JISC

Sue Sparks, August 2005

Report summary

A report designed to help JISC understand the needs of researchers (both in terms of publishing and access) in relation to information resources, based on a web-based survey answered by 780 academics (as well as some desk research by Rightscom and research in Dr Valerie Bence’s PHD thesis. The paper also contains a long section with a detailed overview of previous literature on the subject.) It aims specifically to provide a factual basis for assumptions about differences in resources and dissemination methods between researchers in different disciplines, as well as discovering if it is as difficult as everyone thinks for those in non-textual disciplines (like drama and music) to find outlets for their research.

It was discovered that there were indeed discipline-specific problems in terms of getting access to conference proceedings, books and databases, as well as problems getting funds to travel to access resources. (These problems were mainly experienced in arts disciplines with the latter being a big problem for language researchers). The problem of access to journals was not discipline specific. Those in medicine and biological sciences reported problems in getting their results into preferred outlets. All had trouble relating to pressures of space in highly rated journals and with journals’ slowness in getting their results out there.

The report confirmed there are other differences between disciplines. Researchers in 'harder' disciplines are more likely to share material informally and collaborate than those in the arts. Journal articles are overwhelmingly important for medical and biological sciences. E-prints (pre and post) are most important in physics and engineering. Social sciences use a mix of media. Languages and “area studies” favour books.

Journals are seen by the majority as most important for Research Assessment Exercise credit – which drives momentum for publishing more journals and setting up new ones. The vast majority of researchers think that the Research Assessment Exercise skews the practice and dissemination of research.

As far as informal resources goes, asking colleagues and emailing colleagues questions remains far more popular than reading blogs and email newsletters.

Arts and performing arts scholars did not report sizeable problems with finding outlets for their research.

Researchers are confused about how to best self-archive and their copyright responsibilities if they do. The majority of respondents didn’t even know if their institution had a repository. They are also unsure of their institutional policies on self-archiving. But almost half of the physical scientists and engineers were aware of open subject archives, while nearly a third of social scientists, arts and humanities scholars and a quarter of language researchers were aware of their discipline-based repositories.

The main barriers to self-archiving appear to be lack of knowledge about how to do it and researchers feeling “too busy” when they do not see it as an important channel. (Notably, the majority in all fields still valued traditional peer review highly and did not think it was flawed as a method, which may impact on their feelings about the importance of OA).

The majority favour funding bodies mandating self-archiving.

Key points

Up to a quarter of researchers don’t know their copyright position in relation to journal articles and books and making them freely available in archives.

A number of researchers raised concerns about access to campus databases from overseas when they are travelling. (Presumably a problem that OA would help with.)

Researchers complained that: “Primary sources such as manuscripts can only be accessed by travelling; hard to fit in travel time to access primary resources around other responsibilities.”  (Again something that digital OA might help resolve)

“Open Access journals were favoured by 8% of physical and biological/medical scientists and almost the same proportion of social scientists and arts and humanities scholars. The largest proportion of those with no preference was in languages and area studies.”

Read the full report (Word)