Using the Harvesting Method to Submit ETDs into ProQuest

A Case Study of a Lesser-Known Approach


The following case study describes an academic library’s recent experience implementing the harvesting method to submit electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) into the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database (PQDT). In this lesser-known approach, ETDs are deposited first in the institutional repository (IR), where they get processed, to be later harvested for free by ProQuest through the IR’s Open Archives Initiative (OAI) feed. The method provides a series of advantages over some of the alternative methods, including students’ choice to opt-in or out from ProQuest, better control over the embargo restrictions, and more customization power without having to rely on overly complicated workflows. Institutions interested in adopting a simple, automated, post-IR method to submit ETDs into ProQuest, while keeping the local workflow, should benefit from this method. 

Author Biography

Marielle Veve, University of North Florida

Metadata Librarian


Cedar C. Middleton, Jason W. Dean, and Mary A. Gilbertson, “A Process for the Original Cataloging of Theses and Dissertations,” Cataloging and Classification Quarterly 53, no. 2 (February 2015): 234–46,

Dan Tam Do and Laura Gewissler, “Managing ETDs: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” in What’s Past Is Prologue: Charleston Conference Proceedings, eds. Beth R. Bernhardt et al. (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2017), 200-04,

Donna O’Malley, June 27, 2017, reply to Andrew Wesolek, “ETD Embargoes through ProQuest,” Digital Commons Google Users Group (blog),!searchin/digitalcommons/embargo$20proquest%7Csort:date/digitalcommons/Gadwi8INfgA/sg7de7SdCAAJ.

Emily Symonds Stenberg, September 7, 2016, reply to Wendy Robertson, “Anything to watch out for with etd embargoes?,” Digital Commons Google Users Group (blog),!searchin/digitalcommons/embargo$20dates%7Csort:date/digitalcommons/RNInGtRarNY/6byzT9apAQAJ.

FUSE, 2012-2013, Graduate Students Re-FUSE!,

Gail P. Clement and Fred Rascoe, “ETD Management & Publishing in the ProQuest System and the University Repository: A Comparative Analysis,” Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 1, no. 4 (August 2013): 8,

Gail P. Clement, “American ETD Dissemination in the Age of Open Access: ProQuest, NoQuest, or Allowing Student Choice,” College & Research Libraries News 74, no. 11 (December 2013): 562–66,

Marlene Coles, email message to author, January 19, 2018.

Meghan Banach Bergin and Charlotte Roh, “Systematically Populating an IR With ETDs: Launching a Retrospective Digitization Project and Collecting Current ETDs,” in Making Institutional Repositories Work, eds. Burton B. Callicott, David Scherer, and Andrew Wesolek (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2016), 127–37,

“PQDT Global Submission Options, Institutional Repository + Harvesting,” ProQuest,

“PQDT Submissions Options for Universities,” ProQuest,

“ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global Harvesting Process,” ProQuest.

“Support: ProQuest Export Documentation,” Vireo Users Group,

“U.S. Dissertations Publishing Services: 2017-2018 Fee Schedule,” ProQuest.

Wendy Robertson and Rebecca Routh, “Light on ETD’s: Out from the Shadows” (presentation, Annual Meeting for the ILA/ACRL Spring Conference, Cedar Rapids, IA, April 23, 2010),

Yuan Li, Sarah H. Theimer, and Suzanne M. Preate, “Campus Partnerships Advance both ETD Implementation and IR Development: A Win-win Strategy at Syracuse University,” Library Management 35, no. 4/5 (2014): 398–404,

How to Cite
Veve, M. (2020). Using the Harvesting Method to Submit ETDs into ProQuest. Information Technology and Libraries, 39(3).