• LOGIN
    Login with username and password
Repository logo

BORIS Portal

Bern Open Repository and Information System

  • Publications
  • Theses
  • Research Data
  • Projects
  • Organizations
  • Researchers
  • More
  • Collections
  • Statistics
  • LOGIN
    Login with username and password
Repository logo
Unibern.ch
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review [version 2].

Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review [version 2].

Details
Files
DOI
10.7892/boris.144573
Publisher DOI
10.12688/f1000research.17328.2
PubMed ID
32399178
Abstract
Background: Many of the discussions surrounding Open Access (OA) revolve around how it affects publishing practices across different academic disciplines. It was a long-held view that it would be only a matter of time before all disciplines fully and relatively homogeneously implemented OA. Recent large-scale bibliometric studies show, however, that the uptake of OA differs substantially across disciplines. We aimed to answer two questions: First, how do different disciplines adopt and shape OA publishing practices? Second, what discipline-specific barriers to and potentials for OA can be identified? Methods: In a first step, we identified and synthesized relevant bibliometric studies that assessed OA prevalence and publishing patterns across disciplines. In a second step, and adopting a social shaping of technology perspective, we studied evidence on the socio-technical forces that shape OA publishing practices. We examined a variety of data sources, including, but not limited to, publisher policies and guidelines, OA mandates and policies and author surveys. Results: Over the last three decades, scholarly publishing has experienced a shift from "closed" access to OA as the proportion of scholarly literature that is openly accessible has increased continuously. Estimated OA levels for publication years after 2010 varied between 29.4% and 66%. The shift towards OA is uneven across disciplines in two respects: first, the growth of OA has been uneven across disciplines, which manifests itself in varying OA prevalence levels. Second, disciplines use different OA publishing channels to make research outputs OA. Conclusions: We conclude that historically rooted publishing practices differ in terms of their compatibility with OA, which is the reason why OA can be assumed to be a natural continuation of publishing cultures in some disciplines, whereas in other disciplines, the implementation of OA faces major barriers and would require a change of research culture.
Date Issued
2020-04-24
Publication Type
Article
Subject(s)
600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health
300 Social sciences, sociology & anthropology > 360 Social problems & social services
Subjects
Communication Technologies Meta-Synthesis Open Access Open Science Publishing Scholarly Communication Science Policy Scientometrics
Language(s)
en
Author(s)
Severin, Anna  orcid-logo
Institut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin (ISPM)  
Egger, Matthias  orcid-logo
Institut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin (ISPM)  
Eve, Martin Paul
Hürlimann, Daniel
Additional Credits
Institut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin (ISPM)  
Journal
F1000Research
Publisher
F1000 Research Ltd
ISSN
2046-1402
Access(Rights)
Unknown
Show full item
BORIS Portal
Bern Open Repository and Information System
Build: 0eaa7c [ 7.08. 11:06]
Explore
  • Projects
  • Funding
  • Publications
  • Research Data
  • Organizations
  • Researchers
  • Audiovisual Material
  • Software & other digital items
  • Events
More
  • About BORIS Portal
  • BORIS Portal & Open Science
  • Send Feedback
  • Cookie settings
  • Service Policy
Follow us on
  • Mastodon
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
UniBe logo
Repository logo COAR Notify