Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review

Severin, Anna; Egger, Matthias; Eve, Martin Paul; Hürlimann, Daniel (2018). Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review F1000Research(7), pp. 1-41. Faculty of 1000 10.12688/f1000research.17328.1

Preview

Text discipline-specific open access 2018.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY). Download (689kB) | Preview

Background: Many of the discussions surrounding Open Access (OA) revolve around how it affects publishing practices across different academic disciplines. It was a long-held view that it would be only a matter of time for all disciplines to fully and relatively homogeneously implement OA. Recent large-scale bibliometric studies show however that the uptake of OA differs substantially across disciplines. This study investigates the underlying mechanisms that cause disciplines to vary in their OA publishing practices. We aimed to answer two questions: First, how do different disciplines adopt and shape OA publishing practices? Second, what discipline-specific barriers to and potentials for OA can be identified? Methods: In a first step, we identified and synthesized relevant bibliometric studies that assessed OA prevalence and publishing patterns across disciplines. In a second step, and adopting a social shaping of technology perspective, we studied evidence on the sociotechnical forces that shape OA publishing practices. We examined a variety of data sources, including, but not limited to, publisher policies and guidelines, OA mandates and policies and author surveys. Results: Over the last three decades, scholarly publishing has experienced a shift from “closed” access to OA as the proportion of scholarly literature that is openly accessible has increased continuously. The shift towards OA is however uneven across disciplines in two respects: first, the growth of OA has been uneven across disciplines, which manifests itself in varying OA prevalence levels. Second, disciplines use different OA publishing channels to make research outputs OA. Conclusions: We conclude that historically grown publishing practices differ in terms of their compatibility with OA, which is the reason why OA can be assumed to be a natural continuation of publishing cultures in some disciplines, whereas in other disciplines, the implementation of OA faces major barriers and would require a change of research culture.

Item Type:	Journal Article (Original Article)
Division/Institute:	Business School
Name:	Severin, Anna; Egger, Matthias; Eve, Martin Paul and Hürlimann, Daniel0000-0002-5483-2449
Subjects:	Q Science > Q Science (General)
ISSN:	2046-1402
Publisher:	Faculty of 1000
Language:	English
Submitter:	Daniel Hürlimann
Date Deposited:	04 May 2022 14:00
Last Modified:	04 May 2022 14:00
Publisher DOI:	10.12688/f1000research.17328.1
Additional Information:	Article No.: 1925
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Open Access, Open Science, Publishing, Scholarly Communication, Science Policy, Communication Technologies, Scientometrics, Meta-Synthesis
ARBOR DOI:	10.24451/arbor.16900
URI:	https://arbor.bfh.ch/id/eprint/16900