Authors : Ana Rogers-Butterworth, Melissa Moreau
Introduction and Literature Review: Legal research often operates outside conventional academic scholarship standards, characterized by a proliferation of student-edited journals and a notable absence of rigorous peer review. While some law journals have sought to align with established academic standards, many have struggled to keep pace with emerging open access (OA) requirements, such as those outlined by Plan S. As funding agencies increasingly mandate immediate OA for research outputs, the field of legal scholarly communications faces urgent needs for adaptation and modernization.
Methods: This study analyzed the OA policies of 384 journals that included articles and reviews authored by Canadian law faculty members. Data were extracted from Web of Science and Open Alex, focusing on six law faculties across Canada known for their high research output. Quantitative methods were used to assess publishing policies concerning OA principles.
Results: The findings reveal a strong preference for hybrid OA journals, particularly those with an international focus, often produced by interdisciplinary publishers. Diamond OA journals, primarily centered in North America, ranked second. Notably, a significant number of diamond OA journals fail to meet established OA standards, alongside a considerable presence of closed-access law journals.
Discussion and Conclusion: A consistent theme among law-specific publications, whether from academic faculty or corporate law publishers, is a pervasive lack of compliance with OA standards and a limited understanding of their implications. This underscores the imperative for further education and policy reform within the legal publishing ecosystem to enhance access and uphold the principles of open scholarship.
URL : Modernizing Legal Scholarship: Toward Open Access Compliance
