Leveraging knowledge management to enhance research access and visibility via institutional repositories in South African universities

Knowledge is a powerful asset fuelling human prosperity, and organisations are increasingly relying on intellectual capabilities as sources of economic growth and competitiveness (Hadad, 2017; Metcalfe and Ramlogan, 2005; Powell and Snellman, 2004). In the 21st century, the knowledge economy has gained traction as operations are deeply rooted in knowledge-intensive activities (Powell and Snellman, 2004), underscoring the value of a highly educated and knowledgeable workforce. Universities come to the spotlight for their two-fold roles – as dynamic lifelong learning ecosystems that generate and distribute intellectual knowledge (Quarchioni et al., 2022), and as producers of skilled human resources equipped with the necessary knowledge and competencies instrumental in driving technological and scientific advancements (Bain and Cummings, 2021). Given their role as key players contributing to economic competitiveness and social cohesion through knowledge creation and dissemination, universities are increasingly engaging in deliberate knowledge-driven strategies to ensure the effective management of knowledge resources (Alam, 2025; Bilquise and Shaalan, 2023).

Knowledge management (KM) is a range of systematic processes that include capturing, organising, sharing and applying knowledge so that it creates value (Bilquise and Shaalan, 2023). KM is increasingly becoming an important subject in higher education institutions (HEIs) because of its potential to address the demands of the knowledge economy and to enhance academic processes (Rivero et al., 2015). As a result, universities are implementing institutional repositories (IRs) as part of their KM infrastructure to improve visibility and access to knowledge, and to foster an environment that values knowledge as an asset (Rivero et al., 2015). However, evidence suggests that KM approaches adopted by universities are underutilised and uncoordinated, and that there is no shared understanding of what constitutes KM in HEIs (Quarchioni et al., 2022; Veer Ramjeawon and Rowley, 2020). This study seeks to examine the effectiveness of IRs as one of the key approaches adopted by South African universities in supporting KM. IRs primarily capture and preserve a university’s scholarly peer-reviewed publications and grey literature, including theses and dissertations, reports, conference papers, unpublished manuscripts and other materials selected in accordance with the institutional policies and priorities. While data repositories play a complementary role in managing and preserving data underlying scholarly outputs, this study is confined to IRs, focusing on their function as KM systems that enhance research access and visibility. Given this focus, research data repositories fall outside the scope of this paper and are therefore not discussed.

IRs are increasingly recognised as essential tools for preserving and disseminating scholarly outputs in higher education. In South Africa, however, the strategic integration of repositories into broader KM practices – particularly in relation to knowledge creation and visibility – remains unclear. While studies have examined KM practices (Fombad, 2023; Govender et al., 2018; Mavodza and Ngulube, 2013; Mutula and Jacobs, 2010; Veer Ramjeawon and Rowley, 2020) and others have focused on the development of IRs (Bangani, 2018; Masenya, 2021; Mutsvunguma, 2019; Van Wyk and Mostert, 2014), the intersection between KM and IRs has received little attention. This gap limits understanding of how KM principles can be leveraged to enhance knowledge creation, visibility and accessibility through IRs in South African universities. Given that KM is still emerging in universities (Mutula and Jacobs, 2010) and structured KM education is lacking (Fombad, 2023), South African scholarship risks underutilisation and reduced global visibility. This study investigates the integration of IRs into KM practices, examines KM-related challenges impacting repository performance and explores how South African universities can apply KM strategies to transform IRs into more effective tools for knowledge creation and dissemination.

This study investigates how KM strategies are integrated to enhance the effectiveness of IRs in South African universities.

The following are the objectives of the study:

• to examine the nature and extent of integration between KM practices and IRs in South African universities;

• to identify KM-related challenges that hinder research visibility and accessibility through repositories; and

• to explore ways KM strategies can enhance the impact and performance of IRs.

Before delving into the theoretical framework, it is important to situate KM and knowledge creation within the African context. In Africa, KM practices remain uneven, constrained by infrastructural limitations, low awareness and fragmented policy initiatives. South African universities, though comparatively advanced, still face challenges in embedding KM into their institutional strategies. These gaps limit the contribution of African scholarship to global knowledge creation. Positioning KM and IRs within this regional lens highlights both the opportunities for leapfrogging and the risks of marginalisation.

