研究人员对开放获取资助基金的看法和经验

IF 0.4 Q4 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Jylisa Doney, J. Kenyon
{"title":"研究人员对开放获取资助基金的看法和经验","authors":"Jylisa Doney, J. Kenyon","doi":"10.18438/eblip30015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective – This study investigated researchers’ perceptions of open access publishing and the ways in which the university’s open access subvention fund could evolve to meet the campus community’s needs.\nMethods – In spring 2021, two librarians conducted an anonymous survey using a convenience sample to recruit participants. The survey was directly distributed to 113 University of Idaho (U of I) affiliates who had received funding from, or expressed interest in, the open access subvention fund during the previous three years (FY 2019 to FY 2021). Other U of I affiliates were also offered the opportunity to participate in the survey via a link shared in the U of I’s daily email newsletter as well across the U of I’s graduate student email list. The researchers received 42 usable survey responses. The survey included 26 closed and open-ended questions and analysis included cross-tabulations based on fund applicant status as well as respondent role. Of the 26 questions, 4 were modified from a colleague’s previous study with U of I faculty members (Gaines, 2015).\nResults – Survey responses showed that interest in and support for open access were common among respondents. Although a majority of respondents had published an open access journal article and would like to continue to publish open access in the future, only 17% agreed that they had departmental support to do so. Results also demonstrated that researchers were less willing to pay article processing charges (APCs) out-of-pocket and preferred for funding to come from grant budgets first, followed by Office of Research Budgets, department or college budgets, and library budgets. Respondents expressed support for many of the open access subvention fund’s current criteria and processes, but they also indicated an interest in establishing a more equitable fund distribution cycle and allowing researchers to seek pre-approval once their article was accepted for peer-review. Findings related to open access publishing perspectives built upon previous research conducted at the U of I (Gaines, 2015) and across other institutions. \nConclusion – This study confirmed the importance of evaluating and assessing library programs and services to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of campus communities. Through the study results, the researchers demonstrated that respondents were interested in open access publishing and the continuation of the open access subvention fund, as well as offering the U of I an opportunity to adjust the open access subvention fund’s processes to better serve researchers. These results also highlighted the need for those involved in open access publishing support to investigate new open access advocacy and education efforts to ensure that researchers receive the philosophical and financial support they need to pursue different models of scholarly publishing.","PeriodicalId":45227,"journal":{"name":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Researchers’ Perceptions and Experiences with an Open Access Subvention Fund\",\"authors\":\"Jylisa Doney, J. Kenyon\",\"doi\":\"10.18438/eblip30015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective – This study investigated researchers’ perceptions of open access publishing and the ways in which the university’s open access subvention fund could evolve to meet the campus community’s needs.\\nMethods – In spring 2021, two librarians conducted an anonymous survey using a convenience sample to recruit participants. The survey was directly distributed to 113 University of Idaho (U of I) affiliates who had received funding from, or expressed interest in, the open access subvention fund during the previous three years (FY 2019 to FY 2021). Other U of I affiliates were also offered the opportunity to participate in the survey via a link shared in the U of I’s daily email newsletter as well across the U of I’s graduate student email list. The researchers received 42 usable survey responses. The survey included 26 closed and open-ended questions and analysis included cross-tabulations based on fund applicant status as well as respondent role. Of the 26 questions, 4 were modified from a colleague’s previous study with U of I faculty members (Gaines, 2015).