DOCSLIB.ORG

The Enemy of the Good How Specifics in Publisher’S Green OA Policies Are Bogging Down IR Deposits of Scholarly Literature

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Enemy of the Good How Specifics in Publisher’S Green OA Policies Are Bogging Down IR Deposits of Scholarly Literature scholarly communication Leila Sterman The enemy of the good How specifics in publisher’s green OA policies are bogging down IR deposits of scholarly literature n the evolving landscape of scholarly publication—citations—and do not impact Icommunication, librarians not only spend subscriptions, as discovery happens at an countless hours educating researchers about individual level and purchasing at an insti- copyright, subscription licensing, classroom tutional level. use, author’s agreements, and open access, The Berne Convention for the Protection but they also pay enormous subscription fees of Literary and Artistic Works expresses that to publishers. This is potentially the reality copyright should “protect in as effective and of a system in flux, the fact of being in the uniform a manner as possible the rights of middle of a change: we work for reform authors over their literary and artistic works.”1 and enforce the current system in the same The current system of green open access breath. Librarians tend to be risk averse, and lacks effective or uniform processes and rightly so, but this caution should not mean stipulations, thus delaying and inhibiting the that librarians are pacifiers instead of change rights that publishers claim they give back agents, that we educate while accepting pub- to authors of academic journal articles. As a lisher’s models without question or action. result, authors are turning to alternate sources Green open access, the subsection of to share and access journal articles. These open access in which no additional money social media or file sharing sources operate changes hands and a version of a paper is outside of copyright. posted online, is the most financially available means of providing broad access to research The Internet has changed access to for many authors and consumes a great research amount of librarian time. The most common The Internet is a powerful medium for format of green open access is the deposit of knowledge dissemination that has greatly postprints, versions of papers that have been increased access to published knowledge. through peer-review but often not copyedit- Institutional repositories have proliferated to ing or journal layout and typesetting. Journal embrace and expand this digital landscape, publishers allow these versions to be posted with restrictions, based on an understanding that scholars will seek the version of record Leila Sterman is scholarly communication librarian and cite that work in any future publication. at Montana State University, email: leila.sterman@ montana.edu Therefore, the secondary versions do not impede the most valuable metric of journal © 2017 Leila Sterman C&RL News July/August 2017 372 yet depositing the precise copy of an arti- tions. The looming fear of copyright viola- cle allowed by journal publishers is made tion for libraries and for authors influences needlessly cumbersome by restrictions that the strict adherence to green open access are neither clear nor consistent. In this way, stipulations, even though there is little legal publishers punish the people attempting underpinning for these restrictions. Legally, to follow their guidelines by increasing the there is no precedent that versions of an time and effort for each repository deposit. article are protected under different copy- These restrictions are in place to protect rights. Although publishers will argue that the business model and profit margins of copyediting and formatting are copyrightable, publishers, yet when they feel stress from without added creativity or original expres- outside forces, most recently by Sci-Hub sion,2 a final version is just another version and similar file sharing sources, publishers of the same work, protected or restricted by seem to attack libraries—their largest paying the same copyright. Publishers may make customers, instead of fixing the problems clear in author contracts the uses and restric- themselves. Suggestions that by tightening tions of postprint or preprint versions of a library access (two-step authentications, manuscript, but these are profit-motivated, etc.), publishers can fix the “leakage prob- not driven by copyright since there is no lem” of copyrighted materials onto the web difference of copyright between versions. A are based on a lack of understanding about policy that allows a postprint version, but not the possibilities of the Internet. If publishers the final version, to be posted to a repository were willing to work with libraries to create a relies on the contract of the author agree- standardized system of compliant green open ment, not copyright. access, academic libraries would be more ef- Green open access policies are often ficient, which could decrease motivation to buried on publisher’s websites or only men- download illegal copies of papers. tioned in contracts. This practice obfuscates important information, increasing both the Publisher restrictions time library staff spend searching for that Publishers increasingly allow green open information and author’s obliviousness to the access, but without any consistency in poli- opportunities and restrictions of green open cies or embargoes. This creates an unnec- access. Searching for and complying with essary amount of work for institutions and journal’s unique green open access policies authors to comply with the often-changing increases the effort required to post articles policies across disciplines