Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society (한국도서관정보학회지)

Korean Library and Information Science Society (한국도서관정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Study on the Openness of International Academic Papers by Researchers in Library and Information Science Using POI (Practical Openness Index)

POI(Practical Openness Index)를 활용한 문헌정보학 연구자 국제학술논문의 개방성 연구

  • 조재인 (인천대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2021.05.21
  • Accepted : 2021.06.07
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In a situation where OA papers are increasing, POI, which indexes how open the research activities of individual researchers are, is drawing attention. This study investigated the existence of OA papers and the OA method published in international academic journals by domestic LIS researchers, and derived the researchers' POI based on this. In addition, by examining the relationship between the POI index and the researcher's amount of research papers, the research sub field, and the foreign co-authors, it was analyzed whether these factors are relevant to the researcher's POI. As a result, there were 492 papers by 82 researchers whose OA status and method were normally identified through Unpaywall. Second, only 20.7% of papers published in international journals were open accessed, and almost cases were gold and green methods. Third, there were many papers in text mining in medical journals, and the papers opened in the green method are open in institutional repositories of foreign co-authors or transnational subject repositories such as PMC. Third, the POI index was relatively higher for researchers in the field of informetrics, machine learning than other fields. In addition, it was analyzed that the presence or absence of overseas co-authors is related to OA.

OA 논문이 증가하는 상황에서 개별 연구자의 연구 성과 유통이 얼마나 개방적인지를 지수화하는 POI(Practical Openness Index)가 등장하였다. 본 연구는 국내 문헌정보학 연구자들이 국제학술지에 출판한 논문을 대상으로 OA 여부와 방식을 조사하고 연구자 단위의 POI를 도출해 지수의 분포를 살펴보았다. 또한 연구자의 세부 연구 분야나 국제협력 활동이 개방성에 관련성을 보이는지 분석하였다. 그 결과 Unpaywall을 통해 정상적으로 OA 여부와 방식이 식별된 논문은 82명 연구자의 492건으로 나타났으며, 20.7%의 논문만이 공개되어 있는 것으로 분석되었다. 두 번째, 골드 OA 방식의 공개 논문은 의학 분야 저널에 수록된 텍스트마이닝 분야 논문이 많았으며, 그린 OA방식으로 공개된 논문은 외국인 공동저자 소속 기관의 리포지터리나 PMC와 같은 초국가적 주제 리포지터리에서 공개되고 있는 것으로 확인되었다. 세 번째, POI 지수는 절반 가량의 연구자가 0으로 나타났으나, 계량정보학, 기계학습 및 지식처리 영역의 연구자들에게서 상대적으로 높게 나타났다. 또한 연구자의 해외공동연구 활동이 논문 공개와 관련성이 있는 것으로 분석되었다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2020년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 인문사회분야 중견연구자지원사업의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2020S1A5A2A01040059).

