Scholarly Publishing at a Crossroads: Scholarly Perspectives on Open Access

Abstract

The cost of access to scholarly research creates inequity for readers with varying resources. Open access publishing is an avenue to address this inequity. This research employed a survey of scholars to discover what they know and think about open access. The survey elicited both faculty and doctoral student perspectives. Data were analyzed according to rank and discipline. Although the majority of scholars across disciplines agreed that their work should be freely available to all readers, there were significant differences between disciplines regarding whether scholars had distributed their publications through open access. The survey instrument was examined through Exploratory Factor Analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Austin, A. E. (1991). Faculty cultures, faculty values. New Directions for Institutional Research, 1990(68), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.37019906807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Björk, 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Carpenter, J. (2012). Researchers of tomorrow: The research behaviour of generation Y doctoral students. Information Services & Use, 32(1/2), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University School of Education (2018). Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu

  6. Dubinsky, E. (2014). A current snapshot of institutional repositories: Growth rate, disciplinary content and faculty contributions. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communications, 2(3), 1167. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fan, W., & Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gaines, A. M. (2015). From concerned to cautiously optimistic: Assessing faculty perceptions and knowledge of open access in a campus-wide study. Journal of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication, 3(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gargouri, Y., Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., & Harnad, S. (2012). Green and gold open access percentages and growth, by discipline. https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.3664

  10. Hajjem, C., Harnad, S., & Gingras, Y. (2006). Ten-year cross-disciplinary comparison of the growth of open access and how it increases research citation impact. https://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0606/0606079.pdf

  11. Harley, D., Acord, S., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S. and King, C. (2010). Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies in Higher Education. http://escholarship.org/uc/cshe_fsc

  12. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Housewright, R., Schonfeld, R. C., & Wulfson, K. (2013). Ithaka S+R US faculty survey 2012. http://www.sr.ithaka.org/sites/default/files/reports/Ithaka_SR_US_Faculty_Survey_2012_FINAL.pdf

  14. Kim, J. (2010). Faculty self-archiving: Motivations and barriers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1909–1922. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim, J. (2011). Motivations of faculty self-archiving in institutional repositories. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(3), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2011.02.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Schmidt, H., & Mayer, B. (1998). The revised version of the screen for child anxiety related emotional disorders (SCARED-R): Factor structure in normal children. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(1), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00130-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rodriguez, J. E. (2014). Awareness and attitudes about open access publishing: A glance at generational differences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40, 604–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.07.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Suber, P. (2012). Open access. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/9780262517638_Open_Access_PDF_Version.pdf

  19. Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of open access: An evidence-based review. F1000research, 5. https://f1000research.com/articles/5-632/v3

  20. Tmava, A. M., & Miksa, S. D. (2017). Factors influencing faculty attitudes towards open access institutional repositories. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 519–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang, X., Liu, C., Mao, W., & Fang, Z. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics, 103(2), 555–564 https://f1000research.com/articles/5-632/v3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Williams, L. J. (2011). Decomposing model fit: Measurement vs. theory in organizational research using latent variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yang, Z. Y. L., & Li, Y. (2015). University faculty awareness and attitudes towards open access publishing and the institutional repository: A case study. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 3(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zoski, K. W., & Jurs, S. (1996). An objective counterpart to the visual scree test for factor analysis: The standard error scree. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(3), 443–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

CRediT Contributions

Dr. Fitzgerald – Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Revising and Editing.

Dr. Jiang – Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft.

Funding

The authors did not receive any funding for this research.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Rose Fitzgerald.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fitzgerald, S.R., Jiang, Z. Scholarly Publishing at a Crossroads: Scholarly Perspectives on Open Access. Innov High Educ 45, 457–469 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09508-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Open access
  • Scholarly publishing
  • University faculty
  • Doctoral students
  • Research universities