Open access self-archiving: An introduction--论文代写范文精选

作者不这样做的原因也在于他们不熟悉他们的领域,他们不能确定一个合适的工作。这些原因,和他们的等级次序,精确匹配我们的调查的结果,特别是在去年开放的情况。下面的report代写范文进行详述。

Abstract
The pages that follow constitute the Introduction, Executive Summary and References from a document written in May 2005 reporting the findings of a large-scale survey of scholarly researcher behaviour with respect to open access, specifically the ‘green’ route to OA via self-archiving. The Introduction serves as a stand-alone starter document for those wishing to acquaint themselves with self-archiving without too much pain.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
This, our second author study on open access, was carried out to determine the current state of play with respect to author self-archiving behaviour. The survey was carried out during the last quarter of 2004. There were 1296 respondents. The survey also briefly explored author experiences and opinions on publishing in open access journals to follow up our previous study on this topic for JISC and the Open Society Institute. Many of the findings reported here match those of that previous study. 

For example, the main reasons for authors publishing their work in open access journals are the principle of free access for all and their perceptions that these journals reach larger audiences, publish more rapidly and are more prestigious that the toll-access (subscription-based) journals that they have traditionally published in. The principal reasons why authors have not published in open access journals are that they are unfamiliar with any in their field and that they cannot identify a suitable one in which to publish their work. These reasons, and their rank order, exactly match the findings from our survey that was specifically on open access publishing last year. The purpose of this present study, however, was to move the focus onto selfarchiving, the alternative means of providing open access to scholarly journal articles. Almost half (49%) of the respondent population have self-archived at least one article during the last three years in at least one of the three possible ways — by placing a copy of an article in an institutional (or departmental) repository, in a subject-based repository, or on a personal or institutional website. 

More people (27%) have so far opted for the last method — putting a copy on a website — than have used institutional (20%) or subject-based (12%) repositories, though the main growth in self-archiving activity over the last year has been in these latter two more structured, systematic methods for providing open access. Use of institutional repositories for this purpose has doubled and usage has increased by almost 60% for subject-based repositories. Postprints (peer-reviewed articles) are deposited more frequently than preprints (articles prior to peer review) except in the longstanding self-archiving communities of physics and computer science. There are some differences between subject disciplines with respect to the level of self-archiving activity and the location of deposit (website, institutional or subject-based repositories). 

Selfarchiving activity is greatest amongst the most prolific authors, that is, those who publish the largest number of papers. There is still a substantial proportion of authors unaware of the possibility of providing open access to their work by self-archiving. Of the authors who have not yet self-archived any articles, 71% remain unaware of the option. With 49% of the author population having self-archived in some way, this means that 36% of the total author population (71% of the remaining 51%), has not yet been appraised of this way of providing open access. Authors have frequently expressed reluctance to self-archive because of the perceived time required and possible technical difficulties in carrying out this activity. The findings here show that 20% of authors found some degree of difficulty with the first act of depositing an article in a repository, but that this dropped to 9% for subsequent depositions. Similarly, 23% of authors took more than an hour to deposit their first article in a repository, but only 13% took this long subsequently, with most taking a few minutes. 

Another author worry regarding self-archiving is the danger of infringing agreed copyright agreements with publishers. Only 10% of authors currently know of the SHERPA/RoMEO list of publisher permissions policies with respect to self-archiving, where clear guidance as to what a publisher permits is provided. Where permission is understood by the author to be required, it seems it is being sought (this accounts for around 17% of self-archiving cases); where it is not known if permission is required, authors are not seeking it and are self-archiving without it. Communicating their results to peers remains the primary reason for scholars publishing their work; in other words, they publish to have an impact on their field. Nonetheless, more than half still do not know what the citation rate is for their most recent articles. 

