FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2525758407> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2525758407 endingPage "98" @default.
• W2525758407 startingPage "96" @default.
• W2525758407 abstract "A Review of:&#x0D; Peekhaus, W., & Proferes, N. (2015). How library and information science faculty perceive and engage with open access. Journal of Information Science, 41(5), 640-661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551515587855&#x0D; &#x0D; Objective – To examine the awareness of, attitudes toward, and engagement with open access (OA) publishing, based on rank and tenure status among library and information science (LIS) faculty in North America.&#x0D; &#x0D; Design – Web-based survey distributed via email.&#x0D; &#x0D; Setting – Accredited library and information science (LIS) programs in North America.&#x0D; &#x0D; Subjects – 276 professors and professors emeriti.&#x0D; &#x0D; Methods – Researchers collected email addresses for 1,017 tenure-track, tenured, and emeriti professors from the public websites of the LIS programs. Researchers sent an email invitation to participate in the survey by accessing a URL, with the survey itself delivered using Qualtrics software. The survey included 51 total questions, some with additional sub-questions, and most items used Likert-type rating scale. The researchers analysed the data using SPSS software, and indicated using chi-square tests to measure significance, with a stated intent to get beyond the descriptive statistics commonly seen in other publications. &#x0D; &#x0D; Main Results – This study’s results draw on 276 completed responses, for a response rate of 27%. Researchers reported that 53% of respondents had some experience with publishing in a peer-reviewed OA format. When asked whether they agreed that scholarly articles should be free to access for everyone, pre-tenure assistant professors were most likely to agree (74%), followed by tenured associate professors (62%), full professors (59%) and then emeriti professors (8%). However, they found less likelihood that associate professors would have actually published in an OA format, highlighting a “disconnect between beliefs about accessibility of research and actual practice with open access” (p. 646). Researchers also discovered a connection between faculty awareness of institutional and disciplinary repositories and faculty publishing in OA journals, though a relatively low number (35%) had deposited their output in a repository within the previous year. That increases to 50% of respondents when timeframe is ignored.&#x0D; &#x0D; Faculty who had never published in OA journals ranked several barriers to doing so, barriers common across disciplinary boundaries. These include objections to paying OA fees; perceptions of slow time to publish, low research impact, and venue prestige when compared to traditional subscription journals; an inability to identify an appropriate OA journal; and an inability to pay OA fees. However, the researchers note that a majority of these respondents who had never published in an OA format would do so if these barriers were removed. Those participants who had some previous experience with OA were more likely to have positive perceptions of OA journal quality and impact, as well as the overall publishing experience, as compared to publishing in traditional journals. &#x0D; &#x0D; As in other disciplines, LIS faculty are conscious of the connection between OA and tenure and promotion processes. For example, this study reveals that non-tenured faculty are more likely to agree that publishing in OA venues may affect their career progress. Researchers report uncertainty about OA even among tenured LIS faculty. Of all respondents, only 34% agreed that a tenure or promotion committee might consider an OA publication on par with a traditional publication, while 44% of respondents were of the opinion that an OA publication would be treated less favourably than a traditional journal. A mere 1% of respondents believed that an OA publication would be treated more favourably within the tenure and promotion process. Despite this unfavourable perception of OA, the researchers report that 38% of respondents planned to publish in an OA journal regardless of whether their tenure and promotion committees might treat that OA publication unfavourably.&#x0D; &#x0D; Conclusion – The researchers report a connection between publishing in an OA journal and academic rank, with full professors more likely to publish OA or to have previous experience in publishing in an OA journal as compared to assistant professor colleagues, who perceive publishing in OA as a potential impediment to career progress. The researchers note that there is significant opportunity for LIS faculty involved in tenure and promotion committees to consider and clarify how OA publications are treated, and the impact of OA publishing with regard to career progress. Moreover, given the levels of uncertainty and equivocacy among faculty respondents as a whole regarding certain aspects of OA, the perceptions around quality and rigour, there is room for further research into LIS professors’ perceptions and attitudes toward open access, and how these change over time." @default.
• W2525758407 created "2016-10-07" @default.
• W2525758407 creator A5064418413 @default.
• W2525758407 date "2016-09-26" @default.
• W2525758407 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2525758407 title "Some LIS Faculty Indicate Reservations about Open Access" @default.
• W2525758407 doi "https://doi.org/10.18438/b8890b" @default.
• W2525758407 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2525758407 type Work @default.
• W2525758407 sameAs 2525758407 @default.
• W2525758407 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2525758407 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2525758407 hasAuthorship W2525758407A5064418413 @default.
• W2525758407 hasBestOaLocation W25257584071 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConcept C105776082 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConcept C151719136 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConcept C2777462167 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConcept C39896193 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConcept C61521584 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConceptScore W2525758407C105776082 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConceptScore W2525758407C105795698 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConceptScore W2525758407C136764020 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConceptScore W2525758407C138496976 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConceptScore W2525758407C151719136 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConceptScore W2525758407C15744967 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConceptScore W2525758407C161191863 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConceptScore W2525758407C17744445 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConceptScore W2525758407C199539241 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConceptScore W2525758407C2777462167 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConceptScore W2525758407C33923547 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConceptScore W2525758407C39896193 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConceptScore W2525758407C41008148 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConceptScore W2525758407C509550671 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConceptScore W2525758407C61521584 @default.
• W2525758407 hasConceptScore W2525758407C71924100 @default.
• W2525758407 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2525758407 hasLocation W25257584071 @default.
• W2525758407 hasOpenAccess W2525758407 @default.
• W2525758407 hasPrimaryLocation W25257584071 @default.
• W2525758407 hasRelatedWork W1602446901 @default.
• W2525758407 hasRelatedWork W1848080029 @default.
• W2525758407 hasRelatedWork W2075169394 @default.
• W2525758407 hasRelatedWork W2224142343 @default.
• W2525758407 hasRelatedWork W2550344380 @default.
• W2525758407 hasRelatedWork W2610597228 @default.
• W2525758407 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2525758407 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2525758407 hasRelatedWork W3049732006 @default.
• W2525758407 hasRelatedWork W609195163 @default.
• W2525758407 hasVolume "11" @default.
• W2525758407 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2525758407 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2525758407 magId "2525758407" @default.
• W2525758407 workType "article" @default.