Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review.

Autor:	Severin A; Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland.; Swiss National Science Foundation, Bern, 3001, Switzerland., Egger M; Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland.; Swiss National Science Foundation, Bern, 3001, Switzerland., Eve MP; Department of English and Humanities, Birkbeck University of London, London, WC1H 0PD, UK., Hürlimann D; Research Center for Information Law, University of St.Gallen, St.Gallen, 9000, Switzerland.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	F1000Research [F1000Res] 2018 Dec 11; Vol. 7, pp. 1925. Date of Electronic Publication: 2018 Dec 11 (Print Publication: 2018).
DOI:	10.12688/f1000research.17328.2
Abstrakt:	Background: Many of the discussions surrounding Open Access (OA) revolve around how it affects publishing practices across different academic disciplines. It was a long-held view that it would be only a matter of time before all disciplines fully and relatively homogeneously implemented OA. Recent large-scale bibliometric studies show, however, that the uptake of OA differs substantially across disciplines. We aimed to answer two questions: First, how do different disciplines adopt and shape OA publishing practices? Second, what discipline-specific barriers to and potentials for OA can be identified? Methods: In a first step, we identified and synthesized relevant bibliometric studies that assessed OA prevalence and publishing patterns across disciplines. In a second step, and adopting a social shaping of technology perspective, we studied evidence on the socio-technical forces that shape OA publishing practices. We examined a variety of data sources, including, but not limited to, publisher policies and guidelines, OA mandates and policies and author surveys. Results: Over the last three decades, scholarly publishing has experienced a shift from "closed" access to OA as the proportion of scholarly literature that is openly accessible has increased continuously. Estimated OA levels for publication years after 2010 varied between 29.4% and 66%. The shift towards OA is uneven across disciplines in two respects: first, the growth of OA has been uneven across disciplines, which manifests itself in varying OA prevalence levels. Second, disciplines use different OA publishing channels to make research outputs OA. Conclusions: We conclude that historically rooted publishing practices differ in terms of their compatibility with OA, which is the reason why OA can be assumed to be a natural continuation of publishing cultures in some disciplines, whereas in other disciplines, the implementation of OA faces major barriers and would require a change of research culture. Competing Interests: Competing interests: AS works for the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). ME is president of the National Research Council of the SNSF. MPE is co-founder, CEO and finance director of Open Library of Humanities. DH is founder and editor of the OA law journal sui-generis.ch. (Copyright: © 2020 Severin A et al.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu