Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

A Closer Look into Open Access and LIS Publishing Practices

27 views

Published on

Abstract: Drawing on data from an investigation of 126 academic, peer-reviewed journals in library and information science (LIS), this presentation will discuss ways that those working in LIS can take back control over how their work is disseminated and shared online. For this to happen, however, members of the profession need to recognize and consciously grapple with the ubiquitous capitalist system that informs so many of the services, functions, and expectations that are tied to the profession.

Updated presentation given at the University of Alberta October 10, 2018. Original slides available at https://www.slideshare.net/bibliorobyn/a-look-into-closed-access-capitalism-and-lis-publishing-practices

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

A Closer Look into Open Access and LIS Publishing Practices

  1. 1. & LIS PUBLISHING PRACTICES ROBYN HALL | OCTOBER 2018 A CLOSER LOOK INTO OPEN ACCESS AND
  2. 2. ACCESS | DEMOCRACY | SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY PUBLIC GOOD | EDUCATION & LIFELONG LEARNING CORE VALUES OF LIBRARIANSHIP Source: ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/corevalues
  3. 3. Source: ala.org/acrl/standards/openaccess PUBLISH IN OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS DEPOSIT THE FINAL ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT IN A REPOSITORY OPTIONS
  4. 4. LIS IN PRACTICE = $$$
  5. 5. Source: library.usask.ca/ceblip/research/peer-reviewed-lis-journals.php *Excluded Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 126* Peer-reviewed LIS Journals
  6. 6. Up to 3 years | All not-for-profit
  7. 7. *4 of these require a 12-month embargo 10 not-for-profit | 7 allow OA archiving*
  8. 8. * 13 with 12 month embargo, 3 with 24 month embargo 61 commercial | Avg. APC: $2520 | All allow archiving*
  9. 9. 81% run by commercial publishers
  10. 10. 45 OPEN ACCESS All not-for-profit | No fees
  11. 11. OA with Creative Commons licenses: 82%* COPYRIGHT *Only 58% include CC licenses on the actual articles In SHERPA RoMEO - $$$: 94% | OA : 44%
  12. 12. DOIs $$$: 98% | OA: 45%
  13. 13. INDEXING OA: LISTA- 36% | SCOPUS - 36% | Web of Science: 9% $$$: LISTA- 87% | SCOPUS - 95% | Web of Science: 33% OA listed in DOAJ: 51%
  14. 14. PUBLISH OA | ARCHIVE OA | PEER REVIEW OA INCENTIVIZE OA | $UPPORT OA ACCESS IN PRACTICE
  15. 15. hallr27@macewan.ca | @bibliorobyn INCENTIVES? INFRASTRUCTURE?
  16. 16. Check the Data: Share Your Work: Additional Reading: INFO + SOURCES Vandergrift, M. & Bowley, C. (2014). Librarian, heal thyself: A scholarly communication analysis of LIS journals. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. Retrieved from http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2014/healthyself https://lissarchive.org https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Qu8o6KfA5gD2GC-1q_aWqOTeJ3cX2n-q2pJwnWhiEfg/edit?usp=sharing http://doaj.org Peekhaus, W., & Proferes, N. (2015). How library and information science faculty perceive and engage with open access. Journal of Information Science, 41(5), 640-661. doi:10.1177/0165551515587855 Chang, Y-W. (2017). Comparative study of characteristics of authors between open access and non-open access journals in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 39(1), 8-15. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2017.01.002 Peekhaus, W. (2017). Open access among Canadian library and information science faculty. Canadian Journal of Information & Library Sciences, 41(1/2), 105-146. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu Schultz, T. (2017, July 28). Practicing what you preach: Evaluating access of open access research. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 21(1). doi:10.3998/3336451.0021.103 http://whyopenresearch.org

×