Factors influencing the adoption and use of open access scholarly communication among researchers in India

Abstract

PurposeThe present study aims to examine the use of open access (OA) scholarly communication in India and investigate the factors affecting the adoption and use of OA scholarly communication among researchers.Design/methodology/approachThe study adopted a quantitative research approach using a survey method. Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) of Web of Science database was selected as a source for identifying potential researchers and researchers' contact details. A web-based questionnaire was designed using Google Forms, and a link to the questionnaire was sent by email to 4,237 researchers belonging to Science and Technology. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) is the primary basis for formulating the present study's conceptual model. Hierarchical multiple regression (HMR) was applied for identifying the factors that influence the adoption and use of OA scholarly communication.FindingsThe study found that researchers have limited knowledge of different OA concepts, initiatives and resources, resulting in a deficient level of participation in OA publishing. The HMR analysis authenticates that attitude, facilitating conditions, Internet usage self-efficacy, article processing charge (APC) and researchers' working experience significantly influence the adoption and use of OA scholarly communication. Based on the findings, the study proposed a validated model to investigate the adoption and use of OA scholarly communication in different institutions, research disciplines and developing countries with similar conditions.Practical implicationsThe findings have several practical and policy implications for improving OA publishing in India, formulating OA policies and providing directions for further research.Originality/valueThis is the first study focusing on adopting and using OA scholarly communication in India. Findings may be helpful in planning and implementing OA initiatives. The influencing factors and the relative importance identified in the present study offered empirical evidence to demonstrate the researchers' attitudes and perceptions for adopting and using OA scholarly communication.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-05-2021-0265.

Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review

“…Lack of awareness of publishing in OA venues and publication fees were the key challenges faced by authors. In a survey of science and technology researchers in India, high APCs were cited as the most significant barriers to OA publishing (Nazim & Ashar, 2022).…”

A Bibliometric Analysis of the Trends and Themes of Using Institutional Repositories to Manage Research Data

“…Apart from that Amanullah & Abdullah, (2023) carry out a study related to research data management carried out by academic libraries in Malaysia. In addition, the studies conducted by (Nazim & Ashar, 2023 ;Baro & Nwabueze-Echedom, 2023 ;Clarke & Kim, 2023) highlight the specifics of the establishment and growth of the institutional repository in research regions including Africa, Nigeria, and the United States.…”

The ecosystem of research tools for scholarly communication

“…Through this extrapolation, this research observes that the main users of research tools for scholarly communication are university teachers, researchers in social sciences and economics, followed by life sciences and medicine, researchers in Europe and researchers who are in the mid and late stages of their careers. Furthermore, this research reveals several areas where research tools for scholarly communication are underutilized (Nazim and Ashar, 2022), such as protocol sharing in the analysis phase, data archiving in the publication phase, multimedia sharing in the outreach phase and peer review in the assessment phase. Moreover, this research indicates that though most research tools are either modern or innovative, the presence of experimental tools is virtually nonexistent, signaling a lack of continuous improvement and innovation.…”