Étiquette : United States

Catégories
EN

Goodness vs. Greatness: An Analysis of Motivation in Open Access Policies at US Land-Grant Institutions

Authors : Wendi Kaspar, Sarah Potvin

Higher education, when understood as a public or common good, aligns with the values of an open access movement that promotes public access to information and published research. In the United States, land-grant institutions rhetorically appeal to their shared missions of public benefit and societal advancement. Do land-grant institutions with open access policies make rhetorical claims that these policies align with their specific institutional missions as land-grants?

This study examines land-grant universities in the United States that have adopted institutional open access (OA) policies, testing the hypothesis that they will reference their public mission in these policies. A content analysis of institutional open access policies was performed to determine the motivating factors as expressed, explicitly or implicitly, and assess commitments to the public good or to status-linked priorities such as reputation.

While these policies maintained continuity with the broader OA movement through appeals to “dissemination” and invoked land-grant values in the language of public benefit, they overwhelmingly referenced reputational benefit as a priority. This study finds that land-grant institutions rely on the language of their open access policies to express complex motivations for pursuing public access to research.

URL : Goodness vs. Greatness: An Analysis of Motivation in Open Access Policies at US Land-Grant Institutions

DOI : https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.2025.a971029

Catégories
EN

Evaluation of Faculty Knowledge of Predatory Journals in the United States: A Cross-Institutional Survey

Authors : Nicole R. Webber, Stephanie Wiegand, Jason A. Cohen, John M. Reynolds, Lisa Ancelet, Arlene V. Salazar

Predatory journals are a known hazard in modern academic research publishing, with research and anecdotal accounts indicating that they exploit inexperienced researchers. Most literature on the topic centres on specific disciplines and/or countries deemed ‘more vulnerable’ to publishing scams.

At the time of publication, no studies have examined a full range of disciplines at institutions across the United States. Our research collected responses from 1098 faculty at 17 US doctoral universities using a multi-disciplinary survey to assess self-reported knowledge and awareness of predatory publishing.

In this analysis, we investigated participants’ reported knowledge levels of predatory journals in relation to four aspects: academic discipline, years employed in academic research, number of articles published, and early career researcher status.

We conclude that the relationship between experience and knowledge of predatory publishing depends on the definition of experience employed, and that the number of recent articles published by a faculty member is a more reliable indicator of knowledge about predatory publishing than the other measures of experience investigated.

URL : Evaluation of Faculty Knowledge of Predatory Journals in the United States: A Cross-Institutional Survey

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2020

 

Catégories
EN

Implementation of Transformative Agreements at the University of Chicago Library: A Case Study

Authors : Jessica Harris, Greg Fleming, Jennifer Hart, Adrian K. Ho, Barbara Kern,
Catherine Mardikes, Debra A. Werner

The University of Chicago Library created a working group, composed of librarians across the library, to engage in dedicated and focused work around transformative agreements, including understanding how they work and how the library should be engaging with them in a complex open access (OA) landscape.

The working group was charged with specific tasks, including determining challenges and opportunities around transformative agreements, developing criteria for determining when to use the library’s OA fund to pursue an agreement, conducting ongoing assessments of the agreements, and developing a set of recommendations to communicate this out to our wider campus community.

The group’s work included piloting several transformative agreements and establishing a rubric to evaluate these agreements. The creation of the group allowed the library to gain valuable knowledge and expertise, engage actively in new models for supporting OA, and start critical conversations on campus.

The group continues the work, with the ultimate goal of affordable OA publishing and communicating the value of OA with researchers and campus partners, as well as positioning the library as a campus leader in OA.

URL : Implementation of Transformative Agreements at the University of Chicago Library: A Case Study

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18265

Catégories
EN

Understanding ORCID adoption among academic researchers

Author : Stephen R. Porter

Just over a decade ago, the ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier) was created to provide a unique digital identifier for researchers around the world. The ORCID has proven essential in identifying individual researchers and their publications, both for bibliometric research analyses and for universities and other organizations tracking the research productivity and impact of their personnel.

Yet widespread adoption of the ORCID by individual researchers has proved elusive, with previous studies finding adoption rates ranging from 3% to 42%. Using a national survey of U.S. academic researchers at 31 research universities, we investigate why some researchers adopt an ORCID and some do not. We found an overall adoption rate of 72%, with adoptions rates ranging between academic disciplines from a low of 17% in the visual and performing arts to a high of 93% in biological and biomedical sciences.

