A Model for Measuring Open Access Adoption and Usage Behavior of Health Sciences Faculty Members

2014 ◽  
pp. 1298-1301 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. T. Lwoga ◽  
F. Questier
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Usage Behavior

scholarly journals Incentives to Open Access: Perspectives of Health Science Researchers

Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 29
Author(s):  
Carmen López-Vergara ◽  
Pilar Flores Asenjo ◽  
Alfonso Rosa-García
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Technological Development ◽  
Scientific Publication ◽  
Economic Incentive ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Open Access Publication ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
The Impact

Technological development has transformed academic publication over the past two decades and new publication models, especially Open Access, have captured an important part of the publishing market, traditionally dominated by the Subscription publication model. Although Health Sciences have been one of the leading fields promoting Open Access, the perspectives of Health Science researchers on the benefits and possibilities of Open Access remain an open question. The present study sought to unveil the perspective of researchers on scientific publication decisions, in terms of the Subscription and Open Access publication model, Gold Road. With this aim, we surveyed Spanish researchers in Health Sciences. Our findings show that the value of publishing in Open Access journals increases as the experience of the researcher increases and the less she/he values the impact factor. Moreover, visibility and dissemination of the results are the main determinants of publication when choosing an Open Access journal as the first option. According to the response of the researchers, the reduction of fees and the increase in financing are important economic incentive measures to promote the Open Access publication model. It is widely accepted that the volume of Open Access publications will increase in the future.

scholarly journals On being examined: do students and faculty agree?

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 320-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Perrella ◽  
Joshua Koenig ◽  
Henry Kwon ◽  
Stash Nastos ◽  
P. K. Rangachari
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Understanding ◽  
Correct Answer ◽  
Transfer Of Learning ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Point Scale ◽  
New Information ◽  
Good Learning ◽  
Level Of Agreement

Students measure out their lives, not with coffee spoons, but with grades on examinations. But what exams mean and whether or not they are a bane or a boon is moot. Senior undergraduates (A. Perrella, J. Koenig, and H. Kwon) designed and administered a 15-item survey that explored the contrasting perceptions of both students ( n = 526) and faculty members ( n = 33) in a 4-yr undergraduate health sciences program. A series of statements gauged the level of agreement on a 10-point scale. Students and faculty members agreed on the value of assessing student learning with a variety of methods, finding new information to solve problems, assessing conceptual understanding and logical reasoning, having assessments with no single correct answer, and having comments on exams. Clear differences emerged between students and faculty members on specific matters: rubrics, student choice of exam format, assessing creativity, and transfer of learning to novel situations. A followup questionnaire allowed participants to clarify their interpretation of select statements, with responses from 71 students and 17 faculty members. All parties strongly agreed that exams should provide a good learning experience that would help them prepare for the future (students: 8.64 ± 1.71 and faculty members: 8.03 ± 2.34).

scholarly journals Analyzing University of Virginia Health publications using open data, Python, and Streamlit

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anson Parker ◽  
Abbey Heflin ◽  
Lucy Carr Jones
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Data Visualization ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
University Of Virginia ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
Rest Api

As part of a larger project to understand the publishing choices of UVA Health authors and support open access publishing, a team from the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library analyzed an open data set from Europe PMC, which includes metadata from PubMed records. We used the Europe PMC REST API to search for articles published in 2017–2020 with “University of Virginia” in the author affiliation field. Subsequently, we parsed the JSON metadata in Python and used Streamlit to create a data visualization from our public GitHub repository. At present, this shows the relative proportions of open access versus subscription-only articles published by UVA Health authors. Although subscription services like Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions allow users to do similar analyses, we believe this is a novel approach to doing this type of bibliometric research with open data and open source tools.  

Mindscape Commons

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-34
Author(s):  
Kevin McDonough
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Counseling Psychology ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
State University ◽  
Work Content ◽  
Head Mounted Displays ◽  
Penn State ◽  
Valuable Content

Developed by Coherent Digital, Mindscape Commons provides a platform for VR content relating to the health sciences, counseling, psychology, and social work. Content is either commercial, Open Access, research based, or exclusively developed by Coherent Digital. The VR experiences are available as 180/360 videos or animations, visible within a browser screen, through dedicated head mounted displays (HMD) from Oculus, and smartphones in conjunction with Google Cardboard. Experiences can be searched, browsed, and accessed from Mindscape Commons’ website and there are abundant filters to refine your results. The most valuable content is related to counseling simulations and was developed by Coherent Digital in conjunction with Mercer University and Penn State University. Being able to view content within HMDs is somewhat tricky, but the feeling of immersion and realism is greater. Pricing is reasonable considering the marketplace for educational VR content, and the number of experiences is expected to grow.

