首页> 外文期刊>LIBER Quarterly - Journal of European Research Libraries >‘Is the library open?’: Correlating unaffiliated access to academic libraries with open access support
【24h】

‘Is the library open?’: Correlating unaffiliated access to academic libraries with open access support

机译:‘图书馆是否开放?’:将开放访问支持与对大学图书馆的无联系访问相关联

获取原文
           

摘要

In the context of a growing international focus on open access publishing options and mandates, this paper explores the extent to which the ideals of ‘openness’ are also being applied to physical knowledge resources and research spaces. This study, which forms part of the larger Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative project, investigates the relationship between academic library access policies and institutional positions on open access or open science publishing. Analysis of library access policies and related documents from twenty academic institutions in Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, Africa and the United Kingdom shows that physical access to libraries for members of the public who are not affiliated with a university is often the most restricted category of access. Many libraries impose financial and sometimes security barriers on entry to buildings, limiting access to collections in print and other non-digital formats. The limits placed on physical access to libraries contrast strongly with the central role that these institutions play in facilitating open access in digital form for research outputs through institutional repositories and open access publishing policies. We compared library access policies and practices with open access publishing and research sharing policies for the same institutions and found limited correlation between both sets of policies. Comparing the two assessments using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient confirmed open access policies have a direct association with the narrow aspects of public access provided through online availability of formal publications, but are not necessarily associated (in the universities in this study) with delivering on a broader commitment to public access to knowledge. The results suggest that while institutional mission statements and academic library policies may refer to sharing of knowledge and research and community collaboration, multiple layers of library user categories, levels of privilege and fees charged can inhibit the realisation of these goals. As open access publishing options and mandates expand, physical entry to academic libraries and access to print and electronic resources has contracted. This varies within and across countries, but it conflicts with global library and information commitments to open access to knowledge.
机译:在国际上越来越关注开放获取发布选项和授权的背景下,本文探讨了“开放性”理想在多大程度上也被应用于物理知识资源和研究空间。这项研究是更大的科廷开放知识倡议项目的一部分,研究了大学图书馆访问政策与机构在开放获取或开放科学出版方面的立场之间的关系。对来自亚洲,澳大利亚,欧洲,北美,非洲和英国的20个学术机构的图书馆访问政策和相关文件的分析表明,与大学无关的公众通常对图书馆的物理访问受到最大限制访问类别。许多图书馆在进入建筑物时都设置了财务障碍,有时还会设置安全性障碍,从而限制了对印刷和其他非数字格式馆藏的访问。对图书馆进行物理访问的限制与这些机构在通过机构存储库和开放访问出版政策促进数字形式的开放获取研究成果方面所发挥的核心作用形成鲜明对比。我们将图书馆访问策略和实践与同一机构的开放访问发布和研究共享策略进行了比较,发现两组策略之间的关联性有限。使用Spearman等级相关系数比较这两个评估,可以确认开放获取政策与通过正式出版物的在线可用性提供的公共获取的狭窄方面具有直接关联,但不一定(在本研究的大学中)与提供更广泛的发布相关联对公众获取知识的承诺。结果表明,虽然机构任务声明和大学图书馆政策可能涉及知识共享,研究和社区合作,但多层图书馆用户类别,特权和收费水平可能会阻碍这些目标的实现。随着开放获取出版方式和授权范围的扩大,对大学图书馆的实物录入以及对印刷和电子资源的获取已经收缩。国家内部和国家之间的情况各不相同,但与开放获取知识的全球图书馆和信息承诺背道而驰。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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