Open access self-archiving: An author study
Open access self-archiving: An author study
复制标题
开放获取自存档：作者研究
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Brown
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Swan;S. Brown
这是我们的第二作者关于开放获取的国际跨学科研究，有1296名受访者。它的重点是自我存档。近一半（49%）的受访者在过去三年中至少自我存档了一篇文章。机构知识库为此目的的使用增加了一倍，基于主题的知识库的使用增加了近60%。自我存档活动在发表论文数量最多的人中最多。仍然有相当一部分作者不知道通过自我存档提供对其作品的开放访问的可能性。在尚未自行存档任何文章的作者中，71%的人仍然不知道这个选项。49%的作者以某种方式自我存档，这意味着36%的作者（其余51%的71%）尚未评估这种提供开放获取的方式。作者经常表示不愿意自我存档，因为认为进行这项活动所需的时间和可能的技术困难，但调查结果显示，只有20%的作者发现在存储库中存放文章的第一个行为有一定程度的困难，这一比例下降到9%。另一个作者担心的是侵犯与出版商达成的版权协议，但目前只有10%的作者知道SHERPA/罗密欧关于自存档的出版商许可政策列表，其中提供了关于出版商许可的明确指导。然而，在不知道是否需要许可的地方，作者并不寻求许可，而是在没有许可的情况下自行存档。将他们的成果传达给同行仍然是学者发表作品的主要原因;换句话说，研究人员发表作品是为了对他们的领域产生影响。绝大多数作者（81%）回答说，他们愿意遵守雇主或研究资助者的要求，将其文章的副本存款机构或基于主题的存储库。另有13%的人会不情愿地遵守; 5%的人不会遵守这样的命令。在另一个单独的练习中，我们询问了美国物理学会（APS）和物理研究所出版有限公司（IOPP），他们在arXiv存在的14年里有什么经验。有多少订阅因为arXiv而丢失？这两个协会都表示，他们无法确定由于这个原因造成的任何订阅损失，并且他们不认为arXiv对他们的业务构成威胁（相反-事实上APS帮助在布鲁克海文国家实验室建立了一个arXiv镜像站点）。
This, our second author international, cross-disciplinary study on open access had 1296 respondents. Its focus was on self-archiving. Almost half (49%) of the respondent population have self-archived at least one article during the last three years. Use of institutional repositories for this purpose has doubled and usage has increased by almost 60% for subject-based repositories. Self-archiving activity is greatest amongst those who publish the largest number of papers. There is still a substantial proportion of authors unaware of the possibility of providing open access to their work by self-archiving. Of the authors who have not yet self-archived any articles, 71% remain unaware of the option. With 49% of the author population having self-archived in some way, this means that 36% of the total author population (71% of the remaining 51%), has not yet been appraised of this way of providing open access. Authors have frequently expressed reluctance to self-archive because of the perceived time required and possible technical difficulties in carrying out this activity, yet findings here show that only 20% of authors found some degree of difficulty with the first act of depositing an article in a repository, and that this dropped to 9% for subsequent deposits. Another author worry is about infringing agreed copyright agreements with publishers, yet only 10% of authors currently know of the SHERPA/RoMEO list of publisher permissions policies with respect to self-archiving, where clear guidance as to what a publisher permits is provided. Where it is not known if permission is required, however, authors are not seeking it and are self-archiving without it. Communicating their results to peers remains the primary reason for scholars publishing their work; in other words, researchers publish to have an impact on their field. The vast majority of authors (81%) responded that they would willingly comply with a mandate from their employer or research funder to deposit copies of their articles in an institutional or subject-based repository. A further 13% would comply reluctantly; 5% would not comply with such a mandate. In a separate exercise we asked the American Physical Society (APS) and the Institute of Physics Publishing Ltd (IOPP) what their experiences have been over the 14 years that arXiv has been in existence. How many subscriptions have been lost as a result of arXiv? Both societies said they could not identify any losses of subscriptions for this reason and that they do not view arXiv as a threat to their business (rather the opposite -- in fact the APS helped establish an arXiv mirror site at the Brookhaven National Laboratory).