+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The determinants of open access publishing: survey evidence from Germany

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009

          Background The Internet has recently made possible the free global availability of scientific journal articles. Open Access (OA) can occur either via OA scientific journals, or via authors posting manuscripts of articles published in subscription journals in open web repositories. So far there have been few systematic studies showing how big the extent of OA is, in particular studies covering all fields of science. Methodology/Principal Findings The proportion of peer reviewed scholarly journal articles, which are available openly in full text on the web, was studied using a random sample of 1837 titles and a web search engine. Of articles published in 2008, 8,5% were freely available at the publishers' sites. For an additional 11,9% free manuscript versions could be found using search engines, making the overall OA percentage 20,4%. Chemistry (13%) had the lowest overall share of OA, Earth Sciences (33%) the highest. In medicine, biochemistry and chemistry publishing in OA journals was more common. In all other fields author-posted manuscript copies dominated the picture. Conclusions/Significance The results show that OA already has a significant positive impact on the availability of the scientific journal literature and that there are big differences between scientific disciplines in the uptake. Due to the lack of awareness of OA-publishing among scientists in most fields outside physics, the results should be of general interest to all scholars. The results should also interest academic publishers, who need to take into account OA in their business strategies and copyright policies, as well as research funders, who like the NIH are starting to require OA availability of results from research projects they fund. The method and search tools developed also offer a good basis for more in-depth studies as well as longitudinal studies.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Should Copyright of Academic Works be Abolished?

               S Shavell (2010)

                Author and article information

                European Journal of Law and Economics
                Eur J Law Econ
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                June 2015
                February 17 2015
                June 2015
                : 39
                : 3
                : 475-503
                © 2015


                The authors discuss the results of a survey conducted in the fall of 2012 and covering 2151 researchers in Germany. From the survey it is derived that there are significant differences between the scientific disciplines with respect to researchers’ awareness of, and experience with, both open access (OA) journals and self-archiving. The results reveal that the relevance of OA within a discipline may explain why researchers from particular disciplines do (not) publish OA. Furthermore, several aspects like copyright law, age, profession or the inherent reward system of a discipline also play a role. Consequently, a “one-size-fits-all” approach, as promoted by most recent policy initiatives, is unlikely to provide an effective framework for shaping the future of scholarly publishing, as the authors conclude.

                2018-04-17 10:52 UTC

                Comment on this article