Faculty self-archiving: Motivations and barriers

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 61, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1909-1922

  Kim, Jihyun ^a  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COPYRIGHTS; INFORMATION SERVICES;

D-SPACE; EFFECT SIZE; INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORIES; NEGATIVE INFLUENCE; OPEN ACCESS; RESEARCH DESIGNS; SIGNIFICANT FACTORS; TECHNICAL SKILLS; WEB PAGE;

SURVEYS;

EID: 77956353839     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.21336     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Allen, J. (2005). Interdisciplinary differences in attitudes towards deposit in institutional repositories. Unpublished master's thesis, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
2. Andrew, T. (2003). Trends in self-posting of research material online by academic staff. Ariadne, 37.
3. Antelman, K. (2004). Doopen-access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries, 65(5), 372-382.
4. Bohin, I. (2004). Communication regimes in competition: The current transition in Scholarly Communication seen through the lens of the Sociology of Technology. Social Studies of Science, 34(3), 364-391.
5. Brown, C. (2001). The e-volution of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(3), 187-200.
6. Chan, L. (2004). Supporting and enhancing scholarship in the digital age: The role of open-access institutional repositories. Canadian Journal of Communication, 29(3), 277-300.
7. Constant, D., Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1994). What's mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitude about information sharing. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 400-421.
8. Covey, D. T. (2009). Self-archiving journal articles: A case study of faculty practice and missed opportunity. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 9(2), 223-251.
9. Cronin, B. (2005). The hand of science: Academic writing and its rewards. Oxford, United Kingdom: Scarecrow Press, Inc.
10. Crow, R. (2002). The case for institutional repositories: A SPARC position paper. ARL Bimonthly Report, 223. Retrieved July 6, 2010, from http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=ir -research
11. Davis, P. M., & Connolly, M. J. L. (2007). Institutional repositories: Evaluating the reasons for non-use of Cornell University's installation of DS pace. D-Lib Magazine, 13 (3/4).
12. Davis, P. M., & Fromerth, M. J. (2007). Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics articles? Scientometrics, 71(2), 203-215.
13. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
14. Foster, N. F., & Gibbons, S. (2005). Understanding faculty to improve content recruitment for institutional repositories. D-Lib Magazine, 11 (1).
15. Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., & Probets, S. (2003a). RoMEO studies 1: The impact of copyright ownership on academic author self-archiving. Journal of Documentation, 59(3), 243-277.
16. Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., & Probets, S. (2003b). RoMEO studies 2: How academics want to protect their open-access research papers. Journal of Information Science, 29(3), 333-356.
17. Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., & Brody, T., et al. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. Retrieved February 9, 2010, from http://arxiv.org/PS-cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001-0361v2.pdf
18. Hajjem, C., Harnad, S., & Gingras, Y. (2005). Ten-year cross-disciplinary comparison of the growth of open access and how it increases research citation impact. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 28(4), 39-49.
19. Hall, H. (2001). Social exchange for knowledge exchange. Paper presented at the Managing Knowledge: Conversations and Critiques, University of Leicester Management Centre.
20. Hall, H. (2003). Borrowed theory: Applying exchange theories in information science research. Library and Information Science Research, 25(3), 287-306.
21. Harnad, S. (2006). Opening access by overcoming Zeno's paralysis. In N. Jacobs (Ed.), Open access: Key strategic, technical and economic aspects. Oxford: Chando Publishing.
22. Harnad, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine, 10 (6).
23. Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallières, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., & Gingras, Y., et al. (2004). The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access. Serials Review, 30(4), 310-314.
24. Hitchcock, S. (2006). Boost repository content with eprints "request eprint" button. Retrieved February 9, 2010, from http://www.eprints.org/ news/features/request-button. php
25. Hitchcock, S. (2009). The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation impact: A bibliography of studies. Retrieved February 9, 2010, from http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
26. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Staples, D. S. (2000). The use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing: An exploratory study of determinants. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2/3), 129-154.
27. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K.-K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113-143.
28. King, C. J., Harley, D., Earl-Novell, S., Arter, J., Lawrence, S., & Perciali, I. (2006). Scholarly communication: Academic values and sustainable models. Center for Studies in Higher Education. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
29. Kling, R., & Callahan, E. (2003). Electronic journals, the Internet and scholarly communication. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37, 127-177.
30. Kling, R., McKim, G. W., & King, A. (2003). A bit more IT: Scholarly communication forums as socio-technical interaction networks. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 47-67.
31. Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C., Demleitner, M., & Henneken, E., et al. (2005). The effect of use and access on citations. Information Processing & Management, 41, 1395-1402.
32. Lawal, I. (2002). Scholarly communication: The use and non-use of e-print archives for the dissemination of scientific information. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, 36.
33. Lawrence, S. (2001). Online or invisible? Nature, 411(6837), 521.
34. Lynch, C. A., & Lippincott, J. K. (2005). Institutional repository deployment in the United States as of early 2005. D-Lib Magazine, 11 (9).
35. Manuel, K. (2001). The place of e-prints in the publication patterns of physical scientists. Science & Technology Libraries, 20(1), 59-85.
36. Markey, K., Rieh, S. Y., St. Jean, B., Kim, J., & Yakel, E. (2007). Census of Institutional Repositories in the United States: MIRACLE project research findings. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources.
37. Meyer, E. T., & Kling, R. (2002). Leveling the playing field, or expanding the bleachers? Socio-technical interaction networks and arXiv.org (Working paper No. WP-02-10). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Social Informatics.
38. Molm, L. D. (1997). Social exchange and power. In coercive power in social exchange (pp. 11-43). New York: Cambridge University Press.
39. Nicolas, D., Huntington, P., & Jamali, H. R. (2007). Open access in context: A user study. Journal of Documentation, 63(6), 853-878.
40. Ober, J. (2005). Postprint repository services: Context and feasibility at the University of California. Retrieved February 10, 2010, from http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/responses/materials/UC-postprintstudy- final.pdf
41. Pinfield, S. (2001). How do physicists use an e-print archive? Implications for institutional e-print services. D-Lib Magazine, 7 (12).
42. Polydoratou, P. (2008). Use and linkage of Source and Output repositories: Interviews with chemistry researchers. Aslib Proceedings, 60(10), 75-84.
43. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., & Huntington, P. (2004). Scholarly communication in the digital environment: What do authors want? Learned publishing, 17, 261-273.
44. Shearer, M. K. (2003). Institutional repositories: Towards the identification of critical success factors. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 27(3), 89-108.
45. Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2004). ISC/OSI Journal author survey report. JISC, HEFCE.
46. Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2005). Open access self-archiving: An author study. Truro, UK: Key Perspectives Limited.
47. Tschider, C. (2006). Investigating the "public" in the Public Library of Science: Gifting economics in the Internet community. First Monday, 11 (5/6). Retrieved July 6, 2010, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1340
48. University of California Office of Scholarly Communication (UC OSC) & California Digital Library (CDL) eScholarship Program. (2007). Faculty attitudes and behaviors regarding scholarly communication: Survey findings from the University of California. Retrieved February 9, 2010, from http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/responses/materials/OSC-surveysummaries- 20070828.pdf
49. Van House, N. A. (2002). Digital libraries and practice of trust: Networked biodiversity information. Social Epistemology, 16(1), 99-114.
50. Van House, N. A. (2003). Digital libraries and collaborative knowledge construction. In A. P. Bishop, N. A. V. House, & B. P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: Social Practice in design and evaluation (pp. 271-295). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Van Raan, A. F. J. (1997). The future of the quality assurance system: Its impact on the social and professional recognition of scientists in the era of electronic publishing. Journal of Information Science, 23(6), 445-450.
52. Watson, S. (2007). Authors' attitudes to, and awareness and use of, a university Institutional Repository. Serials, 20(3), 225-230.