Laal (2011: 547) captured the essence of KM through the perspectives of an experienced KM Director, who described it as, “a process that emphasises generating, capturing and sharing information know-how and integrating these into business practices and decision-making for greater organisational benefit”. At its core, it embodies a blend of people, processes and technology that come together to promote an efficient information-sharing system, while guiding institutions towards ongoing self-reflections and learning (Petrides and Ngyuen, 2006). In the context of higher education, KM practices refer to operations aimed at improving the flow and use of information so that institutional performance is enhanced (Mavodza and Ngulube, 2013). According to Devi Ramachandran et al. (2009), it entails the strategic integration of both tacit and explicit knowledge generated through teaching, research and other services to improve institutional effectiveness and competitiveness. While HEIs are pivotal in the creation, dissemination and transfer of knowledge (Quarchioni et al., 2022; Veer Ramjeawon and Rowley, 2020), naturally aligning with KM, the processes are often not approached in a KM deliberate or strategic manner (Quarchioni et al., 2022). This is because KM is often not clearly understood, largely due to fragmented and limited research available on the subject (Quarchioni et al., 2022). Effective KM practices begin with systematic and structured knowledge handling, its creation, storage, dissemination and application; and institutions must clearly understand how KM aligns with operational needs to ensure it contributes meaningfully to institutional goals (Mavodza and Ngulube, 2013).

To support this understanding, this study adopted the Leavitt Model of organisational change, which conceptualises institutions as systems consisting of four interdependent elements that include tasks, people, structure and technology (Wigand, 2007). The model proposes that these variables are interconnected such that an adjustment to one creates a ripple effect that influences other variables, and a balance can only be achieved by taking a multifaceted approach when addressing organisational transformation (Anggraito et al., 2024). For example, the Leavitt Model suggests that when technology evolves, people may need to adapt, tasks may be redefined and structures reorganised. Thus, as HEIs are increasingly adopting technological innovations to respond to the demands and opportunities of globalisation, and the pursuit of institutional competitiveness (Bilquise and Shaalan, 2023; Quarchioni et al., 2022), its effectiveness depends on people, tasks, and structure alignment.

The advantage of adopting technology systems, in this instance, repositories, is that it strengthens KM by augmenting the efficiency of knowledge capturing, dissemination, storage and long-term preservation and the strategic application of institutional knowledge (Laal, 2011). However, studies in HEIs have repeatedly highlighted barriers hindering the effectiveness of repositories as KM enablers, including organisational culture, lack of adequate financial support, poor infrastructure, limited OA awareness and understanding and lack of staff expertise (Kodua-Ntim, 2023; Laal, 2011; Masenya, 2021; Mutsvunguma, 2019; Van Wyk and Mostert, 2014). As institutions continue to explore the potential of repositories, addressing these challenges creates an environment conducive for open scholarship and effective KM.

An IR is a collection of services provided by a university to support its community in organising, preserving and sharing digital scholarly output produced by the institution (Lynch, 2003). It is characterised of being institutionally defined, capturing, on an ongoing basis, digital scholarly communication such as journal articles, monographs, teaching materials, preprints, theses and dissertations, generated by academics, researchers, students and staff; and providing access with limited barriers (Crow, 2002; Lynch, 2003; Shearer, 2015). Their significance lies in their transformative contribution to the broader KM ecosystem of knowledge creation and dissemination (Sabharwal, 2021), their support for the open access (OA) movement of providing free access to an institution’s research output (Kennison et al., 2013) and their assurance of long-term access and preservation (Shearer, 2015). In the digital global space, repositories are increasingly being used to evaluate an institution’s research productivity, impact and performance against other institutions, and thus, has become a means to demonstrate an institution’s research prestige (McKay, 2007; Schopfel and Azeroual, 2021).

As institutions continuously invest in the development of repositories, they are essentially facilitating key KM processes that include knowledge capture, organisation, storage, sharing and application.

