Search results

This study aims to highlight the many distinguishing characteristics of open-access repositories that archive “Patents” in the Directory of Open-Access Repositories (OpenDOAR) provided by Asian nations.

The OpenDOAR was chosen as a data collection tool that provides a quality-assured list of repositories indexed globally. The data was extracted on 28 March 2023.

The study found that only eight Asian countries contributed to open-access repositories on OpenDOAR, with China being the highest contributor. These countries mainly focused on institutional repositories, primarily using DSpace and English as the main language interface. Web 2.0 tools, especially RSS and Atom, were commonly used, along with some presence of social media platforms on the sites, although to a lesser extent. While many repositories followed the OAI-PMH protocol, a considerable portion did not adopt open-access policies.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first one that brings to light the different features of repositories archiving one of the important content types, i.e. “Patents” in the OpenDOAR by Asian countries.

Due to the high expense of obtaining and accessing scientific research, readers with diverse financial abilities are not offered equal opportunities. This study investigates the preferences for journal access types among Arab university academics and explores the implications of publishing research articles in open access vs closed access journals in low- and lower-middle income countries.

An online survey and an in-person focus group consisting of 74 scholars from Arab institutions throughout the Arab World were conducted.

Findings show that most professors at Arab universities favour open access publication without author fees. The results also show that this method of publishing research will help these nations advance by giving all citizens equal access to information and providing researchers with a good opportunity to be read and cited, which contributes to the overall progress of science.

This topic has not been investigated yet, and it is of great importance to university professors and stakeholders in higher education institutions in the Arab world.

Access to patent-related information is facilitated in large part by repositories of patents. Additionally, patent repositories support transparency and knowledge exchange, both of which can spark new alliances and collaborations. In addition to serving as a source of inspiration for future inventions, they allow companies, researchers and inventors to look up current patents and prevent infringement. Globally, the scientific and academic communities are becoming increasingly interested in open-access repositories. Countries throughout the world have kept up their repositories because of their significance. A directory of open access repositories (OpenDOAR) is a reliable source with minimally inaccurate or dubious content, having been meticulously chosen and validated. It acts as a global registration hub, enabling the visibility and accessibility of research contributions. Hence, this study aims to look into the current status of open-access repositories for archiving “Patents”, at the global level in OpenDOAR by analysing the different characteristic features of repositories.

The advanced search strategy of the directory of open-access repositories (www.opendoar.org/) is used to extract the data. The data extraction process was carried out on 28th March 2023. The study limited its search to “Patents” only, among the different content types listed in it. A total of 253 repositories were retrieved that contained the selected content type. However, the advanced search feature was combined one by one with other available parameters to retrieve the data. The gathered data was saved in MS Excel for further analysis. Moreover, the open access policies, open archives initiative protocol for metadata harvesting (OAI-PMH) and language interface of repositories were manually looked up from each repository/record information. To present the findings, charts and tables were used to visualize the gathered data effectively.

The study shows that repositories have increased over the years, with the highest number established in 2022. The UK has emerged as the most prominent country contributing to the development of repositories for archiving patents. The majority of the repositories are institutional, and DSpace is the most commonly used software for their creation. While Web 2.0 tools are not widely used, however, a significant number of repositories have incorporated RSS feeds, Atom and social media. Open access policies play a vital role in managing the content archived in the repositories, and only a small percentage of the repositories were found to be following them. However, the majority of the repositories have shown OAI-PMH compliance. English is the most commonly preferred interface language by repositories for archiving patents. These findings suggest that there is still significant room for improvement in the development and management of repositories, and adherence to open-access policies could play a crucial role in ensuring their sustainability and usefulness in the future.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, the study is the first of its type that examines the global landscape of open-access patent repositories.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the relationship between the access mode of research articles [Open Access (OA) and Toll-Access (TA)] and their subsequent citation counts in Biological and Physical Sciences in three Impact factor zones (High, Medium and Low).

Three subjects each from Biological Sciences (Biochemistry, Cell Biology and Genetics) and Physical Sciences (Astronomy, Oceanography and Optics) were selected for the study. A comprehensive list of journals (TA and OA) in select subjects of Biological and Physical Sciences was prepared by consulting Journal Citation Report’s Master Journal List (for the compilation of both Open Access and Toll Access journal list) and Directory of Open Access Journals (for the compilation of Open Access journal list). For each journal, essential details like content language, format, year of publication, access mode (Open Access or Toll Access), etc. were obtained from Ulrich’s Periodical Directory. Web of Science (WoS) was used as citations indexing tool in this study. The data set was run on the WoS to collect the citation data.

The results of the study indicate that open mode of access is not a prerequisite for higher citation boost as in the majority of the cases in this study, TA articles have garnered a greater number of citations as compared to open access articles in different Impact factor zones in Biological and Physical Sciences.

