scholarly journals Publishing habits and perceptions of open access publishing and public access amongst clinical and research fellows

2020 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin O’Hanlon ◽  
Jeanine McSweeney ◽  
Samuel Stabler
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Reading Program ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
Research Dissemination ◽  
Flat Rate

Introduction: Open access (OA) publishing rates have risen dramatically in the biomedical sciences in the past decade. However, few studies have focused on the publishing activities and attitudes of early career researchers. The aim of this study was to examine current publishing activities of clinical and research fellows and their perceptions of OA publishing and public access.Methods: This study employed a mixed methods approach. Data on publications authored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center fellows between 2013 and 2018 were collected via an in-house author profile system and citation indexes. Journals were categorized according to SHERPA/RoMEO classifications. In-person and telephone interviews were conducted with fifteen fellows to discern their perceptions of OA publishing.Results: The total percentage of fellows’ publications that were freely available OA was 28.6%, with a relatively flat rate between 2013 and 2018. Publications with fellows as first authors were significantly more likely to be OA. Fellows cited high article processing charges (APCs) and perceived lack of journal quality or prestige as barriers to OA publishing. Fellows generally expressed support for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy.Conclusions: While the fellows in this study acknowledged the potential of OA to aid in research dissemination, they also expressed hesitation to publish OA related to confusion surrounding legitimate OA and predatory publications and frustration with APCs. Fellows supported the NIH public access policy and accepted it as part of their research process. Health sciences information professional could potentially leverage this acceptance of public access to advocate for OA publishing. This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program.

scholarly journals How is open access publishing going down with early career researchers? An international, multi-disciplinary study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Nicholas ◽  
Hamid R. Jamali ◽  
Eti Herman ◽  
Jie Xu ◽  
Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Career Progression ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Openness To Change ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Scholarly Communications ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Many

This study explores early career researchers’ (ECRs) appreciation and utilisation of open access (OA) publishing. The evidence reported here results from a questionnaire-based international survey with 1600 participants, which forms the second leg and final year of a four year long, mixed methods, longitudinal study that sought to discover whether ECRs will be the harbingers of change when it comes to scholarly communications. Proceeding from the notion that today’s neophyte researchers, believed to hold millennial values of openness to change, transparency and sharing, may be best placed to power the take-up of OA publishing, the study sought to discover: the extent to which ECRs publish OA papers; the main reasons for their doing or not doing so; and what were thought to be the broader advantages and disadvantages of OA publishing. The survey data is presented against a backdrop of the literature-based evidence on the subject, with the interview stage data providing contextualisation and qualitative depth. The findings show that the majority of ECRs published in OA journals and this varied by discipline and country. Most importantly, there were more advantages and fewer disadvantages to OA publishing, which may be indicative of problems to do with cost and availability, rather than reputational factors. Among the many reasons cited for publishing OA the most important one is societal, although OA is seen as especially benefiting ECRs in career progression. Cost is plainly considered the main downside.

scholarly journals Behind the Wall: An Exploration of Public Access to Research Articles in Social Work Journals

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly Pendell
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Open Access Journals

Despite implicit and explicit expectations that research inform their practice, social workers are unlikely to have access to published research articles. The traditional publishing model does not support public access (i.e., no publisher paywall barrier) to scholarly journals. Newer models of publishing allow free access to research including open access publishing and deposit of scholarship in institutional or disciplinary repositories. This study examined public access to articles in the top 25 social work journals. A random sample of article citations from a total of 1,587 was assessed, with the result that 52% of citations had no full-text access. Of the remaining 48% of citations with full-text access, it is questionable most will remain available long term due to possible copyright violations. Citations from the random sample show only minimal usage of institutional or disciplinary repositories as a means of sharing research. Establishing this baseline measure of access to research is an important first step in understanding the barriers for social workers in accessing research to inform practice. Recommendations for increasing access to research include publishing in open access journals and utilizing full text repositories.

scholarly journals Building a university Open Access scholarly publishing environment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tereza Karlová ◽  
Lenka Hrdličková
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Scholarly Publishing ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Editorial Office

As Open Access publishing has been playing a more important role in scholarly communication, well-developed Open Access publishing infrastructure should be adopted by universities in order to make their outputs more competitive and provide its authors the immediate impact of their work. More than that, such “in-house” publications are very good starting points for early career researchers while they are joining the world of scholarly publishing. Not because of lower quality or reduced requirements, but because of extra help and guidance that might be provided to students by editorial office. The Czech Technical University in Prague (CTU) - Central Library has developed, based on the community needs, an Open Access journal publishing environment including the complete set of publishing standards, and being linked to the global Open Access infrastructure. One university scholarly journal and proceedings series is published there by the library, the platform also hosts a number of subject-specialized journals published by smaller departments. Such hosting is essential for many editorial teams, since it provides current publishing standards that they would hardly be able to keep by their own. Furthermore, being part of a university library, the editorial office has skills to provide value-added services in full range of information and publishing skills to researchers, authors, and students. To capture a full scale of Open Access publishing services, an Open Access monograph platform ought to be adopted in such a manner that is able to deal with various multimedia document types and contents, live monographs etc. The hosting of publishing platforms and guidance in Open Access publishing, research assessment and information and publishing literacy enhances good cooperation between the library and the academic community, and also provides the community with a lot of practical added value and help in meeting the current publishing criteria to succeed in the competitive research environment.