Knowledge capture – Repositories are fundamental in capturing a university’s documented and digital knowledge assets. Principles of KM posit that there are two types of knowledge: explicit -structured and documented, and tacit – residing in people (Igbinovia and Ikenwe, 2017). As repositories can only store explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge is first captured, converted, structured and documented – a process called codification, to enable easy access, storage and reuse (Hansen et al., 2013). Efficient knowledge capturing can be achieved through knowledge mapping – a process of employing various techniques to identify where critical knowledge resides within an institution, so that it can be captured and become more visible (Igbinovia and Ikenwe, 2017). This systematic capturing reduces the risk of knowledge loss (Hakopov, 2016). Through self-archiving, mandated deposits and mediated deposits, repositories capture an institution’s knowledge into one database (Ukwoma and Okafor, 2017; Lynch, 2003). By capturing diverse content such as lecture notes, conferences, workshops, learning objects, book chapters, research data, grey literature and research articles, institutions establish their identity, making it easier for the global academic and research community to understand their productivity (Pastrana Casteblanco et al., 2022). Recruiting high-quality content is important given that IRs serve both as memory systems preserving a university’s intellectual assets over time and digital platforms that showcase an institution’s identity and research footprint globally (Osman et al., 2023).

Knowledge organisation and storage – Repositories achieve knowledge organisation using metadata, taxonomies and classification systems, allowing for structured archiving of a university’s scholarly output (Fadhlan and Sensuse, 2022). With efficient metadata – descriptive information about the content, context and structure of a resource (Ravat and Zhao, 2019), together with employing the FAIR principles – Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable, repositories present high-quality metadata records that can serve as catalysts to knowledge use (Meadows et al., 2019; Ravat and Zhao, 2019). Taxonomies and classification frameworks systematically organise and categorise metadata records to aid in search and retrieval functions. Yan and Grefen (2010) discussed the importance of structured repositories that reflect the inherent classification frameworks, such as organising content by subject, faculty and communities. Arndt et al. (2022) highlighted the importance of implementing coherent taxonomies to enhance knowledge discovery and alignment of scholarly work with relevant knowledge domains. Precise documentation of knowledge improves usability (Kothari et al., 2011). It further aligns with user expectations and ensures quick access (Selvin and Buckingham Shum, 2002), nurturing a collaborative environment where knowledge is efficiently reused (Cao et al., 2012). With the integration of effective knowledge organisation systems, repositories can ensure long-term storage, preservation and accessibility of scholarly work (Pradhan and Maharana, 2022). Most repositories in South African institutions are built on DSpace software (OpenDOAR, 2025), which is designed for archival stewardship and secure storage of digital content. As a result, and through proper organisation, repositories promote the visibility, discoverability, use and long-term accessibility of scholarly work (Mamtora and Pandey, 2021).

Knowledge sharing and dissemination – Repositories directly align with the KM process of knowledge sharing in that they support knowledge democratisation. Repositories promote OA publishing that increases full-text access to documents, enhancing the visibility of an institution’s knowledge assets and broadening its distribution (Nneka and Kaosisochukwu, 2021; Sabharwal, 2021). The adoption of open-source software such as DSpace which facilitates interoperability and customisation (Sreekumar et al., 2007), and the use of standard protocols such as Dublin Core and Open Archives Initiatives Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH), significantly broaden the reach of a university’s academic output. In addition, assigning stable Digital Object Identifier (DOI) or persistent identifiers (PIDs) to content uploaded on repositories enhances content visibility and seamless access across different platforms, reducing the friction typically associated with information retrieval and dissemination (Ranchal and Bhargava, 2013). As platforms that promote knowledge sharing, repositories strengthen academic cooperation (Bhusry and Ranjan, 2012). Academics and researchers can engage in collective knowledge creation and dissemination, thereby advancing knowledge by bringing together diverse perspectives and improved outcomes. However, Eletter et al. (2022) noted that the effectiveness of knowledge sharing in universities is heavily influenced by organisational culture and support. The authors argue that university governance should embed KM strategies, not only to foster knowledge production but also for effective dissemination that enriches learning experiences and improves performance outcomes.

