Hidden Inequities of Access. Document Accessibility in an Aggregated Database

Authors : Amanda Hovious, Congwen Wang

Despite ongoing efforts to improve database accessibility, aggregated database vendors concede that they do not have complete control over document accessibility. Instead, they point to the responsibility of journal publishers to deliver articles in an accessible format. This may increase the likelihood that users with disabilities will encounter articles that are not compatible with a screen reader.

To better understand the extent of the problem, a document accessibility audit was conducted of randomly selected articles from EBSCO’s Library & Information Source database. Full-text articles from 12 library science journals were evaluated against two measures of screen reader compatibility: HTML format (the optimal format for screen readers) and PDF accessibility conformance.

Findings showed inconsistencies in HTML format availability for articles in the selected journals. Additionally, the entire sample of PDF articles failed to meet the minimum standard of PDF Universal Accessibility of containing a tagged structure. However, all PDF articles passed accessibility permissions tests, so could be made accessible retroactively by a third party.

URL : Hidden Inequities of Access. Document Accessibility in an Aggregated Database

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v43i1.16661

Applying Librarian- Created Evaluation Tools to Determine Quality and Credibility of Open Access Library Science Journals

Authors : Maggie Albro, Jessica L. Serrao, Christopher D. Vidas, Jenessa M. McElfresh, K. Megan Sheffield, Megan Palmer

This article explores the application of journal quality and credibility evaluation tools to library science publications. The researchers investigate quality and credibility attributes of forty-eight peer-reviewed library science journals with open access components using two evaluative tools developed and published by librarians.

The results identify common positive and negative attributes of library science journals, compare the results of the two evaluation tools, and discuss their ease of use and limitations. Overall, the results show that while library science journals do not fall prey to the same concerning characteristics that librarians use to caution other researchers, there are several areas in which publishers can improve the quality and credibility of their journals.

URL : https://preprint.press.jhu.edu/portal/sites/default/files/06_24.1albro.pdf

Open Data Policies among Library and Information Science Journals

Author : Brian Jackson

Journal publishers play an important role in the open research data ecosystem. Through open data policies that include public data archiving mandates and data availability statements, journal publishers help promote transparency in research and wider access to a growing scholarly record.

The library and information science (LIS) discipline has a unique relationship with both open data initiatives and academic publishing and may be well-positioned to adopt rigorous open data policies.

This study examines the information provided on public-facing websites of LIS journals in order to describe the extent, and nature, of open data guidance provided to prospective authors.

Open access journals in the discipline have disproportionately adopted detailed, strict open data policies. Commercial publishers, which account for the largest share of publishing in the discipline, have largely adopted weaker policies. Rigorous policies, adopted by a minority of journals, describe the rationale, application, and expectations for open research data, while most journals that provide guidance on the matter use hesitant and vague language. Recommendations are provided for strengthening journal open data policies.

URL : Open Data Policies among Library and Information Science Journals

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9020025

Academic Impact of Articles by Practitioners in the Field of Library and Information Science

Author : Yu-Wei Chang

This study measured the relative academic impact of articles by LIS practitioners by analyzing library and information science articles published between 2005 and 2014. The results revealed that, although practitioners were not the main knowledge contributors, the academic impact of articles by practitioners was not significantly lower than that of articles by academics.

No significant differences in academic impact were present between any two types of coauthored articles. Articles from academic–practitioner collaboration were cited earlier than articles from practitioner–practitioner and academic–academic collaborations.

This study suggests that LIS practitioners appear to benefit from collaborative scholarship with LIS researchers through more citations and higher impact.

URL : Academic Impact of Articles by Practitioners in the Field of Library and Information Science

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.1.59

Academic libraries as the flagships of publishing trends in LIS: a complex analysis of rankings, citations and topics of research

Authors : Bea Winklera, Péter Kiszla

The aim of this paper is to identify the most prevailing trends of research and publishing in the field of Library and Information Science (LIS) based on the publications of the past five years.

