共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
This article reports on scholarly communication and open access (OA) in Korea. Drawing on a range of databases, articles, and reference sources, it provides unique insights. In contrast to the UK/US model of scholarly communication, in Korea, most scholarly journals are published by discipline‐based scholarly societies and research institutes affiliated to universities. Payment for publication is the norm, and typically features article processing charges and scholarly society membership fees for both OA and toll access (TA) journals. Online access to journals in Korea is provided by commercial vendors who enter into contracts with the scholarly societies for exclusive use. Three online access models apply – TA, gold OA, and dual access – with the use of these models varying between disciplines. In parallel with this access provided by commercial vendors, there are a number of government‐funded open access repositories (OARs) to which university researchers are requested to deposit their research outputs, as well as OARs run by universities and other research institutes. 相似文献
2.
Hybrid Journals: Ensuring Systematic and Standard Discoverability of the Latest Open Access Articles
An important current challenge for research information providers is ensuring the automated discovery of Open Access (OA) content in hybrid journals. We found no evidence of discovery services that are able to systematically identify the crucially important free full-text availability of OA articles regardless of where and how such articles have been published (i.e., in fully OA journals or in hybrid journals). A solution is important because hybrid journals are proliferating and consequently the chances of missing OA articles is real and is happening. Nearly all of the major publishers now provide such journals in order to take advantage of recent changes in research funder requirements, and to be competitive in the new OA business model. By working with a group of scholarly publisher partners and by using standard metadata elements that publishers are already familiar with, we show a systematic and standardized manner to identify OA at the article level. Our proposal is to embed OA-related elements in the metadata freely exposed by publishers for aggregators and discovery services. For example, in the Table of Content (TOC) Really Simple Syndication feeds the publishers use to announce new journal issues and content. Based on the initial results obtained, we discuss the capabilities of our solution, and evaluate the impact produced by our application in the systematic discoverability of OA content from the participating hybrid journals, using an implementation done with the freely available journal current awareness service—JournalTOCs. 相似文献
3.
Bo‐Christer Bjrk 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(3):227-236
The number of open access (OA) journals and their share of all scholarly journals are usually estimated based on indexing in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). DOAJ's coverage of OA journals from different regions of the world is, however, far from complete, particularly of journals publishing in languages other than English. Using alternative data sources for identification and manual verification, 437 scholarly OA journals published in the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) were identified, and some key characteristics were studied. Of these, only 184 were indexed in DOAJ. A vast majority of the journals was published by scholarly societies or universities. Social sciences and humanities dominated as topics, and few journals charge authors. National or university‐specific OJS portals have played a major role in enabling OA publishing. Around a third of the Nordic scholarly journals are currently OA. 相似文献
4.
5.
6.
Metrics on open access (OA) availability of content published in scholarly journals (i.e. content licences, copyright ownership, and publisher‐stipulated self‐archiving permissions) are still scarce. This study implements the four core variables of the recently published Open Access Spectrum (OAS) (reader rights, reuse rights, copyright, and author posting rights) to measure the level of openness in all 1,728 Spanish scholarly journals listed in the Spanish national DULCINEA database at the end of 2015. Data exported from the database and used as variables for the analysis were: journal research area, type of publisher, type of access, self‐archiving and reuse policy, and type of Creative Commons (CC) licence used. Out of the total number of journals (1,728), 1,285 (74.5%) published their articles OA immediately after initial publication and thus received the maximum OAS score for reader rights; 37.5% of all journals used CC licences, and 79.5% allowed self‐archiving in some form. In 72% of journals, authors retained or publishers granted broad rights, which included author reuse and authorization rights (for others to reuse), whilst 13.5% did not specify any terms for copyright transfer. Similar studies could be carried out on other countries as this would enable comparisons of the general adoption and form of openness in different parts of the world. 相似文献
7.
John Hartley Jason Potts Lucy Montgomery Ellie Rennie Cameron Neylon 《Learned Publishing》2019,32(1):27-35
Much of the argument around reforming, remaking, or preserving the traditions of scholarly publishing is built on economic principles, explicit or implicit. Can we afford open access (OA)? How do we pay for high‐quality services? Why does it cost so much? In this article, we argue that the sterility of much of this debate is a result of failure to tackle the question of what a journal is in economic terms. We offer a way through by demonstrating that a journal is a club and discuss the implications for the scholarly publishing industry. We use examples, ranging from OA to prestige journals, to explain why congestion is a problem for club‐based publications, and to discuss the importance of creative destruction for the maintenance of knowledge‐generating communities in publishing. 相似文献
8.