\\nResults – Survey responses showed that interest in and support for open access were common among respondents. Although a majority of respondents had published an open access journal article and would like to continue to publish open access in the future, only 17% agreed that they had departmental support to do so. Results also demonstrated that researchers were less willing to pay article processing charges (APCs) out-of-pocket and preferred for funding to come from grant budgets first, followed by Office of Research Budgets, department or college budgets, and library budgets. Respondents expressed support for many of the open access subvention fund’s current criteria and processes, but they also indicated an interest in establishing a more equitable fund distribution cycle and allowing researchers to seek pre-approval once their article was accepted for peer-review. Findings related to open access publishing perspectives built upon previous research conducted at the U of I (Gaines, 2015) and across other institutions. \\nConclusion – This study confirmed the importance of evaluating and assessing library programs and services to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of campus communities. Through the study results, the researchers demonstrated that respondents were interested in open access publishing and the continuation of the open access subvention fund, as well as offering the U of I an opportunity to adjust the open access subvention fund’s processes to better serve researchers. These results also highlighted the need for those involved in open access publishing support to investigate new open access advocacy and education efforts to ensure that researchers receive the philosophical and financial support they need to pursue different models of scholarly publishing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45227,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:本研究调查了研究人员对开放获取出版的看法,以及大学开放获取资助基金如何发展以满足校园社区的需求。方法:2021年春季,两位图书管理员使用方便的样本进行了一项匿名调查,以招募参与者。该调查直接分发给113个爱达荷大学附属机构,这些附属机构在过去三年(2019财年至2021财年)获得了开放获取资助基金的资助或表示有兴趣。其他的伊利诺伊大学附属机构也有机会通过伊利诺伊大学的每日电子邮件通讯以及伊利诺伊大学的研究生电子邮件列表共享的链接参与调查。研究人员收到了42份可用的调查回复。调查包括26个封闭式和开放式问题,分析包括基于基金申请人身份和受访者角色的交叉表格。在26个问题中,有4个问题修改自同事之前与伊利诺伊大学教职员工的研究(Gaines, 2015)。结果-调查结果显示,对开放获取的兴趣和支持在受访者中很普遍。虽然大多数受访者已经发表了开放获取期刊文章,并希望在未来继续发表开放获取,但只有17%的人同意他们有部门支持这样做。研究结果还表明,研究人员不太愿意自掏腰包支付文章处理费(apc),更倾向于首先从拨款预算中获得资金,其次是研究预算办公室、部门或学院预算和图书馆预算。受访者表示支持开放获取资助基金目前的许多标准和流程,但他们也表示有兴趣建立一个更公平的基金分配周期,并允许研究人员在文章被同行评审接受后寻求预先批准。与开放获取出版观点相关的发现建立在之前在伊利诺伊大学(Gaines, 2015)和其他机构进行的研究基础上。结论:这项研究证实了评估和评估图书馆项目和服务的重要性,以确保它们继续满足校园社区的需求。通过研究结果,研究人员表明,受访者对开放获取出版和开放获取资助基金的延续感兴趣,并为大学提供了调整开放获取资助基金流程以更好地为研究人员服务的机会。这些结果也强调了那些参与开放获取出版支持的人需要调查新的开放获取宣传和教育工作,以确保研究人员获得追求不同学术出版模式所需的哲学和财政支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Researchers’ Perceptions and Experiences with an Open Access Subvention Fund
Objective – This study investigated researchers’ perceptions of open access publishing and the ways in which the university’s open access subvention fund could evolve to meet the campus community’s needs. Methods – In spring 2021, two librarians conducted an anonymous survey using a convenience sample to recruit participants. The survey was directly distributed to 113 University of Idaho (U of I) affiliates who had received funding from, or expressed interest in, the open access subvention fund during the previous three years (FY 2019 to FY 2021). Other U of I affiliates were also offered the opportunity to participate in the survey via a link shared in the U of I’s daily email newsletter as well across the U of I’s graduate student email list. The researchers received 42 usable survey responses. The survey included 26 closed and open-ended questions and analysis included cross-tabulations based on fund applicant status as well as respondent role. Of the 26 questions, 4 were modified from a colleague’s previous study with U of I faculty members (Gaines, 2015). Results – Survey responses showed that interest in and support for open access were common among respondents. Although a majority of respondents had published an open access journal article and would like to continue to publish open access in the future, only 17% agreed that they had departmental support to do so. Results also demonstrated that researchers were less willing to pay article processing charges (APCs) out-of-pocket and preferred for funding to come from grant budgets first, followed by Office of Research Budgets, department or college budgets, and library budgets. Respondents expressed support for many of the open access subvention fund’s current criteria and processes, but they also indicated an interest in establishing a more equitable fund distribution cycle and allowing researchers to seek pre-approval once their article was accepted for peer-review. Findings related to open access publishing perspectives built upon previous research conducted at the U of I (Gaines, 2015) and across other institutions.  Conclusion – This study confirmed the importance of evaluating and assessing library programs and services to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of campus communities. Through the study results, the researchers demonstrated that respondents were interested in open access publishing and the continuation of the open access subvention fund, as well as offering the U of I an opportunity to adjust the open access subvention fund’s processes to better serve researchers. These results also highlighted the need for those involved in open access publishing support to investigate new open access advocacy and education efforts to ensure that researchers receive the philosophical and financial support they need to pursue different models of scholarly publishing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信