scholarly journals Some LIS Faculty Indicate Reservations about Open Access

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 96
Author(s):  
Richard Hayman

A Review of: Peekhaus, W., & Proferes, N. (2015). How library and information science faculty perceive and engage with open access. Journal of Information Science, 41(5), 640-661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551515587855 Objective – To examine the awareness of, attitudes toward, and engagement with open access (OA) publishing, based on rank and tenure status among library and information science (LIS) faculty in North America. Design – Web-based survey distributed via email. Setting – Accredited library and information science (LIS) programs in North America. Subjects – 276 professors and professors emeriti. Methods – Researchers collected email addresses for 1,017 tenure-track, tenured, and emeriti professors from the public websites of the LIS programs. Researchers sent an email invitation to participate in the survey by accessing a URL, with the survey itself delivered using Qualtrics software. The survey included 51 total questions, some with additional sub-questions, and most items used Likert-type rating scale. The researchers analysed the data using SPSS software, and indicated using chi-square tests to measure significance, with a stated intent to get beyond the descriptive statistics commonly seen in other publications. Main Results – This study’s results draw on 276 completed responses, for a response rate of 27%. Researchers reported that 53% of respondents had some experience with publishing in a peer-reviewed OA format. When asked whether they agreed that scholarly articles should be free to access for everyone, pre-tenure assistant professors were most likely to agree (74%), followed by tenured associate professors (62%), full professors (59%) and then emeriti professors (8%). However, they found less likelihood that associate professors would have actually published in an OA format, highlighting a “disconnect between beliefs about accessibility of research and actual practice with open access” (p. 646). Researchers also discovered a connection between faculty awareness of institutional and disciplinary repositories and faculty publishing in OA journals, though a relatively low number (35%) had deposited their output in a repository within the previous year. That increases to 50% of respondents when timeframe is ignored. Faculty who had never published in OA journals ranked several barriers to doing so, barriers common across disciplinary boundaries. These include objections to paying OA fees; perceptions of slow time to publish, low research impact, and venue prestige when compared to traditional subscription journals; an inability to identify an appropriate OA journal; and an inability to pay OA fees. However, the researchers note that a majority of these respondents who had never published in an OA format would do so if these barriers were removed. Those participants who had some previous experience with OA were more likely to have positive perceptions of OA journal quality and impact, as well as the overall publishing experience, as compared to publishing in traditional journals. As in other disciplines, LIS faculty are conscious of the connection between OA and tenure and promotion processes. For example, this study reveals that non-tenured faculty are more likely to agree that publishing in OA venues may affect their career progress. Researchers report uncertainty about OA even among tenured LIS faculty. Of all respondents, only 34% agreed that a tenure or promotion committee might consider an OA publication on par with a traditional publication, while 44% of respondents were of the opinion that an OA publication would be treated less favourably than a traditional journal. A mere 1% of respondents believed that an OA publication would be treated more favourably within the tenure and promotion process. Despite this unfavourable perception of OA, the researchers report that 38% of respondents planned to publish in an OA journal regardless of whether their tenure and promotion committees might treat that OA publication unfavourably. Conclusion – The researchers report a connection between publishing in an OA journal and academic rank, with full professors more likely to publish OA or to have previous experience in publishing in an OA journal as compared to assistant professor colleagues, who perceive publishing in OA as a potential impediment to career progress. The researchers note that there is significant opportunity for LIS faculty involved in tenure and promotion committees to consider and clarify how OA publications are treated, and the impact of OA publishing with regard to career progress. Moreover, given the levels of uncertainty and equivocacy among faculty respondents as a whole regarding certain aspects of OA, the perceptions around quality and rigour, there is room for further research into LIS professors’ perceptions and attitudes toward open access, and how these change over time.

