The Roles of Female Involvement and Risk Aversion in Open Access Publishing Patterns in Vietnamese Social Sciences and Humanities

Abstract

Purpose The open-access (OA) publishing model can help improve researchers’ outreach, thanks to its accessibility and visibility to the public. Therefore, the presentation of female researchers can benefit from the OA publishing model. Despite that, little is known about how gender affects OA practices. Thus, the current study explores the effects of female involvement and risk aversion on OA publishing patterns among Vietnamese social sciences and humanities. Design/methodology/approach The study employed Bayesian Mindsponge Framework (BMF) on a dataset of 3,122 Vietnamese social sciences and humanities (SS&H) publications during 2008–2019. The Mindsponge mechanism was specifically used to construct theoretical models, while Bayesian inference was utilized for fitting models. Findings The result showed a positive association between female participation and OA publishing probability. However, the positive effect of female involvement on OA publishing probability was negated by the high ratio of female researchers in a publication. OA status was negatively associated with the JIF of the journal in which the publication was published, but the relationship was moderated by the involvement of a female researcher(s). The findings suggested that Vietnamese female researchers might be more likely to publish under the OA model in journals with high JIF for avoiding the risk of public criticism. Research limitations The study could only provide evidence on the association between female involvement and OA publishing probability. However, whether to publish under OA terms is often determined by the first or corresponding authors, but not necessarily gender-based. Practical implications Systematically coordinated actions are suggested to better support women and promote the OA movement in Vietnam. Originality/value The findings show the OA publishing patterns of female researchers in Vietnamese SS&H.

Introduction to Bayesian Mindsponge Framework analytics: An innovative method for social and psychological research

“…Moreover, the good match between the mindsponge mechanism and Bayesian inference produces five distinct strong points of BMF analytics. Thanks to these strengths, the BMF analytics has been successfully applied to explore various social, psychological, and behavioral issues in multiple disciplines, such as mental health [3] , education [4] , environmental psychology [5] , public health [6] , scientific publishing [7] , security [8] , etc.…”

Gender Balance in Norwegian Academia: Present State and Future Scenarios

“…Use of Open Access may be beneficial to women (Nguyen et al, 2021;Ruggieri et al, 2021;Vuong et al, 2021). On the positive side, the open-access (OA) publishing model can help improve researchers' outreach, thanks to its accessibility and visibility to the public.…”

“…The hypothesis being that scientists from minority groups or with less reputation might perceive OA publishing as an effective strategy to gain more recognition in the scientific community. OA publishing offers greater perceived visibility and impact, and this could be a critical factor when female scientists consider a place to publish (Nguyen et al, 2021). On the negative side, the cost of publishing OA might make it expensive for female researchers, who often have fewer resources than male researchers.…”

“…While this investigation examines representation of women in science, gender inequality can be observed in various aspects of academic life. In terms of scientific collaboration, previous work suggest that men and women tend to exhibit different collaborative behaviors across their scientific career, including collaboration patterns, position in the network, degree of homophilic behavior and tendency to have interdisciplinary collaborations (see e.g., Jadidi et al, 2018;Nguyen et al, 2021 for reviews and references). These differences favors males (Nguyen et al, 2021) and has been suggested to be caused by implicit biases and institutional practices (Bayer and Rouse, 2016).…”

“…In terms of scientific collaboration, previous work suggest that men and women tend to exhibit different collaborative behaviors across their scientific career, including collaboration patterns, position in the network, degree of homophilic behavior and tendency to have interdisciplinary collaborations (see e.g., Jadidi et al, 2018;Nguyen et al, 2021 for reviews and references). These differences favors males (Nguyen et al, 2021) and has been suggested to be caused by implicit biases and institutional practices (Bayer and Rouse, 2016). Women across the world report strikingly similar challenges in their academic work-life, including work-related stress, unfair work performance appraisals, lack of woman-friendly management and sexual harassment (Fathima et al, 2020).…”