FROM VISION TO VERSION 1.0: IMPLEMENTING ESPLORO AS OUR FIRST INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORY

Kate Polley, Web Services Librarian

Matt Sylvain, Systems & Digital Services Librarian

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

https://guides.lib.umassd.edu/enug2025 

BACKGROUND

• UMass Dartmouth didn't have existing institutional repository aside from a small one specific to the Law School.
• No existing collection of citations or files
• No migration required
• Although we chose to migrate ETDs
• Not restricted or constrained by prior decisions
• Uneven knowledge of IRs among researchers 
• New Library Administration 
• Viewed IR as a means of supporting research and reputation
• Desired a means of helping researchers comply with the 2022 OSTP Nelson Memo

​

​

​

​

PRODUCT SELECTION: PRIORITIES

• Manageable technical debt, sustainable long-term solution
• Integrations with Crossref, ORCID, Alma/Primo
• Faculty/researcher profiles
• User-friendly and intuitive interface for search, deposit, etc. for both faculty and librarians
• Discoverability of materials
• Ability to build out repository from scratch – automated features a plus

PRODUCT SELECTION: PROCESS

• Step 1: Library Committee
• Researched IR platforms, selected four for in-depth evaluation
• Esploro
• Digital Commons
• Atmire Open Repository (DSpace)
• Ubiquity
• Wrote a report with recommendations based on vendor demos

​

• Step 2: University Committee
• Included range of stakeholders:
• Librarians
• Administration 
• Faculty (invited from relevant Faculty Senate committees)
• Campus IT
• Additional vendor demos and final feedback/recommendation

EX LIBRIS IMPLEMENTATION

• Implementation from October 2024 through March 2025
• Biweekly meetings with supplementary use of Basecamp
• Internal library committee with representation from several departments
• We worked with Ex Libris on tasks such as
• Populating organizational units
• Creating researcher records based on faculty lists 
• Adding links to content in the library's databases
• Creating General Electronic Service rules for ILL

​

PRESENTING RESEARCH OUTPUT 

• We choose to customize our output records with our faculty, staff, and students in mind. We added links to:
• Primo
• Library databases
• Interlibrary loan

THESES & DISSERTATIONS 

• Previously in Alma Digital
• Worked with Ex Libris to map MARC to Esploro
• Advantages of migration to Esploro
• Indexed in Google Scholar
• Integration with CrossRef
• Same platform for graduate and faculty works
• Opportunity to revisit metadata displayed

​

​

PILOT LAUNCH

• 17 faculty members representing all colleges
• Faculty provided:
• Researcher IDs, usually ORCID
• Biography and photo for profile
• Feedback on the repository
• Librarians:
• Built profiles, populated outputs using Smart Expansion via CSV
• Added media mentions, grants, courses taught
• Provided workshop for pilot participants on how to use the repository

​

​

​

​

Example Pilot Researcher Profile

​

​

KEY TAKE AWAYS FROM THE PILOT

• Time intensive
• We estimated that it takes 2 hours to create a profile, run Smart Expansion, and do minimal proof reading and corrections.
• The manual entry of assets not imported during Smart Expansion and the population of categories such as media mentions and grants could take longer.
• Learned how to better maintain record accuracy
• We found that using the CV & ORCID were the best for Smart Expansion
• Sometimes includes the publisher (e.g., IEEE) as a researcher or author 
• Asset type is sometimes incorrect

​

CAMPUS ROLLOUT PROCESS

• Spreadsheet form for faculty to submit information
• Office of Research Administration provided grant information

​

​

​

​

INTERNAL COORDINATION

• OneDrive/SharePoint
• Excel spreadsheet for tracking each faculty member's status through process
• Folder structure organized by college/department to store faculty documents – spreadsheet, CV, any other notes
• Shared email address for questions and submissions, monitored by Scholarly Communication and Systems Librarians
• repository@umassd.edu 

​

OBSTACLES & CHALLENGES

• Faculty concerns
• Completing the information spreadsheet
• There's never a good time!
• Lack of understanding about the repository and benefits of participating
• Increased visibility of DEI research
• Law Repository migration

• Unusual submissions
• Faculty who submitted spreadsheet for profile but no outputs
• Faculty who manually deposited outputs but did not create a profile
• Standardization when faculty make their own profile instead of going through library

​

​

OBSTACLES & CHALLENGES CONT.

• Challenging asset types
• Patents
• Mathematics articles
• Conference Proceedings and "Peer reviewed" label
• Large datasets (250GB+)
• Public access and DOIs

​

​

​

​

• Esploro quirks & bugs
• Education date issue in profile
• Task list doesn't include authors "matched by ID"
• Ongoing need to merge researchers 

​

WHAT COMES NEXT

• Ongoing outreach, continuing to build/populate
• Including more full-text deposits
• Undergraduate theses
• Honors College
• Interior Architecture & Design
• ORCID integration
• Accessibility of output files
• Satisfaction survey

THANK YOU!�QUESTIONS?

LibGuide: https://guides.lib.umassd.edu/enug2025

Repository: https://repository.lib.umassd.edu

kpolley@umassd.edu

msylvain@umassd.edu

​