Much Library and Information Science Research on Open Access is Available in Open Access, But There Is Still Room to Grow

A Review of: Chilimo, W. L., & Onyancha, O. B. (2018). How open is open access research in library and information science? South African Journal of Libraries & Information Science, 84(1), 11-19. https://doi.org/10.7553/84-1-1710 Abstract Objective – To investigate the open access (OA) availability of Library and Information Science (LIS) research on the topic of OA, the relative openness of the journals in which this research is published, and the degree to which the OA policies of LIS journals facilitate free access. Design – Bibliometric, quantitative dataset analysis. Setting – African academic library and information science department. Subjects – 1,185 English-language, peer-reviewed articles published between 2003 and 2013 on OA and published in journals indexed by three major LIS databases, of which 909 articles in the top 56 journals received further analysis. Methods – Authors first searched LIS indexes to compile a dataset of published articles focusing on OA. They then manually identified and evaluated the OA policies of the top 56 journals in which these articles were found. The openness of these journals was scored according to a rubric modified from the Scholarly Publishing and Academic resources Coalition’s (SPARC’s) 2013 OA spectrum. Finally, authors manually searched Google Scholar to determine the OA availability of the articles from the dataset. Main Results – Of the 909 articles published in the top 56 journals, 602 were available in some form of OA. Of these, 431 were available as gold copies and 171 were available as green copies. Of the 56 journals evaluated for openness, 13 were considered OA, 3 delayed OA, 27 hybrid/unconditional post-print, 2 hybrid/conditional post-print, and 11 had unrecognized OA policies. Conclusion – The increasing amount and significance of LIS research on OA has not directly translated to the comprehensive adoption of OA publishing. Although a majority of the articles in the dataset were available in OA, the authors indicate that some measures of OA adoption and growth assessed in this study are only somewhat higher than in other disciplines. The authors call upon LIS professionals to become more conversant with journals’ OA policies. An acknowledgement that not all LIS scholars researching OA are necessarily advocates thereof led the authors of this study to recommend further investigation of OA research not available in OA to shed light on those scholars’ perceptions and preferences.

Download Full-text

LIS Practitioner-focused Research Trends Toward Open Access Journals, Academic-focused Research Toward Traditional Journals

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice ◽

10.18438/eblip29377 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 13 (1) ◽

