We Should Not Light an Open Access Lamp and then Hide it Under a Bushel!

Brian Kelly, Santiago Chumbe, R. MacLeod
{"title":"We Should Not Light an Open Access Lamp and then Hide it Under a Bushel!","authors":"Brian Kelly, Santiago Chumbe, R. MacLeod","doi":"10.3233/978-1-61499-562-3-102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The rapid growth of hybrid journals in the last few years has seen an unfortunate side effect: the majority of Open Access (OA) articles published in those journals cannot be recognized as OA beyond the publishers' websites, or by the discovery services used by researchers to access full-text articles. This reality has been demonstrated in the literature and solutions have been proposed. This paper explains the causes behind the problem, examines each of the proposed solutions, discusses the few implementations made with those solutions, and estimates whether the potential benefits merit the efforts required to implement the available solutions. Each of the solutions is analyzed from standardization and pragmatic perspectives. In particular, we critically analyze the solution proposed by NISO (RP-22-2015), and compare it with the solution offered by the JEMO project, which is based on using metadata elements from namespaces and XML schemas already being used by publishers. The contribution presents a number of case studies which show that research published as OA ends up erroneously being labelled as non-OA on the electronic services used by the end-user, when one of the components of the supply and delivery chain for e-journals fails to include OA information in its metadata. Furthermore, the case studies demonstrate that publishers of hybrid journals should not be the only ones being answerable for the problem. In fact, during the study, some publishers were actually not allowed to enable OA identification, at the article level, by key components of the supply chain. In those case studies, we worked with a sample of publishers that implemented the JEMO solution. From those experiences we draw answers to the main question of this presentation: which solution should be used to enable OA discovery from hybrid journals? What becomes apparent is that publishers are prepared and willing to implement any of the available solutions in their publishing workflow. The paper proposes that the simplest option is the best solution to provide standardized means to identify OA at the article level.","PeriodicalId":130180,"journal":{"name":"International Conference on Electronic Publishing","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Conference on Electronic Publishing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-562-3-102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The rapid growth of hybrid journals in the last few years has seen an unfortunate side effect: the majority of Open Access (OA) articles published in those journals cannot be recognized as OA beyond the publishers' websites, or by the discovery services used by researchers to access full-text articles. This reality has been demonstrated in the literature and solutions have been proposed. This paper explains the causes behind the problem, examines each of the proposed solutions, discusses the few implementations made with those solutions, and estimates whether the potential benefits merit the efforts required to implement the available solutions. Each of the solutions is analyzed from standardization and pragmatic perspectives. In particular, we critically analyze the solution proposed by NISO (RP-22-2015), and compare it with the solution offered by the JEMO project, which is based on using metadata elements from namespaces and XML schemas already being used by publishers. The contribution presents a number of case studies which show that research published as OA ends up erroneously being labelled as non-OA on the electronic services used by the end-user, when one of the components of the supply and delivery chain for e-journals fails to include OA information in its metadata. Furthermore, the case studies demonstrate that publishers of hybrid journals should not be the only ones being answerable for the problem. In fact, during the study, some publishers were actually not allowed to enable OA identification, at the article level, by key components of the supply chain. In those case studies, we worked with a sample of publishers that implemented the JEMO solution. From those experiences we draw answers to the main question of this presentation: which solution should be used to enable OA discovery from hybrid journals? What becomes apparent is that publishers are prepared and willing to implement any of the available solutions in their publishing workflow. The paper proposes that the simplest option is the best solution to provide standardized means to identify OA at the article level.
我们不应该点燃一盏开放的灯,然后把它藏在蒲式耳下面!
在过去的几年里,混合期刊的快速增长带来了一个不幸的副作用:在这些期刊上发表的大多数开放获取(OA)文章,除了出版商的网站,或者研究人员用来访问全文文章的发现服务之外,都不能被认为是开放获取。这一现实已在文献中得到证明,并提出了解决方案。本文解释了问题背后的原因,检查了每个建议的解决方案,讨论了使用这些解决方案的少数实现,并估计潜在的好处是否值得实现可用解决方案所需的努力。每个解决方案都从标准化和实用的角度进行了分析。特别是,我们批判性地分析了NISO (RP-22-2015)提出的解决方案,并将其与JEMO项目提供的解决方案进行了比较,JEMO项目基于使用出版商已经使用的名称空间和XML模式中的元数据元素。这篇文章提出了一些案例研究,这些研究表明,当电子期刊的供应和交付链的一个组成部分未能在其元数据中包含OA信息时,作为OA发表的研究最终会在最终用户使用的电子服务上被错误地标记为非OA。此外,案例研究表明,混合型期刊的出版商不应该是唯一对这个问题负责的人。事实上,在研究期间,一些出版商实际上不允许通过供应链的关键组件在文章级别启用OA标识。在这些案例研究中,我们使用了实现JEMO解决方案的发行商样本。从这些经验中,我们得出了本演讲的主要问题的答案:应该使用哪种解决方案来实现混合期刊的OA发现?显而易见的是,发布者已经准备好并愿意在他们的发布工作流程中实现任何可用的解决方案。本文提出,最简单的选择是提供在文章级别识别OA的标准化方法的最佳解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信