...
首页> 外文期刊>Insights >Swedish researchers’ responses to the cancellation of the big deal with Elsevier
【24h】

Swedish researchers’ responses to the cancellation of the big deal with Elsevier

机译:瑞典研究人员对与elestvier取消大量大量的回应

获取原文
           

摘要

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.
机译:2018年,瑞典图书馆联盟Bibsam决定取消与elestvier的大量订阅。许多研究人员(n = 4,221)让他们的声音在关于取消后果的调查中听到。几乎三分之一(n = 1,241)选择将自由文本响应留给调查问题'是有什么想添加的吗?'。对这些响应的内容分析导致了六个主题,从而绘制了三个主要结论。首先,研究人员中没有共识,无论取消是否为善恶。有利于取消的最常见的论据是原则。取消取消最常见的争论是它损害了研究人员和研究。三分之一的自由文本响应表示对取消的矛盾,通常是想要改变当前出版制度之间并同时遭受取消后果之间的冲突。原则上的公开访问的一般支持揭示了一个有缺陷的出版制度,因为大多数人都会在实践中发表在PayWalls背后的着名期刊上发布的压力。其次,由于他们对高等教育机构和图书馆联盟的持续工作有限,研究人员难以取消取消或取消取消。最后,有迹象表明,取消使研究人员反映开放式访问,并在某种程度上通过选择版权许可和出版渠道来改变其出版模式。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号