Self-archiving practice and the influence of publisher policies in the social sciences

Learned Publishing

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 85-95

  Antelman, Kristin ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645957685     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/095315106776387011     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Watkinson, A. Securing authenticity of scholarly paternity and integrity, Book Industry Communication, 2003. (http://www.bic.org.uk/securing%20 authenticity.pdf).
2. Frankel, M. S., et al. Defining and certifying electronic publication in science: a proposal to the International Association of STM Publishers. Learned Publishing, 2000:13(4), 251-8. URL: www. ingentaselect.com/rpsv/catchword/alpsp/09531513/v13n4/s8/p251.
3. Lynch, C. When documents deceive: trust and provenance as new factors for information retrieval in a tangled web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2001:52(1), 12-17.
4. Rowlands, I. and Nicholas, D. New journal publishing models: an international survey of senior researchers. A CIBER report for the Publishers Association and the International Association of STM Publishers, 2005, p. 17 (http://www.slais.ucl.ac.uk/papers/dni-20050925.pdf).
5. Swan, A. and Brown, S. Open access self-archiving: an author study. Key Perspectives Limited, 2005, p. 56 (http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/).
6. Swan and Brown take a somewhat different approach and find that 49% of survey respondents had self-archived or published in an open access journal in the previous three years (Open access self-archiving, 30). Harnad, S. and Brody, T. Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine, 2004: June. (http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/06harnad.html).
7. Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C., Demleitner, M., and Murray, S. S. Worldwide use and impact of the NASA Astrophysics Data System digital library, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2005:56(1), 36-45.
8. Antelman, K. Do open access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries, 2004:65(5), 372-82.
9. Wren, J.D. Open access and openly accessible: a study of scientific publications shared via the internet. BMJ, 2005:330, 1-5. Wren's study did focus on PDFs, but the documents found were not necessarily self-archived by authors.
10. Mabe, M. A. and Amin, M. Dr Jekyll and Dr Hyde: author-reader asymmetries in scholarly publishing. Aslib Proceedings, 2002:54(3).
11. Guédon, J. C. The 'green' and 'gold' roads to open access: the case for mixing and matching. Serials Review, 2004:30(4), 316.
12. Swan and Brown (Open access self-archiving, 25) found that 72% of researchers surveyed reported searching for articles in Google. Gadd et al. found that 75% of authors who had not self-archived (and 95% of those who had) had used others' self-archived papers. Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., and Probets, S. RoMEO Studies 3: how academics expect to use open-access research papers. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 2003:35(3), 7.
13. Guédon, J. C. The 'green' and 'gold' roads to open access: the case for mixing and matching. Serials Review, 2004:30(4), 316.
14. Definitions and terms: pre-print and post-print, SHERPA Publisher Copyright Policies & Self-archiving (http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeoinfo.html).
15. Definitions and terms: pre-print and post-print, Ibid.
16. Frankel, M. S., Elliott, R., Blume, M., Bourgois, J. M., Hugenholtz, B., Lindquist, M. G., Morris, S., and Sandewell, E. Defining and certifying electronic publication in science. Learned Publishing, 2000:13 (4), 251. www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/catchword/ alpsp/09531513/v13n4/s8/p251
17. RCUK Position statement on access to research outputs, Research Councils UK, 7-8 (http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access).
18. JISC ITT: Scoping study on repository version identification. (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name =funding_versionidentification).
19. NISO/ALPSP working group on versions of journal articles. (http://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_versioning/JournalVer_comm.html).
20. Policy on enhancing public access to archived publications resulting from NIH-funded research. US Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-05-022.html).
21. Gadd et al. found that 69% of publishers asked for copyright transfer prior to refereeing the paper. Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., Probets, S. RoMEO Studies 4: an analysis of journal publishers' copyright agreements. Learned Publishing, 2003:16(4), 293. www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/catchword/alpsp/09531513/v16n4/s9/p293
22. This survey of the SHERPA database was conducted on 13 June 2005. It is also noted that a quantitative view of restrictions and conditions does not reflect the true impact on authors, because a publisher-level view treats small and large publishers equally. Also, not all conditions are equivalent in their burden on the author: Pinfield found that authors follow reasonable ones that are also in their own interest, e.g. citing the published version on a postprint, but not unreasonable ones, e.g. copying specified clauses from the copyright agreement. Pinfield, S. How do physicists use an e-print archive? Implications for institutional e-print services. D-Lib Magazine, 2001: Dec, 5. (http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december01/pinfield/12pinfield.html).
23. Swan and Brown (Open access self-archiving, 48) report that only 10% of authors are currently aware of SHERPA.
