Open access issues and engineering faculty attitudes and practices

Journal of Library Administration

Volumn 51, Issue 5-6, 2011, Pages 432-454

  Mischo, William H ^a   Schlembach, Mary C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Engineering faculty; Faculty survey; Gold vs. Green models; Open access

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052147173     PISSN: 01930826     EISSN: 15403564     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01930826.2011.589349     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Anderson, K. (2010). Where trust is built and how it can be destroyed: A publisher's perspective. Scholarly Kitchen, 11(09). Available at http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/11/09/
2. Bird, C. (2010). Continued adventures in open access: 2009 perspective. Learned Publishing, 23(2), 107-116. doi:10.1087/20100205
3. Brown, D. J. (2010). Repositories and journals: Are they in conflict? A literature review of relevant literature. ASLIB Proceedings, 62(2), 112.
4. Budapest open access initiative in 2001. (2011). Retrieved November 3, 2011 from http://www.soros.org/openaccess
5. Butler, D. (2008). PLoS stays afloat with bulk publishing. Nature, 454(3), 71.
6. COPE: Compact for open access publishing equity. (2011). Retrieved November 2, 2010, from http://www.oacompact.org/
7. Courant, P. N., O'Donnell, J. J., Okerson, A. & Taylor, C. B. (2010). Improving access to research. Science, 327(5964), 393.
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), 224-251.
9. Craig, I. D., Plume, A. M., McVeigh, J. P., and Amin, M. (2007). Do open access articles have greater citation impact? A critical review of the literature. United Kingdom: Publishing Research Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.publishingresearch.net/Citations-SummaryPaper3000.pdf.pdf
10. Creaser, C. (2010). Open access to research outputs - institutional policies and researchers' views: Results from two complementary surveys. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 16(1), 4, 5-25.
11. Dallmeier-Tiessen, S., Darby, R., Goerner, B., Hyppoelae, J., Igo-Kemenes, P., Lambert, S., Lengenfelder, A., van der Stelt, W. (2010). First results of the SOAP project. Open access publishing in 2010. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1010/1010.0506.pdf
12. Dallmeier-Tiessen, S., Darby, R., Goerner, B., Hyppoelea, J., Igo-Kemenes, P., Kahn, D., Lambert, S., van der Stelt, W. (2011). Highlights from the SOAP project survey. What scientists think about open access publishing. ArXiv:1101.5260v2. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260
13. Davis, P. M. (2004). Calculating the cost per article in the current subscription. Cornell University Library Task Force on Open Access Publishing. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/3181/632
14. Davis, P. M. (2008). Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 337: a568.
15. Davis, P. M. (2009). Author-choice open-access publishing in the biological and medical literature: A citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 3, 4-8.
16. Davis, P. (2010). Can open access journals guarantee sound methods? Retrieved November 8, 2010, from http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/10/19/oa-sound-methodology/
17. Davis, P. M. (2011). Open access, readership, citations: A randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing. FASEB Journal, 25(July), 2129-2134. doi: 10.1096/fj.11-183988
18. Davis, P. M., and Connolly, M. J. L. (2007, March/April). Institutional repositories: Evaluating the reasons for non-use of cornell university's installation of DSpace. D-Lib Magazine, 13(3/4). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march07/davis/03davis.html
19. Davis, P. M., and Fromerth, M. J. (2007). Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics articles? Scientometrics, 71, 203-215.
20. Eckman, C. D., & Weil, B. T. (2010). Institutional open access funds: Now is the time. PLoS Biology, 8(5), 1000375.
21. Evans, J. A., & Reimer, J. (2009). Open access and global participation in science. Science, 323, 1025.
22. Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Caarr, L., & Brody, S. T. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PLoS ONE, 5(10), e13636.
23. Guedon, J. (2004). The "green" and "gold" roads to open access: The case for mixing and matching. Serials Review, 30(4), 315-328. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2004.09.005
24. Hackman, T. (2009). What's the opposite of a pyrrhic victory? College and Research Libraries News, 70(9), 518-521.