Knowledge reuse and application – IRs provide a unified platform that consolidates diverse collections of information resources, enabling users to easily access and apply them as needed. By serving as essential tools for knowledge utilisation, they ensure that research outputs are effectively translated into practice. As observed by Fadhlan and Sensuse (2022) and Filieri and Alguezaui (2015), the ability to capture verified and relevant data from prior knowledge supports innovation, informed decision-making and competitive positioning, while simultaneously contributing to the resolution of real-world problems within and beyond academic contexts. Repositories contribute to this ongoing learning process by acting as dynamic knowledge hubs, constantly expanding and providing access to new ideas and insights that bring about change.

OA removes price and permission barriers, replacing it with free and minimal use restrictions to scholarly research (Suber, 2008). It positions itself as a catalyst for effective KM, particularly in the context of knowledge sharing, reuse and preserving institutional memory. At the national level, the Department of Higher Education and Technology (DHET) in South Africa advocates for OA through its support for the digital preservation and dissemination of theses and dissertations (Malapela et al., 2020). In addition, the DHET, together with the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI), advocates for the development of a national OA policy and strategy to increase visibility and impact of South African research [Universities South Africa (USAf), 2025]. The National Research Foundation (NRF) also supports OA by mandating that funded research be deposited into accredited repositories within 12 months of publication [National Research Foundation (NRF), 2015: Statement on OA to NRF Funded Research]. These policy initiatives align with KM principles by promoting long-term access, reuse and preservation of scholarly outputs. However, the significance of these frameworks lies in their alignment with international standards and compliance with best practices that enhance knowledge sharing and collaboration (Kodua-Ntim, 2023).

At the institutional level, most universities have shown their commitment to OA by signing the Berlin Declaration, establishing IRs, adopting OA policies and participating in global OA initiatives (Bangani, 2018; Mutsvunguma, 2019; Van Wyk and Mostert, 2014). Repositories are a cornerstone of OA that have expanded significantly since the early 2000s in South Africa (Bangani, 2018), with all 26 public universities having implemented at least one repository (Mutsvunguma, 2019). They are critical in addressing the genuine need for improved access to scholarly communication, which was previously hidden behind paywalls, particularly in Africa. They act as aggregators and amplifiers, ensuring that research outputs deposited in IRs are indexed, discoverable and accessible through regional and global networks. Thus, they support open scholarship by substantially increasing the visibility and free access to scholarly works (Raju et al., 2015), they provide a shared space for collaboration and cooperation (Kodua-Ntim, 2023), and they reinforce the KM lifecycle by creating an archive of an institutional knowledge base accessible to future generations (Sabharwal, 2021).

South Africa is making progress in OA, however, in the absence of intentional alignment with KM strategies, the effectiveness of OA initiatives will continue to be constrained. Gaps exist in OA uptake that result in KM failures. To begin with, KM is sustained by robust IT infrastructure, yet many institutions are working with outdated systems because of inadequate funding (Kodua-Ntim, 2023). The absence of a cohesive national OA policy, cascading down to individual institutions, leads to fragmented and uncoordinated efforts undermining resource interoperability and discoverability, limiting the accessibility and dissemination of scholarly work with the global academic community (Czerniewicz and Goodier, 2014; Kodua-Ntim and Fombad, 2024; Mutsvunguma, 2019). The lack of engagement amongst faculty and researchers because of limited OA awareness and training present significant challenges in content recruitment, dissemination and collaborative partnerships (Kodua-Ntim, 2023; Mutsvunguma, 2019). Librarians and repository administrators who are critical enablers of KM face challenges of insufficient training, leading to a lack of expertise in advancing their OA functions (Luthuli, 2022; Masenya and Ngulube, 2020; Mutsvunguma, 2019). Digital preservation, which is fundamental to both OA and KM, is still evolving within South African higher education. The adoption of technologies capable of handling curatorial responsibilities of digital objects is often overlooked (Luthuli, 2022). Hence, Masenya and Ngulube (2020) highlight the essential need for the establishment of systems that support long-term preservation. Finally, while KM often incorporates incentives to boost and encourage participation, South African institutions fall short in offering similar motivation to promote OA (Kodua-Ntim and Fombad, 2024; Mutsvunguma, 2019).

A two-phase qualitative approach was adopted, including a systematic review and content analysis. Initially, the study employed a systematic review to identify existing literature addressing the intersection of KM and IRs within academic libraries in South Africa. This study maintains its focus on IRs that preserve and disseminate scholarly outputs, including peer-reviewed publications and grey literature. It acknowledges the existence of data repositories that form the basis of these research outputs; however, these fall outside the scope of this study.