and publishers. in repositories and decreases the perceived In many author agreements, authors assign barriers to post on academic social media copyright to the publisher and the publisher sites or personal pages as the restrictions are allows the right to post preprint (pre-peer not obvious or visible. review version) or postprint (after peer Embargo lengths are not always clear, review version) copies on the web. What- even in resources like Sherpa/Romeo,3 which ever justification publishers give for their are devoted to maintenance of this informa- arbitrary restrictions on green open access tion. Further, even if an embargo is clearly activities, they undermine their own justifi- stated, does the embargo period start at the cation with the diversity of policies, restric- time of online publication, assignment of tions, embargoes, and versions they impose volume and issue, print publication, or some on depositing copies of published journal other date? This lack of clarity opens to un- articles. necessary risk for even diligent librarians Publishers, who often claim they are sup- attempting to comply. portive of green open access, work to impose Many journals require a “set statement” restrictions on digital works as if they were when a postprint copy is deposited in a physical items being placed in physical loca- repository. This practice is in line with July/August 2017 373 C&RL News academic norms: a full citation and link are to personal home pages or departmental provided with any other pertinent version- pages.”5 Since it is common practice for re- ing information. However, as each publisher searchers to distribute copies of their papers has a separate “set statement,” the variety of through the mail, by fax, email, Twitter, etc., these statements across publishers creates an posting the publisher’s version of a paper inefficiency in compliance and speaks to a seems no different to them and removes need to reform. the need for individual requests for copies The mandated use of a postprint acts of a paper. This common practice makes it as a deterrent to the actualization of green harder to convince authors to go through the open access, since multiple publishers do trouble to find a postprint of an article for not ever provide an author with that ver- the library—many of the benefits institutional sion of a manuscript. Some only send a repositories are proposing have already been postprint to the corresponding author, and fulfilled (though illegally) on their personal some merely send a final version for review. sites or by commercial platforms. Many postprints arrive as HTML files and are not saved, or are hosted on publishing Some possible solutions software and never actually in the hands of Time spent working toward copyright com- the researcher. Anecdotally, a researcher at pliance is inefficient in the push for open ac- my institution asked for a postprint of her cess through institutional repositories. This recently published article from the journal inefficiency is especially apparent when it editors and was emailed back a PDF of the is compounded by illogical and changing publisher’s version. Not even the journals restrictions that have little to do with copy- had a copy (or understanding) of this ver- right. If librarians are to keep working on sion. This practice, whether purposefully or this issue, we should work with publishers inadvertently, serves to protect the financial to increase the efficiency of our work so interests of publishers and delay the growth that we may advance the spread of knowl- of repositories. edge while in compliance with reasonable As funder and institutional open/public restrictions. access mandates have increased, some pub- If a publisher must impose restrictions on lishers have changed their policies to allow green open access copies of journal articles, a six-month embargo on personal sites, but they should ensure that those restrictions and a twelve- or eighteen-month embargo on stipulations are: institutional or subject repositories.4 This is in • Clear: Author’s rights for reuse and direct response to the existence of mandates reposting should be clear, correct, and ma- that require an open access copy within 12 chine readable. months of publication. In these cases, authors • Consistent: Any restrictions or com- may be forced to pay for immediate open pliance instructions should be easily found access to maintain compliance. This artificial and consistent across publishers, journals, restriction serves to complicate open access and within fields. Publishers should have and increase income for a journal. a set rule across their journals and make it As a result of the difficult process of clear if there is a variation (which should be depositing postprints in repositories or a avoided).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Grey Literature in Library and Information Studies
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2010 Grey Literature in Library and Information Studies Dominic J. Farace GreyNet International Joachim Schöpfel University of Lille Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons Farace, Dominic J. and Schöpfel, Joachim, "Grey Literature in Library and Information Studies" (2010). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 162. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/162 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Grey Literature in Library and Information Studies Edited by Dominic J. Farace and Joachim Schöpfel De Gruyter Saur An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org ISBN 978-3-11-021808-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-021809-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-021806-2 ISSN 0179-0986 e-ISSN 0179-3256 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License, as of February 23, 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolving Preprint Landscape