pp. 24-26 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Richard Hayman

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Undergraduate Students ◽

English Language ◽

Information Science ◽

Research Question ◽

Science Research ◽

Library And Information Science ◽

Journal Citation Reports ◽

Open Access Journals ◽

Different Types

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.01.002 Abstract Objective – To examine the occupational characteristics and publication habits of library and information science (LIS) authors regarding traditional journals and open access journals. Design – Content analysis. Setting – English language research articles published in open access (OA) journals and non-open access (non-OA) journals from 2008 to 2013 that are indexed in LIS databases. Subjects – The authorship characteristics for 3,472 peer-reviewed articles. Methods – This researcher identified 33 total journals meeting the inclusion criteria by using the LIS categories within 2012 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to find 13 appropriate non-OA journals, and within the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) to identify 20 appropriate OA journals. They found 1,665 articles by 3,186 authors published in the non-OA journals, and another 1,807 articles by 3,446 authors within the OA journals. The researcher used author affiliation to determine article authors’ occupations using information included in the articles themselves or by looking for information on the Internet, and excluded articles when occupational information could not be located. Authors were categorized into four occupational categories: Librarians (practitioners), Academics (faculty and researchers), Students (graduate or undergraduate), and Others. Using these categories, the author identified 10 different types of collaborations for co-authored articles. Main Results – This research involves three primary research questions. The first examined the occupational differences between authors publishing in OA journals versus non-OA journals. Academics (faculty and researchers) more commonly published in non-OA journals (58.1%) compared to OA journals (35.6%). The inverse was true for librarian practitioners, who were more likely to publish in OA journals (53.9%) compared to non-OA journals (25.5%). Student authors, a combined category that included both graduate and undergraduate students, published more in non-OA journals (10.1%) versus in OA journals (5.0%). The final category of “other” saw only a slight difference between non-OA (6.3%) and OA (5.5%) publication venues. This second research question explored the difference in the proportion of LIS authors who published in OA and non-OA journals. Overall, authors were more likely to publish in OA journals (72.4%) vs. non-OA (64.3%). Librarians tended to be primary authors in OA journals, while LIS academics tend to be primary authors for articles in non-OA publications. Academics from outside the LIS discipline but contributing to the disciplinary literature were more likely to publish in non-OA journals. Regarding trends over time, this research showed a decrease in the percentage of librarian practitioners and “other” authors publishing in OA journals, while academics and students increased their OA contributions rates during the same period. Finally, the research explored whether authors formed different types of collaborations when publishing in OA journals as compared to non-OA journals. When examining co-authorship of articles, just over half of all articles published in OA journals (54.4%) and non-OA journals (53.2%) were co-authored. Overall the researcher identified 10 types of collaborative relationships and examined the rates for publishing in OA versus non-OA journals for these relationships. OA journals saw three main relationships, with high levels of collaborations between practitioner librarians (38.6% of collaborations), between librarians and academics (20.5%), and between academics only (18.0%). Non-OA journals saw four main relationships, with collaborations between academics appearing most often (34.1%), along with academic-student collaborations (21.5%), practitioner librarian collaborations (15.5%), and librarian-academic collaborations (13.2%). Conclusion – LIS practitioner-focused research tends to appear more often in open access journals, while academic-focused researcher tends to appear more often in non-OA journals. These trends also appear in research collaborations, with co-authored works involving librarians appearing more often in OA journals, and collaborations that include academics more likely to appear in non-OA journals.

Download Full-text

Internet of Things – potential for libraries

Library Hi Tech ◽

10.1108/lht-10-2015-0100 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 34 (2) ◽

pp. 404-420 ◽

Cited By ~ 21

Author(s):

Magdalena Wójcik

Keyword(s):

Internet Of Things ◽

English Language ◽

Information Science ◽

New Technologies ◽

Academic Library ◽

Library And Information Science ◽

Library Services ◽

Content Type ◽

Modern Library ◽

The Subject

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to subject the potential of Internet of Things (IoT) technology for libraries in terms of the possible scope and usage forms of this technology in public and academic library services. Design/methodology/approach – Based on analysis of the subject literature, the main areas of IoT applications in commercial institutions were identified, then an analysis of Library and Information Science English-language literature from the years 2010 to 2015 was conducted in order to create a profile of modern library services. The range of activities of commercial and non-commercial institutions were compared to ascertain if areas in which commercial entities using or planning to use IoT could also be an inspiration for libraries. In this way, a theoretical model of IoT use in library activities was developed. Findings – The research showed that IoT technology might have the potential to be used in library services and other activities, similar to how it is implemented in the commercial sector. Research limitations/implications – The aim of the paper is to determine the possible, not the actual, scope and forms of using this technology in public and academic libraries’ services. Practical implications – The results can be widely used in libraries as an inspiration for the use of IoT technology in modern library services. Social implications – The use of new technologies in libraries can help to improve the image of these institutions in the eyes of users, especially the younger generation. Originality/value – The use of IoT in libraries is a new issue that has not been studied much yet. The issue of using the potential of this technology for the needs of libraries has, in recent years, been raised at international conferences, become a subject of interest to librarian associations, and been widely discussed in the blogosphere, thus proving that this topic is important to practitioners. It is difficult, however, to find any scientific, comprehensive studies of this topic.