Scopus, Web of Science (WoS) and EbscoHost databases were selected for their comprehensive coverage of peer-reviewed literature in library and information science. The literature search was conducted using a combination of keywords, synonyms and related terms to broaden the scope: “Knowledge Management” OR “Information Management”; “Institutional repository” OR “Repository” OR “Open Access Repository”, “Academic library” OR “University Library” and “South Africa”. The Boolean operator AND was applied to combine search terms so that relevant results are retrieved from selected databases. Searches from Scopus yielded five results, WoS had two and EbscoHost retrieved three results. The selection criteria included peer-reviewed literature specific to South African universities, focusing on KM and IRs and published between 2010 and 2026. Studies not published in English were excluded, and given the few search results, screening of studies was done manually following the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Upon reviewing the studies using titles and abstracts, no study was found directly addressing the intersection of KM and repositories in South African universities, highlighting a significant research gap and reinforcing the need and relevance of this study.

This scarcity in literature necessitated for a phase 2 – qualitative content analysis. Secondary data were collected from multiple sources to examine KM practices and IR operations separately within academic libraries in South Africa, and to explore how KM principles could conceptually align with IR functions. The following sources were identified:

• University websites and IRs for information about repository details as well as KM practices.

• Institutional reports and policy documents available on websites were retrieved to capture governance and operational processes.

• OA registries such as Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR) and Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROARMAP) were consulted to confirm repository existence and OA compliance.

• Academic literature, including peer-reviewed journal articles, conference proceedings, and books were reviewed to understand IRs and KM principles as separate domains; analysing how they could be aligned to enhance research visibility and access.

All documents were retrieved manually. Data coding and analysis was also performed manually, with information grouped thematically and mapped to the KM lifecycle stages – knowledge capture, organisation and storage, dissemination and application. The purpose of this approach was to determine how KM principles align with repository functions in HEIs in South Africa.

The findings are presented according to the KM processes that include knowledge capture and codification, organisation and storage, dissemination and application to enable a clear understanding of how these processes are incorporated in the development of IRs.

Visits to public university websites confirmed that all institutions maintained at least one repository, demonstrating the integration of KM processes, specifically knowledge creation, as part of their repository development efforts. Analysis of policy documents showed that content capture was conducted by academic staff and researchers (university authors), Master’s and Doctoral students, library repository administrators, faculty officers and the university’s research office. Content was either uploaded through self-archiving – when authors submit their own work, or mediated deposits – submissions done on behalf of authors. Below are some of the summarised policy statements regarding content recruitment and codification.

• Authors submit the full text of their published works.

• The library is responsible for extracting and uploading into SUNScholar, addressing copyright and related issues and creating the highest quality metadata (Policy on mandatory self-archiving of research output, 2014).

• Academic/researchers to submit an appropriate version to Boloka OR.

• Academic/researchers can email an appropriate version to the library for upload.

• Repository Administrators submit articles, prepare files, digitise and submit to Boloka, evaluate and edit metadata; do quality control (North-West University Library and Information Service, 2017).

• Students shall self-submit the final corrected version of the thesis or dissertation into the University’s PeopleSoft system prior to graduation, for final migration OpenUCT.

• It is mandatory that authors deposit an appropriate version of Scholarly Publications into OpenUCT (University of Cape Town, 2014).

• Theses and dissertations will be uploaded by the library.

• It is the responsibility of University of South Africa (UNISA) authors to deposit their published research (Library: University of South Africa Library, 2025).

Only nine OA policies could be established on ROARMAP (ROARMAP: South Africa, 2025), signalling a lack of framework to guide knowledge capture processes. OA policies, such as those from Stellenbosch University (SU) and North-West University (NWU), explicitly assign responsibility for reviewing submissions, metadata creation and performing quality control to library repository administrators before content is published on repositories. This practice was not consistent across institutions, indicating a lack of standardisation in knowledge capture, contributing to inconsistencies in submission quality and delays in publication. The involvement of individuals from various university departments to conduct repository-related tasks hindered workflow efficiency. Previous studies have revealed that lack of training, limited OA awareness and the absence of incentives challenged the growth of repositories in South Africa (Kodua-Ntim and Fombad, 2024; Mutsvunguma, 2019). Thus, knowledge capture was not happening at optimal level in many universities. This illustrates the ripple effect described in Leavitt model, where the introduction of repository technology necessitates “people” training (staff conducting IR duties), while the absence of OA policies (structure) hinder task integration, and ultimately the development of repositories.

