Openness of Spanish scholarly journals as measured by access and rights (original) (raw)

Abstract

Metrics regarding Open Access (OA) availability for readers and the enablers of redistribution of content published in scholarly journals, i.e. content licenses, copyright ownership, and publisher-stipulated self-archiving permissions are still scarce. This study implements the four core variables (reader rights, reuse rights, copyrights, author posting rights) of the recently published Open Access Spectrum (OAS) to measure the level of openness in all 1728 Spanish scholarly journals listed in the Spanish national DULCINEA database at the end of 2015. In order to conduct the analysis additional data has been aggregated from other bibliographic databases and through manual data collection (such data includes the journal research area, type of publisher, type of access, self-archiving and reuse policy, and potential type of Creative Commons (CC) licence used). 79% of journals allowed self-archiving in some form, 13.5% did not specify any copyright terms and 37% used CC licenses. From the total journals (1728), 1285 (74.5%) received the maximum score of 20 in reader rights. For 72% of journals, authors retain or publishers grant broad rights which include author reuse and authorisation rights (for others to re-use). The OAS-compliant results of this study enable comparative studies to be conducted on other large populations of journals. Key points  The Open Access Spectrum (OAS), and associated criteria of the Open Access Spectrum EvaluationTool, can be used to evaluate individual journals as well as to summarise the openness of a large number of journals.  The 1728 Spanish journals included in the study make use the entire scales of the four core OAS criteria.  55% of all Spanish journals publishing with a Creative Commons licence use CC-BY-NC-ND, which differs from the most frequent licence of used globally, CC-BY.  During the last two years Spanish journals have become increasingly open, both in relative share of full open access journals as well restricted access journals permitting self-archiving.  National-level indexes, like DULCINEA in Spain which implements SHERPA/RoMEO-compliant coding of publisher-policies, could be one way of solving the persistent problem of outdated self-archiving information.  We encourage actors overseeing multiple journals, publishers and national science policies, to make us of the the OAS as a tool for monitoring the development of openness among journals. INTRODUCCION Growth and increasing degree of openness in scholarly publishing Enabled by the shift to the digital medium, the global scholarly journal landscape has been undergoing four key intertwining shifts on a global scale. The first shift is related to growth of scholarly journal publishing overall. The volume

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (27)

  1. Accesoabierto.net (2016). Dulcinea. Retrieved 3 August 2016 from: http://www.accesoabierto.net/dulcinea/?idioma=en
  2. Archambault, E., Amyot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A., Provencher, F., Rebout, L., & Roberge, G. (2014). Proportion of Open Access Papers Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals at the European and World Levels: 1996-2013. Retrieved 29 February 2016 from: http://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/SM\_EC\_OA\_Availability\_2004-2011.pdf
  3. Borrego, Á. (2016). Measuring compliance with a Spanish Government open access mandate. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67, 757-764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23422
  4. Budapestopenaccessinitiative.org (2016). Budapest Open Access Initiative. Retrieved 3 August 2016 from: http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read
  5. Chen, X. & Olijhoek, T. (2016). Measuring the Degrees of Openness of Scholarly Journals with the Open Access Spectrum (OAS) Evaluation Too. Serials Review 42(2), 108-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2016.1182672
  6. Crawford, W. (2015). The Gold OA Landscape 2011-2014. California: Cites & Insights Books Livermore.
  7. Dillaerts, H. and Chartron, G. (2013). 'Héloïse': towards a co-ordinated ecosystem approach for the archiving of scientific publications? Learned Publishing 26, 173-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20130304
  8. Doaj.org (2016). Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Retrieved 3 August 2016 from: https://doaj.org.
  9. Gadd, E., Troll Covey, D. (2017). What does 'green' open access mean? Tracking twelve years of changes to journal publisher self-archiving policies. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. In Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961000616657406
  10. Graf, K. & Thatcher, S. (2012). Point & Counterpoint Is CC BY the Best Open Access License? Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 1(1), p.eP1043. http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1043
  11. Gumpenberger, C.; Ovalle-Perandones M.A. & Gorraiz, J. (2013). On the impact of Gold Open Access journals. J. Scientometrics 96, 221-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0902-7
  12. Heloise.ccsd.cnrs.fr (2016). Héloïse. http://Heloise.ccsd.cnrs.fr.
  13. Hoorn, E. & van der Graaf, M. (2006). Copyright Issues in Open Access Research Journals: The Authors' Perspective. D- Lib Magazine 12. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/february06/vandergraaf/02vandergraaf.html JISC (2016). Principles for Offset Agreements. Retrieved from: https://www.jisc- collections.ac.uk/Global/News%20files%20and%20docs/Principles-for-offset-agreements.pdf
  14. Laakso, M. (2014). Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self- archiving is allowed. Scientometrics 99(2), 475-494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1205-3
  15. Laakso, M. and Björk, B.-C. (2013), Delayed open access: An overlooked high-impact category of openly available scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64, 1323-1329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22856
  16. Larivière, V., Haustein S. & Mongeon P (2015). The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLoS ONE, 10(6): e0127502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0127502
  17. Ludewig, K. (2014). MedOANet: The Copyright and OA Landscape in Mediterranean Europe. Liber Quarterly 23(3), 187-200. http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.9126
  18. Melero, R., Rodríguez-Gairín, J.M., Abad-García, F. and Abadal, E. (2014). Journal author rights and self-archiving: the case of Spanish journals. Learned Publishing 27, 107-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20140205
  19. Miguel, S., Chinchilla-Rodriguez, Z., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2011). Open access and Scopus: A new approach to scientific visibility from the standpoint of access. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(6), 1130-1145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.21532
  20. Mongeon, P. & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106, 213-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
  21. Morrison, H., & Desautels, L. (2016). Open access, copyright and licensing: basics for open access publishers. Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports 6(1), 1-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.13107/jocr.2250-0685.360
  22. Open Access Spectrum (OAS) Evaluation Tool. Retrieved 3 August 2016 from: http://www.oaspectrum.org
  23. Schlosser, M. (2016). Write up! A Study of Copyright Information on Library-Published Journals. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 4, p.eP2110. http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2110
  24. Sherpa.ac.uk (2016). ROMEO colours. Retrieved 3 August 2016 from: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/definitions.php? Singson, M., Sevukan, R., Murugaiyan, M. (2015) Author self-archiving and licensing policies of open access library and information science journals: a study. Annals of Library and Information Studies 62(2), 104-109. http://op.niscair.res.in/index.php/ALIS/article/view/7650
  25. SPARC (2015). HowOpenIsIt? Open Access Guide. Retrieved 7 March 2016 from: http://sparcopen.org/our- work/howopenisit/
  26. Torres-Salinas, Daniel; Robinson-García, Nicolás; Aguillo, Isidro F. (2016). Bibliometric and benchmark analysis of gold open access in Spain: big output and little impact. El profesional de la información 25(1), 17-24. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3145/epi.2016.ene.03
  27. Ware, M. & Mabe, M. (2015). The STM report -An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Retrieved 29 February 2016 from: http://www.stm-assoc.org/2015\_02\_20\_STM\_Report\_2015.pdf