25. Hagenhoff, S., Blumenstiel, M., & Ortelbach, B. (2008). An empirical analysis of the amount of publication fees. Serials Review, 34(4), 257-266.
26. Harnad, S. (2009). The PostGutenberg open access journal. In B. Cope, & A. Phillips (Eds.), The future of the academic journal Oxford, UK: Chandos Information Professional.
27. Harnad, S. (2010, July/August). No-fault peer review charges: The price of selectivity need not be access denied or delayed. D-Lib Magazine, 16(7-8). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html
28. Houghton, J., Rasmussen, B., Sheehan, P., Oppenheim, C., Morris, A.,Creaser, C. (2009). Economic implications of alternative scholarly publishing models: Exploring the costs and benefits. United Kingdom: Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/rpteconomicoapublishing.pdf
29. Johnson, R. K. (2005). Open access: Unlocking the value of scientific research. Journal of Library Administration, 42(2), 107-124.
30. Kim, J. (2010). Faculty self-archiving: Motivations and barriers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1909-1922.
31. King, D. W. (2010, March/April). An approach to open access author payment. D-Lib Magazine, 16(3/4). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march10/king/03king.html
32. King, D. W., & Tenopir, C. (1998). Economic cost models of scientific scholarly journals: Economic, read costs and benefits of electronic publishing in science. A technical study. Proceedings of the ICSU Press Workshop, Keble College, Oxford.
33. Kurtz, M. J., & Henneken, E. A. (2007). Open access does not increase citations for research articles from the astrophysical journal. ArXiv:0709.089v1
34. McCabe, M. J., & Snyder, C. M. (2011). Did online access to journals change the economics literature? Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=1746243
35. Mischo, W. H., Norman, M. A., & Shelburne, W. A. (2006). The growth of electronic journals in libraries: Access and management issues and solutions. Science & Technology Libraries, 26(3/4), 29-59.
36. Moed, H. F. (2007). The effect of "open access" on citation impact: An analysis of arXiv's condensed matter section. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2047-2054.
37. Okerson, A. (2005). Open access: Reflections from the united states. Serials, 18(1), 20-25.
38. Poynder, R. (2010). A prophet whose time has come. Information Today, 27(2), 1.
39. Savage, C. J., & Vickers, A. J. (2009). Emperical study of data sharing by authors publishing in PLoS journals. PLoS ONE, 4(9), e7078
40. Schonfeld, R. C., & Housewright, R. (2010). Chapter 3: Scholarly communications of the faculty study 2009: Key strategic insights for libraries, publishers, and societies. http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/faculty-surveys-2000-2009/Faculty%20Study%202009.pdf
41. SCOAP3: Sponsoring consortium for open access publishing in particle physics. (2011). Retrieved January 25, 2011, from www.scoap3.org
42. SHERPA: University of Nottingham. (2006). Authors and open access. Retrieved 8/3, 2010, from www.sherpa.ac.uk/guidance/authors.html
43. Shieber, S. (2009). Equity for open-access journal publishing. PLoS Biology, 7(8), e1000165. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000165
44. SOAP: Study of open access publishing. (2011). Retrieved Nov. 3, 2010, from http://project-soap.eu/
45. Swan, A. (2010a). The open access citation advantage: Studies and results to date. United Kingdom: School of Electronics & Computer Science, University of Southampton. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18516/
46. Swan, A. (2010b). Modelling scholarly communication options: Costs and benefits for universities. A report for JISC. United Kingdom: JISC. http://eprints. ecs.soton.ac.uk/18584
47. Thorn, S., Morris, S., & Fraser, R. (2009). Learned societies and open access: Key results from surveys of bioscience societies and researchers. Serials, 22(1), 39-46.
48. University of California Berkeley. (2011). Selective list of open access and paid access fees. Retrieved October 26, 2010, from http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/scholarlycommunication/oa fees.html
49. Walters, W. H. (2007). Institutional journal costs in an open access environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 108, 109-120.
50. Xia, J. (2010). A longitudinal study of scholars attitudes and behaviors toward openaccess journal publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(3), 615, 616-624.