A review of the university websites revealed that all repositories were managed by the library. They are responsible for ensuring that content is properly organised and stored using metadata standard protocols such as Dublin Core and OAI-PMH that facilitate distribution and long-term accessibility (Tansley et al., 2003). For instance, the SU library, which hosts one of the most successful repositories, states in its OA policy that the library is responsible for generating high-quality metadata, ensuring discoverability through harvesters, and maintaining long-term preservation of the repository content [Stellenbosch University (SU), 2015: Policy on mandatory self-archiving of research output]. NWU, which has one of the most technically robust and strategically managed repositories in South Africa, mandates that its metadata be fully compliant with OAI-PMH standards, enabling the NWU-IR to be harvestable, and providing (DOIs) links to the metadata page of an item [North-West University Library and Information Service, 2017: OA Institutional Repository Guidelines]. An analysis of the OpenDOAR (2025) website, a global directory of quality-assured repositories, indicated that 21 South African public universities have repositories registered on their website and have OAI-PMH links which signify their interoperability with alternative systems and their capability to disseminate metadata in a standardised manner. Thus, most universities organise and store their scholarly works in accordance with the KM principles, supporting long-term preservation and reuse. Five university repositories are not listed on the OpenDOAR, suggesting they fall short of the global quality standards, resulting in limited discoverability, accessibility and dissemination of scholarly work. Regarding storage and long-term preservation, universities have not yet consistently embedded these practices into their repositories (Masenya and Ngulube, 2020). However, most of them adopted DSpace repository software which is designed for digital preservation. In addition, universities have engaged in digitisation projects, especially of theses and dissertations, indicating a growing commitment for digital preservation (Masenya and Ngulube, 2020; Mutsvunguma, 2019). Despite these efforts, many South African universities do not meet the criteria established for a Trusted Digital Repository (TDR) and the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) model (Balogun, 2025; Masenya, 2021). This limitation has significant implications for the sustained utilisation of South African contributions with the global scholarly community.

Twenty-one universities host repositories that are OAI-PMH compliant, demonstrating academic transparency and open scholarship (OpenDOAR, 2025). A review of individual library websites revealed that, the remaining five universities – Sol Plaatje University, University of Mpumalanga, Nelson Mandela University, Walter Sisulu University and Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University also host repositories, though not listed on OpenDOAR, possibly because of non-compliance with quality standards. The implementation of open access institutional repositories (OAIRs) by all public universities in South Africa reflects a strong commitment to knowledge sharing and dissemination (Mutsvunguma, 2019), a core principle of KM. Findings on OpenDOAR, (2025) revealed that universities are sharing scholarly works that include theses and dissertations, data sets, books, book chapters, conference proceedings, discussion papers, interviews, letters and sound recordings.

Other factors contributing to knowledge sharing in some South African universities is the adoption of OA policies by nine universities that mandate deposits [The Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies (ROARMAP), 2025], the provision of submission guides to aid users in the deposit process by universities that include UP, UCT, SU and UJ; and the inclusion of copyright information on library websites to facilitate responsible sharing (Mutsvunguma, 2019) However, the lack of uniformity in how repositories are developed and managed across universities creates fragmentation that weakens the visibility, accessibility and global dissemination of South African scholarly outputs. This lack of coordination undermines the strategic role of repositories in supporting effective KM.

