A Crisis in “Open Access”

Source: http://eprints.rclis.org/38926/

A Crisis in “Open Access”: Should Communication Scholarly Outputs Take 77 Years to Become Open Access?

Ghanbari Baghestan, Abbas and Khaniki, Hadi and Kalantari, Abdolhosein and Akhtari-Zavare, Mehrnoosh and Farahmand, Elaheh and Tamam, Ezhar and Ale Ebrahim, Nader and Sabani, Havva and Danaee, Mahmoud A Crisis in “Open Access”: Should Communication Scholarly Outputs Take 77 Years to Become Open Access? SAGE Open, 2019, vol. 9, n. 3, pp. 1-8. [Journal article (Paginated)]

Text A Crisis in Open Access.pdf Download (307kB) | Preview

Official URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/21582...

Alternative locations: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.9724187.v1, https://works.bepress.com/aleebrahim/246/, https://zenodo.org/record/3375247

English abstract

This study diachronically investigates the trend of the “open access” in the Web of Science (WoS) category of “communication.” To evaluate the trend, data were collected from 184 categories of WoS from 1980 to 2017. A total of 87,997,893 documents were obtained, of which 95,304 (0.10%) were in the category of “communication.” In average, 4.24% of the documents in all 184 categories were open access. While in communication, it was 3.29%, which ranked communication 116 out of 184. An Open Access Index (OAI) was developed to predict the trend of open access in communication. Based on the OAI, communication needs 77 years to fully reach open access, which undeniably can be considered as “crisis in scientific publishing” in this field. Given this stunning information, it is the time for a global call for “open access” by communication scholars across the world. Future research should investigate whether the current business models of publications in communication scholarships are encouraging open access or pose unnecessary restrictions on knowledge development.

Item type:	Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords:	communication, open access, WSIS, UNESCO, Budapest Open Access Initiative, business model of publishing, Open Access Index (OAI)
Subjects:	B. Information use and sociology of information B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
Depositing user:	Dr. Nader Ale Ebrahim
Date deposited:	26 Aug 2019 10:29
Last modified:	26 Aug 2019 10:29
URI:	http://hdl.handle.net/10760/38926

Check full metadata for this record

References

"SEEK" links will first look for possible matches inside E-LIS and query Google Scholar if no results are found.

Aghaei Chadegani, A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ale Ebrahim, N. (2013). A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections: Web of Science and Scopus Databases. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 18-26. doi:10.5539/ass.v9n5p18

Baghestan, A. G., & Hassan, M. A. (2009). Iran’s Media Landscape: Law, policy and media freedom. Human Communication, 12(3), 239-254.

Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. (2003). Retrieved from http://www.fu-berlin.de/sites/open_access/weiteres/Veranstaltungen/oa_berlin/poster/Berlin-Declaration_Simone-Rieger_MPIWG.pdf

Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing. (2003). Retrieved from http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm

Björk Bo-Christer, Mikael Laakso, Patrik Welling, & Patrik P. (2014). Anatomy of green open access. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 237-250. doi:10.1002/asi.22963

Cate, F. H. (1989). The First Amendment and the International Free Flow of Information. VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 30, 371-420.

Das, A.-K. (2015). Introduction to Research Evaluation Metrics and Related Indicators. In B. K. Sen & S. Mishra (Eds.), Open Access for Researchers, Module 4: Research Evaluation Metrics. UNESCO, Paris, 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Davidson, P. M., Newton, P. J., Ferguson, C., Daly, J., Elliott, D., Homer, C., . . . Jackson, D. (2014). Rating and Ranking the Role of Bibliometrics and Webometrics in Nursing and Midwifery. Scientific World Journal, doi.org/10.1155/2014/135812.

Declaration of Principles Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new Millennium. (2003). Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html

Forrester, A. (2015). Barriers to Open Access Publishing: Views from the Library Literature. Publications, 3(3), 190-210. doi:10.3390/publications3030190

Gal, D., Glanzel, W., & Sipido, K. R. (2017). Mapping cross-border collaboration and communication in cardiovascular research from 1992 to 2012. European Heart Journal, 38(16), 1249-1258. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw459

Garfield, E. (1964). Citation Indexing: A Natural Science Literature Retrieval System for the Social Sciences. American Behavioral Scientist, 7(10), 58-61. doi:10.1177/000276426400701017

Gonzalez, F. J. C., & Guarinos, V. (2017). Male Presence in Gender Research Networks in the Communication Field in Spain. Mcs-Masculinities and Social Change, 6(1), 62-90. doi:10.17583/mcs.2017.2452

Ingwersen, P. (2000). The international visibility and citation impact of Scandinavian research articles in selected Social Science fields: The decay of a myth. Scientometrics, 49(1), 39-61. doi:10.1023/a:1005657107901

Kalantari, A., Kamsin, A., Kamaruddin, H. S., Ale Ebrahim, N., Gani, A., Ebrahimi, A., & Shamshirband, S. (2017). A Bibliometric Approach to Tracking Big Data Research Trends. Journal of Big Data, 4(30), 1-18. doi:10.1186/s40537-017-0088-1

Meho, L. I., & Rogers, Y. (2008). Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1711-1726. doi:10.1002/asi.20874

Miguel, S., de Oliveira, E. F. T., & Gracio, M. C. C. (2016). Scientific Production on Open Access: A Worldwide Bibliometric Analysis in the Academic and Scientific Context. Publications, 4(1), 15. doi:10.3390/publications4010001

Plan of Action. (2003). Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html

Raube-Wilson, S. (1986). The New World Information and Communication Order and International Human Rights Law. BC Int'l & Comp. L. Rev., 9, 107.

Sahu, D. (2005). Open Access: Why India Should Brace it? Open Access - Unrestricted access to published research (pp. 1-49): Indian Science Congress Association.

Sandra Miguel, Ely Francina Tannuri de Oliveira, & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio. (2016). Scientific Production on Open Access: A Worldwide Bibliometric Analysis in the Academic and Scientific Context. publications (Special Issue "Library and Scientific Publishing"), 4(1). doi:10.3390/publications4010001

Sara L. Rizor, & Holley, R. P. (2014). Open Access Goals Revisited: How Green and Gold Open Access Are Meeting (or Not) Their Original Goals. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 45(4). doi:https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.45.4.01

Tunis genda For The information Society (2005). Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html

Tunis Commitment. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/7.html

Weber, R. H. (2010). From Free Flow of Information to Civil Society's Participation in the Information World. Annales U. Sci. Budapestinensis Rolando Eotvos Nominatae, 51, 81.

Wenzler, J. (2017). Scholarly Communication and the Dilemma of Collective Action: Why Academic Journals Cost Too Much. College & Research Libraries, 78(2), 183-200. doi:10.5860/crl.78.2.183