The study follows a complex methodology. First, the scope of the journals to be analysed were defined, using the results of the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) from the period between 2013 and 2017, and then their most cited articles were selected based on Web of Science (WoS) data.

During the selection process we performed a comparative analysis of the journals as well, involving several criteria, to be able to finally choose 632 articles, published between 2014 and 2018 to be included in our research sample.

We then examined (1) the authors occurring most frequently, (2) the most often cited articles, (3) the institutions with the highest publication activity, (4) the most common topics based on titles, keywords, and abstracts, and (5) the connections between all of the above.

The results of the analyses provide an international overview and assessment of the leading research topics and the most prominent representatives of LIS, all of which are directly connected to the notion and the activities of academic libraries.

URL : Academic libraries as the flagships of publishing trends in LIS: a complex analysis of rankings, citations and topics of research

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102223


Legal and policy implications of licenses between LIS open access journal publishers and authors : A qualitative case study

Authors : Tomas A. Lipinski, Katie Chamberlain Kritikos

“Open access” (“OA”) refers to research placed online free from all price barriers and from most permission barriers (Suber, 2015). OA may apply to research outputs published traditionally, such as books (Schwartz, 2012) and articles in academic journals (Suber, 2015), and non-traditionally, such as student dissertations and theses (Schöpfel & Prost).

The lack of legal barriers is grounded in and given effect through the law of copyright and contract, and the submission of content by authors is often executed through a publication agreement.

This paper studies the contract aspects of OA and the open publishing movement in library and information science (“LIS”) scholarly communication. To explore this phenomenon, it undertakes a case study of the publication agreements of five OA LIS journals.

The sample consists of a brand-new open journal with an agreements drafted by copyright librarians (journal 1) and top-ranked LIS journals that converted to OA (journals 2 through 5) (Scimago, 2017).

With a descriptive data analysis based on that in Lipinski and Copeland (2015; 2013) and Lipinski (2013; 2012), the case study investigates the similarities and differences in the agreements used by the sampled OA LIS journals.

The study builds on the best practices from the Harvard Open Access Project (Shieber & Suber, 2016; 2013). It recommends best practices for the drafting and content of OA LIS publication agreements.

URL : Legal and policy implications of licenses between LIS open access journal publishers and authors : A qualitative case study

Alternative location : http://www.qqml-journal.net/index.php/qqml/article/view/440

Plus ou moins open : les revues de rang A en Sciences de l’information et de la communication

Auteurs/Authors : Joachim Schöpfel, Hélène Prost, Amel Fraisse

Selon une étude récente, presque la moitié des articles publiés par des chercheurs français sont diffusés en libre accès, déposés dans les archives ouvertes, comme HAL, ou mis en ligne dans des revues administrées suivant le modèle du “open access”, sans abonnement payant.

Dans cet environnement dynamique, les agences d’évaluation de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche ont un rôle à jouer, par le biais de leurs critères et outils d’évaluation.

En fonction de leur approche et méthodologie, ces établissements peuvent créer des opportunités pour le développement du libre accès, par l’incitation au partage des résultats de la recherche, ou bien, ralentir le processus par le maintien des critères habituels, dont notamment l’évaluation bibliométrique à partir du classement des publications.

Notre étude propose un regard sur notre propre discipline, avec un état des lieux dans le domaine des sciences de l’information et de la communication en France, à partir de la liste actualisée des revues de rang A publiée fin 2017 et sous l’aspect du libre accès.

L’approche est exploratoire. Il s’agit avant tout d’étudier nos propres standards et pratiques, en tant que communauté de recherche en SIC par rapport à la politique scientifique du libre accès et de la science ouverte. 38 % des revues de rang A en SIC sont en libre accès. Mais ces revues représentent seulement 4 % de l’ensemble des revues SIC en libre accès.

URL : https://journals.openedition.org/rfsic/4706