Open-Access der Heuchelei der Bibliothekare beim Self-archiving wissenschaftlich untersucht

„Librarians have embraced the open access movement. They work to raise awareness of issues
surrounding scholarly communication, to educate faculty about authors’ rights, and to help
implement and maintain institutional repositories (IRs). But for all of the research and
commentary from librarians about the importance of IRs and of making research freely
available, there still exists the glaring contradiction that few librarians and Library and
Information Science (LIS) authors provide free access to their own research publications.“

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1245

Ergebnis:

„While investigating a total of 1048 journal articles from the top 20 journals published in 2013,
292 articles were found to be available openly from various sources. In other words, 27.86%
articles from 20 closed access journals were open access articles.“

Eine berechtigte Frage:

„We identified a good number of articles from the http://Academia.edu and Researchgate websites
which are platforms for faculty researchers to share their research with their peers. This again
indicates that faculty researchers are willing to share their articles to collaborate and connect
with their colleagues, peers, and co-authors within their field. It also raised the question why
faculty researchers are more comfortable sharing their research output within a social media
platform than within their own instutional repositories.“

Schlussfolgerung:

„While providing access to information is librarians’ most critical duty and responsibility, this
article points to the discouraging fact that we as LIS authors have failed, whether through SRs,
IRs, or personal websites, to make our own articles open access. Librarians and other types of
LIS authors have similar priorities to faculty authors in other disciplines. They are concerned
with publishing in journals acceptable for promotion and tenure and not with making their
articles freely available. Even though according to SHERPA/RoMEo data that more than 76% of
publishers allow some form of self-archiving, results from this study show that LIS authors do
not see the importance of self-archiving their work.“

Die abschließendende Forderung nach universitätsweiten Mandaten ist völlig unbelegt!

Mein klassischer Beitrag zum Thema (2006):

http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/573860379


Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.

Diese Website verwendet Akismet, um Spam zu reduzieren. Erfahre mehr darüber, wie deine Kommentardaten verarbeitet werden.