Publications and Evaluations: Conducting a Baseline Assessment of Open Access Adoption and Support at an R2 University

Author: Susan Vandagriff


This study reflects a mid-size university library’s first attempt to assess faculty research output to shape future scholarly communications efforts.


The assessment combined a qualitative analysis of the university’s reappointment, promotion, and tenure (RPT) documents with a quantitative analysis of faculty publications recorded in Digital Measures from 2015-2019.

The RPT documents were coded to determine which indicators of scholarly value were emphasized, then compared with data on where and how faculty were publishing.


Within RPT documents, peer review was frequently emphasized, but open access and predatory publishing were not mentioned. The majority of publications occurred in hybrid journals, and publishing was concentrated among only a handful of publishers, with 11 publishers responsible for 62% of faculty’s research output.

OA journal publications have risen slightly in recent years but still accounted for only 20.7% of UCCS publications. However, predatory publishing was very low, accounting for less than 5% of UCCS publications.


More education is needed on the importance of open access and how to assess the quality of a journal. RPT criteria consistently mentioned certain indicators of scholarly quality, but these indicators were often vague and preferential to traditional publishing models.

Both open access and predatory publishing remain low, and additional education may help faculty feel more confident in exploring alternative publishing models.


Assessing the research output of faculty and how scholarship is being evaluated within each college can help libraries to tailor their efforts to promote open access publishing.

However, the lack of OA support in the RPT criteria suggests a larger cultural shift is needed to make faculty not only aware of OA, but also encouraged and supported in publishing OA.

URL : Publications and Evaluations: Conducting a Baseline Assessment of Open Access Adoption and Support at an R2 University


L’évaluation des publications scientifiques : nouvelles approches, nouveaux enjeux

Après avoir resitué l’évaluation dans un contexte international (notamment Shanghai) et national (programme P150 de la LOLF), l’étude porte sur une analyse critique du modèle ISI et des modèles alternatifs (Eigenfactor et dérivés du Weighted Page Rank). Elle tente de définir les conditions d’une évaluation plus qualitative en lien avec les Archives ouvertes.