Many academic journals require an ORCID to submit a manuscript, and this is the main reason why researchers adopt an ORCID. The top three reasons for not having an ORCID are not seeing the benefits, being far enough in the academic career to not need it, and working in an academic discipline where it is not needed.

URL : Understanding ORCID adoption among academic researchers

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05300-7

Catégories
EN

Motivations and barriers to publishing open access book chapters and monographs: An institutional perspective

Authors : Wm. Joseph Thomas, Allison Kaefring, Jeanne K. Hoover

Introduction

Recent years have seen an increase in publishers exploring open access for monographs and book chapters. Programs like the Direct to Open from MIT Press and JSTOR’s Path to Open have provided avenues for libraries and authors to support open access monographs generally, but not campus authors specifically. On our campus, we have seen an increase in requests for and questions about publishing monographs and book chapters open access.

Description of Program

We offer several options for support for open access article publishing, including transformational agreements, institutional memberships, and an open access fund, but have limited resources and strategies for supporting book and chapter authors to make their publications open access.

To gauge our authors’ awareness and interest, we surveyed faculty who recently published a book or chapter about their publishing experiences with a focus on open access publishing. In addition to our survey, we conducted interviews with faculty to gain a better understanding of open access publishing from their perspective as recent authors.

Next Steps

In response to this research, the library has explored new methods of supporting open monograph publishing and plans to develop open education resources and webinars about the open monograph publishing process.

URL : Motivations and barriers to publishing open access book chapters and monographs: An institutional perspective

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18280

 

Catégories
EN

Open But Hidden: Open Access Gaps in the National Science Foundation Public Access Repository

Authors : Kimberly R. Powell, Jenny Townes, Fred Rascoe

Introduction

In 2022, the U.S. government released new guidelines for making publicly funded research open and available. For the National Science Foundation (NSF), these policies reinforce requirements in place since 2016 for supported research to be submitted to the Public Access Repository (PAR).

Methods

To evaluate the public access compliance of research articles submitted to the NSF-PAR, this study searched for NSF-PAR records published between 2017 and 2021 from two research intensive institutions. Records were reviewed to determine whether the PAR held a deposited copy, as required by the 2016 policies, or provided a link out to publisher-held version(s).

Results

A total of 841 unique records were identified, all with publicly accessible versions. Yet only 42% had a deposited PDF version available in the repository as required by the NSF 2016 Public Access Policy. The remaining 58% directed instead to publisher-held versions. In total, only 55% of record links labeled “Full Text Available” directed users to a publicly accessible version with a single click.

Discussion

Records within PAR do not clearly direct users to the publicly accessible full text. In almost half of records, the most prominently displayed link directed users to a paywall version, even when a publicly available version existed. Records accessible only through the CHORUS (Clearing House for the Open Research of the United States) initiative were further obscured by requiring specialized navigation of publisher-owned sites.

Conclusion:

Despite having a repository mandate since 2016, NSF compliance rates remain low. Additional support and/or oversight is needed to address the additional requirements introduced under the 2022 memo.

URL : Open But Hidden: Open Access Gaps in the National Science Foundation Public Access Repository

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.17767

 

Catégories
EN

Open Access APCs Are Already a Scam”: Knowledge and Opinions of Open Access and Article Processing Charges From Faculty at a Large Public University

Authors : Heidi M. Winkler

Introduction:

In the 2020s, open access (OA) continues to act as a challenging force in the ever-shifting landscape of scholarly communication. The objective of this study was to survey faculty at an R1 research institution about their perspectives on OA publishing, article processing charges (APCs), and knowledge of the institutional repository (IR).

Methods:

This study employed an anonymous online survey of 415 faculty members, with a response rate of 12.77% (53 responses). The survey collected both quantitative and qualitative data from respondents.

Results and Discussion:

Results showed engagement with OA publishing but skepticism of APCs as a reasonable alternative to subscription-based funding models. Survey respondents were also mostly unaware of the library’s IR self-archiving service.

Conclusion:

For-profit OA business models do not serve academics, and they and scholarly communications librarians should better collaborate to advocate for transitioning away from APCs. The article concludes by sharing how the author changed practice based on the results of the study.

URL : Open Access APCs Are Already a Scam”: Knowledge and Opinions of Open Access and Article Processing Charges From Faculty at a Large Public University

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.17647