Open Access Perceptions, Strategies, and Digital Literacies: A Case Study of a Scholarly-Led Journal
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- Data collected at two workshops conducted with members of this scholarly community, held at two international conferences (CeDEM, Conference for e-Democracy and Open Government, in 2016 in Austria and subsequently in South Korea). The CeDEM conferences draw an audience interested in aspects of the digital, open society and, there, three different stakeholder groups discussed motivational aspects of OA publishing [5,6,7]. In order to gain more detailed insights from a scholarly community familiar with OA
- (2)
- an online survey was sent to all registered users of the JeDEM in 2019. JeDEM is a unique access point to authors in the sense that it gathers this international scholarly community, a community that is interested in publishing OA. Thus, a diverse target group could be reached.
2. Literature Review
2.1. OA in Academia, the Private and the Public Sector
2.2. Research Cultures, Attitudes, and Personal Strategies
3. Methods
3.1. Research Design
- RQ1: What arguments of open scholarship can be found by different stakeholders?
- What are the enablers and barriers of OA?
- Where do they differ in their arguments?
- RQ2: How do authors choose a publication venue?
- What is the role of publishing cultures, institutional context, policies, and support?
- What is the role of digital literacy?
3.2. Case Selected: OA Journal of E-Democracy and Open Government
3.3. Workshops
3.4. Online Survey
- Demographic data
- Strengths and weakness of academic publishing and open access
- Reasons for publishing or not publishing with JeDEM
- Institutional support for publishing OA
4. Results
4.1. Workshop Results
4.2. Survey Results
- Demographic data
- Strengths and weakness of academic publishing and OA
- Reasons for publishing or not publishing with JeDEM
- Institutional support for publishing OA.
4.2.1. Quantitative Measures
Demographic Data
Strengths and Weakness of Academic Publishing and OA
Reasons for Publishing or not Publishing with JeDEM
Institutional Support for publishing OA
4.2.2. Qualitative Measures
Strengths and Weakness of Academic Publishing and OA
“distribute research and new ideas internationally; receive recognition in the field”
“I can contribute to the public and academic debate around issues that today plague democracy and its governance institutions.”
“It allows me to share in-depth research with a broader audience, seeking to advance ways of thinking on the topic.”
“It can be accessed by those interested in it, and/or who work in fields where it can make an impact.”
“It contributes to the existing body of knowledge and engages with the scholarly community with different schools of thoughts, hence a great learning opportunity. Also, it increases visibility and high citation.”
“It helps you to go higher in rank also it helps to extend knowledge to many people.”
“Publishing my work gives me moral standing to discuss what I believe in and also share my knowledge with the people whom I can not reach thus contributing to the world of academics.”
“Provides an opportunity to share and promote my research, and, more importantly, for this research to have some wider professional and societal impact.”
“(commonly) insanely long publication procedures, with multiple delays—and a corresponding massive delay of any public resonance”
“too long for the majority of journals and special books”
“reviews take sometimes way to long, up to 1 year for first decision (personal experience). This is unacceptable, especially for Ph.D. students that fight the clock.”
Reasons for Publishing or not Publishing with JeDEM
“The indexing of the journal is very important, particularly the acquisition of the Impact Factor (or a path toward one) and indexing with CORE. In [my country], researchers are not really free to publish where they want.”
Institutional Support for publishing OA
“There is general acceptance but no actual support in terms of tangible funding.”
“Open research approaches such as scholarly blogs and open datasets.”