A novel approach has been adopted to understand and compare the research impact of open access (OA) and toll access (TA) journal articles in the field of Biological and Physical Sciences at three Impact factor zone levels to reveal the citation metrics encompassing three parameters, i.e. citedness, average citation count and year wise distribution of citations in select subjects of Biological and Physical Sciences.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/[DOI]/10.1108/OIR-01-2021-0029

This paper explores the different open science policy effects on the knowledge generation process of researchers in basic sciences: biology, chemistry and physics.

This paper uses a qualitative methodology with a content analysis approach. It uses seventeen semi-directed interviews.

The main perceived effect of open science is access to research inputs, with open access, open research data and code reuse as primary sources. Another issue is the increase of collaboration with other colleagues in terms of the ability to collaborate faster and encouraging the exchange of ideas. However, this benefit does not translate to the division of labor in large transnational teams. Time spent on tasks like cleaning up data and code, scooping and other ethical issues are unfavorable aspects noted.

Policymakers could use this study to enhance current open science policies in the countries.

This study analyzes the perspectives of basic sciences researchers from two countries about open science policies. The main conclusion is the fact that open science policies should focus on the research process itself – rather than research outputs – in order to effectively tackle inequalities in science.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-03-2023-0135

The study aims to shed light on the current state of “Dataset repositories” indexed in Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR).

From each repository/record information, the Open-Access Policies, Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH), year of creation and the number of data sets archived in the repositories were manually searched, documented and analyzed.

Developed countries like the United Kingdom and the USA are primarily involved in the development of institutional open-access repositories comprising significant components of OpenDOAR. The most extensively used software is DSpace. Most data set archives are OAI-PMH compliant but do not follow open-access rules. The study also highlights the sites’ embrace of Web 2.0 capabilities and discovers really simple syndication feeds and Atom integration. The use of social media has made its presence known. Furthermore, the study concludes that the number of data sets kept in repositories is insufficient, although the expansion of such repositories has been consistent over the years.

The work has the potential to benefit both researchers in general and policymakers in particular. Scholars interested in research data, data sharing and data reuse can learn about the present state of repositories that preserve data sets in OpenDOAR. At the same time, policymakers can develop recommendations and policies to assist in the construction and maintenance of repositories for data sets.

According to the literature, there have been numerous studies on open-access repositories and OpenDOAR internationally, but no research has focused on repositories preserving content-type data sets. As a result, the study attempts to uncover various characteristics of OpenDOAR Data set repositories.

This study aims to explore browsing extension plugins for searching open scholarly literature and gain an understanding of the various available extensions, their functionalities and their benefits.

Instant retrieval of scholarly literature on the internet is challenging for any researcher due to incredibly accessible free and paid content, including various forms of resources, despite the availability of federated and discovery tools. This paper aimed to explore “Access Broker Browser extensions” available for quick retrieval of open scholarly literature. This paper explicitly explains browser extensions – Google Scholar Button, Open Access Button, Open Access Helper, Core, GetFTR and EndNote Click. Furthermore, the paper elaborated on the extension’s features, functionalities and usability in finding scholarly literature. This study found that the Google Scholar Button and GetFTR extensions seems more user-friendly, effective and easy to use on all internet browsers.

This paper identifies that the “Google Scholar Button” and “GetFTR” browser extensions are more effective than any other extensions and very user-friendly to use.

This study recommends that libraries should create awareness and provide training on access broker browser extensions for discovering scholarly open literature for learning.

The current academic publishing model, in which researchers rely significantly on multinational publishing companies to disseminate their work, has implications for knowledge enterprise both in terms of knowledge production and distribution. This study aims to provide a critical reflection on the academic publishing model and how it works, particularly in light of the rise of open access publishing and the growing analytics focus of publishing companies and discusses the impact on knowledge equity.

This exploratory essay offers a critical analysis of the impact of the current academic publishing model on research practices. The discussion provides a foundation for the argument that knowledge equity is essential to social justice.

To effectively fulfil the transformative aims of the interdisciplinary research community within social and environmental accounting, it is imperative to establish equitable access to published research.

This essay opens space for discussion of the current publishing model, given its dominance of the knowledge enterprise. It outlines some of the implications of this model for knowledge equity and suggests strategies for fostering a more inclusive and accessible dissemination of scholarly work.

This study aims to analyze the adoption of open access (OA) publishing in social sciences within central universities in India, focusing on various aspects such as the growth of OA literature, the use of different OA routes and collaboration patterns in OA publications.