References

  1. Cho, Jane (2020). Analysis of open access status of domestic author's papers published in international journals: based on highly cited papers. Journal of the Korean Library and Information Science Society, 54(1), 325-341.
  2. Chung, Kyoung Hee, Lee, Jae Yun, Chung, Eunkyung, & Choi, Sanghee (2020). A study on methods of implementation for the NRF open access policy. Korea Society for Information Management, 37(4), 225-286.
  3. Fujiko, U. (2019). Repository registration linked to faculty evaluation: OA rate adoption and its effects. 2nd SPARC Japan Seminar. Available: https://www.nii.ac.jp/sparc/event/2019/pdf/20191220_doc4.pdf
  4. Kim, Gyuhwan (2020). A study on the possibility of open access to international journal articles: based on articles cited in the Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management. Korea Society for Information Management, 37(4), 207-223.
  5. Kim, Gyuhwan & Chung, Kyoung Hee (2017). Characteristics of open access journals in Korea: focused on KCI journals. Korea Society for Information Management, 34(3), 251-267.
  6. Kim, Hwanmin (2019). Open access transformation model and case for subscribed journals. The 2nd KESLI Open Knowledge Seminar 2019. Seoul: Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information.
  7. Na, Hyeran (2020). Electronic journal subscription and open access publication. Seoul National University Library Report, 142, 14-23.
  8. National Library of Korea (2016). A study on countermeasures to changes in the global open access environment. Available: https://http://nl.go.kr/upload/nl/commu/2017/5/14955272397000.pdf
  9. Akbaritabar, A. & Stahlschmidt, S. (2019). Merits and limits: applying open data to monitor open access publications in bibliometric databases. 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2019, 2 September 2019 through 5 September 2019, Sapienza University of RomeRome: Italy.
  10. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2020). Will Trump White House tear down journal paywalls? many anxiously await a decision. Science, 2020/5/21. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc9320
  11. ARL (2019). Comment: ARL Feedback on Plan S Open Access Implementation Guidelines. Available: https://www.arl.org/news/arl-news/4720-arl-comments-on-plan-s-open-access-implementation
  12. Clarivate (2021). Open access. Available: https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/open-access/
  13. Efficiency and Standards for Article Charges (2021). Available: https://esac-initiative.org/about/transformative-agreements/agreement-registry/
  14. Else, H. (2019). High-profile subscription journals critique Plan S. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00596-x
  15. Enserink, M. (2018). European science funders ban grantees from publishing in paywalled journals. Science. Available: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/european-science-fundersban-grantees-publishing-paywalled-journals
  16. IARLA (2019). A View of Plan S. Available: https://iarla.org/2019/10/a-view-of-plan-s/
  17. Martin-Martin, A., Costas, R., Leeuwen, V., & Lopez-Cozar, E. D. (2018). Evidence of open access of scientific publications in Google Scholar: a large-scale analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 819-841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.06.012
  18. Mercer, H. (2011). Almost halfway there: an analysis of the open access behaviors of academic librarians. College & Research Libraries, 72(5), 443-453. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-167
  19. MIT Libraries (2019). Harvard Library and MIT Libraries Provide Recommendations for PlanS Implementation. Available: https://libraries.mit.edu/news/harvard-library/29052/
  20. Nichols, D. M. & Twidale, M. B. (2017). Metrics for openness. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(4), 1048-1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23741
  21. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (2020). OASPA members' output continues to grow, as does the use of CC BY licenses. Available: https://oaspa.org/oaspa-members-output-continues-to-grow-as-does-the-use-of-cc-by-licenses/
  22. Peekhaus, W. (2021). A cohort study of how faculty in LIS schools perceive and engage with open-access publishing. Journal of Information Science, 47(1), 16-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551519865481
  23. Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Lariviere, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., Farley, A., West, J., & Haustein, S. (2018). The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375
  24. Robinson-Garcia, N., Costas, R., & Leeuwen, T. N. (2020). Open access uptake by universities worldwide. PeerJ, 8, e9410. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9410
  25. Schultz, T. A. (2017). Opening up communication: assessing open access practices in the communication studies discipline. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 5(1), p.eP2131. http://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2131
  26. SCOPUS (2020). Scopus filters for Open Access type and 5.5 million more OA articles (17 million in total!). Available: https://blog.scopus.com/posts/scopus-filters-for-open-access-type-and-55-million-more-oa-articles-17-million-in-total
  27. Severin, A., Egger, M., Eve, M. P., & Hurlimann, D. (2020). Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research, 7, 1925. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17328.2
  28. Wang, X., Cui, Y., Xu, S., & Hu, Z. (2018). The state and evolution of Gold open access: a country and discipline level analysis. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(5), 573-584. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-02-2018-0023
  29. Way, D. (2010). The open access availability of library and information science literature. College & Research Libraries, 71(4), 302-309. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-38r1
  30. Xia, J., Wilhoite, S. K., & Myers, R. L. (2011). A librarian-LIS faculty divide in open access practices. Journal of Documentation, 67(5), 791-805. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411111164673
  31. 上原 藤子 (2019). 教員評価とリンクするリポジトリ登録 - OA 率採用とその効果. 第2回 SPARC Japan セミナ. 출처: https://www.nii.ac.jp/sparc/event/2019/pdf/20191220_doc4.pdf