Green mandates and gold choices « Repositories Support Project 2012-08-20


... “I started my PhD in September 2007 at the Graduate School of Library & Information Science, Simmons College, Boston, Massachusetts, a prestigious library school with a long history. My plan was to study the open-access movement with Associate Professor Robin Peek, an open-access advocate and one of the first signatories of the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI). The title of my dissertation is, ‘The Influence of the National Institutes of Health Public-Access Policy on the Publishing Habits of Principal Investigators’... Four research questions were examined: [1] Which factors motivate the NIH-funded PIs to publish in the PLoS open-access journals? [2] How do NIH-funded PIs perceive the NIH public-access policy? [3] How does the NIH public-access policy influence the PIs’ publishing behavior? [4] How does the NIH public-access policy influence the PIs’ decision to publish in open-access journals? To answer these questions, during the period March-May 2011, forty-two PIs were interviewed using SkypeTMsoftware, and a semi-structured open-ended interview protocol was followed. The participants were divided into two groups: the pre-mandate PIs, who had published in one of the seven PLoS journals during the period 2005-2007 and the post-mandate PIs, who had published in the PLoS journals during the period 2008-2009... To sum, the NIH public-access policy caused only a limited change in the PIs’ open-access awareness and their publishing habits. The OA Advocates support immediate access to information and have been providing their manuscripts in open-access formats before the implementation of the policy.  The non-OA Advocates publish their articles based on quality and prestige criteria and the journals they use to publish comply with the policy, so there is no need for change. The PIs have chosen to publish with one of the PLoS journals because of their high-impact factor, publication speed, fair peer-review system and the articles’ open accessibility. Although the participants validate the proposition that publicly funded research should be distributed free of cost, some dislike the extra effort of submitting the manuscripts to PubMed Central. The submission process may be considered to be an administrative burden, but the PIs who have administrators assisting them with the policy’s steps have a more positive attitude towards the policy... The dissertation full-text is available here...”



08/16/2012, 06:08

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) »

Tags: oa.comment oa.mandates oa.nih oa.advocacy oa.libraries oa.deposits oa.plos oa.peer_review oa.impact oa.funding oa.prestige oa.librarians oa.fees oa.interviews oa.citations oa.etds oa.policies oa.journals oa.repositories



Date tagged:

08/20/2012, 14:48

Date published:

02/29/2012, 19:57