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lawrence, S. Online or invisible. Nature 2001, 411, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brody, S. Impact factor: Imperfect but not yet replaceable. Scientometrics 2013, 96, 255–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harnad, S.; Brody, T. Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Mag. 2004, 10, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harnad, S. Worldwide open access: UK leadership? Insights UKSG J. 2013, 26, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Edelmann, N.; Schoßböck, J. Motivational Factors in Open Access Publishing. Developing a Methodology for Evaluating Users’ Perspective of the OA Journal JeDEM. In Septentrio Conference Series; Munin Conference: Tromso, Norway, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Edelmann, N.; Schoßböck, J. The Motivation(s) Behind Open Access Publishing. In Proceedings of the International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government CeDEM Asia, Dague, Korea, 7–9 December 2016; pp. 127–130. [Google Scholar]
- Lampoltshammer, T.J.; Edelmann, N.; Schoßböck, J. Policy versus Reality in Open Access Publishing in Academia, Industry, and Beyond. In Proceedings of the Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, Krems, Austria, 18–20 May 2016; pp. 189–193. [Google Scholar]
- Öchsner, A. Publishing Companies, Publishing Fees, and Open Access Journals. In Introduction to Scientific Publishing: Backgrounds, Concepts, Strategies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Björk, B.C.; Laakso, M.; Welling, P.; Paetau, P. Anatomy of green open access. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2014, 65, 237–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Suber, P. Open Access; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Altmetric. What Does Altmetric Do? Available online: www.altmetric.com (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- European Science Foundation. Plan S. Available online: www.coalition-s.org (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- Schiltz, M. Science without Publication Paywalls: cOAlition S for the Realisation of Full and Immediate Open Access. Front. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mounce, R. Open access and altmetrics: Distinct but complementary. Bull. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2013, 39, 14–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shehata, A.; Ellis, D.; Foster, A. Scholarly communication trends in the digital age. Electron. Libr. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Samrgandi, N.H. Factors influencing dissertation authors’ decisions to publish in open access. ProQuest Diss. Theses 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Piwowar, H.; Priem, J.; Orr, R. The Future of OA: A large-scale analysis projecting Open Access publication and readership. BioRxiv 2019, 795310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. 2003. Available online: https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- Open Access Network Austria. Reccommendations for the Implementation of OA in Austria. 2015. Available online: https://zenodo.org/record/33178#.XcHbDZpKg2w (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- Tonta, Y.; Doğan, G.; Al, U.; Madran, O.; Angelaki, M.; Tsoukala, V.; Swan, A. Open Access Policies of Research Funders: The Case Study of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF). 2015. Available online: https://www.fwf.ac.at/fileadmin/files/Dokumente/Ueber_den_FWF/Publikationen/FWF (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- Frantsvåg, J.E.; Strømme, T.E. Few Open Access Journals Are Compliant with Plan S. Publications 2019, 7, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smecher, A. The future of the electronic journal. NeuroQuantology 2008, 6, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herman, E.; Akeroyd, J.; Bequet, G.; Nicholas, D.; Watkinson, A. The changed–and changing–landscape of serials publishing: Review of the literature on emerging models. Learn. Publ. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joseph, H. What Is Scholarly Communication and Publishing in the 21st Century? Available online: https://oaspa.org/webinar-what-is-scholarly-communication-and-publishing-in-the-21st-century/ (accessed on 7 April 2020).
- Torres-Salinas, D.; Robinson-Garcia, N.; Castillo-Valdivieso, P.A. Open Access and Altmetrics in the pandemic age: Forescast analysis on COVID-19 related literature. bioRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fitzpatrick, K. Generous Thinking: A Radical Approach to Saving the University; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Hare, S. Increase Your Impact: An Intro to Finding a Publication Venue. Available online: https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/24866/Finding%20a%20Publication%20Venue.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 21 June 2020).
- Warlick, S.E.; Vaughan, K. Factors influencing publication choice: Why faculty choose open access. Biomed. Digit. Libr. 2007, 4, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wijewickrema, M.; Petras, V. Journal selection criteria in an open access environment: A comparison between the medicine and social sciences. Learn. Publ. 2017, 30, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Journal of e-Democracy and Open Government. Available online: www.jedem.org (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- Singh, S.; Morrison, H. OA Journals Non-Charging and Charging Central Trends 2010–2019. Available online: https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/11/23/oa-journals-non-charging-and-charging-central-trends-2010-2019/ (accessed on 27 August 2020).
