Possible Causes of Inadequate Metadata in the Institutional Repository

In her article Innkeeper at the Roach Motel, Dorothea Salo writes about the problems of institutional repositories. While she discusses many different issues, I am going to focus on the causes she lists for insufficient metadata in institutional repositories.
First in her list of causes is the issue of trust. Many people are hesitant to trust librarians with their data because they believe their lack of subject area expertise will result in problems with metadata management. Salo does not discuss wether or not this belief has merit, only that it inhibits researchers in specific disciplines (such as the hard sciences) from trusting their work to librarians. Instead they trust their work with science experts who frequently are not working to solve long-term preservation issues.
Additionally, the different requirements of publishers make placing data into a repository difficult. One such requirement is that the meta-data have a set phrase which includes a link. The problem is that some of the popular institutional repository software, for example DSpace, does not have that particular functionality, further contributing to some author's hesitancy to use institutional repositories.
The information professional put in charge of an institutional repository is also at a disadvantage if they cannot program. They are left with the basic version of their repository without any patches or plugins that are not already a part of the system. Frequently the task of applying dublin core metadata to a particular work does not even fall to the information professional, but instead it falls to the author of a particular work. They information professional is left trusting the authors themselves to invest the time needed to ensure proper metadata entry, which rarely happens. The result is inconsistent use of metadata throughout the repository, greatly decreasing the usefulness of the works that are in it.
Repository systems also contribute to the problem of having good metadata in a repository because they are frequently difficult to use. They often overestimate the ability of the user (who is not always an information professional) and expects them to know what fields are required and even what some more obtuse fields mean. Salo does mention that EPrints does a better job of handling metadata than other repository systems because it displays metadata fields based on what type of content is being deposited, making the process more user-friendly.
The final cause of insufficient metadata in an institutional repository mentioned is that repositories are still not seen as a priority to many libraries. Without proper funding and sufficient staffing to maintain and oversee the repository and the metadata going into it, information professionals don't have a chance of ensuring the repository is useful. The library ensures the failure of a repository when they don't allot adequate time and money to its maintenance.
While I believe all of Salo's points are valid and the way metadata is handled should be reconsidered, I still believe the repositories currently face a larger problem, namely that authors do not want to put their work into the repository at all. Still, if we are going to put data into the repository, we should be able to find it again later and that necessitates that we take a good look at the way we are implementing metadata.