« Public access to publicly funded research » has been one of the rallying calls of the global open access movement. Governments and public institutions around the world have mandated that publications supported by public funding sources should be publicly accessible. Publishers are experimenting with new models to widen access.
Yet financial flows underpinning scholarly publishing remain complex and opaque. In this paper we present work to trace and reassemble a picture of financial flows around the publication of journals in the UK in the midst of a national shift towards open access.
We contend that the current lack of financial transparency around scholarly communication is an obstacle to evidence-based policy-making – leaving researchers, decision-makers and institutions in the dark about the systemic implications of new financial models.
We conclude that obtaining a more joined up picture of financial flows is vital as a means for researchers, institutions and others to understand and shape changes to the sociotechnical systems that underpin scholarly communication.
URL : http://ssrn.com/abstract=2690570
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of one of the most important and controversial areas of scholarly communication: Open Access publishing and dissemination of research outputs. It identifies and discusses recent trends and future challenges for various stakeholders in delivering Open Access (OA) to the scholarly literature.
The study is based on a number of interrelated strands of evidence which make up the current discourse on OA, comprising the peer-reviewed literature, grey literature and other forms of communication (including blogs and e-mail discussion lists). It uses a large-scale textual analysis of the peer-reviewed literature since 2010 (carried out using the VOSviewer tool) as a basis for discussion of issues raised in the OA discourse.
A number of key themes are identified, including the relationship between “Green” OA (deposit in repositories) and “Gold” OA (OA journal publication), the developing evidence base associated with OA, researcher attitudes and behaviours, policy directions, management of repositories, development of journals, institutional responses and issues around impact and scholarly communication futures. It suggests that current challenges now focus on how OA can be made to work in practice, having moved on from the discussion of whether it should happen at all.
The paper provides a structured evidence-based review of major issues in the OA field, and suggests key areas for future research and policy development.
URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2015-0167
The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of the current state of debates surrounding Open Access (OA) in non-STEM disciplines.
This paper uses a selective literature review and discussion methodology to give a representative summary of the state of the art.
Non-STEM disciplines persistently lag behind scientific disciplines in their approach to OA, 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.
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.
URL : http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2015-0103
The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, this article reports an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000 to 2013.
Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations.
Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline.
Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version.
SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by Institutional Repositories (IRs) and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines.
This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.
URL : http://www.yorku.ca/lixuemei/The_role_of_subject_repositories_AslibPreprint.docx
This book is the result of a joint research and development project supported by UNESCO and undertaken in 2013 by UNESCO in partnership with the Public Knowledge Project (PKP), the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), the Network of Scientific Journals of Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal (RedALyC), Africa Journals Online (AJOL), the Latin America Social Sciences SchoolBrazil (FLACSO-Brazil), and the Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO). This book aims to contribute to the understanding of scholarly production, use and reach through measures that are open and inclusive. The present book is divided into two sections.
The first section presents a narrative summary of Open Access in Latin America, including a description of the major regional initiatives that are collecting and systematizing data related to Open Access scholarship, and of available data that can be used to understand the (i) growth, (ii) reach, and (iii) impact of Open Access in developing regions. The first section ends with recommendations for future activities. The second section includes in-depth case-studies with the descriptions of indicators and methodologies of peer-review journal portals SciELO and Redalyc, and a case of subject digital repository maintained by CLACSO.
URL : http://microblogging.infodocs.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/alperin2014.pdf
Alternative location : http://hdl.handle.net/10760/25122
14 août 2015
· 16 h 57 min