Open-Access publishing and scholarly communications in non-scientific disciplines

- Purpose : This article presents an overview of the current state of debates surrounding open access in non-STEM disciplines. - Design/methodology/approach: This article uses a selective literature review and discussion methodology to give a representative summary of the state of the art. - Findings: Non-STEM disciplines persistently lag behind scientific disciplines in their approach to open access, if the teleology towards open dissemination is accepted. This can be attributed to a variety of economic and cultural factors that centre on the problem of resource allocation with respect to quality. - Originality/value: This paper will be of value to policymakers, funders, academics and publishers. The original aspect of the paper pertains to the identification of an anxiety of irrelevance in the humanities disciplines and a focus on “quality” in open-access publishing debates

If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0

Over the past 15 years, the web has transformed the way we seek and use information. In the last 5 years in particular a set of innovative techniques – collectively termed ‘web 2.0’ – have enabled people to become producers as well as consumers of information. It has been suggested that these relatively easy-to-use tools, and the behaviours which underpin their use, have enormous potential for scholarly researchers, enabling them to communicate their research and its findings more rapidly, broadly and effectively than ever before. This report is based on a study commissioned by the Research Information Network to investigate whether such aspirations are being realised. It seeks to improve our currently limited understanding of whether, and if so how, researchers are making use of various web 2.0 tools in the course of their work, the factors that encourage or inhibit adoption, and researchers’ attitudes towards web 2.0 and other forms of communication. Context: How researchers communicate their work and their findings varies in different subjects or disciplines, and in different institutional settings. Such differences have a strong influence on how researchers approach the adoption – or not – of new information and communications technologies. It is also important to stress that ‘web 2.0’ encompasses a wide range of interactions between technologies and social practices which allow web users to generate, repurpose and share content with each other. We focus in this study on a range of generic tools – wikis, blogs and some social networking systems – as well as those designed specifically by and for people within the scholarly community. Method: Our study was designed not only to capture current attitudes and patterns of adoption but also to identify researchers’ needs and aspirations, and problems that they encounter. We began with an online survey, which collected information about researchers’ information gathering and dissemination habits and their attitudes towards web 2.0. This was followed by in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a stratified sample of survey respondents to explore in more depth their experience of web 2.0, including perceived barriers as well as drivers to adoption. Finally, we undertook five case studies of web 2.0 services to investigate their development and adoption across different communities and business models. Key findings: Our study indicates that a majority of researchers are making at least occasional use of one or more web 2.0 tools or services for purposes related to their research: for communicating their work; for developing and sustaining networks and collaborations; or for finding out about what others are doing. But frequent or intensive use is rare, and some researchers regard blogs, wikis and other novel forms of communication as a waste of time or even dangerous. In deciding if they will make web 2.0 tools and services part of their everyday practice, the key questions for researchers are the benefits they may secure from doing so, and how it fits with their use of established services. Researchers who use web 2.0 tools and services do not see them as comparable to or substitutes for other channels and means of communication, but as having their own distinctive role for specific purposes and at particular stages of research. And frequent use of one kind of tool does not imply frequent use of others as well

Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action!

Diversity is an important characteristic of any healthy ecosystem, including scholarly communications. Diversity in services and platforms, funding mechanisms, and evaluation measures will allow the scholarly communication system to accommodate the different workflows, languages, publication outputs, and research topics that support the needs and epistemic pluralism of different research communities. In addition, diversity reduces the risk of vendor lock-in, which inevitably leads to monopoly, monoculture, and high prices. Bibliodiversity has been in steady decline for decades.1 Far from promoting diversity, the dominant “ecosystem” of scholarly publishing today increasingly resembles what Vandana Shiva (1993) has called the “monocultures of the mind”2, characterized by the homogenization of publication formats and outlets that are largely owned by a small number of multinational publishers who are far more interested in profit maximization than the health of the system. Yet, a diverse scholarly communications system is essential for addressing the complex challenges we face. As we transition to open access and open science, there is an opportunity to reverse this decline and foster greater diversity in scholarly communications; what the Jussieu Call refers to as bibliodiversity3. Bibliodiversity, by its nature, cannot be pursued through a single, unified approach, however it does require strong coordination in order to avoid a fragmented and siloed ecosystem. Building on the principles outlined in the Jussieu Call, this paper explores the current state of diversity in scholarly communications, and issues a call for action, specifying what each community can do individually and collectively to support greater bibliodiversity in a more intentional fashion

Do Open Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact?