24. JISC Disciplinary Differences Report, Sparks, S., Rightscom Ltd, 2005, 49. (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/ Disciplinary%20Differences%20and%20Needs.doc). Swan and Brown (Open access self-archiving, 56) report 35% believe they hold such rights. Gadd and Oppenheim found 61% of authors surveyed believed they held copyright.
25. Gadd, E. and Oppenheim, C. RoMEO Studies 1: the impact of copyright ownership on academic author self-archiving. Journal of Documentation, 2003:59(3), 256.
26. Gadd et al. reported 12% of respondents to their survey would ignore publisher policies forbidding them from making articles freely available online. RoMEO 4, 13. Swan and Brown (Open access self-archiving, p. 56) reported that 84% of all authors did not ask for permission and that one-third did not know if permission was required. Pinfield randomly sampled ten articles in arXiv that were published by publishers forbidding posting of the postprint and found that all were the same as published version in content (How do physicists use an e-print archive?, pp. 5-6).
27. JISC Disciplinary Differences Report, 49. Swan and Brown, Open access self-archiving, p. 56. A University of California faculty survey reported by John Ober indicated that 18% of respondents have at one time modified the terms of a copyright agreement or contract.
28. Ober, J. Postprint Repository Services: Context and Feasibility at the University of California, Final Draft, 2005, 23 (http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/responses/materials/ UC_postprintstudy_final.pdf).
29. Gadd et al. reported that only 3% of authors insisted on retaining copyright, RoMEO Studies 1, 259.
30. 'White' journals surveyed were: American Journal of Sociology, Current Anthropology, Economic Development and Cultural Change, and Journal of Political Economy (all University of Chicago Press); American Sociological Review (American Sociological Association); American Ethnologist (American Anthropological Association). 'Green' journals surveyed were: Journal of Social Issues, Social Problems (University of California Press), Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Psychological Science, Econometrica, and American Journal of Political Science (all Blackwell), Political Behavior and Theory and Society (both Kluwer), American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Wiley), Journal of Human Evolution, Political Geography, and Journal of Econometrics (all Elsevier), Journal of Conflict Resolution and Comparative Political Studies (both Sage), Progress in Human Geography (Arnold), and Journal of Applied Psychology (American Psychological Association). Data were collected between March and July 2005.
31. Only articles labeled by journals as 'research' or 'original' were selected. Typically, full titles were searched as phrases in Google. If there were no results, or there was ambiguity between documents with the same title, the author's last name was added to the query. Since Google does not consistently index parenthetical phrases or certain characters (e.g., ?, a), where present those were omitted from the queries.
32. When multiple self-archived versions were found, the "highest" (i.e., closest to the final publisher version) was coded as the self-archived version.
33. Goodman, D. The criteria for open access. Serials Review, 2004:30(4), 260.
34. Pinfield, S. How do physicists use an e-print archive? Implications for institutional e-print services, D-Lib Magazine, 2001: Dec, 5. (http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december01/pinfield/12pinfield.html).
35. These numbers do not represent an accurate estimation of open access in these disciplines for several other reasons: non-Google search engines were not used, unindexed author homepages were not sought out, and only author-archived copies were counted.
36. Wren, J. D. Open access and openly accessible: a study of scientific publications shared via the internet. BMJ, 2005:330, 1-5.
37. Watkinson, A. Securing authenticity of scholarly paternity and integrity, Book Industry Communication, 2003. (http://www.bic.org.uk/securing%20authenticity.pdf).
38. Whitley, R. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, New York, Oxford University Press, 2000, chapter 5.
39. Whitley, R. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Ibid., 127.
40. Whitley, R. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Ibid., 119-20.
41. Becher, T. and Trowler, P. R. Academic Tribes and Territories, The Society for Research into Higher Education,& Open University Press, 2001, chapter 9.
42. Becher, T. and Trowler, P. R. Academic Tribes and Territories, Ibid., 187-88.
43. Becher, T. and Trowler, P. R. Academic Tribes and Territories, Ibid., 189.
44. 'What Authors Want': the ALPSP research study on the motivations and concerns of contributors to learned journals. Learned Publishing, 1999:12 (3), 171. www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/catchword/alpsp/09531513/v12n3/s1/p170
45. King, R., Spector, L., and McKim, G. The guild model. Journal of Electronic Publishing 2002:8(1). (http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/08-01/kling.html).
46. Guédon, J. C. In Oldenburg's long shadow: librarians, research scientists, publishers, and the control of scientific publishing. In ARL (Association of Research Libraries) Proceedings, 138. May 2001 Membership Meeting, 22. (http://www.arl.org/arl/proceedings/138/guedon.html).
47. Fry, J. Scholarly research and information practices: a domain analytic approach. Information Processing & Management 2006:42 (available online Nov 2004), 299-316. Becher and Trowler.