Academics' behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 68, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 1201-1211

  Rowley, Jennifer ^a   Johnson, Frances ^a   Sbaffi, Laura ^a   Frass, Will ^b   Devine, Elaine ^b  

^a MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b Taylor and Francis   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MEDICINE; REVIEWS; SOCIAL SCIENCES COMPUTING;

ACADEMIC COMMUNITY; EFFECT SIZE; JOURNAL ARTICLES; OPEN ACCESS; PEER REVIEW; POTENTIAL IMPACTS; SCHOLARLY JOURNALS;

EDUCATION;

BEHAVIOR; EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; HUMANITIES; OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING; PEER REVIEW; PERCEPTION; PUBLICATION; SOCIOLOGY;

EID: 85016005154     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23710     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bennett, R. (2013). The changing role of the publisher in the scholarly communications process. In D. Shorley & M. Jubb (Eds.), The future of scholarly communication. London: Facet.
2. Bird, C. (2010). Continued adventures in open access: 2009 perspective. Learned Publishing, 23(2), 107–116.
3. Bjork, B-C. (2004). Open access to scientific publications — An analysis of the barriers to change. Information Research, 9(2). Retrieved from:https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10227/647
4. Bjork, B-C., Laakso, M., Welling, P., & Paetau, P. (2014). Anatomy of green open access. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 237–250.
5. Coonin, B. (2011). Open access publishing in business research: The authors' perspective. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 16(3). Retrieved from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08963568.2011.581606
6. Coonin, B., & Younce, L. (2009). Publishing in open access journals in the social sciences and humanities: Who's doing it and why? ACRL Fourteenth National Conference, March 12–15, Seattle, Washington.
7. Coonin, B., & Younce, L.M. (2010). Publishing in open access educational journals: The authors' perspectives. Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian, 29(2), 118–132.
8. Creaser, C. (2010). Open access research outputs — institutional policies and researchers' views: Results from two complementary surveys. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 16(1), 4–25.
9. Cullen, R., & Chawner, B. (2011). Institutional repositories, open access, and scholarly communication: A study of conflicting paradigms. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(60), 460–470.
10. Curry, S. (2013). Political, cultural and technological dimensions of open access: An exploration. In N. Vincent & C. Wickham (Eds.), Debating open access (pp. 55–67). London: British Academy.
11. Dallmeier-Tiessen, S., Darby, R., Goerner, B., Hyppoelae, J., Igo-Kemenes, P., Kahn, D., … van der Stelt, W. (2011). Highlights form the SOAP Project Survey: What scientists think about open access publishing. arXiv: 1101.5260. Retrieved from: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.5260.pdf
12. Eve, M. (2013). Before the law: Open access, quality control and the future of peer review. In N. Vincent & C. Wickham (Eds.), Debating open access (pp. 68–81). London: British Academy.
13. Fowler, K.K. (2011). Mathematicians' views on current publishing issues: A survey of researchers. University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy. Retrieved from: http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/109309/Fowler_mathscholcomm_survey_article.pdf?sequence=1
14. Fry, J., Oppenheim, C., Creaser, C., Greenwood, H., Spezi, V., & White, S. (2009). PEER Behavioral research baseline report. Retrieved from: http://www.stm-assoc.org/2010_01_20_Final_revision_behavioral_baseline_report.pdf
15. Harley, D., Accord, S.K., Earl-Novell, S., Shannon, L., & King, C.J. (2010). Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley: Berkeley, CA. Retrieved from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g
16. Heath, M., Jubb, M., & Robey, D. (2008). E-publication and open access in the arts and humanities in the UK. Ariadne, 54. Retrieved from: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue54/heath-et-al
17. Hendler, J. (2007). Reinventing academic publishing – Part 1. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(5), 2–3.
18. Jamali, H.R., Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Levine, K., … Nichols, F. (2014). How scholars implement trust in their reading, citing and publishing activities. Library & Information Science Research, 36(3-4), 192–202.
19. Jubb, M. (2013). Introduction. In D. Shorley & M. Jubb (Eds.), The future of scholarly communication. London: Facet.
20. Kim, J. (2007). Motivating and impeding factors affecting faculty contribution to institutional repositories. Journal of Digital Information, 8(2). Retrieved from: https://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/193/177
21. Kling, R., & McKim, G. (1999). Scholarly communication and the continuum of electronic publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(10), 890–906.
22. Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication: Scholarly communication and the continuum of electronic publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(14), 1306–1320.
23. Laakso, M. (2014). Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: A study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed. Scientometrics, 99(2), 475–494.
24. Lewis, D.W. (2012). The inevitability of open access. College & Research Libraries, 73(5), 493–506.
25. Mulligan, A., & Mabe, M. (2011a). The effect of the internet on research motivations, behavior and attitudes. Journal of Documentation, 67(2), 290–311.
26. Mulligan, A., & Mabe, M. (2011b). What journal authors want: Ten years of results from Elsevier's Author Feedback Programme. New Review of Information Networking, 16(1), 71–89.
27. Nariani, R., & Fernandez, L. (2012). Open access publishing: What authors want. College and Research Libraries, 73(2), 182–195.
28. Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H.R., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., … Levine, K. (2015). Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 28(1), 15–21.
29. Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Volentine, R., Allard, S., Levine, K., Tenopir, C., & Herman, E. (2014). Trust and authority in scholarly communications in the light of the digital transition: Setting the scene for a major study. Learned Publishing, 27(2), 121–134.
30. Osborne, R. (2013). Why open access makes no sense. In N. Vincent & C. Wickham (Eds.), Debating open access (pp. 96–105). London: British Academy.
31. Rodriguez, J.E. (2014). Awareness and attitudes about open access publishing: A glance at generational differences. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40, 604–610.
32. Roosendaal, H.E., & Geurts, P.A.T.M. (1997). Forces and functions in scientific communication: An analysis of their interplay. Paper presented at CRISP 97 Cooperative Research Information Systems in Physics, University of Oldenburg, Germany.
33. Russell, J., & Kent, T.K. (2010). Paved with gold: an institutional case study an supporting open access publishing. Serials, 23(7), 97–102.
34. Schroter, S., Tite, L., & Smith, R. (2005). Perceptions on open access publishing: Interviews with journal authors. British Medical Journal, 330(7494), 758–759.
35. Solomon, D.J., & Bjork, B.-C. (2012a). Publication fees in open access publishing: Sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 98–107.
36. Solomon, D.J., & Bjork, B.-C. (2012b). A study of open access journals using article processing charges. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1485–1495.
37. Spezi, V., Fry, J., Creaser, C., Proberts, S., & White, S. (2013). Researchers' green open access practice: A cross-disciplinary analysis. Journal of Documentation, 69(3), 334–359.
38. Swan, A. (2006). The culture of open access: Researchers' views and responses. In N. Jacobs (Ed.), Open access: Key strategic, technical and economic aspects (pp. 65–72). Oxford, UK: Chandos.
39. Tenopir, C., Levine, K., Allard, S., Christian, L., Volentine, R., Boehm, R., … Watkinson, A. (2015). Trustworthiness and authority of scholarly information in a digital age: Results of an international questionnaire. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, DOI: 10.1002/asi.23598.
40. Warlick, S.E., & Vaughan, K.T.L. (2007). Factors influencing publication choice: Why faculty choose open access. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 4(1). Retrieved from: http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/4/1/1
41. Xia, J. (2011). An anthropological emic-etic perspective on open access practices. Journal of Documentation, 67(1), 75–94.