Access and impact barriers to academic publications: a global study of thesis and dissertation embargo policies

IF 3.1 3区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS Online Information Review Pub Date : 2023-01-31 DOI:10.1108/oir-09-2022-0497
B. Rasuli, Joachim Schöpfel, Michael Boock, B. van Wyk
{"title":"Access and impact barriers to academic publications: a global study of thesis and dissertation embargo policies","authors":"B. Rasuli, Joachim Schöpfel, Michael Boock, B. van Wyk","doi":"10.1108/oir-09-2022-0497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeMany Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) allow students or their advisors to restrict access to theses/dissertations (TDs) by applying embargoes. This study aims to identify why Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) allow embargoes.Design/methodology/approachOne hundred HEIs were randomly selected, representing seven geographic regions. The authors imported policies/guidelines for embargoing TDs into MAXQDA software and coded the qualitative data.FindingsAmong the 100 studied HEIs, 43 HEIs (43%) have policies/guidelines on the web for embargoing TDs, most of which are from North America. For the majority of HEIs, embargoes are a voluntary option for students/advisors. Content analysis of the 32 embargo policies showed that embargo reasons (18 key reasons) can be categorized into six broad themes (commercialization, publication, ethical issues, funding contracts/agreements, security and safety, and miscellaneous).Research limitations/implicationsIn this study, only those policies are reviewed that are available, discoverable and accessible on HEIs' websites.Practical implicationsHighlighting the detrimental effect of not managing stipulations towards embargoes clearly, the findings could be useful for national/institutional policymakers and administrators of research departments, academic libraries, institutional repositories and graduate offices.Originality/valueThis is the first study to investigate rationales for TDs embargo practices. It creates awareness of how embargoes are managed and reflected in policy. Ultimately, it recommends further interrogation on how embargoes influence the principle of openness to scholarship.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-09-2022-0497.","PeriodicalId":54683,"journal":{"name":"Online Information Review","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Online Information Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-09-2022-0497","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeMany Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) allow students or their advisors to restrict access to theses/dissertations (TDs) by applying embargoes. This study aims to identify why Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) allow embargoes.Design/methodology/approachOne hundred HEIs were randomly selected, representing seven geographic regions. The authors imported policies/guidelines for embargoing TDs into MAXQDA software and coded the qualitative data.FindingsAmong the 100 studied HEIs, 43 HEIs (43%) have policies/guidelines on the web for embargoing TDs, most of which are from North America. For the majority of HEIs, embargoes are a voluntary option for students/advisors. Content analysis of the 32 embargo policies showed that embargo reasons (18 key reasons) can be categorized into six broad themes (commercialization, publication, ethical issues, funding contracts/agreements, security and safety, and miscellaneous).Research limitations/implicationsIn this study, only those policies are reviewed that are available, discoverable and accessible on HEIs' websites.Practical implicationsHighlighting the detrimental effect of not managing stipulations towards embargoes clearly, the findings could be useful for national/institutional policymakers and administrators of research departments, academic libraries, institutional repositories and graduate offices.Originality/valueThis is the first study to investigate rationales for TDs embargo practices. It creates awareness of how embargoes are managed and reflected in policy. Ultimately, it recommends further interrogation on how embargoes influence the principle of openness to scholarship.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-09-2022-0497.
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
学术出版物的获取和影响障碍:论文和论文禁运政策的全球研究
许多高等教育机构(HEIs)允许学生或他们的导师通过实施禁运来限制获得论文/学位论文(td)。本研究旨在确定高等教育机构(HEIs)允许禁运的原因。设计/方法/方法随机选择100所高等教育机构,代表7个地理区域。作者将禁止td的政策/指南导入到MAXQDA软件中,并对定性数据进行编码。调查结果显示,在所研究的100所高等教育机构中,有43所(43%)在网上为禁止td制定了政策/指导方针,其中大部分来自北美。对于大多数高等教育机构来说,禁运是学生/顾问自愿选择的。对32项禁运政策的内容分析表明,禁运原因(18个关键原因)可分为六大主题(商业化、出版、道德问题、资助合同/协议、安全和其他)。研究的局限/启示在本研究中,只检讨那些在高等教育院校的网站上可获得、可发现及可查阅的政策。研究结果强调了不明确管理禁运规定的有害影响,对国家/机构的政策制定者和研究部门、学术图书馆、机构资料库和研究生办公室的管理人员可能有用。原创性/价值这是第一个调查td禁运做法的理由的研究。它使人们意识到如何管理禁运并反映在政策中。最后,它建议进一步探讨禁运如何影响对学术开放的原则。同行评议本文的同行评议历史可在:https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-09-2022-0497。
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
Online Information Review
Online Information Review 工程技术-计算机:信息系统
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
16.10%
发文量
67
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The journal provides a multi-disciplinary forum for scholars from a range of fields, including information studies/iSchools, data studies, internet studies, media and communication studies and information systems. Publishes research on the social, political and ethical aspects of emergent digital information practices and platforms, and welcomes submissions that draw upon critical and socio-technical perspectives in order to address these developments. Welcomes empirical, conceptual and methodological contributions on any topics relevant to the broad field of digital information and communication, however we are particularly interested in receiving submissions that address emerging issues around the below topics. Coverage includes (but is not limited to): •Online communities, social networking and social media, including online political communication; crowdsourcing; positive computing and wellbeing. •The social drivers and implications of emerging data practices, including open data; big data; data journeys and flows; and research data management. •Digital transformations including organisations’ use of information technologies (e.g. Internet of Things and digitisation of user experience) to improve economic and social welfare, health and wellbeing, and protect the environment. •Developments in digital scholarship and the production and use of scholarly content. •Online and digital research methods, including their ethical aspects.
期刊最新文献
A contribution-based indicator of research productivity: theoretical definition and empirical testing in the field of communication Bibliometric analysis of literature on social media trends during the COVID-19 pandemic Open science policies as regarded by the communities of researchers from the basic sciences in the scientific periphery Shaming behavior in online communities: exploring a new configuration of digital conversations Who corrects misinformation online? Self-perceived media literacy and the moderating role of reflective judgment
×
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