Severin, Anna and Egger, Matthias and Eve, Martin Paul and Hürlimann, Daniel (2020) Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review (version 2). F1000Research 7 (1925), ISSN 2046-1402.
|
Text
dc18364a-cbca-4432-b082-2e253722c2c5_17328_-_anna_severin_v2.pdf - Published Version of Record Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (2MB) | Preview |
Abstract
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. Keywords
Metadata
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
School: | Birkbeck Faculties and Schools > Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences > School of Creative Arts, Culture and Communication |
Depositing User: | Martin Eve |
Date Deposited: | 27 Mar 2020 18:55 |
Last Modified: | 09 Aug 2023 12:48 |
URI: | https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/31485 |
Statistics
Additional statistics are available via IRStats2.