Richard Hayman

Bibliography. Library science. Information resources

A Review of: 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.01.002   Abstract  Objective – To examine the occupational characteristics and publication habits of library and information science (LIS) authors regarding traditional journals and open access journals. Design – Content analysis. Setting – English language research articles published in open access (OA) journals and non-open access (non-OA) journals from 2008 to 2013 that are indexed in LIS databases. Subjects – The authorship characteristics for 3,472 peer-reviewed articles. Methods – This researcher identified 33 total journals meeting the inclusion criteria by using the LIS categories within 2012 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to find 13 appropriate non-OA journals, and within the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) to identify 20 appropriate OA journals. They found 1,665 articles by 3,186 authors published in the non-OA journals, and another 1,807 articles by 3,446 authors within the OA journals. The researcher used author affiliation to determine article authors’ occupations using information included in the articles themselves or by looking for information on the Internet, and excluded articles when occupational information could not be located. Authors were categorized into four occupational categories: Librarians (practitioners), Academics (faculty and researchers), Students (graduate or undergraduate), and Others. Using these categories, the author identified 10 different types of collaborations for co-authored articles. Main Results – This research involves three primary research questions. The first examined the occupational differences between authors publishing in OA journals versus non-OA journals. Academics (faculty and researchers) more commonly published in non-OA journals (58.1%) compared to OA journals (35.6%). The inverse was true for librarian practitioners, who were more likely to publish in OA journals (53.9%) compared to non-OA journals (25.5%). Student authors, a combined category that included both graduate and undergraduate students, published more in non-OA journals (10.1%) versus in OA journals (5.0%). The final category of “other” saw only a slight difference between non-OA (6.3%) and OA (5.5%) publication venues. This second research question explored the difference in the proportion of LIS authors who published in OA and non-OA journals. Overall, authors were more likely to publish in OA journals (72.4%) vs. non-OA (64.3%). Librarians tended to be primary authors in OA journals, while LIS academics tend to be primary authors for articles in non-OA publications. Academics from outside the LIS discipline but contributing to the disciplinary literature were more likely to publish in non-OA journals. Regarding trends over time, this research showed a decrease in the percentage of librarian practitioners and “other” authors publishing in OA journals, while academics and students increased their OA contributions rates during the same period.  Finally, the research explored whether authors formed different types of collaborations when publishing in OA journals as compared to non-OA journals. When examining co-authorship of articles, just over half of all articles published in OA journals (54.4%) and non-OA journals (53.2%) were co-authored. Overall the researcher identified 10 types of collaborative relationships and examined the rates for publishing in OA versus non-OA journals for these relationships. OA journals saw three main relationships, with high levels of collaborations between practitioner librarians (38.6% of collaborations), between librarians and academics (20.5%), and between academics only (18.0%). Non-OA journals saw four main relationships, with collaborations between academics appearing most often (34.1%), along with academic-student collaborations (21.5%), practitioner librarian collaborations (15.5%), and librarian-academic collaborations (13.2%). Conclusion – LIS practitioner-focused research tends to appear more often in open access journals, while academic-focused researcher tends to appear more often in non-OA journals. These trends also appear in research collaborations, with co-authored works involving librarians appearing more often in OA journals, and collaborations that include academics more likely to appear in non-OA journals.

2nd degree connections


Numeracy and Evaluating Quality in Open Access Journals
Numeracy 2016 (https://doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.9.2.1)
Evaluating quality for open access (OA) journals has long presented a challenge, complicated by the misperception that OA journals offer a lesser quality than subscription journals. OA journals, however, have a wide variety of publishing models, some...

2nd degree connections


Open Access Scholarly Journal Publishing in Chinese
Publications 2017 (https://doi.org/10.3390/publications5040022)
The research literature on open access (OA) publishing has mainly dealt with journals publishing in English, and studies focusing on OA journals in other languages are less common. This article addresses this gap via a case study focusing on Chinese-...

2nd degree connections


Quality open access publishing and registration to Directory of Open Access Journals
Science Editing 2017 (https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.82)
With the fast development of open access publishing worldwide, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) as a community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals, has been recognized...

2nd degree connections


Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals.
PLoS ONE 2016 (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147913)
Recent controversies highlighting substandard peer review in Open Access (OA) and traditional (subscription) journals have increased the need for authors, funders, publishers, and institutions to assure quality of peer-review in academic journals. I ...

3rd degree connections


Onward to 2016
Journal of Circulating Biomarkers 2016 (https://doi.org/10.5772/62278)
As we embrace for another exciting year (2016), we are thrilled to announce JCB has been indexed in the DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) (https://doaj.org/toc/ 1849-4544)! This was attributable to the number of quality published original rese...

2nd degree connections


A Qualitative Analysis of Journal of ETA Maritime Science (JEMS) and Its Management Process
Journal of ETA Maritime Science 2016 (https://doi.org/10.5505/jems.2016.87487)
This article is dealing with a brief qualitative analysis of articles published between the years 2013-2016 in the Journal of ETA Maritime Science (whose owner is UCTEA, The Chamber of Marine Engineers), which has been indexed by the ULAKBIM TR Dizin...

2nd degree connections


PaLRaP Earns the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) Seal of Approval
Pennsylvania Libraries: Research & Practice 2016 (https://doi.org/10.5195/palrap.2016.126)
In early 2016 PaLRaP was added to the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and received the DOAJ Seal of Approval....

Copy below code to your website in order to embed a kmapper preview widget of this article.
<script id="kmapper_widget" src="https://kmapper.herokuapp.com/embed.js" doi="10-18438-eblip29377" width="240" height="240"></script><div id="kmapper_badge"></div>