How library and information science faculty perceive and engage with open access

Abstract

This paper presents the inferential analysis of a systematic survey of North American library and information science (LIS) faculty awareness of, attitudes towards and experience with open-access scholarly publishing. The study reveals that engagement with open access is related to faculty rank and perceptions about tenure and promotion committee assessments of open-access publications. The perceived constraints of the tenure and promotion system within the academy impact LIS faculty engagement with open-access publishing in ways found in other academic disciplines. However, those who themselves engage with open access tend to assess publications in such venues more favourably than those without such publishing experience and are similarly more predisposed to believe that tenure and promotion committees would evaluate such publications favourably. Nonetheless, while in general it is clear that experience with open access reduces some of the concerns about the effects of this type of scholarly publishing on career opportunities, there remains a substantial amount of equivocacy among LIS faculty about open access.

Keywords

Faculty authors journals library and information science faculty open access open-access publishing scholarly communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Budapest open access initiative. Budapest: Budapest Open Access Initiative, 2002 (12 November 2013), http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read

Nicholas

Huntington

Rowlands

. Open access journal publishing: The views of some of the world’s senior authors. Journal of Documentation 2005; 61(4): 497–519.

Palmer

Dill

Christie

. Where there’s a will there’s a way?: Survey of academic librarian attitudes about open access. College and Research Libraries 2009; 70(4): 315–335.

Park

J-H

. Motivations for web-based scholarly publishing: Do scientists recognize open availability as an advantage? Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2009; 40(4): 343–369.

Xia

Wilhoite

Myers

. A ‘librarian-LIS faculty’ divide in open access practice. Journal of Documentation 2011; 67(5): 791–805.

Palmer

Speier

Wren

Hahn

. Electronic journals in business schools: Legitimacy, acceptance, and use. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 2000; 1(1): 1–31.

Carter

Snyder

Imre

. Library faculty publishing and intellectual property issues: A survey of attitudes and awareness. portal: Libraries and the Academy 2007; 7(1): 65–79.

Xia

. A longitudinal study of scholars [sic] attitudes and behaviors toward open-access journal publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2010; 61: 615–624.

Swan

Brown

. JISC/OSI journal authors survey report. Truro: Key Perspectives, 2004.

10.

The University of California Office of Scholarly Communication, California Digital Library eScholarship Program. Faculty attitudes and behaviors regarding scholarly communication: Survey findings from the University of California. Oakland, CA: University of California, 2007.

11.

Phase 5 Research. Canadian researchers’ publishing attitudes and behaviours: A Phase 5 report for Canadian Science Publishing. Ottawa: Canadian Science Publishing, 2014.

12.

Frass

Cross

Gardner

. Open access survey: Exploring the attitudes of Taylor & Francis and Routledge authors. Oxford: Taylor & Francis, 2013.

13.

Dalton

. A dissemination divide? The factors that influence the journal selection decision of Library & Information Studies (LIS) researchers and practitioners. Library and Information Research 2013; 37(115): 33–57.

14.

Rowlands

Nicholas

Huntington

. Scholarly communication in the digital environment: What do authors want? Learned Publishing 2004; 17(4): 261–273.

15.

Mercer

. Almost halfway there: An analysis of the open access behaviors of academic librarians. College & Research Libraries 2011; 72(5): 443–453.

16.

Harley

Earl-Novell

Arter

Lawrence

King

. The influence of academic values on scholarly publication and communication practices. Journal of Electronic Publishing 2007; 10(2), http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0010.204

17.

Schonfeld

Housewright

. Faculty survey 2009: Key strategic insights for libraries, publishers, and societies. New York: ITHAKA, 2010.

18.

Moore

. Survey of University of Toronto faculty awareness, attitudes, and practices regarding scholarly communication: A preliminary report. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2011.

19.

Warlick

Vaughan

. Factors influencing publication choice: Why faculty choose open access. Biomedical Digital Libraries 2007; 4(1), http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/pdf/1742–5581–4–1.pdf

20.

Nicholas

Rowlands

. Open access publishing: The evidence from the authors. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 2005; 31(3): 179–181.

21.

Creaser

. Open access to research outputs – institutional policies and researchers’ views: Results from two complementary surveys. New Review of Academic Librarianship 2010; 16(1): 4–25.

22.

Gargouri

Larivière

Gingras

Carr

Harnad

. Green and Gold open access percentages and growth, by discipline. In: Archambault

Gingras

Larivière

(eds), International conference on science and technology indicators, Montreal, 5–8 September 2012, pp. 285–292.

23.

National Science Foundation. NSF’s public access plan: Today’s data, tomorrow’s discoveries (NSF 15–52). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2015.

24.

Institute of Museum and Library Services. Acknowledgement of IMLS support. Institute of Museum and Library Services, http://www.imls.gov/applicants/acknowledgement_of_imls_support.aspx (n.d., accessed 11 April 2015).

25.

Government of Canada. Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications, http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=F6765465–1 (2015, accessed 15 April 2015).