Pustakaloka ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Seno Yudhanto ◽  
Wahid Nashihuddin

ABSTRAKTujuan makalah ini untuk: (1) memberikan informasi hasil preview kebijakan OAJ, khususnya jurnal bidang ilmu perpustakaan dan informasi yang terbit secara online; dan (2) mengetahui berbagai upaya yang dapat dilakukan pustakawan dalam peningkatan kualitas jurnal dan mendukung gerakan OAJ di Indonesia. Metode kajian menggunakan studi literatur dan penelusuran jurnal di Portal Garuda – IPI. Data kajian dijabarkan secara deskriptif. Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahwa: (1) jurnal bidang ilmu perpustakaan dan informasi yang terbit secara online di Indonesia sebagian besar belum menginformasikan pernyataan kebijakan OAJ secara jelas dan lengkap di situs jurnal; dan (2) diperlukan peran aktif pustakawan dalam upaya peningkatan kualitas jurnal dan mendukung gerakan OAJ di Indonesia, khususnya jurnal bidang ilmu perpustakaan dan informasi.ABSTRACTThe purpose of this paper is: (1) to provide information about OAJ policy preview results, especially the journal of library and information science in Indonesia which is published online and (2) to know the various ways from librarians in improving journal quality and support OAJ movement in Indonesia. The study methods use literature study and journal tracking at Portal Garuda - IPI. The data assessment were reported descriptively. The results of the study show that (1) the journal of library and information science published online in Indonesia has not informed the OAJ policy statement on the journal website; and (2) need the active role of librarians in efforts to improve the quality of journals and support OAJ in Indonesia, especially in the field of library and information science.


2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 182-185
Author(s):  
Mike McGrath

Purpose This paper aims to review the current library and information science (LIS) literature for document supply, resource sharing and other issues such as open access (OA) that have an impact on the service. Design/methodology/approach The approach is based on the scanning of about 150 journals, reports, websites and blogs. Findings OA continues to grow and, hence, the impact of document supply. Improvements in the Interlending and Document Supply service are satisfying. Originality/value This paper is the only regular review of LIS literature in this subject area.


2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 88-91
Author(s):  
Mike McGrath

Purpose This paper aims to review the current Library and Information Science (LIS) literature for document supply, resource sharing and other issues such as open access that have an impact on the service. Design/methodology/approach The approach is based on the scanning of about 150 journals, reports, websites and blogs. Findings Open access continues to grow and, hence, the impact of document supply. There is a particularly useful progress report on open access in the UK which is widely relevant. Originality/value This paper is the only regular review of LIS literature in this subject area.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 176-178
Author(s):  
Michelle DuBroy

A Review of: Chang, Y.-W. (2017). Comparative study of characteristics of authors between open access and non-open access journals in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 39(1), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.01.002 Abstract Objective – To compare the characteristics of authors publishing in open access and non-open access library and information science (LIS) journals. Design – Comparative analysis of published journal articles. Setting – Academic journals. Subjects – Articles published in selected LIS journals between 2008-2013. Methods –  Journals included in the Library Science and Information Science category in the 2012 edition of Journal Citation Reports and those listed in the Library and Information Science category of the Directory of Open Access Journals as of May 2013 were included in the analysis. Articles were examined and coded for author occupation, academic rank, and type of collaboration. Main Results – The author analyzed 1,807 articles from 20 open access journals and 1,665 articles from 13 non-open access journals. An unknown number of articles were excluded because they lacked required author information. Over half (53.9%) of the authors who published in the open access journals were practitioners. Over half (58.1%) of the authors who published in the non-open access journals were academics. Librarian-librarian collaboration was the most common type (38.6%) of collaboration found in the open access journals. Academic-academic collaboration was the most common type (34.1%) of collaboration found in the non-open access journals. Collaboration between librarians and academics was seen in 20.5% of open access articles and 13.2% of non-open access articles. Conclusion – In general, librarian-authored research was found more often in open access journals, while the “latest research topics and ideas” (p. 14) were found most often in non-open access journals.


Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 29
Author(s):  
Carmen López-Vergara ◽  
Pilar Flores Asenjo ◽  
Alfonso Rosa-García

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.