    The evolving preprint landscape Introductory report for the Knowledge Exchange working group on preprints. Based on contributions from the Knowledge Exchange Preprints Advisory Group (see page 12) and edited by Jonathan Tennant ([email protected]). 1. Introduction 1.1. A brief history of preprints 1.2. What is a preprint? 1.3 Benefits of using preprints 1.4. Current state of preprints 1.4.1. The recent explosion of preprint platforms and services 2. Recent policy developments 3. Trends and future predictions 3.1. Overlay journals and services 3.2. Global expansion 3.3. Research on preprints 3.4. Community development 4. Gaps in the present system 5. Main stakeholder groups 6. Business and funding models Acknowledgements References 1. Introduction 1.1. A brief history of preprints In 1961, the USA National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched a program called Information Exchange Groups, designed for the circulation of biological preprints, but this shut down in 1967 (Confrey, 1996; Cobb, 2017). In 1991, the arXiv repository was launched for physics, computer science, and mathematics, which is when preprints (or ‘e-prints’) began to increase in popularity and attention (Wikipedia ArXiv#History; Jackson, 2002). The Social Sciences Research Network (SSRN) was launched in 1994, and in 1997 Research Papers in Economics (Wikipedia RePEc) was launched. In 2008, the research network platforms Academia.edu and ResearchGate were both launched and allowed sharing of research papers at any stage. In 2013, two new biological preprint servers were launched, bioRxiv (by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) and PeerJ Preprints (by PeerJ) (Wikipedia BioRxiv; Wikipedia PeerJ).
    [Show full text]
  • GL21 Proceedings Twentieth-First International Conference on Grey Literature “Open Science Encompasses New Forms of Grey Literature”
    Twenty-First International Conference on Grey Literature Open Science Encompasses New Forms of Grey Literature German National Library of Science and Technology Hannover, Germany ● October 22-23, 2019 Program and Conference Sponsors GL21 Program and Conference Bureau Javastraat 194-HS, 1095 CP Amsterdam, Netherlands www.textrelease.com ▪ [email protected] TextRelease Tel. +31-20-331.2420 CIP GL21 Proceedings Twentieth-First International Conference on Grey Literature “Open Science Encompasses New Forms of Grey Literature”. - German National Library of Science and Technology, Hannover, Germany, October 22-23, 2019 / compiled by D. Farace and J. Frantzen ; GreyNet International, Grey Literature Network Service. – Amsterdam : TextRelease, February 2020. – 173 p. – Author Index. – (GL Conference Series, ISSN 1386-2316 ; No. 21). TIB (DE), DANS-KNAW (NL), CVTISR (SK), EBSCO (USA), ISTI CNR (IT), KISTI (KR), NIS IAEA (UN), NTK (CZ), and the University of Florida (USA) are Corporate Authors and Associate Members of GreyNet International. These proceedings contain full text conference papers presented during the two days of plenary, panel, and poster sessions. The papers appear in the same order as in the conference program book. Included is an author index with the names of contributing authors and researchers along with their biographical notes. A list of 55 participating organizations as well as sponsored advertisements are likewise included. ISBN 978-90-77484-37-1 © TextRelease, 2020 2 Foreword O P E N S C I E N C E E NCOMPASSES N EW F O R M S O F G R E Y L ITERATURE For more than a quarter century, grey Literature communities have explored ways to open science to other methods of reviewing, publishing, and making valuable information resources publicly accessible.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Full White Paper
    Open Access White Paper University of Oregon SENATE SUB-COMMITTEE ON OPEN ACCESS I. Executive Summary II. Introduction a. Definition and History of the Open Access Movement b. History of Open Access at the University of Oregon c. The Senate Subcommittee on Open Access at the University of Oregon III. Overview of Current Open Access Trends and Practices a. Open Access Formats b. Advantages and Challenges of the Open Access Approach IV. OA in the Process of Research & Dissemination of Scholarly Works at UO a. A Summary of Current Circumstances b. Moving Towards Transformative Agreements c. Open Access Publishing at UO V. Advancing Open Access at the University of Oregon and Beyond a. Barriers to Moving Forward with OA b. Suggestions for Local Action at UO 1 Executive Summary The state of global scholarly communications has evolved rapidly over the last two decades, as libraries, funders and some publishers have sought to hasten the spread of more open practices for the dissemination of results in scholarly research worldwide. These practices have become collectively known as Open Access (OA), defined as "the free, immediate, online availability of research articles combined with the rights to use these articles fully in the digital environment." The aim of this report — the Open Access White Paper by the Senate Subcommittee on Open Access at the University of Oregon — is to review the factors that have precipitated these recent changes and to explain their relevance for members of the University of Oregon community. Open Access History and Trends Recently, the OA movement has gained momentum as academic institutions around the globe have begun negotiating and signing creative, new agreements with for-profit commercial publishers, and as innovations to the business models for disseminating scholarly research have become more widely adopted.
