‘Is the library open?’: Correlating unaffiliated access to academic libraries with open access support

Q2 Social Sciences LIBER Quarterly Pub Date : 2019-10-31 DOI:10.18352/lq.10298
Katie S Wilson, C. Neylon, Chloe Brookes-Kenworthy, Richard Hosking, C. Huang, Lucy Montgomery, Alkim Ozaygen
{"title":"‘Is the library open?’: Correlating unaffiliated access to academic\n libraries with open access support","authors":"Katie S Wilson, C. Neylon, Chloe Brookes-Kenworthy, Richard Hosking, C. Huang, Lucy Montgomery, Alkim Ozaygen","doi":"10.18352/lq.10298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the context of a growing international focus on open access publishing options and mandates, this paper explores the extent to which the ideals of ‘openness’ are also being applied to physical knowledge resources and research spaces. This study, which forms part of the larger Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative project, investigates the relationship between academic library access policies and institutional positions on open access or open science publishing. Analysis of library access policies and related documents from twenty academic institutions in Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, Africa and the United Kingdom shows that physical access to libraries for members of the public who are not affiliated with a university is often the most restricted category of access. Many libraries impose financial and sometimes security barriers on entry to buildings, limiting access to collections in print and other non-digital formats. The limits placed on physical access to libraries contrast strongly with the central role that these institutions play in facilitating open access in digital form for research outputs through institutional repositories and open access publishing policies. We compared library access policies and practices with open access publishing and research sharing policies for the same institutions and found limited correlation between both sets of policies. Comparing the two assessments using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient confirmed open access policies have a direct association with the narrow aspects of public access provided through online availability of formal publications, but are not necessarily associated (in the universities in this study) with delivering on a broader commitment to public access to knowledge. The results suggest that while institutional mission statements and academic library policies may refer to sharing of knowledge and research and community collaboration, multiple layers of library user categories, levels of privilege and fees charged can inhibit the realisation of these goals. As open access publishing options and mandates expand, physical entry to academic libraries and access to print and electronic resources has contracted. This varies within and across countries, but it conflicts with global library and information commitments to open access to knowledge.","PeriodicalId":39179,"journal":{"name":"LIBER Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LIBER Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10298","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

In the context of a growing international focus on open access publishing options and mandates, this paper explores the extent to which the ideals of ‘openness’ are also being applied to physical knowledge resources and research spaces. This study, which forms part of the larger Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative project, investigates the relationship between academic library access policies and institutional positions on open access or open science publishing. Analysis of library access policies and related documents from twenty academic institutions in Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, Africa and the United Kingdom shows that physical access to libraries for members of the public who are not affiliated with a university is often the most restricted category of access. Many libraries impose financial and sometimes security barriers on entry to buildings, limiting access to collections in print and other non-digital formats. The limits placed on physical access to libraries contrast strongly with the central role that these institutions play in facilitating open access in digital form for research outputs through institutional repositories and open access publishing policies. We compared library access policies and practices with open access publishing and research sharing policies for the same institutions and found limited correlation between both sets of policies. Comparing the two assessments using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient confirmed open access policies have a direct association with the narrow aspects of public access provided through online availability of formal publications, but are not necessarily associated (in the universities in this study) with delivering on a broader commitment to public access to knowledge. The results suggest that while institutional mission statements and academic library policies may refer to sharing of knowledge and research and community collaboration, multiple layers of library user categories, levels of privilege and fees charged can inhibit the realisation of these goals. As open access publishing options and mandates expand, physical entry to academic libraries and access to print and electronic resources has contracted. This varies within and across countries, but it conflicts with global library and information commitments to open access to knowledge.
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
“图书馆开着吗?”:将学术图书馆的非附属访问与开放获取支持相关联
在国际上越来越关注开放获取出版选择和授权的背景下,本文探讨了“开放”的理想在多大程度上也被应用于物理知识资源和研究空间。这项研究是科廷开放知识倡议项目的一部分,调查了学术图书馆访问政策与开放获取或开放科学出版机构立场之间的关系。对来自亚洲、澳大利亚、欧洲、北美、非洲和联合王国的20个学术机构的图书馆访问政策和相关文件的分析表明,不隶属于大学的公众对图书馆的实际访问往往是最受限制的访问类别。许多图书馆在进入建筑物时设置了财务障碍,有时还设置了安全障碍,限制了人们获取印刷和其他非数字格式的馆藏。对图书馆物理访问的限制与这些机构在通过机构知识库和开放获取出版政策促进研究成果以数字形式开放获取方面发挥的核心作用形成鲜明对比。我们将同一机构的图书馆访问政策和实践与开放获取出版和研究共享政策进行了比较,发现两套政策之间的相关性有限。使用Spearman的等级相关系数比较两种评估,证实了开放获取政策与通过在线可获得的正式出版物提供的公共获取的狭窄方面有直接联系,但不一定与(在本研究中的大学中)提供更广泛的公众获取知识的承诺有关。结果表明,虽然机构使命宣言和学术图书馆政策可能涉及知识和研究的共享以及社区合作,但图书馆用户类别的多层次、特权水平和收费水平可能会阻碍这些目标的实现。随着开放获取出版的选择和授权的扩大,进入学术图书馆的实体入口和获取印刷和电子资源的机会减少了。这在各国内部和各国之间有所不同,但它与全球图书馆和信息部门对开放获取知识的承诺相冲突。
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
LIBER Quarterly
LIBER Quarterly Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Nitpicking online knowledge representations of governmental leadership. The case of Belgian prime ministers in Wikipedia and Wikidata. Applied and conceptual approaches to evidence-based practice in research and academic libraries Revealing Reviewers’ Identities as Part of Open Peer Review and Analysis of the Review Reports Lessons From the Open Library of Humanities Patterns for searching data on the web across different research communities
×
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