Download Full-text

Open Access

Communication ◽

10.1093/obo/9780199756841-0252 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Stewart Baker

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Information Science ◽

Publishing Industry ◽

Open Access Publishing ◽

Library And Information Science ◽

Free Access ◽

Journal Articles ◽

Scholarly Communications ◽

Subject Areas ◽

Number Of Citations

Put simply, “open access” is the sharing of scholarly research at no cost to end users. Although it was first popularized in the Budapest, Bethesda, and Berlin statements in 2002 and 2003, there is still no universally agreed-upon definition for the term. At a minimum, a work must be freely available at no cost. Most proponents agree, additionally, that work must be released under a license that allows for it to be freely copied, used, and modified to qualify as open access. Although open access typically refers to scholarly journal articles, it can also be applied to monographs, gray literature, and other types of scholarly and nonscholarly work. Research is made available as open access in a number of ways. The two main models are “green” open access, where published works are placed in a free-to-access repository, and “gold” open access, where journals publish articles under a license that allows readers free access to their contents. In the nearly twenty years since the first open access declarations, its proponents have been broadly successful in propagating the movement’s ideals, with the result that more and more research in many subject areas has been made available under a green, gold, or other open access model. Many studies have shown that publishing a work as open access increases the number of citations it receives and improves its scores on a variety of metrics, although not all studies show a positive relationship. The growing support for open access, and upcoming initiatives like Plan S, in which a consortium of funders will require open access publishing as a condition of receiving funding, as well as continuing interest in open access from scholars, libraries, publishers, funders, and societies alike, means that open access is set to become ever more relevant to those studying scholarly communications, and research on the topic continues to grow accordingly. Research about open access is often practical in nature, and typically comes from scholars and researchers of scholarly communication, the publishing industry, or library and information science; however, because the benefits of open access apply to those in nearly all fields of study, researchers should be prepared to find studies and proponents that are interdisciplinary in nature or are published in journals outside of the sphere of communications.

Download Full-text

Growth of predatory open access journals: implication for quality assurance in library and information science research

Library Hi Tech News ◽

10.1108/lhtn-10-2016-0046 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 34 (1) ◽

pp. 17-22 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Philips Oluwaseun Ayeni ◽

Niran Adetoro

Keyword(s):

Quality Control ◽

Quality Assurance ◽

Open Access ◽

Information Science ◽

Science Research ◽

Library And Information Science ◽

Content Type ◽

Predatory Journals ◽

Open Access Journals ◽

Usage Patterns

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine perceived and factual realities of open access predators and further delve into usage patterns of predatory open access journals (OAJs) by researchers and its implication on quality assurance in Library and Information Science Research. It also investigates factors promoting use of these outlets, as well as authors’ perspectives on quality control for OAJs. Design/methodology/approach The paper reviewed available literature on OAJs and the proliferation of predatory journals. It also presents author’s viewpoint on the implication of using predatory journals for Library and Information Science Research in Nigeria. Findings The number of predatory publishers globally has grown rapidly from 18 in 2011 to 693 in 2015, whereas standalone journals increased from 126 to 507 in 2015. Library and information science (LIS) studies were published in some of the listed predatory journals by Jeffrey Beall, and this has reduced global recognition of LIS researchers in Nigeria. Upcoming authors were easily attracted to publishing their work in predatory journals because of fast review process, prompt publishing and quest for global visibility. Checking against plagiarism, ensuring quality control, increased awareness for non-use of predatory journals were some of the recommendations given. Practical implications It is clear that if LIS educators report their research in predatory OA outlets, individual and institutional reputation will be affected which may eventually lead to low ranking status of institutions. Nigerian universities low ranking status by several indices can be traced to the nonappearance or low scholarly literature published in reputable and respected journal outlets. Scholars with less quality studies will not be invited to feature as reviewers and international panelist in reputable thematic conferences and meetings neither can they be invited as external examiners in universities abroad. Originality/value This work is very valuable in evaluating the growth of predatory journals in Library and information Science Research in Nigeria. It provides distinctive ways to evaluating OAJs and how to identify and avoid predatory journals.

Download Full-text

Librarian Authors Appear to Favour Open Access Journals, while Academic Authors Appear to Favour Non-Open Access Journals

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice ◽

10.18438/eblip29812 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (4) ◽

pp. 176-178

Author(s):

Michelle DuBroy

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Information Science ◽

Science Research ◽

Common Type ◽

Library Science ◽

Academic Rank ◽

Library And Information Science ◽

Journal Citation Reports ◽

Open Access Journals ◽

Academic Authors

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.

Download Full-text