scholarly journals Report from the "What Is Open?" Workgroup

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick Anderson ◽  
Seth Denbo ◽  
Diane Graves ◽  
Susan Haigh ◽  
Steven Hill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Broad Spectrum ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Current Definition ◽  
Effective Dissemination ◽  
Difference Of Opinion ◽  
The Many ◽  
Definition Of

The scholarly community’s current definition of “open” captures only some of the attributes of openness that exist across different publishing models and content types. Open is not an end in itself, but a means for achieving the most effective dissemination of scholarship and research. We suggest that the different attributes of open exist along a broad spectrum and propose an alternative way of describing and evaluating openness based on four attributes: discoverable, accessible, reusable, and transparent. These four attributes of openness, taken together, form the draft “DART Framework for Open Access.” This framework can be applied to both research artifacts as well as research processes. We welcome input from the broader scholarly community about this framework.OSI2016 workgroup questionThere is a broad difference of opinion among the many stakeholders in scholarly publishing about how to precisely define open access publishing. Are “open access” and “open data” what we mean by open? Does “open” mean anything else? Does it mean “to make available,” or “to make freely available in a particular format?” Is a clearer definition needed (or maybe just better education on the current definition)? Why or why not? At present, some stakeholders see public access as being an acceptable stopping point in the move toward open access. Others see “open” as requiring free and immediate access with articles being available in CC-BY format. The range of opinions between these extremes is vast. How should these differences be decided? Who should decide? Is it possible to make binding recommendations (and how)? Is consensus necessary? What are the consequences of the lack of consensus?

scholarly journals Behind the Wall

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1041-1052
Author(s):  
Kimberly Pendell
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Baseline Measure ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Implicit And Explicit

Despite implicit and explicit expectations that research inform their practice, social workers are unlikely to have access to published research articles. The traditional publishing model does not support public access (i.e., no publisher paywall barrier) to scholarly journals. Newer models of publishing allow free access to research including open access publishing and deposit of scholarship in institutional or disciplinary repositories. This study examined public access to articles in the top 25 social work journals. A random sample of article citations from a total of 1,587 was assessed, with the result that 52% of citations had no full-text access. Of the remaining 48% of citations with full-text access, it is questionable most will remain available long term due to possible copyright violations. Citations from the random sample show only minimal usage of institutional or disciplinary repositories as a means of sharing research. Establishing this baseline measure of access to research is an important first step in understanding the barriers for social workers in accessing research to inform practice. Recommendations for increasing access to research include publishing in open access journals and utilizing full text repositories.

scholarly journals Predatory Journals: A Literature Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-51
Author(s):  
Zouina Sarfraz ◽  
Azza Sarfraz ◽  
Ammar Anwer ◽  
Zainab Nadeem ◽  
Shehar Bano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Boolean Logic ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
The Impact

Background: Predatory publishing is an exploitative fraudulent open-access publishing model. Most predatory journals do not follow policies that are set forth by organizations including the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Jeffrey Beall, an associate professor at the University of Colorado Denver and a librarian at Auraria Library, coined the term ‘predatory journals’ to describe pseudo-journals. Our literature review has highlighted that predatory journal authorship is not limited to early-career researchers only. Majority of authors are unfamiliar with practices in pseudo journals despite publishing manuscripts. Methodology: For the purpose of this review, a systematic literature search was carried in October 2019 of the following databases: (1) Web of Science (all databases), (2) ERIC, and (3) LISTA. All stages of the review process included access to the search results and full articles for review and consequent analysis. Articles were added after screening fulltext articles by meeting the inclusion criteria and meeting none of the exclusion criteria. As there were a high number of articles reporting findings on predatory journals, they were further screened re-evaluating them for any deviations from the theme of this study. Relevant material published within the last five years was used. Results: After a thorough review, 63,133 were located using the Boolean logic. After reviewing 63 abstracts and titles for relevance, 9 articles were included in the literature review. Four themes are concerned with the results of the synthesis that demarcate legitimate and predatory publications. They include factors: (1) Related to the journal, (2) Academic and professional, (3) Dissemination, and (4) Personal. Conclusion: Our literature review found that there is a lack of one single definition for predatory journals. We believe that it is essential for potential authors and young researchers to have clear guidelines and make demarcations of potential journals that seem dubious. Moreover, the authors’ selection of publishers should be modified to control the risks of tainting ‘open-access’ publishing with fraudulent journals. The academic and research community ought to revise their criteria and recognize high quality and author journals as opposed to ‘predatory’ journals. Research mentorship, realigning research incentives, and education is vital to decrease the impact of predatory publishing in the near future.