One of the key indicators of knowledge dissemination and reuse is the use of repository metrics which are a quantitative measure used to evaluate the impact and value of scholarly work as evidenced by its visibility, accessibility and citation frequency (Inefuku and Franz, 2015). While the direct application and reuse of repository content may not be easily measurable, metrics such as research downloads and views provide valuable insights on the impact of repositories (Inefuku and Franz, 2015). The National Institutes of Health (2021) emphasised that even if the metrics cannot capture how content was applied in practice, they still play a crucial role in demonstrating user interest, accessibility and the dissemination of knowledge. To illustrate evidence of usage, the University of Johannesburg (UJ) provides repository metrics on its homepage, making usage statistics immediately visible and accessible. As of 9 September 2025, the repository had shared 54, 068 research outputs, attracting 3,975,666 views and 1,253,101 downloads. Of these downloads, 42% originated from South Africa, followed by 16% from the USA, 6.14% from Singapore, 2.83% from Brazil, 2.76% from China and 31% from other countries combined (UJ Institutional Repository, 2025). These statistics demonstrate that repositories that follow KM principles of organisation, storage and sharing make their scholarly content more discoverable and accessible across the globe.

A review of all university repositories disclosed that tracking views and downloads is an emerging practice amongst universities in South Africa. In addition to UJ, only UCT, SU and UNISA provide comprehensive usage statistics that track overall visits and views, highlighting monthly access trends and showing geographic distribution of users, both at the country and city level. Other top universities, including Wits, UP, UKZN, only show views per title. Repository metrics are essential to support strategic decision-making, for example, identifying areas of research strength and underperformance, guiding in decisions on resource allocation, funding priorities and the development of strategic partnerships (MacIntyre and Jones, 2016). However, effective citation tracking remains a challenge in South Africa, largely due to a reliance on external indexing platforms such as Google Scholar which require specific technical configurations and metadata standards (Masenya, 2021). Many repositories lack the necessary infrastructure and expertise to meet these requirements. Furthermore, the author noted a lack of standardisation in how metrics are collected and reported across institutions, hindering the global visibility and competitiveness of South African scholarly outputs.

While South African universities have succeeded in establishing IRs, they have not fully integrated KM practices as a result of several challenges that include a lack of coordination in the implementation of IRs, poor infrastructure and technical support, inadequate funding, lack of skilled personnel to manage IRs, the absence of OA policies and a lack of OA awareness (Kodua-Ntim, 2023; Masenya, 2021; Mutsvunguma, 2019; Van Wyk and Mostert, 2014). Three themes are derived from these challenges as discussed below.

Fragmentation and working in silos – A review of websites such as ROARMAP, OpenDOAR and library websites showed disparities on repository development across universities in South Africa. Universities established repositories contingent upon their financial resources and institutional support. While all 26 public universities (USAf), 2025) have established IRs, there are differences in:

• compliance with OpenDOAR quality standards;

• adoption of OA policies [The Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies (ROARMAP), 2025];

• repository content type and purpose;

• repository platform software; and

• user support and training provided.

Besides, universities implemented repositories at different times, with some demonstrating support for OA by signing initiatives such as the Budapest OA Initiative and the Berlin Declaration, as well as participating in activities to celebrate the international OA Week (Mutsvunguma, 2019). These differences in IR advancements exhibit a lack of coordination on a national scale, hampering the development of a unified research infrastructure. This fragmentation influences KM in that it prevents collaboration and effective knowledge sharing and reuse.

Lack of institutional support – KM in HEIs is still in its embryonic stage (Quarchioni et al., 2022), and uptake is slow in South Africa (Mutula and Jacobs, 2010). For this reason, there is a lack of awareness and prioritisation of repositories as KM tools by university management (Dlamini and Snyman, 2017; Mabe and Potgieter, 2021), resulting in:

• insufficient budget allocations stifling the development, maintenance and functionality of repositories (Dlamini and Snyman, 2017; Kodua-Ntim, 2023);

• lack of OA policies that promote the growth of repositories (Mutsvunguma, 2019);

• shortages of staff with expertise to effectively manage and operate repositories (Mabe and Potgieter, 2021); and

• the absence of a culture that supports knowledge sharing. Academics and researchers receive inadequate training, they have gaps in OA knowledge, there is a lack of incentives to encourage participation, and they lack knowledge on best practices for uploading their work (Kodua-Ntim, 2023; Masenya and Ngulube, 2020; Veer Ramjeawon and Rowley, 2020).