    [Show full text]
  • Postprint and Replication in Kinesiology (STORK) Peer Reviewed
    Part of the Society for Transparency, Openness Postprint and Replication in Kinesiology (STORK) Peer Reviewed Basic statistical considerations for physiology: The journal Temperature toolbox Aaron R. Caldwella* and Samuel N. Cheuvrontb aExercise Science Research Center, University of Arkansas–Fayetteville, Fayetteville, United States; bBiophysics and Biomedical Modelling Division, US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, United States *corresponding author Address for Correspondence: Aaron R. Caldwell, M.Sc. [email protected] This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Temperature on June 25th, 2019. A full, copy-edited version is available on the publisher’s website. Please cite as: Caldwell, A. R., & Cheuvront, S. N. (2019). Basic statistical considerations for physiology: The journal Temperature toolbox. Temperature, 6(3), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/23328940.2019.1624131 Keywords: statistics, metascience, NHST, power analysis, experimental design, effect sizes, open science, nonparametric, preregistration, bootstrapping, optional stopping Abbreviations AIPE: Accuracy in parameter estimation ANOVA: Analysis of variance CV: Coefficient of variation NHST: Null hypothesis significance testing TOST: Two one-sided tests SESOI: Smallest effect size of interest All authors have read and approved this version of the manuscript to be shared on SportRxiv. The publisher’s version article was published on June 25th, 2019; in accordance with Taylor & Francis accepted manuscript policy and Green OA embargo policy as of June 25th 2020 the accepted manuscript may now be shared on a subject repository. Author ARC @exphysstudent can be reached on Twitter. Abstract The average environmental and occupational physiologist may find statistics are difficult to interpret and use since their formal training in statistics is limited.
    [Show full text]
  • OPEN ACCESS to RESEARCH Open Science Is an Umbrella Terms That Refers to Practices Aiming to Make All Stages of Science More Open and Transparent
    BRIEF 1: OCTOBER 2020 To help inform the special education research community, these briefs feature information on prominent open science practices. Content comes from our series of short articles in the DR newsletter, Focus on Research, as well as additional content developed by DR members. OPEN ACCESS TO RESEARCH Open science is an umbrella terms that refers to practices aiming to make all stages of science more open and transparent. Although some have argued that open science can make research more trustworthy, impactful, and efficient in special education (Cook et al., 2018), there is a lack of clarity in the field about what open-science practices are, their primary benefits and potential obstacles, and how to access resources for implementing them. In this brief, we discuss arguably the best-known aspect of open science: open access. Why Open Access? A primary purpose for organization with a subscription. Those without such research in special access have to pay to access research content. For education is to inform example, if a practitioner wanted to access articles and improve practice and from Teaching Exceptional Children on an evidence- policy as well as future based practice she was considering using, and she did research. For research to not belong to CEC and was not a student at university have its intended and full with a subscription, she would have to pay $36 to ? effect, practitioners, access each article of interest. The potential benefit of policy makers, and other research is not realized if practitioners, policy makers, researchers must be able and researchers (e.g., researchers in developing to have access to it.
