Most higher-education institutions (HEIs) have an institutional repository (IR) to archive, display and share research output, typically managed by research libraries. When implementing such IRs, one could imagine two extremes when it comes to the upload of research output and the curation of the related metadata. One extreme would be a rather technical solution – a platform – allowing researchers to upload their research output without metadata enrichment and quality control by repository managers. The other extreme would be a fully integrated service in which the library takes over as much of the work as possible and aims for a complete bibliography for all researchers of an institute, research output described with rich and complete metadata, and a high Open Access (OA) rate of research output. Even when relying on automatic and semi-automated processes, such an IR requires considerable input and maintenance from repository managers, and for this reason we call it a “service-oriented repository”. While requiring these resources can limit the implementation of such repositories, we advocate for them here due to their ability to improve the visibility of researchers, their research output and, eventually, the visibility of HEIs.

To understand our users' needs better, Lib4RI conducted a survey among the employees of Eawag, Empa, PSI and WSL in spring 2024. The survey was open for two months. During this time, 426 valid questionnaires with at least one question answered were submitted with a total of 290 free text comments.
The questionnaire’s structure was designed to reflect the main service domains of the library as well as the overall satisfaction and means of interaction with the library. Participants could express their satisfaction or agreement on a scale of 1 (least) to 9 (highest). Demographic questions allowed us to get a more differentiated picture of the user groups.
Of the 426 respondents, we found generally high satisfaction with the library with a mean rating of 7.8. There was also a high satisfaction rate with our core service of providing online journals and articles with a mean rating of 8.2. The 290 free text responses contained a multitude of suggestions and comments, which the library has carefully reviewed. You will find the answers to all comments in this report (appendix A1, pp.19-39). Based on the survey responses, the library will continue to implement improvements and adapt to the changing needs of our users.

Lib4RI has developed a search tool that brings together results from numerous sources in a clear and easily accessible way. The tool also provides information on options and funding possibilities for Open Access (OA) publishing of journal articles. The information is presented at the level of individual journal titles and tailored to the situation at the user's own institution. In this way, the Lib4RI Search Tool makes the previously scattered information conveniently available to our researchers. By combining content discovery with publishing services, the tool is the central starting point for information from Lib4RI and helps to further increase the OA share of publications.

Das Lib4RI Search Tool integriert Suchergebnisse aus zahlreichen Quellen auf übersichtliche Art und Weise. Ausserdem gibt das Tool Auskunft über Optionen und Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten des Open-Access-Publizierens von Zeitschriftenartikeln.
Die Bedingungen und Möglichkeiten zu Open Access (OA) unterscheiden sich von Zeitschrift zu Zeitschrift. Das Lib4RI Search Tool macht die verstreut vorliegenden Informationen für unsere Forschenden übersichtlich zugänglich. Die aggregierte Information wird auf der Ebene einzelner Zeitschriftentitel und spezifisch für die Situation an den vier Forschungsinstituten präsentiert.
Indem es die Suche nach Inhalten mit dem Service für das Publizieren verbindet, stärkt das Tool die Vorreiterrolle von Lib4RI bei OA.

Even acknowledging the considerable reservations of some users – we have to recognize the overall trend towards the use of e-books. The situation resembles the transition from print to electronic journals about ten years ago. Two trends are converging here: On the one hand, there is a strongly growing offer of scientific monographic literature in electronic format, and on the other hand, there has been significant progress in the technological possibilities for the reception of e-books, in particular regarding display technologies.
The transition from print to electronic books provides a multiplicity of new challenges to the libraries, not least because of the overwhelming quantity of current and potential titles. For example, the ETH-Bibliothek has doubled the number of e-books in the catalogue in each year in the past few years. In 2008, for the first time more electronic than print monographs were purchased and catalogued.
For the selection of e-books, the ETH-Bibliothek has defined extensive criteria. To include the individual titles of larger e-book packages into the catalogue, metadata were imported in a complex semi-automated procedure. There is only one catalogue record for printed and digital forms of the same title, so that users can immediately see, whether they can borrow the book in print form or access it directly online. A key feature for optimal benefits within the cataloguing network is the linking via a link resolver. For a stable compilation of the usage of electronic resources, the calculation of yearly usage on the basis of the median is described.
Of course, many developments concerning the relatively new media type e-book are under way, and many questions are therefore still open. They range from acquisition models and the selection and processing of titles to possible restrictions on the use and the integration of freely available sources to the use of e-books in interlibrary loan and archiving.