Journal authors survey--论文代写范文精选

只有大约四分之一的作者已经意识到开放获取项目的重要性。开放获取的机构已吸引他们的注意力。问题还有是，他们是否知道机构或国家有任何计划促进开放获取。选择一个开放获取的主要原因是获得研究信息。超过90%的开放获取作者认为这是很重要的。下面的report代写范文进行详述。

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
On behalf of the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and the Open Society Institute (OSI) a survey of journal authors has been carried out by Key Perspectives Ltd. The terms of reference were to poll a cohort of authors who had published on an open access basis and another cohort of authors who had published their work in conventional journals without making the article available on open access. The survey’s aims were to investigate the authors’ awareness of new open access possibilities, the ease of identification of and submission to open access outlets, their experiences of publishing their work in this way, their concerns about any implications open access publishing may have upon their careers, and the reasons why (or not) they chose to publish through an open access outlet. Awareness of the concept of open access amongst those who had not taken this publishing route was quite high: almost two-thirds of respondents were familiar with the open access concept. 

Only around a quarter of authors in this group had been made aware of open access initiatives by their institution. The proportion of open access author respondents whose institution had drawn their attention to such outlets was higher, at 42%. The same pattern was seen when authors were asked whether they were aware of any initiatives in their own country to promote open access. The primary reason for choosing an open access outlet in which to publish is a belief in the principle of free access to research information. Over 90% of open access authors said this is important. These authors also perceive open access journals as being faster than traditional journals, having a larger readership and thus resulting in higher numbers of citations to their work. In contrast, the non-open access author group perceive open access journals as having slower publication times, a smaller readership and receiving fewer citations. More important reasons, though, for not publishing in open access journals are that they are perceived to be of lower reputation and prestige but, most importantly of all, authors are not familiar enough with the open access journals in their field to submit work to them. The issue of publication fees is only of middling importance to these authors as a reason not to publish in open access journals.

INTRODUCTION 
This report is the result of a project funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and the Open Society Institute (OSI). These bodies wished to undertake a survey of authors of academic journal articles, comparing the experience of around 100 of those who publish on an ‘open access’ basis with the same number of those who do not. Open access publishing – either in open access journals or by self-archiving – is a significant development in scholarly communication and JISC/OSI wish to study its impact upon authors. In particular, they want to understand such things as: 
• The awareness of authors of new open access possibilities 
• The reasons authors give for publishing this way, or for avoiding it 
• The ease with which new open access outlets can be identified 
• The concerns authors may have about the impact upon their careers of using these new outlets • The ease with which authors are able to submit their work to these outlets 
• The feelings of authors about open access after publication 
• The experience of authors following open access publication; for example, the amount of feedback they receive on their work 
Key Perspectives Ltd were contracted to carry out the research which was done between November 2003 and January 2004. The authors were polled via an online survey, after which we delved deeper into some of the issues that arose in a series of one-to-one interviews. This report presents the findings of that work. The first part is an introduction to open access and how it has developed. Those who are already familiar with this should move directly to the next part which covers the survey and its results. The final part is a discussion of the main issues concerned with open access publishing in the light of the findings from this study. Things are moving fast and the open access concept is generating some lively debate. The world of scholarly publishing is used to debate, of course, but rarely has it been so vehement nor impassioned. These are, as they say, interesting times. The results and discussion presented here are a snapshot of the situation at the start of 2004. We expect things to move on rapidly as the year progresses.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Open Access – free access to scholarly information – underpins the core tenet of academic endeavour, which is the unfettered sharing of research communication. This core tenet permits the free exchange of ideas, results and discussion and encourages and accelerates scholarly achievement in every field. Ever since the very first true scholarly journals were started in the mid 1600s (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society was launched in 1665) academic authors have strived to publish and disseminate the results of their work, primarily for two main reasons – to advance intellectual progress in their subject and to establish rights over any intellectual advances they may themselves have brought about. Neither of these two imperatives has changed, but there is considerable argument these days about how well they are served by the present system of scholarly communication. 

Critics argue that, with a body of well over 20,000 peer-reviewed scholarly journals in existence1, no academic library can come anywhere near stocking even a tiny proportion of titles appropriate to the needs of the research staff in an institution. This being the case, individual scholars cannot get access to some – perhaps much – of the literature that is pertinent to their work with the result that the efficient exchange of scholarly information is impaired. To exacerbate this problem, over the last two decades the so-called ‘serials crisis’ has become a more and more acute issue2. Journal prices have risen faster than both the rate of inflation and the increases in library budgets, resulting in the cancellation of subscriptions to journals in large numbers. This has happened all over the world and the western economies have been no exception: indeed, it is there that the problem has been seen to be most extreme. 

Data collected by the Association of Research Libraries show that in the 16 years between 1986 and 2002, inflation rose by 64% (in the US), library materials budgets rose by 184% and serials unit costs rose by 227%3. One way in which publishers have reacted to the seriousness of the serials crisis has been by developing the ‘Big Deal’ whereby parts or all of a publisher’s journal list were offered to a library (or a group of libraries within a consortium) at a price that equated to less per journal than the library had originally been paying but which included journals that had not been subscribed to before. Librarians have been divided on the benefit of such deals: some are pleased to have access to new, additional journal content that had hitherto been out of their reach, and point to usage statistics that show that the new material is used by their research faculty4; others argue that much of the additional content that they are able to access as a result of Big Deals is outside the boundaries of their researchers’ interests and is therefore immaterial to their institution5.

Nevertheless, there is danger ahead for publishers. They have always acknowledged that the peer review process is the kernel of their service, though since scholars actually do the reviewing it really comes down to the management of that process that encapsulates the value added by publishers. They do pay for it, but they charge that cost (and more, of course) back to the academy. Some of the new scenarios in the open access world could mean that publishers may be reduced to peer-review managers then? Not all of them, since adroit publishers will find real value to add in other ways and will find new, promising business models to operate with. But some will fall by the wayside: it is a Darwinian situation and if viewed from that perspective new answers will emerge. New niches will be available for exploitation by those who can develop the right adaptations, perhaps particularly for learned societies. New models of communication altogether may also emerge, unlike the traditional journal ‘package’ but perhaps centred around new brands such as research communities or collaborations between them and nifty publishers (see, for example, Signaling Gateway76). We shall see. What we do know as a result of this study is that over 70% of authors who have published once in an open access journal will choose do so the next time they publish. That statistic should be the starting point for any new debates.

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。(论文代写)
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(论文代写)