, I have. My grandchildren can even access my work when I am dead and gone. (FM 2)
⋯ "it will serve as an altruistic impetus for making my work accessible to others". (FM 3).
Increase accessibility of their research output, larger readership, long-term preservation of their work, increased usage statistics of their work and increased potential impact of their research output were some major reasons why these faculty members were depositing their work in their institutional repositories. The following were some reasons why some faculty members felt reluctant to submit their work in their IR:
⋯"there are no specified Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) contents on our institutional repository". (FM 6)
⋯" difficult and time-consuming to deposit work in the IR and I also don’t know how and what to deposit in our IR". (FM 7)
⋯" our repository has low prestige and our IR website is not always working". (FM 5)
⋯"it lacks global accessibility and therefore, prefers to make my work available only on my personal website". (FM 4)
⋯ "I am not aware of our institutional repository, faculty members not properly sensitized on the IR". (FM 1)
⋯ "others may copy my work without my permission and lack of motivation (Grant funders)". (FM 2)
⋯ "inadequate training for faculty members on how to deposit materials on the IR". (FM 3)

Faculty members were asked to mention the challenges that confronted academic libraries in Ghana in operating an IR. It was found that lack of technical and ICT staff was a major problem. It was also found that lack of knowledge and awareness on the relevant tools and practices use in measuring and promoting the research outputs were another challenge. Moreover, they also asserted that the lack of institutional policy for IR was a challenge.

In relation with challenges associated with the academic libraries in Ghana IR, it was realized that:

"Inadequate ICT connectivity and infrastructure and unreliable power supply is a challenge"
Another faculty member of an institution mentioned that;
"Copyright and intellectual right, and inadequate advocacy"
Above all this, the challenges which were identified by the respondents that need to be addressed include, inadequate ICT infrastructure and unreliable power supply, Copyright and intellectual right issues, policy issues, inadequate advocacy, inadequate funding, lack of faculty training on IR, software and technical barriers. It is expected that the resolution of these challenges will ensure efficient usage of the IRs by faculty members and users.

The rapid growth in the implementation of IRs in academic libraries are becoming more prevalent especially in Ghana. In order for Ghanaian libraries to benefit from IR services, they will need to invest in how to increase their research contents on their IRs and also how toboost their infrastructural capacities for easy accessibility. Finally, respondents were asked to indicate the strategies to enhance IRs to meet the information needs of library usersand faculty members. This was well captured in their responses by the faculty members:

⋯ "Fund should be made available for the library to provide alternative sources or independent power supply and workable IR website"
⋯" designing a user-friendly IR interface for easy deposit of document".
⋯" specifying the Copyright and Intellectual Property Right for the IR contents".
⋯ "marketing of IR contents by librarians to the users and faculty members".
⋯ "creating more awareness on how to access and use the IR".
⋯ "there should be more sensitization for faculty members from time to time".
⋯" workshops, seminars and conferences concerning the importance of IR to faculty members should be organized regularly".
⋯" using a user-friendly IR interface by using familiar keywords and metadata".
⋯ "The libraries should use other social networking sites, such as Blogs, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, YouTube, Twitter, etc., to publicize the IR to increase visibility and impact".