    [Show full text]
  • Author Self-Archiving Policy
    Author self-archiving policy Last updated December 2016 Many funders now mandate that their sponsored research must be deposited in an institutional repository. For a list of funders and their open access requirements, see http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/. In order to allow authors to comply with these mandates, the IET offers a comprehensive author self- archiving policy. With no embargo period, authors are permitted to deposit the complimentary copy of their manuscript (reviewed, revised and typeset, but not the final published PDF) in their institutional repository or in repositories designated by their funding body, provided they refer to the published IET version. For full details of the policy and any relevant wordings, see below. These options will allow our authors to comply with the mandates of a number of funders/research bodies, including, but not limited to EPSRC, RCUK, NIH, Wellcome Trust, Horizon 2020, HEFCE, and NERC. If you are unsure if the IET will help you to comply with your funder’s mandates, please contact us at [email protected]. The following outlines the full IET author self-archiving policy: Preprints On submission of their manuscript, authors may deposit the submitted version in their personal, institutional, or online pre-print repository (for example, arXiv). The first page of the manuscript must clearly display the following wording: "This paper is a preprint of a paper submitted to [journal]. If accepted, the copy of record will be available at the IET Digital Library". On acceptance and where copyright has been transferred to the IET, this must be changed to: "This paper is a preprint of a paper accepted by [journal] and is subject to Institution of Engineering and Technology Copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Reclaim Your Rights As an Author Without Feeding the Beast
    Elsevier's 2017 profits exceeded $1.2 billion: how to reclaim your rights as an author without feeding the beast Brought to you by: Making your research freely-accessible to ocean managers, NGOs, and the public with MarXiv Nick Wehner Director of Open Initiatives, OCTO @MarXivPapers An abridged history of academic publishing What is MarXiv? The academic publishing workflow How to determine what you can share, when Agenda Versioning, citations, and other nitty-gritty details Demo: How to archive a paper in MarXiv Demo: How to search/browse for papers in MarXiv Q&A and archiving help @MarXivPapers An abridged history of academic publishing The “traditional” academic publishing ecosystem is hardly traditional at all @MarXivPapers Academic publishing as we know it now started with the end of WWII An abridged 1945 ⎯ present 1600s ⎯ 1945 history of “[…] for most scholars and many of their publishers, scholarly publication was routinely seen as unprofitable: the potential market academic was so small and uncertain that few scholarly publications were expected to cover their costs. Those costs – of paper, ink, publishing typesetting, and printing – were often paid in full or in part by authors or by a third-party, such as a patron or sponsor; and this enabled the copies to be sold at a subsidised price, or even distributed gratis.” Untangling Academic Publishing: A history of the relationship between commercial interests, @MarXivPapers academic prestige and the circulation of research. May 2017. What happened ~1945? Status not determined
    [Show full text]
  • Social Justice in Scholarly Publishing: Open Access Is the Only Way
    Post-print Published in American Journal of Bioethics http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1366194 Social Justice in Scholarly Publishing: Open Access is the Only Way Subbiah Arunachalam DST Centre for Policy Research Indian Institute of Science Bengaluru 560 012 India [email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4398-4658 http://www.researcherid.com/rid/B-9925-2009 We live in an unequal world. There are tremendous differences between countries and between regions in a country in whatever characteristics we want to compare, be it the per capita income, educational opportunities, access to healthcare facilities or capacity to generate new knowledge. The difference is very pronounced in scientific and technical research, in terms of both volume and impact.1 Writing about the distribution of science among countries some three decades ago, Frame et al had shown that the distribution of land area, national population and GDP, as bad as they are, are not so poor as the distribution of mainstream scientific research as reflected by Science Citation Index.2 Back then just ten countries accounted for more than 83% of the world’s scientific literature. Added to these differences are the prejudices inherent to human beings. It is against this backdrop, I would like to view what Chattopadhyay et al have said on the happenings in global bioethics research.3 Chattopadhyay et al. describe the difficulty faced by Low and Middle Income Country (LMIC) researchers in accessing research literature produced/published in the West essential for them to be equal partners in research and getting their own published in journals published from the West.