学术期刊开放获取出版定量研究探析 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
当前学术期刊开放获取（OA）出版定量研究主要集中在增长趋势、影响力和被引优势、成本和效益以及学者的认知、态度和行为四个方面,主要用到文献计量、数学模型估计、问卷调查等方法进行研究。研究表明,OA出版是一种有益于科研领域、社会公共利益和学者个人的出版模式。其可持续发展面临着开放获取期刊（OAJ）供稿量不足、发文量低,OA模式不稳定,存续能力差,学者对其质量存在忧虑且缺乏经费等问题。在OA出版规模不断扩大、商业出版机构参与度高涨的趋势下,要加大对OA发表的费用资助和豁免力度,建立有效的经费补偿和分配机制,要扶持高质量OAJ的发展。未来的研究方向包括：非营利性OAJ运营、OA出版经费解决机制、影响力跟踪评价、社会效益评估、作者OA发表体验。表1。参考文献56。 相似文献
9.
Academic libraries should be considered research tools, co‐evolving with technology. The Internet has changed the way science is communicated and hence also the role of libraries. It has made it possible for researchers to provide open access (OA) (i.e. toll‐free, full‐text, online access, web‐wide) to their peer‐reviewed journal articles in two different ways: (i) by publishing in them in OA journals, and (ii) by publishing them in non‐OA journals but also self‐archiving them in their institutional OA archives. Librarians are researchers' best allies in both of these strategies. Examples of these strategies are described. We conclude that an official mandate for OA provision is necessary to accelerate its growth and thereby the growth of research usage and impact worldwide. 相似文献
10.
Open access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. The lack of clarity of publisher permissions for archiving in OA repositories affects the adoption of the green OA route. This paper explores editorial policies and self‐archiving conditions in 1,615 Spanish scholarly journals. 48% are published by university and research institutions, 25% by associations/societies, and 17% by commercial publishers; social sciences and humanities (SSH) accounted for 67% of the journals (44.5% and 22.5%, respectively) followed by health sciences (20%); 71% offered gratis access immediately after publication, and 11% after an embargo; 31% provided some mention of author rights. Self‐archiving was specifically allowed by 65% of the journals; 52% were classified as ROMEO‐blue, 12% as green and 15% as white, and 21% could not be classified; 21%, mostly in SSH, used some type of Creative Commons license. 相似文献
11.
Lettie Y. Conrad 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(1):31-37
This article reviewed 13 research papers and industry publications from 2015 and 2016 to present a broad view of today's scholarly content discovery landscape. The featured publications strive to address limitations in scholarly content discovery and access experiences to expand our understanding of the researcher experience and to influence positive change for all stakeholders. With original research findings or well‐cited expert analysis, the reviewed papers outline the dominant channels of scholarly content discovery channels and demonstrate how trends fluctuate by the type of user and their information needs, as well as a wide variety of demographics. Best practices in metadata management, standards, and cross‐sector collaboration are also discussed. Together, the publications reviewed here validate the importance of user‐centric, evidence‐based, and standards‐compliant approaches to learned resource development and dissemination. 相似文献
12.
It is well known that a number of research outcomes are not reported (the so‐called ‘file drawer problem’). It is generally assumed that what is not reported are ‘negative results’. Our study approaches the issue from a new angle by exploring what researchers perceive to be ‘unpublishable’. A survey regarding ‘unpublishables’ was sent out to 2,535 faculty members at Indiana University. Forty of these individuals consented to in‐depth interviews, which more fully explored these academics' views on the issue of unpublishable work. Our results indicate that there are several types of research besides negative results that are perceived to be unpublishable yet worthy of publication. Moreover, there is a great diversity within and across disciplines as to what constitutes ‘unpublishable’ research. Respondents indicated that academic discourse would benefit from the formal dissemination of papers that included inconclusive or null results, as well as replication and refutation studies. The results of our study suggest that there is a perceived gap in scholarly communication, which is to the detriment of science. These results can be used by administrators, educators, and publishers in order to refine scholarly communication practices so as to create a more robust, accurate literature and to inform future generations of researchers. 相似文献
13.