2011 ◽  
Vol 72 (5) ◽  
pp. 443-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holly Mercer

Academic librarians are increasingly expected to advocate for scholarly communications reforms such as open access to scholarly publications, yet librarians do not always practice what they preach. Previous research examined librarian attitudes toward open access, whereas this article presents results of a study of open access publishing and self-archiving behaviors of academic librarians. Following an analysis of open access to library and information science literature in 2008, several strategies to encourage academic librarians to continue to embrace open access behaviors are discussed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-75
Author(s):  
Subhash Khode

The concept of open access has been increased in recent years around the world and India is also contributing in open access movement actively. e-LIS is an international open repository in the field of library and information science established in 2003 and as of today e-LIS contains 21,123 various types of documents. The basic aim of this study is to provide an analysis of Indian contribution towards open access movement, particularly the documents submitted in the e-LIS. This study provides analysis of 1090 various types of documents submitted to e-LIS (Eprint for Library and Information Science) from India as on 30 January, 2019. It found that the position of India in terms of number of documents submitted in the e-LIS is first among Asian countries. The maximum documents (432) are submitted as” Journal Article (Print and Online)” and maximum documents (72) are published in 2006.The maximum numbers of submitted articles (35) were published in “Annals of Library and Information Studies”.


2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 83
Author(s):  
Richard Hayman

A Review of: Cirasella, J., & Bowdoin, S. (2013). Just roll with it? Rolling volumes vs. discrete issues in open access library and information science journals. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 1(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1086 Abstract Objective – To understand the prevalence of, motivations for, and satisfaction with using a rolling-volume publishing model, as opposed to publishing discrete issues, across open access academic journals in library and information science. Design – A 12 question survey questionnaire. Setting – English-language, open access library and information science (LIS) journals published in the United States of America. Subjects – A total of 21 open access LIS journals identified via the Directory of Open Access Journals that were actively publishing, and that also met the authors’ standard of scholarliness, which they established by identifying a journal’s peer-review process or other evidence of rigorous review. Based on responses, 12 journals published using discrete issues, while 9 published as rolling volumes or as rolling volumes with some discrete issues. Methods – In late 2011, the study’s authors invited lead editors or primary journal contacts to complete the survey. Survey participants were asked to identify whether their journal published in discrete issues, rolling volumes, or rolling volumes with occasional discrete issues, with the latter two categories combined as one for ease of results analysis. Survey logic split respondents into two groups, either discrete-issue or rolling-volume. Respondents in both categories were posed similar sets of questions, with the key difference being that the questions directed at each category accounted for the publication model the journals themselves identified as using. Editors from both groups were asked about the reasons for using the publication model they identified for their journal: within the survey tool, authors provided 16 potential reasons for using a discrete-issue model, and 13 potential reasons for using a rolling-volume model. Respondents from both groups were asked to mark all reasons that applied for their respective journals. The survey also included questions about whether the journal had ever used the alternate publishing model, the editor’s satisfaction with their current model, and the likelihood of the journal switching to the alternate publishing model in the foreseeable future. Main Results – The authors collected complete responses from 21 of the original 29 journals invited to participate in the study, a response rate of 72%. For the 12 journals that identified as using discrete issues, ease of production workflow (91.7%), clear production deadlines (75.0%), and journal publicity and promotion (75.0%) were the three most common reasons for using a discrete-issue model. For the nine journals using rolling volumes, improved production workflow (77.8%), decreased dependence on production deadlines (77.8%), and increased speed of research dissemination (66.7%) were the three most common reasons cited for using a rolling-volume model. Findings show that overall satisfaction with a journal’s particular publication model was a common factor regardless of publishing model in use, though only the rolling-volume editors unanimously reported being very satisfied with their model. This high satisfaction rate is reflected in editors’ positions that they were very unlikely to switch away from the rolling-volume method. While a majority of editors of discrete-issue journals also reported being very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their current model, the mixed responses to whether they would contemplate switching to the alternate model suggests that awareness of the benefits of rolling-volume publishing is increasing. Conclusion – Researchers discovered a greater incidence of rolling-volume model journals with open access LIS journals than anticipated, suggesting that this is an area where additional research is necessary. The relative newness of the rolling-volume model may be a contributing factor to the high satisfaction rate among editors of journals using this model, as journal editors are likely to be more deliberate in selecting this model over the traditional discrete-issue publishing model. Workflow and production practices were identified as key characteristics for selecting a publishing model regardless of the model selected, and therefore this is another area in need of further investigation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document