    [Show full text]
  • Tearing Down Paywalls in Scholarly Communication
    Locked up science Tearing down paywalls in scholarly communication Claudia Frick - @FuzzyLeapfrog #35c3 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Cite with https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1495601 Science Library Science Library Science Library Science …? • Education and decision-making Science …? • Education and decision-making • Health and diseases Science …? • Education and decision-making • Health and diseases • Environmental challenges Restricting access to science ≠ Benefit for society of scientific publications 72% are locked up behind paywalls Piwowar et al. (2018) https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375 = Access to science This icon and all following icons are made by Freepik from Flaticon and are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License “Open Access describes the goal of making global knowledge accessible and re-usable in digital form without financial, technical or legal barriers.” Translated by @FuzzyLeapfrog from Allianzinitiative https://www.allianzinitiative.de/archiv/open-access/ Roadmap How can we tear down the paywalls? Roadmap What does the most common way of scientific publishing look like? How can we tear down the paywalls? Scientist Scientist © Laney Griner Scientist Put it on the internet! Scientist Scientist Conference Journal Submission Scientist Publisher Journal Submission Preprint Scientist Publisher Journal Submission Peer Review Preprint Scientist Publisher Journal Submission Peer Review Preprint Scientist Scientists @MInkorrekt (2017) https://youtu.be/BEOvsvwi2_k
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access Publishing Practice in Geochemistry: Current State And
    EarthArXiv Preprint - Manuscript not peer-reviewed submitted to Geochemical Perspectives Letters 1 Open Access publishing practice in Geochemistry: current state and 2 look to the future 3 4 Olivier Pourret1*, Andrew Hursthouse2, Dasapta Erwin Irawan3, Karen Johannesson4, Haiyan Liu5, 5 Marc Poujol6 , Romain Tartèse7, Eric D. van Hullebusch8, Oliver Wiche9 6 7 1UniLaSalle, AGHYLE, Beauvais, France 8 2School of Computing, Engineering & Physical Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, 9 Paisley PA1 2BE, UK 10 3Faculty of Earth Sciences and Technology, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia 11 4School of the Environment, University of Massachusetts Boston, 12 Boston, USA 13 5School of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, East China University of 14 Technology, Nanchang 330013, PR China 15 6Université de Rennes, CNRS, Géosciences Rennes - UMR 6118, Rennes, France 16 7Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester 17 M13 9PL, UK 18 8Université de Paris, Institut de physique du globe de Paris, CNRS, Paris, France 19 9Institute for Biosciences, Biology/Ecology Unit, TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Freiberg, 20 Germany 21 22 *Corresponding author: [email protected] 23 1 EarthArXiv Preprint - Manuscript not peer-reviewed submitted to Geochemical Perspectives Letters 24 Abstract 25 Open Access (OA) describes the free, unrestricted access to and re-use of research articles. 26 Recently, a new wave of interest, debate, and practice surrounding OA publishing has emerged. In 27 this paper, we provide a simple overview of the trends in OA practice in the broad field of 28 geochemistry. Characteristics of the approach such as whether or not an article processing charge 29 (APC) exists, what embargo periods or restrictions on self-archiving’ policies are in place, and 30 whether or not the sharing of preprints is permitted are described.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access Self-Archiving: an Author Study
    Open access self-archiving: An author study May 2005 Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown Key Perspectives Limited 48 Old Coach Road, Playing Place, TRURO, Cornwall, TR3 6ET, UK (Registered Office) Tel. +44 (0)1392 879702 www.keyperspectives.co.uk www.keyperspectives.com CONTENTS Executive summary 1. Introduction 1 2. The respondents 7 3. Open access journals 10 4. The use of research information 13 4.1 Ease of access to work-related information 13 4.2 Age of articles most commonly used 13 4.3 Respondents’ publishing activities 17 4.3.1 Number of articles published 17 4.3.2 Respondents’ citation records 20 4.3.3 Publishing objectives 23 4.4 Searching for information 23 4.4.1 Research articles in closed archives 24 4.4.2 Research articles in open archives 24 5. Self-archiving 26 5.1 Self-archiving experience 26 5.1.1 The level of self-archiving activity 26 5.1.2 Length of experience of self-archiving 38 5.2 Awareness of self-archiving as a means to providing open access 43 5.3 Motivation issues 49 5.4 The mechanics of self-archiving 51 5.4.1 Who has actually done the depositing? 51 5.4.2 How difficult is it to self-archive? 51 5.4.3 How long does it take to self-archive? 53 5.4.4 Preservation of archived articles 55 5.4.5 Copyright 56 5.4.6 Digital objects being deposited in open archives 57 5.4.7 Mandating self-archiving? 62 6. Discussion 69 References 74 Appendices: Appendix 1: Reasons for publishing in open access journals, by subject area (table) 77 Appendix 2: Reasons for publishing in open access journals, by subject area (verbatim responses) 79 Appendix 3: Reasons for not publishing in open access journals, by subject area (table) 83 Appendix 4: Reasons for not publishing in open access journals, by subject area (verbatim responses) 86 Appendix 5: Ease of access to research articles needed for work, by subject area 93 Appendix 6: Reasons for publishing research results (verbatim responses) 94 Appendix 7: Use of closed archives: results broken down by subject area 97 Tables 1.
    [Show full text]