B. Rasuli, Joachim Schöpfel, Michael Boock, B. van Wyk
{"title":"学术出版物的获取和影响障碍:论文和论文禁运政策的全球研究","authors":"B. Rasuli, Joachim Schöpfel, Michael Boock, B. van Wyk","doi":"10.1108/oir-09-2022-0497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeMany Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) allow students or their advisors to restrict access to theses/dissertations (TDs) by applying embargoes. This study aims to identify why Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) allow embargoes.Design/methodology/approachOne hundred HEIs were randomly selected, representing seven geographic regions. The authors imported policies/guidelines for embargoing TDs into MAXQDA software and coded the qualitative data.FindingsAmong the 100 studied HEIs, 43 HEIs (43%) have policies/guidelines on the web for embargoing TDs, most of which are from North America. For the majority of HEIs, embargoes are a voluntary option for students/advisors. Content analysis of the 32 embargo policies showed that embargo reasons (18 key reasons) can be categorized into six broad themes (commercialization, publication, ethical issues, funding contracts/agreements, security and safety, and miscellaneous).Research limitations/implicationsIn this study, only those policies are reviewed that are available, discoverable and accessible on HEIs' websites.Practical implicationsHighlighting the detrimental effect of not managing stipulations towards embargoes clearly, the findings could be useful for national/institutional policymakers and administrators of research departments, academic libraries, institutional repositories and graduate offices.Originality/valueThis is the first study to investigate rationales for TDs embargo practices. It creates awareness of how embargoes are managed and reflected in policy. Ultimately, it recommends further interrogation on how embargoes influence the principle of openness to scholarship.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-09-2022-0497.","PeriodicalId":54683,"journal":{"name":"Online Information Review","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Access and impact barriers to academic publications: a global study of thesis and dissertation embargo policies\",\"authors\":\"B. Rasuli, Joachim Schöpfel, Michael Boock, B. van Wyk\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/oir-09-2022-0497\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeMany Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) allow students or their advisors to restrict access to theses/dissertations (TDs) by applying embargoes. This study aims to identify why Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) allow embargoes.Design/methodology/approachOne hundred HEIs were randomly selected, representing seven geographic regions. The authors imported policies/guidelines for embargoing TDs into MAXQDA software and coded the qualitative data.FindingsAmong the 100 studied HEIs, 43 HEIs (43%) have policies/guidelines on the web for embargoing TDs, most of which are from North America. For the majority of HEIs, embargoes are a voluntary option for students/advisors. Content analysis of the 32 embargo policies showed that embargo reasons (18 key reasons) can be categorized into six broad themes (commercialization, publication, ethical issues, funding contracts/agreements, security and safety, and miscellaneous).Research limitations/implicationsIn this study, only those policies are reviewed that are available, discoverable and accessible on HEIs' websites.Practical implicationsHighlighting the detrimental effect of not managing stipulations towards embargoes clearly, the findings could be useful for national/institutional policymakers and administrators of research departments, academic libraries, institutional repositories and graduate offices.Originality/valueThis is the first study to investigate rationales for TDs embargo practices. It creates awareness of how embargoes are managed and reflected in policy. Ultimately, it recommends further interrogation on how embargoes influence the principle of openness to scholarship.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-09-2022-0497.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54683,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Online Information Review\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Online Information Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-09-2022-0497\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Online Information Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-09-2022-0497","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Access and impact barriers to academic publications: a global study of thesis and dissertation embargo policies
PurposeMany Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) allow students or their advisors to restrict access to theses/dissertations (TDs) by applying embargoes. This study aims to identify why Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) allow embargoes.Design/methodology/approachOne hundred HEIs were randomly selected, representing seven geographic regions. The authors imported policies/guidelines for embargoing TDs into MAXQDA software and coded the qualitative data.FindingsAmong the 100 studied HEIs, 43 HEIs (43%) have policies/guidelines on the web for embargoing TDs, most of which are from North America. For the majority of HEIs, embargoes are a voluntary option for students/advisors. Content analysis of the 32 embargo policies showed that embargo reasons (18 key reasons) can be categorized into six broad themes (commercialization, publication, ethical issues, funding contracts/agreements, security and safety, and miscellaneous).Research limitations/implicationsIn this study, only those policies are reviewed that are available, discoverable and accessible on HEIs' websites.Practical implicationsHighlighting the detrimental effect of not managing stipulations towards embargoes clearly, the findings could be useful for national/institutional policymakers and administrators of research departments, academic libraries, institutional repositories and graduate offices.Originality/valueThis is the first study to investigate rationales for TDs embargo practices. It creates awareness of how embargoes are managed and reflected in policy. Ultimately, it recommends further interrogation on how embargoes influence the principle of openness to scholarship.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-09-2022-0497.
期刊介绍:
The journal provides a multi-disciplinary forum for scholars from a range of fields, including information studies/iSchools, data studies, internet studies, media and communication studies and information systems.
Publishes research on the social, political and ethical aspects of emergent digital information practices and platforms, and welcomes submissions that draw upon critical and socio-technical perspectives in order to address these developments.
Welcomes empirical, conceptual and methodological contributions on any topics relevant to the broad field of digital information and communication, however we are particularly interested in receiving submissions that address emerging issues around the below topics.
Coverage includes (but is not limited to):
•Online communities, social networking and social media, including online political communication; crowdsourcing; positive computing and wellbeing.
•The social drivers and implications of emerging data practices, including open data; big data; data journeys and flows; and research data management.
•Digital transformations including organisations’ use of information technologies (e.g. Internet of Things and digitisation of user experience) to improve economic and social welfare, health and wellbeing, and protect the environment.
•Developments in digital scholarship and the production and use of scholarly content.
•Online and digital research methods, including their ethical aspects.