Ready for the future? A survey on open access with scientists from the French National Research Center (CNRS)

Joachim Schöpfel, C. Ferrant, F. André, Renaud Fabre
{"title":"Ready for the future? A survey on open access with scientists from the French National Research Center (CNRS)","authors":"Joachim Schöpfel, C. Ferrant, F. André, Renaud Fabre","doi":"10.1108/ILDS-06-2016-0023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose \nThis paper aims to present empirical evidence on the opinion and behaviour of French scientists (senior management level) regarding open access (OA) to scientific and technical information. \n \nDesign/methodology/approach \nThe results are part of a nationwide survey on scientific information and documentation with 432 directors of French public research laboratories conducted by the French National Research Center (CNRS) in 2014. \n \nFindings \nThe CNRS senior research managers (laboratory directors) globally share the positive opinion towards OA revealed by other studies with researchers from the UK, Germany, the USA and other countries. However, they are more supportive of open repositories (green road) than of OA journal publishing (gold). The response patterns reveal a gap between generally positive opinions about OA and less supportive behaviours, principally publishing articles with article processing charges (APCs). A small group of senior research managers does not seem to be interested in green or gold OA and reluctant to self-archiving and OA publishing. Similar to other studies, the French survey confirms disciplinary differences, i.e. a stronger support for self-archiving of records and documents in HAL by scientists from Mathematics, Physics and Informatics than from Biology, Earth Sciences and Chemistry; and more experience and positive feelings with OA publishing and payment of APCs in Biology than in Mathematics or in Social Sciences and Humanities. Disciplinary differences and specific French factors are discussed, in particular in the context of the new European policy in favour of Open Science. \n \nOriginality/value \nFor the first time, a nationwide survey was conducted with the senior research management level from all scientific disciplines. The response rate was high (>30 per cent), and the results provide good insight into the real awareness, support and uptake of OA by senior research managers who provide both models (examples for good practice) and opinion leadership.","PeriodicalId":130902,"journal":{"name":"Interlending & Document Supply","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interlending & Document Supply","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ILDS-06-2016-0023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to present empirical evidence on the opinion and behaviour of French scientists (senior management level) regarding open access (OA) to scientific and technical information. Design/methodology/approach The results are part of a nationwide survey on scientific information and documentation with 432 directors of French public research laboratories conducted by the French National Research Center (CNRS) in 2014. Findings The CNRS senior research managers (laboratory directors) globally share the positive opinion towards OA revealed by other studies with researchers from the UK, Germany, the USA and other countries. However, they are more supportive of open repositories (green road) than of OA journal publishing (gold). The response patterns reveal a gap between generally positive opinions about OA and less supportive behaviours, principally publishing articles with article processing charges (APCs). A small group of senior research managers does not seem to be interested in green or gold OA and reluctant to self-archiving and OA publishing. Similar to other studies, the French survey confirms disciplinary differences, i.e. a stronger support for self-archiving of records and documents in HAL by scientists from Mathematics, Physics and Informatics than from Biology, Earth Sciences and Chemistry; and more experience and positive feelings with OA publishing and payment of APCs in Biology than in Mathematics or in Social Sciences and Humanities. Disciplinary differences and specific French factors are discussed, in particular in the context of the new European policy in favour of Open Science. Originality/value For the first time, a nationwide survey was conducted with the senior research management level from all scientific disciplines. The response rate was high (>30 per cent), and the results provide good insight into the real awareness, support and uptake of OA by senior research managers who provide both models (examples for good practice) and opinion leadership.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
准备好迎接未来了吗?法国国家研究中心(CNRS)的科学家对开放获取的调查
本文旨在提供法国科学家(高级管理层)对开放获取(OA)科技信息的意见和行为的经验证据。该结果是法国国家研究中心(CNRS)于2014年对法国公共研究实验室的432名主任进行的一项全国性科学信息和文献调查的一部分。全球CNRS的高级研究经理(实验室主任)与来自英国、德国、美国等国的研究人员分享了其他研究对OA的积极看法。然而,他们更支持开放存储库(绿色道路),而不是OA期刊出版(金色道路)。回应模式揭示了对开放获取的普遍积极看法与较少支持行为之间的差距,主要是发表带有文章处理费(APCs)的文章。一小部分高级研究经理似乎对绿色或金色的OA不感兴趣,也不愿意进行自归档和OA出版。与其他研究类似,法国的调查证实了学科差异,即数学、物理和信息学领域的科学家比生物学、地球科学和化学领域的科学家更支持HAL中的记录和文件的自我存档;与数学、社会科学和人文学科相比,生物学科对OA出版和apc支付有更多的经验和积极的感受。学科差异和具体的法国因素进行了讨论,特别是在新的欧洲政策有利于开放科学的背景下。首次在全国范围内对所有科学学科的高级科研管理人员进行调查。回复率很高(> 30%),结果很好地说明了高级研究管理人员对OA的真正认识、支持和采用情况,这些管理人员提供了模型(良好实践的例子)和意见领导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Open science: a revolution in sight? Interlending and document supply: a review of the recent literature; 93 Ready for the future? A survey on open access with scientists from the French National Research Center (CNRS) Share resources through the largest interlibrary loan network A farewell from the editor to Interlending and Document Supply
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1