Claire Creaser

Authors’ Awareness and Attitudes Toward Open Access Repositories

This article investigates the awareness of scholarly authors toward open access repositories and the factors that motivate their use of these repositories. The article reports on the findings obtained from a mixed methods approach which involved a questionnaire returned by over 3000 respondents, supplemented by four focus groups held across Europe in the summer 2009. The research found that although there was a good understanding and appreciation of the ethos of open access in general, there were clear differences between scholars from different disciplinary backgrounds in their understanding of open access repositories and their motivations for depositing articles within them. This research forms the first part of a longitudinal study that will track the changing behaviors and attitudes of authors toward open access repositories.

A new outlook? : services to visually impaired people in UK public libraries

Reports results of a questionnaire survey of UK public library services, undertaken at the end of 1999 by the Library and Information Statistics Unit (LISU), Loughborough University, to benchmark UK practice against international good practice and the recognized standards set out in the Library Association National Guidelines. The study was conducted against the background of the statutory duty of UK public library services to provide for blind and partially sighted users under the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act. The full objectives of the survey were: to build on and extend the findings of the 1997 Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) Survey of public library authorities; to assess progress in UK authorities since the 1997 Survey; to assess developments in the new unitary authorities; to monitor the progress of public library services against the Library Association’s Guidelines; and to place particular emphasis upon measuring service to users and the integration of public library services with those of other agencies. Data were gathered from 141 UK public library authorities (67.79% response rate). Presents a number of recommendations, highlighting the actions required to ensure greater equity of provision and to bring UK services up to a common high standard in this area, covering: policy statements; budgetary provision; staffing; partnerships; service evaluation; materials provision; equipment; provision and access; and promotion.

Open-access mega-journals: A bibliometric profile

In this paper we present the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of eleven open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs are a relatively recent phenomenon, and have been characterised as having four key characteristics: large size; broad disciplinary scope; a Gold-OA business model; and a peer-review policy that seeks to determine only the scientific soundness of the research rather than evaluate the novelty or significance of the work. Our investigation focuses on four key modes of analysis: journal outputs (the number of articles published and changes in output over time); OAMJ author characteristics (nationalities and institutional affiliations); subject areas (the disciplinary scope of OAMJs, and variations in sub-disciplinary output); and citation profiles (the citation distributions of each OAMJ, and the impact of citing journals). We found that while the total output of the eleven mega-journals grew by 14.9% between 2014 and 2015, this growth is largely attributable to the increased output of Scientific Reports and Medicine. We also found substantial variation in the geographical distribution of authors. Several journals have a relatively high proportion of Chinese authors, and we suggest this may be linked to these journals’ high Journal Impact Factors (JIFs). The mega-journals were also found to vary in subject scope, with several journals publishing disproportionately high numbers of articles in certain sub-disciplines. Our citation analsysis offers support for Björk & Catani’s suggestion that OAMJs’s citation distributions can be similar to those of traditional journals, while noting considerable variation in citation rates across the eleven titles. We conclude that while the OAMJ term is useful as a means of grouping journals which share a set of key characteristics, there is no such thing as a “typical” mega-journal, and we suggest several areas for additional research that might help us better understand the current and future role of OAMJs in scholarly communication.

Improving perceptions of value to teaching and research staff: The next challenge for academic libraries

This article investigates the value, and perceptions of value, of academic libraries to teaching and research staff by examining working relationships between libraries and academic departments in universities. Eight case studies were undertaken in the US, the UK and Scandinavia. Primary findings were analysed and triangulated with a series of short surveys to ascertain whether they resonated with other librarians’ experiences. The article offers examples of good practice in the area of partnership building for academic libraries to improve their value to, or perceptions of value by, teaching and research staff, as well as raise their profile and better market their services to this category of users. Those examples may be of interest to fellow library practitioners and researchers interested in exploring further library-faculty interaction and collaboration.

Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review

Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific “soundness” and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.

The role of the academic library

Abstract: Changes in models of subscription and access to journal articles, together with the changing expectations of their users, have necessitated change in the ways in which academic libraries manage the provision of scholarly information. This chapter details current levels and recent trends in journal provision and use in UK academic libraries, and makes some (limited) international comparisons. It goes on to consider how open access to journal outputs, whether via the ‘gold’ (publisher-driven) route or the ‘green’ (self-archiving) route, may affect libraries in the future, and examines the users’ perspective. It concludes that there is a need for academic libraries to act as intermediaries in the provision of scholarly content to their users into the future, although the mechanisms will be subject to change.

USER SURVEYS IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES

This article brings together results from a number of separate studies carried out in 2004 and 2005 analysing the results of user surveys in UK academic libraries. Results from four LibQUAL + ™ surveys and six surveys based on a template available from the Society of College, National and University Libraries are compared. Several common themes emerging from the analyses are examined, including differences in response rates and library behaviour between the various user groups, and the relative importance of a range of library services. Discrepancies between the responses of library staff and their users in areas such as the provision of information resources are noted. Associations between campus libraries and subject disciplines are likely to influence interpretation of survey results within institutions. There are similarities in the overall picture of user behaviour provided by both survey instruments. The implications for service development and delivery are discussed and a pilot benchmarking study reported.

An assessment of potential efficiency gains through online content use

Purpose – Online content has largely replaced traditional print‐based resources as the primary tool for literature searching throughout much of the academic and research community. This paper presents the results of a small‐scale study, commissioned by the JISC in 2004, to assess the potential efficiency gains that may be achieved through the use of online content by researchers.Design/methodology/approach – Information gleaned from an extensive literature review was combined with recent usage data to calculate broad estimates of the efficiency gains which are being made by the research community through using online searching strategies as opposed to print resources.Findings – The estimated staff costs in UK universities of literature searching are some £7 million per annum. Manual literature searching can take around five times as long as using relevant electronic resources. The consequent savings from the availability of electronic bibliographic databases are estimated in the region of £25 million per ...

One size does not fit all: user surveys in academic libraries

Purpose – User surveys in academic libraries are not generally widely publicised. The purpose of this paper is to analyse and comment on the results of a variety of user surveys and draw together some of that work.Design/methodology/approach – The paper describes the work of LISU at Loughborough University, which has analysed two main instruments – the LibQual+ surveys as they have been applied in the UK, and the standard Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL) user survey template. The paper considers the implications of different response rates and sample sizes on the validity of results and issues concerning benchmarking with user survey data.Findings – One aim of user surveys must be to improve the services provided to users. High overall satisfaction levels are good for publicity, and may persuade institutional management that all is well with the library, but they should not lead to complacency within the service. It is important to drill down into the detail of the results, t...

What do UK academics cite? An analysis of references cited in UK scholarly outputs

This study used a bibliometric method to find quantitative evidence of publication and citing patterns within UK academia. The publications of a random sample of UK research—active academics for each of the years 2003 and 2008—were collected and analysed to gather data regarding referencing practices, along with any identifiable trends between the 2 years. References were categorised by type of material to show the proportions of each type used. Comparisons between the 2 years showed that the use of journal articles had increased. There was also an increase in the average number of publications per author. A large number of authors had no publications in the target years.