Repositories and journals: are they in conflict? A literature review of relevant literature

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to bring together information on whether any evidence exists of a commercial conflict between the creation of digital archives at research institutions and by key subject centres of excellence, and the business of journal publishing.

Design/methodology/approach

Relevant publications, including articles published in refereed books and journals, as well as informal commentaries on listservs, blogs and wikis, were analysed to determine whether there is any evidence of a commercial relationship.

Findings

Most of the published comments are highly subjective and anecdotal – there is a significant emotional overtone to many of the views expressed. There is precious little hard evidence currently available to support or debunk the idea that a commercial conflict exists between repositories and journal subscriptions. The situation is made more difficult by the many technological, sociological and administrative changes that are taking place in parallel to the establishment of repositories.

Practical implications

Separating the key drivers and their impact is a major strategic challenge facing all stakeholders in the scholarly communication industry in future.

Research limitations/implications

This is an important area which requires close monitoring – the possible threat that the established journal publishing system could be eroded away by a new “free” scholarly information system needs attention. One significant study in this area is being undertaken by the PEER group, funded by the European Commission with hard evidence being collected by UCL's CIBER research group. The results from this impartial investigation will be very welcome.

Originality/value

The paper shows that relationship between repositories and journal subscriptions is vague.

Citation

Brown, D.J. (2010), "Repositories and journals: are they in conflict? A literature review of relevant literature", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 112-143. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012531011034955