Ten central universities were selected based on their rankings in the National Institute Ranking Framework 2022. Data on OA publishing in social sciences were collected from the Social Science Citation Index of the Web of Science (WoS) database using the advanced search query “(CU=India OR AD=India) AND PY=(2003–2022) NOT PY=(2023).” Data analysis was conducted using MS Excel (v16.0), BibExcel (version 2017), Biblioshiny (version 4.1.2) and Google Open Refine (version 3.7).

The study found that 30.40% of total publications were OA, with BHU as leading institute in OA publishing. OA publishing in social sciences saw a consistent increase, peaking in 2022 with 209 publications. “Sustainability” and “Plos One” were among the top ten journals, with 103 and 34 OA papers, respectively. OA publications had a higher mean citation rate than closed access publications. Collaboration with seven and nine authors had higher mean citation rates, while six-author collaborations were lower. Indian researchers received the most citations collaborating with the USA, UK and Australia. The Netherlands and Saudi Arabia received the fewer citations, when collaborating with Indian authors.

The study’s main limitation is its reliance on WoS data, excluding many OA publications from smaller or specialized journals. Additionally, the focus on high-ranked central universities may not represent the entire academic landscape, as OA publishing patterns vary across other institutions and disciplines.

The study’s findings suggest that advancing OA publishing in social sciences at Indian universities requires raising awareness of OA concepts, enhancing institutional support and policies and informing researchers about funding opportunities. Emphasizing Gold OA and funding publication fees can broaden access to research. Universities with low OA ratios should adopt similar policies, mandate public research deposits and develop technical infrastructure. Encouraging multi-author collaborations can boost research impact and citation rates. Insights from the study can help institutions and policymakers shape effective OA strategies, enhancing the visibility and impact of social science research.

This is the first study analyzing the adoption of OA in the field of social sciences in high-ranked central universities in India. It has implications for promoting OA and increasing accessibility to research outputs. Universities with higher OA ratios can lead in this regard and encourage others to adopt similar practices for overall OA growth.

It's hard to envision a system more global and more integrated than research. Many stakeholders affect and are affected by changes in the research ecosystem; the ecosystem differs in significant ways across the globe and between researchers, institutions and fields of study; and there are many questions that exclusive action can't address. There are also broad ecosystem-level questions that need answering. For these reasons alone, global approaches to reform are needed.

The first step in this exploration isn't to start looking for “solutions”, but to develop a better understanding of how our needs and interests overlap. By identifying the broad contours of common ground in this conversation, we can build the guardrails and mileposts for our collaborative efforts and then allow the finer-grained details of community-developed plans more flexibility and guidance to evolve over time.

What are these overlapping interests? First, the people in this community share a common motive – idealism – to make research better able to serve the public good. We also share a common desire to unleash the power of open to improve research and accelerate discovery; we are all willing to fix issues now instead of waiting for market forces or government intervention to do this for us; and we want to ensure that everyone everywhere has equitable access to knowledge.

There is also very broad agreement in this community about which specific problems in scholarly communication need to be fixed and why, and well as many overlapping beliefs in this community. OSI participants have concluded that four such beliefs best define our common ground: (1) research and society will benefit from open done right; (2) successful solutions will require broad collaboration; (3) connected issues need to be addressed, and (4) open isn't a single outcome, but a spectrum.

OSI has been observing and debating the activity in scholarly communication since late 2014 with regard to understanding possible global approaches and solutions for improving the future of open research. While the COVID-19 pandemic has made the importance of open science abundantly clear, the struggle to achieve this goal (not just for science but for all research) has been mired in a lack of clarity and urgency for over 20 years now, mostly stalling on the tension between wanting more openness but lacking realistic solutions for making this happen on a large scale with so many different stakeholders, needs and perspectives involved.

Underlying this tension is a fundamental difference in philosophy: whether the entire scholarly communication marketplace, driven by the needs and desires of researchers, should determine what kind of open it wants and needs; or whether this marketplace should be compelled to adopt open reform measures developed primarily by the scholarly communication system's main billpayers-funders and libraries. There is no widespread difference of opinion in the community whether open is worth pursuing. The debate is mostly over what specific open solutions are best, and at what pace open reforms should occur.

OSI has proposed a plan of action for working together to rebuild the future of scholarly communication on strong, common ground foundation. This plan – which we're referring to as Plan A – calls for joint action on studies, scholarly communication infrastructure improvement, and open outreach/education. Plan A also calls for working together with UNESCO to develop a unified global roadmap for the future of open, and for striving to ensure the community's work in this space is researcher-focused, collaborative, connected (addressing connected issues like peer review), diverse and flexible (no one-size-fits-all solutions), and beneficial to research. UNESCO's goal is to finish its roadmap proposal by early 2022.

For a full discussion of OSI's common ground recommendations, please see the Plan A website at http://plan-a.world.