- Arndt, T.; Frick, C. Getting Scientists Ready for Open Access: The Approaches of Forschungszentrum Jülich. Publications 2018, 6, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Edelmann, N.; Schoßböck, J.; Pereira, G.V. Open Access Publication: Personal Strategies, Institutional Context and Digital Literacy. In Proceedings of the PKP Scholarly Publishing Conference, Barcelona, Spain, 18–22 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bach, T.A.; Ray-Sannerud, B. Benefits of open access articles for industry. Nord. Perspect. Open Sci. 2017, 1, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chesbrough, H.W. The era of open innovation. Manag. Innov. Chang. 2006, 127, 34–41. [Google Scholar]
- Rivette, K.G.; Kline, D. Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents; Harvard Business Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Kline, D. Sharing the corporate crown jewels. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2003, 44, 89–93. [Google Scholar]
- European Parliament. Directive 2013/37/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 amending Directive 2003/98/EC on the Re-Use of Public Sector Information; European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Open Research Data Pilot. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=openaccess (accessed on 24 January 2017).
- Papadopoulos, M.; Bratsas, C. Openness/Open Access for Public Sector Information and Works—The Creative Commons Licensing Model; Aristotle University of Thessaloniki: Thessaloniki, Greece, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- OpenAIRE. What Is the EC Open Research Data Pilot? Available online: https://www.openaire.eu/what-is-the-open-research-data-pilot (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- Fry, J.; Spezi, V.; Probets, S.; Creaser, C. Towards an understanding of the relationship between disciplinary research cultures and open access repository behaviors. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 2710–2724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ruiz-Pérez, S.; Delgado-López-Cózar, E. Spanish researchers’ opinions, attitudes and practices towards open access publishing. El Prof. Inf. 2017, 26, 722–734. [Google Scholar]
- Springer Nature. Tell Us about How You Decide Which Journal to Submit to; Springer Nature: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Springer Nature. The State of Open Data 2020: Survey Now Open; Springer Nature: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor & Francis. Taylor & Francis Researcher Survey 2019; Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Online Survey on Scientific Information in the Digital Age; European Union: Luxembourg, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Survey on Open Access in FP7; European Union: Luxembourg, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Morais, R.; Borrell-Damiá, L. 2017–2018 EUA Open Access Survey Results; European University Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Borrego, Á.; Anglada, L. Faculty information behaviour in the electronic environment. New Libr. World 2016, 117, 173–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicholas, D.; Rodríguez-Bravo, B.; Watkinson, A.; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C.; Herman, E.; Xu, J.; Abrizah, A.; Świgoń, M. Early career researchers and their publishing and authorship practices. Learn. Publ. 2017, 30, 205–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, J. Motivating and impeding factors affecting faculty contribution to institutional repositories. J. Digit. Inf. 2007, 8, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, J. Motivations of faculty self-archiving in institutional repositories. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2011, 37, 246–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serrano-Vicente, R.; Melero, R.; Abadal, E. Open access awareness and perceptions in an institutional landscape. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2016, 42, 595–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tenopir, C.; Dalton, E.; Fish, A.; Christian, L.; Jones, M.; Smith, M. What motivates authors of scholarly articles? The importance of journal attributes and potential audience on publication choice. Publications 2016, 4, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- American Library Association. ALA Task Force Releases Digital Literacy Recommendations; American Library Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Janssen, J.; Stoyanov, S.; Ferrari, A.; Punie, Y.; Pannekeet, K.; Sloep, P. Experts’ views on digital competence: Commonalities and differences. Comput. Educ. 2013, 68, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer-Doerpinghaus, U.; Tappenbeck, I. Informationskompetenz neu erfinden: Praxis, Perspektiven, Potenziale. o-Bib. Das offene Bibl. 2015, 2, 182–191. [Google Scholar]
- Biagioli, M.; Lippman, A. Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; p. 306. [Google Scholar]