Almost all (98%) of authors use some form of bibliographic service to locate articles of interest in closed archives such as publisher websites, but only a much smaller proportion of people (up to 30%) are yet using the specialised OAI search engines to navigate the open access repositories. Nevertheless, at the time of this survey, 72% of authors were using Google to search the web for scholarly articles: the subsequent arrival of GoogleScholar, which indexes the content of open access repositories as well as general websites, and thus retrieves formally-archived open access material, can be expected have a bearing on the level to which open access archives are searched in future and consequently on the eventual impact of articles deposited therein. The vast majority of authors (81%) would willingly comply with a mandate from their employer or research funder to deposit copies of their articles in an institutional or subject-based repository. A further 13% would comply reluctantly; 5% would not comply with such a mandate.

Twelve months ago we at Key Perspectives Ltd completed and reported on a study of authors who had published their work in open access journals, compared and contrasted with authors who had not done this1,2. The work was commissioned and funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) in the UK and the Open Society Institute. Having thus learned about authors’ experience of open access publishing, we embarked upon this current study of the alternative means to providing open access — by authors archiving copies of their articles in open access archives or repositories. 

This process is usually referred to as ‘self-archiving’. The practice of self-archiving has its roots in the field of computer sciences, where researchers were depositing results in ftp archives some decades ago and, later, on websites. A preprint culture — that is, the distribution of drafts of research articles before they have been peer reviewed to colleagues around the world, to establish ownership of the piece of research, to move the subject along, and to invite critical commentary before final revision and submission of the articles to learned journals — had been in place for many years in print form in the computer science community, and as the digital age arrived the practice simply migrated from paper to electronic form. Today, there are more articles – preprint and postprint (peer-reviewed papers) - freely available through selfarchiving in computer science than in any other subject. The computer science ‘online library’, Citeseer3 , currently has almost 723,000 articles that have been harvested from distributed sites around the world (websites, ftp archives) where authors have deposited their work. Not only does this indicate the size of the corpus of computer science research available on open access, but it clearly demonstrates the success of this mechanism (harvesting from distributed sites) for creating a subject-based open access archive.

This gallop through the world of self-archiving brings us to the final discussion point here, which is the forms that self-archiving repositories might take. In this study we have distinguished the two main types, which are institutional and subject-based archives. Subject-based archives, such as arXiv discussed above, provide a location for the deposition of articles around a disciplinary theme. As well as arXiv (which houses articles in physics, computer science and mathematics), there are other well-known examples, such as Cogprints19 (cognitive sciences), also a centralised repository. 

RePEc20 (economics) is similar but actually works by harvesting articles from distributed archives. Whilst there is the obvious attraction to the appropriate community of such subject-centred services, we have argued that the optimal system for encouraging and achieving self-archiving across the whole scholarly community is via a distributed system; in other words, a global network of institutional archives, all OAI-compliant and thus completely interoperable, so that a user can locate and be directed to an original article wherever it resides and without having to know anything about its location11,12. Subject-based centralised archives have their devotees and can be extremely popular within their communities. 

They are few and far between, however, and apart from arXiv most have been filling extremely slowly; Cogprints, for example, despite its 8-year existence, still houses only around 2000 articles. Subject-based services can be very useful to researchers, but are probably most effectively created by service providers (search-and-retrieval services) that harvest relevant subject-focused information from all repositories and sort and organise it to form a subject-centred offering to the research community. The reason for arguing for a distributed system is that it is institutions (employers) that can most effectively bring about an effective self-archiving practice across the board. To be sure, research funders can influence the researchers they fund. The Wellcome Foundation is just implementing a selfarchiving mandate for its grantholders to self-archive their articles and is setting up a new European PubMed Central archive for this purpose21. But external research funds only benefit a fraction of the research carried out in universities, so research funders can only influence a fraction of researchers. The institutions themselves, however, can influence the whole body of scholars, in whatever disciplines they work, funded or not, and if all institutions provide an archive that is interoperable with every other archive then they are effectively contributing to a global database of freely accessible research — true open access.

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
更多report代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有report代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X