Frequently asked questions.

A submission moves through a defined workflow: the assigned supervisor reviews it and can approve it or request a correction; once approved, it goes to a librarian for metadata and access review, who publishes, embargoes, requests a correction, or rejects it. Every stage change is recorded, and a corrected submission returns to the same reviewer rather than skipping the queue.

Yes. Records can be set to open access, metadata-only, view-only, institution-only, restricted (request-and-approve), or embargoed until a set date — the access rule is enforced on every download and viewer route, not just hidden in the interface.

Yes. Faculties, departments and programmes are available as metadata and reporting filters, while supervisor and librarian review remains the final repository workflow regardless of department structure.

Final-year projects, theses, dissertations, journal articles, preprints, datasets and other institution-defined document types can each carry their own metadata fields and access defaults.

A librarian can send an incomplete record back with a correction request during metadata review instead of publishing it — the record shows a correction-requested status to the submitting student or researcher, who can resubmit once the missing metadata or file issue is fixed.

Compliance and repository-readiness reports (including NERD-style reporting) are generated from the same structured submission and access data every record already carries, so reporting reflects what has actually been reviewed and published rather than a separate manual return.

Records can be entered directly, imported in bulk from a spreadsheet, or brought in through the bulk import workflow's format detection and duplicate checking — each import path runs the same metadata and access validation as a manual submission.