Poor alignment of repository goals with knowledge management outcomes – While KM strategies focus on knowledge creation, acquisition, organisation, dissemination, application and retention (Fombad and Onyancha, 2017), repositories capture and preserve digital scholarly publications of an institution so that they can be easily shared (Ezechukwu et al., 2024). Thus, the optimal utilisation of IRs lies within the framework of KM strategies. The situation in many South African universities is that KM practices are not fully embraced in the strategic processes and operations (Mutula and Jacobs, 2010), negating the opportunity to recognise the full potential of KM in influencing decision-making and organisational competitiveness (Suknunan and Maharaj, 2019). Fombad (2023) attributed this lack of adoption to insufficient emphasis on KM education in South Africa and the absence of structured educational career paths for KM professionals who can implement KM effectively. To advance KM knowledge, Fombad and Onyancha (2017) appealed to South African universities to focus more on research that enhances the application of KM in addressing developmental challenges in the country. Apart from having limited KM knowledge, many institutions operate with infrastructure that lacks the robustness needed to support KM outcomes (Suknunan and Maharaj, 2019), causing a disconnect between infrastructure capabilities and the demands of effective KM implementation.

The absence of OA policies in most universities is an impediment to the development of viable repositories in South Africa. OA policy holds significant value as a KM enabler by promoting knowledge capture through mandated deposits, defining IR responsibilities, and providing standardised operational guidelines that facilitate compliance.

Universities should invest in training various personnel tasked with repository duties, particularly librarians. Academics and researchers must also be equipped with the skills to engage with IR functions, including building their awareness on repositories as sustainable platforms for preserving an institution’s scholarly output. In addition, universities should acquire infrastructure that operates efficiently and in alignment with KM principles.

Formulating Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that correspond with KM practices may serve as a measure for evaluating the extent to which repositories are incorporating and aligning with KM strategies. This is particularly important considering that KM is emerging in many HEIs in South Africa, and these metrics can disclose the value and influence of repositories.

Universities are operating IRs in isolation, each adopting different repository software, metadata standards, assigning staff from various departments to handle repository functions and providing inconsistent user support mechanisms. Given the financial constraints faced by public universities in South Africa, this fragmented approach creates redundant costs through overlapping activities, inefficient resource utilisation, delays in content publication and compromised repository quality. This lack of cooperation undermines KM practices which thrive on collaboration, integration and standardised processes that promote effective knowledge creation and dissemination. Engaging USAf, for example, a representative body of public universities in South Africa, to facilitate and coordinate IR shared initiatives, advocate for common policies and establish standardised practices across institutions, will significantly enhance the global visibility and accessibility of South African research.

This study set out to examine the integration of KM practices in the development of IRs within South African universities, given their potential to enhance research visibility, improve access and securely manage university-generated knowledge. Considering that repositories offer free access to scholarly content, most importantly to communities historically restricted by paywalls, applying the full KM principles of knowledge creation, capture, organisation, storage, dissemination and application helps ensure their long-term sustainability. This study found that all public universities have established repositories, though their development remains uneven, reflecting differences in operational practices and institutional structures. While repositories are clear evidence of knowledge creation, the incorporation of other key KM principles, particularly knowledge organisation and dissemination, is applied inconsistently across institutions, limiting the fair representation of South African scholarship on the global academic landscape. Universities are faced with diverse challenges, including the fact that KM and IRs are relatively new concepts in HEIs in South Africa. As they continue to develop their IR capabilities, they must navigate the challenges and opportunities to fully realise the potential of IRs as strategic KM assets. Investing in robust technological infrastructure, developing effective policy frameworks, having a standardised national strategy and exhibiting cultural and institutional willingness to embrace OA are key elements in achieving the effectiveness of IRs.

Repositories show promise for enhancing the visibility and accessibility of South African scholarship in the global context, but they are faced with diverse challenges.

The following areas may be explored to further strengthen this field:

• Conducting empirical studies to examine how universities currently manage their knowledge assets is essential, as such investigations offer valuable insights into existing practices and suggest how KM strategies can be embedded to address existing gaps.

• Impact studies are also necessary as they serve as benchmarks for generating evidence-based approaches that can guide effective integration of IRs into KM frameworks.

• The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in HEIs is increasing. Exploring how AI can enhance KM processes can offer valuable insight into building smarter and more responsive ecosystems in universities.