Document Supply of Grey Literature and Open Access: Ten Years Later

Joachim Schöpfel
{"title":"Document Supply of Grey Literature and Open Access: Ten Years Later","authors":"Joachim Schöpfel","doi":"10.1108/ILDS-02-2015-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose \n– The paper aims to investigate the impact of the open access movement on the document supply of grey literature. \n \nDesign/methodology/approach \n– The paper is based on a comparative survey of five major scientific and technical information centres: The British Library (UK), KM (Canada), INIST-CNRS (France), KISTI (South Korea) and TIB Hannover (Germany). \n \nFindings \n– The five institutions supplied less than 1.8 million supplied items in 2014, i.e. half of the activity in 2004 (−55 per cent). There were 85,000 grey documents, mainly conference proceedings and reports, i.e. 5 per cent of the overall activity, a historically low level compared to 2004 (−72 per cent). At the same time, they continue to expand their open access strategies. Just as in 2004 and 2008, these strategies are specific, and they reflect institutional and national choices rather than global approaches, with two or three common or comparable projects (PubMed Central, national repositories, attribution of DOIs to datasets, dissertations and other objects). In spite of all differences, their development reveals some common features, like budget cuts, legal barriers (copyright), focus on domestic needs and open access policies to foster dissemination and impact of research results. Document supply for corporate customers tends to become a business-to-business service, while the delivery for the public sector relies more, than before, on resource sharing and networking with academic and public libraries. Except perhaps for the TIB Hannover, the declining importance of grey literature points towards their changing role – less intermediation, less acquisition and collection development and more high-value services, more dissemination and preservation capacities designed for the scientific community needs (research excellence, open access, data management, etc.). \n \nOriginality/value \n– The paper is a follow-up study of two surveys published in 2006 and 2009.","PeriodicalId":130902,"journal":{"name":"Interlending & Document Supply","volume":"129 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interlending & Document Supply","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ILDS-02-2015-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Purpose – The paper aims to investigate the impact of the open access movement on the document supply of grey literature. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on a comparative survey of five major scientific and technical information centres: The British Library (UK), KM (Canada), INIST-CNRS (France), KISTI (South Korea) and TIB Hannover (Germany). Findings – The five institutions supplied less than 1.8 million supplied items in 2014, i.e. half of the activity in 2004 (−55 per cent). There were 85,000 grey documents, mainly conference proceedings and reports, i.e. 5 per cent of the overall activity, a historically low level compared to 2004 (−72 per cent). At the same time, they continue to expand their open access strategies. Just as in 2004 and 2008, these strategies are specific, and they reflect institutional and national choices rather than global approaches, with two or three common or comparable projects (PubMed Central, national repositories, attribution of DOIs to datasets, dissertations and other objects). In spite of all differences, their development reveals some common features, like budget cuts, legal barriers (copyright), focus on domestic needs and open access policies to foster dissemination and impact of research results. Document supply for corporate customers tends to become a business-to-business service, while the delivery for the public sector relies more, than before, on resource sharing and networking with academic and public libraries. Except perhaps for the TIB Hannover, the declining importance of grey literature points towards their changing role – less intermediation, less acquisition and collection development and more high-value services, more dissemination and preservation capacities designed for the scientific community needs (research excellence, open access, data management, etc.). Originality/value – The paper is a follow-up study of two surveys published in 2006 and 2009.
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
灰色文献的文献供给与开放获取:十年后
目的:本文旨在探讨开放获取运动对灰色文献文献供应的影响。设计/方法/方法——本文基于对五个主要科技信息中心的比较调查:大英图书馆(英国)、KM(加拿大)、INIST-CNRS(法国)、KISTI(韩国)和TIB Hannover(德国)。调查结果-五间机构在2014年提供的供应物品少于180万件,即2004年活动的一半(- 55%)。有85 000份灰色文件,主要是会议记录和报告,即占全部活动的5%,与2004年(- 72%)相比,是历史最低水平。与此同时,他们继续扩展他们的开放获取策略。就像2004年和2008年一样,这些战略是具体的,它们反映了机构和国家的选择,而不是全球的方法,有两三个共同或可比较的项目(PubMed Central、国家资源库、数据集、论文和其他对象的doi归属)。尽管存在这些差异,但它们的发展揭示了一些共同特征,如预算削减、法律障碍(版权)、对国内需求的关注以及促进研究成果传播和影响的开放获取政策。面向企业客户的文件供应趋向于成为企业对企业的服务,而面向公共部门的文件交付则比以前更多地依赖于与学术和公共图书馆的资源共享和网络。除了TIB汉诺威之外,灰色文献的重要性下降表明它们的角色正在发生变化——更少的中介,更少的获取和收藏发展,更多的高价值服务,更多的传播和保存能力,为科学界的需求(卓越的研究,开放获取,数据管理等)而设计。原创性/价值——这篇论文是对2006年和2009年发表的两项调查的后续研究。
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