This paper examines changing research practices in the digital environment. A review of the literature and our own field research in Australia suggest that there is a new mode of knowledge production emerging, changing research practices and bringing new information access and dissemination needs. Adjustments will be required to accommodate these changes, but new opportunities are emerging for more cost‐effective and sustainable information access and dissemination. It will be necessary, however, to take an holistic approach and treat the creation, production and distribution of scholarly information, the management of information rights and access, systems of review and evaluation and the underlying infrastructure as parts of a single research information and scholarly communication system. 相似文献
14.
Stephen PINFIELD 《Learned Publishing》2009,22(3):165-175
It is now widely accepted that there are two routes to open access (OA): OA repositories and OA journals. It is often assumed these are distinct alternative parallel tracks. However, it has recently become clear that there is potential for repositories and journals to interact with each other on an ongoing basis and between them to form a coherent OA scholarly communication system. This paper puts forward three possible models of interaction between repositories and journals; services such as arXiv and PubMed Central, and the work carried out by the RIOJA project, are working exemplars and pilot implementations of these models. The key issues associated with the widespread adoption of these models include repository infrastructure development; changing ideas of the ‘journal’, ‘article’, and ‘publication’; version management; quality assurance; business and funding models; developing value‐added features; content preservation; policy frameworks; and changing roles and cultures within the research community. 相似文献
15.
Bryna Coonin 《Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship》2013,18(3):193-212
Open access (OA) publishing is now accepted as an integral part of the emerging trends within scholarly communication. Business librarians, like their subject specialist colleagues in other disciplines, are increasingly called upon to interpret scholarly communication trends to their faculty. This study surveys 1,293 business faculty from American schools of business accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. Issues explored include business faculty publishing practices within the discipline and how these affect academic advancement, obtaining articles for their own research, electronic publishing, self-archiving, and their perceptions about OA publishing generally. 相似文献
16.
17.
David Nicholas Cherifa Boukacem‐Zeghmouri Blanca Rodríguez‐Bravo Jie Xu Anthony Watkinson A. Abrizah Eti Herman Marzena Świgoń 《Learned Publishing》2017,30(1):19-29
This article presents findings from the first year of the Harbingers research project started in 2015. The project is a 3‐year longitudinal study of early career researchers (ECRs) to ascertain their current and changing habits with regard to information searching, use, sharing, and publication. The study recruited 116 researchers from seven countries (UK, USA, China, France, Malaysia, Poland, and Spain) and performed in‐depth interviews by telephone, Skype, or face‐to‐face to discover behaviours and opinions. This paper reports on findings regarding discovery and access to scholarly information. Findings confirm the universal popularity of Google/Google Scholar. Library platforms and web‐scale discovery services are largely unmentioned and unnoticed by this user community, although many ECRs pass through them unknowingly on the way to authenticated use of their other preferred sources, such as Web of Science. ECRs are conscious of the benefits of open access in delivering free access to papers. Social media are widely used as a source of discovering scholarly information. ResearchGate is popular and on the rise in all countries surveyed. Smartphones have become a regularly used platform on which to perform quick and occasional searches for scholarly information but are only rarely used for reading full text. 相似文献
18.
19.
Mary WALTHAM 《Learned Publishing》2010,23(2):136-143
The paper summarizes the findings of a pilot study for the National Humanities Alliance, including the methodology, research tools, analysis, and initial conclusions about the publishing business of eight association published humanities and social sciences journals in the context of a move to an open access (author/producer pays) publishing model. The eight disciplines represented by these journals are modern languages, history, religion, economics, sociology, anthropology, politics and statistics. Specific tools were developed for the study to enable like‐for‐like comparison of the journals. Detailed information on current trends in revenue, costs, and surplus is included. Significant differences between HSS and STM journals are reviewed. Open access to research articles on publication as the ‘gold’ author/producer‐pays approach would not be sustainable for this sample of HSS journals for reasons articulated in the report. Further studies using the tools and methodology developed are required to broaden and confirm these results. 相似文献
20.
S计划的提出将开放获取(Open Access, OA)提升到一个新的高度,对于中文学术期刊的OA必须深入思考。在OA2020的推进过程中,学术出版不同环节经历着长期的博弈和努力,而绝大多数中文学术期刊由于存在着主观和客观上的障碍,只在自建网站上实施了OA。为了推进高质量中文学术期刊金色OA并达到知识普惠社会发展的要求,笔者认为应该允许相关期刊收取合理的文章处理费,充分利用现有的OA平台,并探索在期刊集成平台上的OA。 相似文献