Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the difference between Open Access and accessibility, to argue that accessibility is the most crucial feature, and to suggest some ways in which Open Access militates against accessibility.

Analysis of best practice by journals and monograph publishers is used to highlight the degree to which accessibility is enhanced by input from readers and editors. The expense of this, both real and hidden, is shown to be compatible only with difficulty with publishing methods where keeping costs low is essential, and Open Access alternatives that make available manuscripts “as submitted” are shown to make available less accessible scholarship.

Scholarship is markedly improved by referees and editors; the emphasis needs to be put on making available the most accessible scholarship, not on making more scholarship available.

Journals and publishers should concentrate on, and research councils and similar bodies insist upon, ensuring high quality critical review and editing, not cost-free access.

The debate on Open Access has put its emphasis in the wrong place. Rather than easier access to more scholarship, increased resource devoted to pre-publication review, revision and editing is the most important development to ensure the greatest advances in research and scholarship.

The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of the current state of debates surrounding Open Access (OA) in non-STEM disciplines.

This paper uses a selective literature review and discussion methodology to give a representative summary of the state of the art.

Non-STEM disciplines persistently lag behind scientific disciplines in their approach to OA, if the teleology towards open dissemination is accepted. This can be attributed to a variety of economic and cultural factors that centre on the problem of resource allocation with respect to quality.

This paper will be of value to policymakers, funders, academics and publishers. The original aspect of the paper pertains to the identification of an anxiety of irrelevance in the humanities disciplines and a focus on “quality” in Open-Access publishing debates.

Today an estimated 500,000 personal computers have been purchased by Americans who use them at home and in a variety of small business applications. (Note: We define a personal computer as a small, relatively inexpensive, microprocessor‐based device which can be taken out of its box, plugged in and begin working immediately, as opposed to large computers which must be permanently installed, and/or require professional programming. We exclude microprocessor‐based devices whose only function is limited to the playback of packaged games.) Many market research services believe that personal computer sales will continue to grow rapidly, perhaps as fast as a 50 percent annual growth rate for the next several years. The impact of this new interactive information technology coming into the possession of perhaps millions of people can only be guessed at at this early juncture. To us, as librarians, one of the more perceivable results of the growing wave of interest in personal computers has been the proliferation of literature addressed to the personal computer user.

The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss the effects of the introduction of lean into healthcare workplaces, phenomena that have not been widely investigated.

The paper draws on discussions and findings from the literature. It seeks to bring the few geographically dispersed experiences and case studies together to draw some conclusions regarding lean’s negative effects.

Two recurring themes emerge. The first is there is little evidence of Lean’s impact on work and the people who perform it. The literature therefore suggests that we understand very little about how work conditions are changed and how Lean’s negative effects arise and may be managed in healthcare workplaces. A second observation is that Lean’s effects are ambiguous. For some Lean seems to intensify work, while for others it leads to improved job satisfaction and productivity. Given this variety, the paper suggests a research emphasis on Lean’s socio-cultural side and to derive more data on how work and its processes change, particularly in the context of healthcare team-working.

The paper concludes that without improved understanding of social contexts of Lean interventions its value for healthcare improvement may be limited. Future research should also include a focus on how the work is changed and whether high-performance work system practices may be used to offset Lean’s negative effects.