scholarly journals Grades of Openness: Open and Closed Articles in Norway

Publications ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Mikki ◽  
Øyvind Gjesdal ◽  
Tormod Strømme
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Access Policy ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Scholarly Article ◽  
Citation Advantage

Based on the total scholarly article output of Norway, we investigated the coverage and degree of openness according to the following three bibliographic services: (1) Google Scholar, (2) oaDOI by Impact Story, and (3) 1findr by 1science. According to Google Scholar, we found that more than 70% of all Norwegian articles are openly available. However, the degrees of openness are profoundly lower according to oaDOI and 1findr at 31% and 52%, respectively. Varying degrees of openness are mainly caused by different interpretations of openness, with oaDOI being the most restrictive. Furthermore, open shares vary considerably by discipline, with the medicine and health sciences at the upper end and the humanities at the lower end. We also determined the citation frequencies using cited-by values in Google Scholar and applying year and subject normalization. We found a significant citation advantage for open articles. However, this was not the case for all types of openness. In fact, the category of open access journals was by far the lowest cited, indicating that young journals with a declared open access policy still lack recognition.

scholarly journals Did the Research Faculty at a Small Canadian Business School Publish in “Predatory” Venues? This Depends on the Publishing Blacklist

Publications ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panagiotis Tsigaris ◽  
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Small Business ◽  
Business School ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
New York Times ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
University Of Toronto ◽  
Research Faculty ◽  
Made In

The first ever quantitative paper to claim that papers published in so-called “predatory” open access (OA) journals and publishers were financially remunerated emerged from Canada. That study, published in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing (University of Toronto Press) in 2017 by Derek Pyne at Thompson Rivers University, garnered wide public and media attention, even by renowned news outlets such as The New York Times and The Economist. Pyne claimed to have found that most of the human subjects of his study had published in “predatory” OA journals, or in OA journals published by “predatory” OA publishers, as classified by Jeffrey Beall. In this paper, we compare the so-called “predatory” publications referred to in Pyne’s study with Walt Crawford’s gray open access (grayOA) list, as well as with Cabell’s blacklist, which was introduced in 2017. Using Cabell’s blacklist and Crawford’s grayOA list, we found that approximately 2% of the total publications (451) of the research faculty at the small business school were published in potentially questionable journals, contrary to the Pyne study, which found significantly more publications (15.3%). In addition, this research casts doubt to the claim made in Pyne’s study that research faculty members who have predatory publications have 4.3 “predatory” publications on average.

Attitudes of health sciences faculty members towards interprofessional teamwork and education

2007 ◽  
Vol 41 (9) ◽  
pp. 892-896 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vernon R Curran ◽  
Dennis Sharpe ◽  
Jennifer Forristall
Keyword(s):  
Health Sciences ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Interprofessional Teamwork

scholarly journals Breakout Session: Empowering Fair Use Decisions in Higher Education: Developing Copyright Instruction for 90 Minutes or Less. Presented by Ben Harnke, Education & Reference Librarian, the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus Health Sciences Library, John Jones, Instruction & Curriculum Librarian, the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus Health Sciences Library, and Meghan Damour, Reference Intern, the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus Health Sciences Library.

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Mayer
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Breakout Session ◽  
Audience Participation ◽  
Class Session ◽  
University Of Colorado ◽  
The University

The presenters shared their experiences and strategies for effective fair use instruction for researchers and faculty members at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus. The session featured multiple discussion prompts, in order to allow for audience participation. Specific themes and practical tips about fair use instruction included obstacles and challenges, developing the fair use class session, and planning and logistics. Links to supplementary presentation material and tools are provided.

scholarly journals Open access information as a platform for sustainable development

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (S3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Neethu Mohanan ◽  
S. Thanuskodi
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Scholarly Journals ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Access Information ◽  
Carry Over

Open Access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions, what make it possible are the internet and the consent of the author or copyright holder. In most fields, scholarly journals do not pay authors, who can, therefore, consent to OA without losing revenue. In this respect, scholars and scientists are very differently situated from most musicians and movie-makers, and controversies about open access to music and movies do not carry over to research literature. Open access is entirely compatible with peer review, and all the major open access initiatives for scientific and scholarly literature insist on its importance, just as authors of journal articles donate their labor, journal editors and referees participating in peer review. The study shows that out of 456 respondents considered for the study 203 [44.5%] belongs to Arts, 169 [37.1%] belongs to Science, 33 [7.2%] Education and 51 [11.2%] belongs to Management. The findings of the study also shows that out of 456 respondents considered for the study among which 81 [17.8%] belongs to M. Phil programme, 102 [22.4%] belongs to Ph.D. Programme and 273 [59.9%] are faculty members.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document