While many authors believe that their work has a greater research impact if it is freely available, studies to demonstrate that impact are few. This study looks at articles in four disciplines at varying stages of adoption of open access—philosophy, political science, electrical and electronic engineering and mathematics—to see if they have a greater impact, as measured by citations in the ISI Web of Science database, if their authors make them freely available on the Internet. The finding is that, across all four disciplines, freely available articles do have a greater research impact. Shedding light on this category of open access reveals that scholars in diverse disciplines are both adopting open access practices and being rewarded for it

Same Question, Different World: Replicating an Open Access Research Impact Study

To examine changes in the open access landscape over time, this study partially replicated Kristin Antelman’s 2004 study of open access citation advantage. Results indicated open access articles still have a citation advantage. For three of the four disciplines examined, the most common sites hosting freely available articles were independent sites, such as academic social networks or article sharing sites. For the same three disciplines, more than 70% of the open access copies were publishers’ PDFs. The major difference from Antelman’s is the increase in the number of freely available articles that appear to be in violation of publisher policies

Publishing solutions for contemporary scholars: The library as innovator and partner

Purpose: To review the trend in academic libraries toward including scholarly communication, and by extension, electronic publishing, as part of their core mission, using the Cornell University Library as an example. Design/methodology/approach: The paper describes several manifestations of publishing activity organized under the Library’s Center for Innovative Publishing, including the arXiv (http://arxiv.org/), Project Euclid (http://projecteuclid.org), and DPubS (http://DPubS.org). Findings: Libraries bring many competencies to the scholarly communications process, including expertise in digital initiatives, close connections with authors and readers, and a commitment to preservation. To add publishing to their responsibilities, they need to develop expertise in content acquisition, editorial management, contract negotiation, marketing, and subscription management. Originality/value: Academic libraries are making formal and informal publishing a part of their core activity. A variety of models exist. The Cornell University Library has created a framework for supporting publishing called the Center for Innovative Publishing, and through it supports a successful open access repository (arXiv), a sustainable webhosting service for journals in math and statistics (Project Euclid) and a content management tool (DPubS) to enable other institutions (libraries,scholarly societies, presses) to engage in similar ventures to increase the dissemination of scholarship and to lower the barriers to its access

Publishing solutions for contemporary scholars: The library as innovator and partner

Purpose: To review the trend in academic libraries toward including scholarly communication, and by extension, electronic publishing, as part of their core mission, using the Cornell University Library as an example. Design/methodology/approach: The paper describes several manifestations of publishing activity organized under the Library’s Center for Innovative Publishing, including the arXiv (http://arxiv.org/), Project Euclid (http://projecteuclid.org), and DPubS (http://DPubS.org). Findings: Libraries bring many competencies to the scholarly communications process, including expertise in digital initiatives, close connections with authors and readers, and a commitment to preservation. To add publishing to their responsibilities, they need to develop expertise in content acquisition, editorial management, contract negotiation, marketing, and subscription management. Originality/value: Academic libraries are making formal and informal publishing a part of their core activity. A variety of models exist. The Cornell University Library has created a framework for supporting publishing called the Center for Innovative Publishing, and through it supports a successful open access repository (arXiv), a sustainable webhosting service for journals in math and statistics (Project Euclid) and a content management tool (DPubS) to enable other institutions (libraries,scholarly societies, presses) to engage in similar ventures to increase the dissemination of scholarship and to lower the barriers to its access

Harvesting for disseminating, open archives and role of academic libraries

The Scholarly communication system is in a critical stage, due to a number of factors.The Open Access movement is perhaps the most interesting response that the scientific community has tried to give to this problem. The paper examines strengths and weaknesses of the Open Access strategy in general and, more specifically, of the Open Archives Initiative, discussing experiences, criticisms and barriers. All authors that have faced the problems of implementing an OAI compliant e-print server agree that technical and practical problems are not the most difficult to overcome and that the real problem is the change in cultural attitude required. In this scenario the university library is possibly the standard bearer for the advent and implementation of e-prints archives and Open Archives services. To ensure the successful implementation of this service the Library has a number of distinct roles to play