Charles C. Sherrod Library was tasked with inputting faculty works in the open access institutional repository, Digital Commons@East Tennessee State University (https://dc.etsu.edu). In order for this project to remain sustainable with limited staffing and funding, they created a workflow around the integration of Zotero and SHERPA/RoMEO to input data and check copyright in addition to Unpaywall to locate open access documents. This presentation will detail the technical aspects and workflow of using these freely available products so that attendees can replicate all or relevant parts of this project. After a year of using the products, Sherrod Library completed a quantitative study on the quality records available in Zotero based on disciplines and document types. The study discovered that the education and arts/humanities fields were poorly represented in contrast to the social/behavioral sciences and medicine/health sciences fields. Furthermore, journal articles, books, and book contributions were better represented in Zotero than newsletters and magazine articles, conference proceedings, and music albums. Consequently, Sherrod Library continues to use the products primarily for journal articles, books, and book contributions by STEM faculty. The outcomes of this study can inform content providers on how to best sustain open data through their websites’ structures and metadata practices.

East Tennessee State University developed a workflow to add journal publications to their institutional repository and faculty profiles using three tools: Zotero for entering metadata, SHERPA/RoMEO for checking copyright permissions, and Unpaywall for locating full-text documents. This study evaluates availability and accuracy of the information and documents provided by Zotero, SHERPA/RoMEO, and Unpaywall for journal publications in four disciplines. The tools were less successful with works authored by arts and humanities and education faculty in comparison to works authored by medicine and health sciences and social and behavioral sciences faculty. The findings suggest that publisher practices contributed to the disciplinary differences.