Purpose -A survey of University of Kashmir scholars was undertaken in 2008 to ascertain their experience, attitudes and perceptions about the open access (OA) movement. The purpose of this paper is to report the survey's findings. Design/methodology/approach -The study was based on data collected from scholars belonging to the Science and Social Science faculties at the University of Kashmir. A pre-defined, closed-ended, 14-item questionnaire was distributed among 84 research scholars. The selection of scholars was based on stratified disproportionate sampling in which the sample size for the departments of both faculties was confined to four scholars, as only four research scholars were enrolled in the Department of Psychology. Findings -The majority of the scholars consulted both open access as well as library-subscribed resources. Of OA resource users, four-fifths consulted journals and two-fifths consulted books. Colleagues (57.14 per cent) were the main referral sources of OA awareness with the least intervention from library professionals. Scholars (95.23 per cent) retrieved OA content via search engines. About 21 per cent remarked above 60 per cent relevancy of OA content related to their research need. The majority of scholars considered OA useful to publish their work quickly, boost their productivity as an author and increase citations of their work. One third reported awareness of more than two OA journals. About 30 per cent reported OA journals as a source of publishing their work, whereas just 10 per cent deposited their works in OA repositories. Overall, Science scholars had the edge over their Social Science counterparts in acceptance of open access.Research limitations/implications -The research highlights the viewpoints of only 84 scholars out of 326 registered scholars in the fields of Sciences and Social Sciences at the University of Kashmir. Originality/value -Research of this kind has not been carried out before at the University of Kashmir. The paper discusses open access awareness among the researchers of the University of Kashmir with recommendations for information professionals and teaching faculty to acquaint researchers with the benefits of open access.
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to provide an overview of open access (OA) repositories that have embraced Web 2.0 technologies. The main focus of the paper is to explore the occurrence of Web 2.0 tools used in the open repositories. Design/methodology/approach – Repositories having English as one of the interface/content languages and indexed in Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR) were selected and analyzed under different parameters. Findings – A total of 1,499 open access repositories having English as one of the interface/content languages (75.82 percent of total OA repositories) are developed from 81 nations and only 61 countries have most of their repositories Web 2.0 enabled. About 57 percent (804) repositories make use of Web 2.0 tool/s, 43 percent (608) have yet to avail benefits of Web 2.0 tools while 5.8 percent remain inaccessible (87) during the study period. Though the USA leads in terms of OA repositories, the percentage of Web 2.0 enabled repositories is higher for the UK (75.27 percent) as compared to the USA (51.08 percent). Really Simple Syndication (RSS), a syndication tool, is found in the majority of repositories (736, 91.54 percent) followed respectively by Social Bookmarking and ATOM (syndication tool) in 228 and 160 repositories Research limitations/implications – Repositories have to develop a more productive Web 2.0 outlook in order to converge with an interactive learning model. A follow-up study can explore the use of Web 2.0 tools in open access repositories. The impact of Web 2.0 tools on the associated activities of the users as well as repository administrators can also be carried on. How Web 2.0 tools have helped to improve the services of the repositories and how they have influenced the information seeking behavior of users in the open access repositories can also be researched. Originality/value – The research is the first of its kind and can act as an opener to the issues related to use of Web 2.0 in open repositories.
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the author self-citation behavior in the field of Library and Information Science. Various factors governing the author self-citation behavior have also been studied. Design/methodology/approach – The 2012 edition of Social Science Citation Index was consulted for the selection of LIS journals. Under the subject heading “Information Science and Library Science” there were 84 journals and out of these 12 journals were selected for the study based on systematic sampling. The study was confined to original research and review articles that were published in select journals in the year 2009. The main reason to choose 2009 was to get at least five years (2009-2013) citation data from Web of Science Core Collection (excluding Book Citation Index) and SciELO Citation Index. A citation was treated as self-citation whenever one of the authors of citing and cited paper was common, i.e., the set of co-authors of the citing paper and that of the cited one are not disjoint. To minimize the risk of homonyms, spelling variances and misspelling in authors’ names, the authors compared full author names in citing and cited articles. Findings – A positive correlation between number of authors and total number of citations exists with no correlation between number of authors and number/share of self-citations, i.e., self-citations are not affected by the number of co-authors in a paper. Articles which are produced in collaboration attract more self-citations than articles produced by only one author. There is no statistically significant variation in citations counts (total and self-citations) in works that are result of different types of collaboration. A strong and statistically significant positive correlation exists between total citation count and frequency of self-citations. No relation could be ascertained between total citation count and proportion of self-citations. Authors tend to cite more of their recent works than the work of other authors. Total citation count and number of self-citations are positively correlated with the impact factor of source publication and correlation coefficient for total citations is much higher than that for self-citations. A negative correlation exhibits between impact factor and the share of self-citations. Of particular note is that the correlation in all the cases is of weak nature. Research limitations/implications – The research provides an understanding of the author self-citations in the field of LIS. readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study. Originality/value – Readers are encouraged to further the study by taking into account large sample, tracing citations also from Book Citation Index (WoS) and comparing results with other allied subjects so as to validate the robustness of the findings of this study.
Self-citation behaviour of authors affiliated to an institution was Statistically positive correlation is observed between number of co-authors and number of self-citations (p<.01). Inter-institutional collaborative works attract more self-citations than works of intra-institutional efforts (p<.01). Significant positive correlation exists between authors' productivity and share of self-citations (p<.01). Regarding the currency of selfcitations, authors tend to cite more of their recent works than the works of others. Articles published in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) indexed sources have more number of self-citations than articles published in JCR excluded sources (p<.01).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.