scholarly journals Defining the role of libraries in the Open Science landscape: a reflection on current European practice

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Ayris ◽  
Tiberius Ignat
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Data Management ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Publishing Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Step Test ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Research Data Management

Abstract This collaborative paper looks at how libraries can engage with and offer leadership in the Open Science movement. It is based on case studies and the results of an EU-funded research project on Research Data Management taken from European research-led universities and their libraries. It begins by analysing three recent trends in Science, and then links component parts of the research process to aspects of Open Science. The paper then looks in detail at four areas and identifies roles for libraries: Open Access and Open Access publishing, Research Data Management, E-Infrastructures (especially the European Open Science Cloud), and Citizen Science. The paper ends in suggesting a model for how libraries, by using a 4-step test, can assess their engagement with Open Science. This 4-step test is based on lessons drawn from the case studies.

scholarly journals Open Infrastructure Matters: Supporting Scholar-Led and Community-Driven Services to Advance Open Access

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eelco Ferwerda ◽  
Silvio Peroni ◽  
Kevin Stranack
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Critical Element ◽  
Sustainable Future ◽  
Global Pandemic ◽  
Set Up ◽  
National Networks

Twenty years ago, open access emerged out of a crisis within scholarly communications. Back then, it was about solving the issue of cost as a barrier to accessing scholarly content, due to the increasing concentration of commercial publishing. Today, another crisis is relying on open access to remove barriers to creating and consuming scholarship. This time, however, our sights are set on increasing public access as a means to solve a global pandemic. While open scholarship requires information to be freely available, it costs money to create and sustain high quality books and articles, discovery services that provide access to them, and software that enables their creation. We have seen this in discussions and developments surrounding open access business models, including article processing changes (APCs), open access funds, and “subscribe-to-open.” Where such infrastructures do not generate commercial profits, they require financial support from the communities they serve, including authors, publishers, libraries, funders, scholarly institutions and other stakeholders, to make open access a reality. As we set up national networks, mandates, and other initiatives to support and promote open access, we must not forget another critical element: open infrastructure. In the open access context,  “infrastructure” -- the "structures and facilities" -- refers to the scholarly communication resources and services, including software, that we depend upon to enable the scientific and scholarly community to collect, store, organise, access, share, and assess research. Open infrastructure provides the foundation for keeping costs down and quality high, ensuring community-driven development. But who funds open infrastructure? And how do we create a sustainable future for the services that many of us have come to rely on? This 20 minute session will examine three open infrastructure case studies: OpenCitations, OAPEN/DOAB, and the Public Knowledge Project. These three initiatives are currently being promoted by the Global Sustainability Coalition for Open Science Services (SCOSS), a network of influential organisations committed to helping secure open access infrastructure well into the future. Our panel of services will explore how the current round of SCOSS-supported projects are ensuring a sustainable future for open access scholarly publishing, and will discuss the essential role that governments, libraries, publishers and others are playing - and need to play - in making this a reality. Following the growth of open access publishing, scholar-led and community-driven open infrastructure and innovations have supported and facilitated the vital (and now urgent) need for open knowledge. What does the next twenty years look like for these services? And how can we work together to ensure open access isn’t just a response to crises, but rather the “new normal”?

scholarly journals Early Career Researchers between Predatory Publishing and Academic Excellence: The Views and Behaviours of the Millennials

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-65
Author(s):  
David Nicholas ◽  
◽  
Eti Herman ◽  
Anthony Watkinson ◽  
Jie Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Academic Excellence ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Arts And Humanities ◽  
Scholarly Communications ◽  
Predatory Publishing

The paper draws on evidence of predatory publishing obtained from the 4 year-long Harbingers research study of the changing scholarly communication attitudes and behaviour of early career researchers (ECRs). The project featured longitudinal interviews for its first 3 years with 116 ECRs researching science and social sciences who came from China, France, Malaysia, Poland, Spain, UK and USA. The interview data provided the building blocks for a questionnaire survey in the 4th year, which obtained 1600 responses from a global audience, which included arts and humanities ECRs and those from Russia. These studies investigated predatory publishing as part of general questioning about scholarly communications, in other words, in context. The main finding from the interview study were: 1) ECRs generally do not publish in predatory journals; 2) they only allude to them lightly and mainly in the context of open access publishing; 3) they no longer acquaint all open access publishing with predatory journals. The questionnaire found that, as in the case of the interviews, complaints that open access is low quality publishing are diminishing, however, this positivity has been partly offset by increased concerns about the dangers of predatory journals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document