Faculty Attitudes toward Open Access and Scholarly Communications: Disciplinary Differences on an Urban and Health Science Campus

Odell, Jere D.; Palmer, Kristi L.; Dill, Emily

doi:10.7710/2162-3309.2169

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When asked to identify the primary deposit method, 71% reported that repository staff deposit materials on behalf of their users. This was consistent with what was reported in the literature about low rates of author self-deposit (“self-archiving”) in IRs, especially in the health sciences [7]. Another 14% used “mediated self-deposit” as the primary method, meaning that authorized users could deposit materials, but repository staff reviewed, approved, and performed final posting for all materials.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Loan and Sheikh analyzed 254 health and medical repositories utilizing the information listed in OpenDOAR [6]. In addition, Odell et al shared findings from a survey that they conducted at their institution that demonstrated that medical faculty were not responsive to changes in scholarly communication, which impacted their self-archiving activities in the IR [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis

Kipnis

Palmer

Kubilius

2019

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study uses survey research methods to gain a deeper understanding of the institutional repository (IR) landscape in medical schools and academic health centers.Methods: Members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL) were surveyed about their IRs. The authors used a mixed-methods approach of a survey and qualitative content analysis to identify common themes.Results: Survey results indicate that a large majority of responding medical schools and academic health centers have or are implementing an IR (35 out of 50, 70%). Of these, 60% (21 institutions) participate in an institution-wide IR rather than administer their own repositories. Much of the archived content is grey literature that has not already been published, but the percentage of original content varies greatly among institutions. The majority (57.1%) of respondent institutions are not considering an open access policy or mandate. Most institutions (71.4%) reported that repository staff are depositing materials on behalf of users. dSPACE and bepress Digital Commons are the most popular repository platforms in this community. The planned enhancements that were most frequently reported were implementing a discovery layer and ORCID integration. The majority of respondents (54.3%) do not plan to migrate to a different platform in the foreseeable future. Analysis of respondent comments identified the following themes: integration, redundancy, and reporting; alternatives and exploration; uniqueness; participation; and funding and operations.Conclusions: The study results capture a view of the IR landscape in medical schools and academic health centers and help readers understand what services their peers have in place as well as their plans for future developments. This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis

Kipnis

Palmer

Kubilius

2019

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite widely held assumptions that researchers in the sciences generally, and the health sciences specifically, are more accepting of OA, one study indicated that health sciences faculty at one institution in fact supported the (non-OA) status quo in scholarly publishing. 9 Another study showed that OA authors' perceptions can differ from those of their colleagues, even in the same discipline. For example, the altruistic goals of "Free Access" and "Audience Accessibility" most frequently motivated biomedical authors at the University of North Carolina and Duke University.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Altruism or Self-Interest? Exploring the Motivations of Open Access Authors

Heaton

Burns

Thoms

2019

C&RL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More than 250 authors at Utah State University published an Open Access (OA) article in 2016. Analysis of survey results and publication data from Scopus suggests that the following factors led authors to choose OA venues: ability to pay publishing charges, disciplinary colleagues' positive attitudes toward OA, and personal feelings such as altruism and desire to reach a wide audience. Tenure status was not an apparent factor. This article adds to the body of literature on author motivations and can inform library outreach and marketing efforts, the creation of new publishing models, and the conversation about the larger scholarly publishing landscape.

show abstract

“…OA has indeed grown, with around 50% of the most recent literature being freely available to the public (Archambault, 2018; Archambault et al, 2014; Piwowar et al, 2018). Yet, OA remains low on the priority lists of faculty (Dallmeier-Tiessen et al, 2011; Gaines, 2015; Odell et al, 2017), even when surveys indicate that many faculty believe open access to their published works is beneficial to their careers due to wider readership (Dallmeier-Tiessen et al, 2011; Gaines, 2015; Odell et al, 2017). It seems these faculty simultaneously hold the conflicting belief that traditional publishing is better for their careers overall because it is valued more in the RPT process (Migheli and Ramello, 2014; Peekhaus and Proferes, 2015; Peekhaus and Proferes, 2016; Rodriguez, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents?

Alperin

Nieves

Schimanski

et al. 2019

eLife

132

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of the work done by faculty at both public and private universities has significant public dimensions: it is often paid for by public funds; it is often aimed at serving the public good; and it is often subject to public evaluation. To understand how the public dimensions of faculty work are valued, we analyzed review, promotion, and tenure documents from a representative sample of 129 universities in the US and Canada. Terms and concepts related to public and community are mentioned in a large portion of documents, but mostly in ways that relate to service, which is an undervalued aspect of academic careers. Moreover, the documents make significant mention of traditional research outputs and citation-based metrics: however, such outputs and metrics reward faculty work targeted to academics, and often disregard the public dimensions. Institutions that seek to embody their public mission could therefore work towards changing how faculty work is assessed and incentivized.

show abstract

Faculty Attitudes toward Open Access and Scholarly Communications: Disciplinary Differences on an Urban and Health Science Campus

Cited by 12 publications

References 9 publications

The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis

The institutional repository landscape in medical schools and academic health centers: a 2018 snapshot view and analysis

Altruism or Self-Interest? Exploring the Motivations of Open Access Authors

How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About