東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Let's Not See Open Access as a Threa...

Naim, Kamran.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Let's Not See Open Access as a Threat: Convergence and Divergence Among Research Librarians and Academic Publishers on Public Access to the Scholarly Literature.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Let's Not See Open Access as a Threat: Convergence and Divergence Among Research Librarians and Academic Publishers on Public Access to the Scholarly Literature./
作者:	Naim, Kamran.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2019,
面頁冊數:	226 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-04, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International82-04A.
標題:	Information science. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28209482
ISBN:	9798684629211

Let's Not See Open Access as a Threat: Convergence and Divergence Among Research Librarians and Academic Publishers on Public Access to the Scholarly Literature.
Naim, Kamran.

Let's Not See Open Access as a Threat: Convergence and Divergence Among Research Librarians and Academic Publishers on Public Access to the Scholarly Literature. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2019 - 226 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-04, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Stanford University, 2019.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

The now widespread recognition of the benefits of open access (OA) to research and scholarship has brought the global system of scholarly publishing to a historic turning point, as well as an impasse as the key stakeholders differ on how best to achieve the goal of universal OA. This thesis builds on quantitative work measuring the progress of OA by analyzing the positions and values of research librarians and scholarly publishers around this topic. Utilizing a survey of librarians (n = 188) and interviews with commercial and nonprofit publishers (n = 20), participants were asked to respond to a model of OA involving "subscription-equivalent transition" in terms of library costs, to solicit what was valued and what was most concerning. It was found that librarians and nonprofit publishers generally agreed that OA is integral to the future of scholarship; which was not the case among commercial publishers, who were qualified in their support, to the point of seeing it as potentially detrimental to scholarly publishing. Both sets of stakeholders recognized the dangers posed by library free ridership under OA publishing models. Librarians viewed subscription-equivalent arrangements more favorably than other dominant OA models. Both commercial and non-commercial publishers considered the subscription-equivalent model not an attractive option, but with varying justifications: nonprofits perceived greater risk due to their smaller market share, while commercial publishers sought to preserve their profit-making and growth imperatives. Librarians and publishers were mixed in their perceptions of the prevailing article processing charges (APC) model: it was recognized among some librarians as a viable transition path for some disciplines, and by others as inefficient and unscalable. Some publishers saw APCs as desirable an OA for providing authors with a choice. These results suggest, in the short term, opportunities for cooperation between librarians and nonprofit publishers to engage in cooperative models-that leverage mission alignment, financial transparency, and assurance contracts to sustain revenues-to transition from selling content to OA publishing service models. Despite findings of damaged trust between both parties, librarians indicated their willingness to enter into financially neutral models. Rather than seeing OA as a threat, the vastly greater potential for open science to address global issues suggests we are at a historic moment: where, through mutual compromise and reconciliation, we may achieve a digital information commons through cooperation.

ISBN: 9798684629211Subjects--Topical Terms:

554358
Information science.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Open access

Let's Not See Open Access as a Threat: Convergence and Divergence Among Research Librarians and Academic Publishers on Public Access to the Scholarly Literature.
LDR:03813nmm a2200337 4500 001 2274610
005 20201202130034.5
008 220629s2019 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798684629211
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28209482
035 $a (MiAaPQ)STANFORDcg749xz0673
035 $a AAI28209482
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Naim, Kamran. $3 3552110
245 1 0 $a Let's Not See Open Access as a Threat: Convergence and Divergence Among Research Librarians and Academic Publishers on Public Access to the Scholarly Literature.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2019
300 $a 226 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-04, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Willinsky, John;Antonio, Anthony Lising; Labaree, David F.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Stanford University, 2019.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a The now widespread recognition of the benefits of open access (OA) to research and scholarship has brought the global system of scholarly publishing to a historic turning point, as well as an impasse as the key stakeholders differ on how best to achieve the goal of universal OA. This thesis builds on quantitative work measuring the progress of OA by analyzing the positions and values of research librarians and scholarly publishers around this topic. Utilizing a survey of librarians (n = 188) and interviews with commercial and nonprofit publishers (n = 20), participants were asked to respond to a model of OA involving "subscription-equivalent transition" in terms of library costs, to solicit what was valued and what was most concerning. It was found that librarians and nonprofit publishers generally agreed that OA is integral to the future of scholarship; which was not the case among commercial publishers, who were qualified in their support, to the point of seeing it as potentially detrimental to scholarly publishing. Both sets of stakeholders recognized the dangers posed by library free ridership under OA publishing models. Librarians viewed subscription-equivalent arrangements more favorably than other dominant OA models. Both commercial and non-commercial publishers considered the subscription-equivalent model not an attractive option, but with varying justifications: nonprofits perceived greater risk due to their smaller market share, while commercial publishers sought to preserve their profit-making and growth imperatives. Librarians and publishers were mixed in their perceptions of the prevailing article processing charges (APC) model: it was recognized among some librarians as a viable transition path for some disciplines, and by others as inefficient and unscalable. Some publishers saw APCs as desirable an OA for providing authors with a choice. These results suggest, in the short term, opportunities for cooperation between librarians and nonprofit publishers to engage in cooperative models-that leverage mission alignment, financial transparency, and assurance contracts to sustain revenues-to transition from selling content to OA publishing service models. Despite findings of damaged trust between both parties, librarians indicated their willingness to enter into financially neutral models. Rather than seeing OA as a threat, the vastly greater potential for open science to address global issues suggests we are at a historic moment: where, through mutual compromise and reconciliation, we may achieve a digital information commons through cooperation.
590 $a School code: 0212.
650 4 $a Information science. $3 554358
650 4 $a Library science. $3 539284
653 $a Open access
653 $a Scholarly publishing
690 $a 0399
690 $a 0723
710 2 $a Stanford University. $3 754827
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 82-04A.
790 $a 0212
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2019
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28209482