Managing the transition to open access publishing: a psychological perspective

Q4 Arts and Humanities Prometheus (Italy) Pub Date : 2017-04-03 DOI:10.1080/08109028.2017.1408289
Dagmara Weckowska, Nadine Levin, S. Leonelli, J. Dupré, D. Castle
{"title":"Managing the transition to open access publishing: a psychological perspective","authors":"Dagmara Weckowska, Nadine Levin, S. Leonelli, J. Dupré, D. Castle","doi":"10.1080/08109028.2017.1408289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract To manage the transition to the open access (OA) model of scholarly publishing, we need to understand better what enables, encourages and inhibits the adoption of OA publishing among scientists, and to appreciate individual differences within disciplines. The study adopts a psychological perspective to elucidate motivations, capabilities and opportunities for OA publishing among bioscientists in the UK. To identify differences within the discipline, bioscientists with starkly different past practices for disclosing research data and technologies were interviewed. The sampled bioscientists face similar obstacles and enablers in their physical environment, but that their motivations and experience of their social environments differ. One group is strongly motivated by their moral convictions and beliefs in benefits of OA and feels peer pressure related to OA. The other group expresses fewer pro-OA beliefs, holds beliefs demotivating OA publishing, but feels pressure from research funders to adopt it. The former group makes more frequent use of OA publishing, which suggests that only those with strong motivations will work to overcome the social and physical obstacles. The individual differences within the discipline suggest that bioscientists are unlikely to respond to OA policies in the same way and, thus, the appropriateness of one-size-fits-all OA policies is questioned.","PeriodicalId":38494,"journal":{"name":"Prometheus (Italy)","volume":"36 1","pages":"111 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prometheus (Italy)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2017.1408289","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Abstract To manage the transition to the open access (OA) model of scholarly publishing, we need to understand better what enables, encourages and inhibits the adoption of OA publishing among scientists, and to appreciate individual differences within disciplines. The study adopts a psychological perspective to elucidate motivations, capabilities and opportunities for OA publishing among bioscientists in the UK. To identify differences within the discipline, bioscientists with starkly different past practices for disclosing research data and technologies were interviewed. The sampled bioscientists face similar obstacles and enablers in their physical environment, but that their motivations and experience of their social environments differ. One group is strongly motivated by their moral convictions and beliefs in benefits of OA and feels peer pressure related to OA. The other group expresses fewer pro-OA beliefs, holds beliefs demotivating OA publishing, but feels pressure from research funders to adopt it. The former group makes more frequent use of OA publishing, which suggests that only those with strong motivations will work to overcome the social and physical obstacles. The individual differences within the discipline suggest that bioscientists are unlikely to respond to OA policies in the same way and, thus, the appropriateness of one-size-fits-all OA policies is questioned.
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
管理向开放获取出版的过渡:一个心理学的视角
为了管理学术出版向开放获取(OA)模式的过渡,我们需要更好地了解是什么促使、鼓励和抑制了科学家采用OA出版,并认识到学科内部的个体差异。本研究采用心理学的观点来阐明英国生物科学家OA出版的动机、能力和机会。为了确定学科内部的差异,我们采访了过去在披露研究数据和技术方面有着截然不同做法的生物科学家。采样的生物科学家在他们的物理环境中面临着类似的障碍和推动因素,但他们的动机和对社会环境的体验不同。一组受到道德信念和OA利益的强烈激励,并感受到与OA相关的同伴压力。另一组表达了较少的支持开放获取的信念,他们持有不利于开放获取出版的信念,但却感受到来自研究资助者的压力,要求他们采用开放获取。前者更频繁地使用开放获取出版,这表明只有那些有强烈动机的人才会努力克服社会和物理障碍。学科内部的个体差异表明,生物科学家不太可能以同样的方式对开放获取政策作出反应,因此,一刀切的开放获取政策的适当性受到质疑。
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
Prometheus (Italy)
Prometheus (Italy) Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Graham Dutfield, That High Design of Purest Gold: A Critical History of the Pharmaceutical Industry S. Scott Graham, The Doctor and the Algorithm. Promise, Peril, and the Future of Health AI Larry A. DiMatteo, Cristina Poncibò and Michel Cannarsa (eds) Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence: Global Perspectives on Law and Ethics S. Voeneky, P. Kellmeyer, O. Mueller and W. Burgard (eds) Cambridge Handbook of Responsible Artificial Intelligence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives Learning research: theory building and theory testing in educational technology innovation and beyond
×
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