- Oravec, J.A. Academic metrics and the community engagement of tertiary education institutions: Emerging issues in gaming, manipulation, and trust. Tert. Educ. Manag. 2020, 26, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gingras, Y. Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation: An Overview; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th ed.; SAGE Publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bell, J. Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers; McGraw-Hill Education: Berkshire, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Newcomer, K.E.; Hatry, H.P.; Wholey, J.S. Qualitative data analysis. Handb. Pract. Program Eval. 2015, 429–453. [Google Scholar]
- Bloomberg, L.D.; Volpe, M. Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Road Map from Beginning to End; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Edgar, B.D.; Willinsky, J. A survey of scholarly journals using Open Journal Systems. Sch. Res. Commun. 2010, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EBSCO Information Services. Improving Research around the World. Available online: www.ebsco.com (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- DOAJ. DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals. Available online: https://doaj.org/ (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- Elsevier. Welcome to Scopus Preview. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/ (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- Google. Google Scholar. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/ (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- Crossref Metadata APIs. You Are Crossref. Available online: https://www.crossref.org/ (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- Public Knowledge Project. Open Journal Systems. Available online: https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/ (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- SCImago Journal Rank. Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Available online: https://www.scimagojr.com/ (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- Fair Open Access Alliance. Fair Open Access Principles. Available online: https://www.fairopenaccess.org/the-fair-open-access-principles/ (accessed on 27 August 2020).
- Eisenhardt, K.M. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 532–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dimensions | Practitioners | Policy-Makers | Academics |
---|---|---|---|
Aim | Getting the most out of a paper. | Getting the most out of a paper. | |
Quality | Importance of journal rankings. Tension between quality and reputation. | No evidence of added value in developing OA for the benefit of progress of knowledge in the scientific community. Unknown correlation of quality/numbers of OA publications and scientific progress (improvement within research field). Unknown correlation between quantity and quality in the sense of developing a domain. Criticism of impact factor (some low-quality papers are often cited). | Importance of ranking, reputation, and impact factors. Tension between importance of reputation and distribution of work. Personal resources are also tied to reputation of a journal (reviewing is done for free). Reputation of other researchers and their publishing venues as important factors. Better visibility of established journals (non-OA journals are not better quality but better known). Free publishing is associated with lower quality. |
Costs | Advantage of OA publishing for students due to crucial role of fees. | OA as market issue: Google Scholar plays a vital role. Lacking support system for students. OA as an attractive option for no-names, students, or those with no money or organizational/university support. Focus on publishing in high-value journals and conferences: Why publish OA if costs are no issue? | |
Disciplines | Differences between research fields. | Differences between research fields. | |
Policy | Institutional policy on publishing is crucial. | This is an issue of higher education institutions. EU/EU-funded projects require OA publications. Regulations for publication do not provide much flexibility. | Organizations and institutional policies demand publishing venues. Flexibility: in some cases there are restrictions but not in all. Asia follows the U.S. model. |
Role | Lack of support for students (professors do not normally publish with students). | Role (staff or student) is crucial regarding support. | |
Other | Wishes for measures for more readability of articles. | OA activism: radical or destruction of career? |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Edelmann, N.; Schoßböck, J. Open Access Perceptions, Strategies, and Digital Literacies: A Case Study of a Scholarly-Led Journal. Publications 2020, 8, 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8030044
Edelmann N, Schoßböck J. Open Access Perceptions, Strategies, and Digital Literacies: A Case Study of a Scholarly-Led Journal. Publications. 2020; 8(3):44. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8030044
Chicago/Turabian StyleEdelmann, Noella, and Judith Schoßböck. 2020. "Open Access Perceptions, Strategies, and Digital Literacies: A Case Study of a Scholarly-Led Journal" Publications 8, no. 3: 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8030044
APA StyleEdelmann, N., & Schoßböck, J. (2020). Open Access Perceptions, Strategies, and Digital Literacies: A Case Study of a Scholarly-Led Journal. Publications, 8(3), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications8030044