瑞典研究人员对取消与爱思唯尔的大交易的回应

IF 1.1 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Insights-The UKSG Journal Pub Date : 2020-11-11 DOI:10.1629/uksg.521
Lisa Olsson, C. Lindelöw, Lovisa Österlund, Frida Jakobsson
{"title":"瑞典研究人员对取消与爱思唯尔的大交易的回应","authors":"Lisa Olsson, C. Lindelöw, Lovisa Österlund, Frida Jakobsson","doi":"10.1629/uksg.521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2018, the Swedish library consortium, Bibsam, decided to cancel big deal subscriptions with Elsevier. Many researchers (n = 4,221) let their voices be heard in a survey on the consequences of the cancellation. Almost a third of them (n = 1,241) chose to leave free-text responses to the survey question ‘Is there anything you would like to add?’. A content analysis on these responses resulted in six themes and from these, three main conclusions are drawn. First, there is no consensus among researchers on whether the cancellation was for good or evil. The most common argument in favour of the cancellation was the principle. The most common argument against cancellation was that it harms researchers and research. A third of the free-text responses expressed ambivalence towards the cancellation, typically as a conflict between wanting to change the current publishing system and simultaneously suffering from the consequences of the cancellation. The general support for open access in principle reveals a flawed publishing system, as most feel the pressure to publish in prestigious journals behind paywalls in practice. Second, it was difficult for researchers to take a position for or against cancellation due to their limited knowledge of the ongoing work of higher education institutions and library consortia. Finally, there are indications that the cancellation made researchers reflect on open access and to some extent alter their publication pattern through their choice of copyright licence and publication channel.","PeriodicalId":44531,"journal":{"name":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Swedish researchers’ responses to the cancellation of the big deal with Elsevier\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Olsson, C. Lindelöw, Lovisa Österlund, Frida Jakobsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1629/uksg.521\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 2018, the Swedish library consortium, Bibsam, decided to cancel big deal subscriptions with Elsevier. Many researchers (n = 4,221) let their voices be heard in a survey on the consequences of the cancellation. Almost a third of them (n = 1,241) chose to leave free-text responses to the survey question ‘Is there anything you would like to add?’. A content analysis on these responses resulted in six themes and from these, three main conclusions are drawn. First, there is no consensus among researchers on whether the cancellation was for good or evil. The most common argument in favour of the cancellation was the principle. The most common argument against cancellation was that it harms researchers and research. A third of the free-text responses expressed ambivalence towards the cancellation, typically as a conflict between wanting to change the current publishing system and simultaneously suffering from the consequences of the cancellation. The general support for open access in principle reveals a flawed publishing system, as most feel the pressure to publish in prestigious journals behind paywalls in practice. Second, it was difficult for researchers to take a position for or against cancellation due to their limited knowledge of the ongoing work of higher education institutions and library consortia. Finally, there are indications that the cancellation made researchers reflect on open access and to some extent alter their publication pattern through their choice of copyright licence and publication channel.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44531,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Insights-The UKSG Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Insights-The UKSG Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.521\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Insights-The UKSG Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.521","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

2018年,瑞典图书馆联盟Bibsam决定取消与爱思唯尔的大额订阅。许多研究人员(n=4221)在一项关于取消的后果的调查中发出了自己的声音。近三分之一的受访者(n=1241)选择对调查问题“有什么你想补充的吗?”留下免费文本回复。对这些答复的内容分析产生了六个主题,并从中得出三个主要结论。首先,研究人员对取消是好事还是坏事还没有达成共识。赞成取消的最常见论点是原则。反对取消的最常见的论点是,它损害了研究人员和研究。三分之一的自由文本回复表达了对取消的矛盾心理,通常是希望改变当前出版系统与同时承受取消后果之间的冲突。原则上对开放获取的普遍支持揭示了一个有缺陷的出版系统,因为在实践中,大多数人都感受到了在付费墙后面的著名期刊上发表文章的压力。其次,由于研究人员对高等教育机构和图书馆联盟正在进行的工作了解有限,他们很难对取消持赞成或反对的立场。最后,有迹象表明,这一取消使研究人员反思开放获取,并在一定程度上通过选择版权许可证和出版渠道改变了他们的出版模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Swedish researchers’ responses to the cancellation of the big deal with Elsevier
In 2018, the Swedish library consortium, Bibsam, decided to cancel big deal subscriptions with Elsevier. Many researchers (n = 4,221) let their voices be heard in a survey on the consequences of the cancellation. Almost a third of them (n = 1,241) chose to leave free-text responses to the survey question ‘Is there anything you would like to add?’. A content analysis on these responses resulted in six themes and from these, three main conclusions are drawn. First, there is no consensus among researchers on whether the cancellation was for good or evil. The most common argument in favour of the cancellation was the principle. The most common argument against cancellation was that it harms researchers and research. A third of the free-text responses expressed ambivalence towards the cancellation, typically as a conflict between wanting to change the current publishing system and simultaneously suffering from the consequences of the cancellation. The general support for open access in principle reveals a flawed publishing system, as most feel the pressure to publish in prestigious journals behind paywalls in practice. Second, it was difficult for researchers to take a position for or against cancellation due to their limited knowledge of the ongoing work of higher education institutions and library consortia. Finally, there are indications that the cancellation made researchers reflect on open access and to some extent alter their publication pattern through their choice of copyright licence and publication channel.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Insights-The UKSG Journal
Insights-The UKSG Journal INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
The missing link: the quality of UK local and national online media coverage of research The Twitter accounts of scientific journals: a dataset EvenUP: a case study of building cross-publisher collaboration on Equity, Diversity, Inclusivity and Belonging Indispensable or unnecessary?: a data-driven appraisal of post-cancellation access rights Open access at a crossroads: library publishing and bibliodiversity
×
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