The engagement of academic libraries in open science: A systematic review

Liu, Li; Liu, Wenyun

doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102711

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This paper also utilized the PRISMA 2020 checklist to guide its structure, covering the title, abstract, objectives, methods, results, and discussion, thereby ensuring a structured and thorough exploration of the field [42,43]. Library and information science (LIS) researchers have recently adopted this methodology for conducting systematic reviews of the scholarly literature [44][45][46][47].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, a study may mention that its findings had implications for practice or future research but failed to specify what these implications were or did not clearly propose specific directions for future research, thus making the provided information considered unclear. Researchers in the fields of education and LIS also utilize these scoring options to assess the quality of studies to be included in systematic reviews, providing additional support and rationale for the selection of this scoring method [45,47,61,62]. According to the checklist, each article could attain a score from 0 to 10 points.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the concluding stage of the assessment, articles achieving a score of 7 points or more, indicating a 70% compliance rate or higher, were identified as meeting the required standard for inclusion. The selection of 70% as the eligibility threshold for inclusion was based on the baseline established by a previous systematic review study on academic libraries using the same quality assessment checklist [47]. In contrast, studies falling short of this benchmark were deemed to have indeterminate validity and were consequently omitted from the final selection to ensure the rigor of the research quality, as guided by the assessment criteria.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Quality Management in Chinese Academic Libraries: A Systematic Review

Hu,

Moro-Cabero,

De-La-Mano

2024

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With global digital transformation and higher education evolution, academic libraries are enhancing their information and knowledge management practices. This study responds to this trend by identifying quality management (QM) models discussed and implemented in Chinese academic libraries, as well as by examining the enablers and challenges associated with QM planning and implementation. A systematic review was executed adhering to the PRISMA guidelines to critically appraise the relevant literature from five international and Chinese scholarly databases. Out of 435 initial records, 52 studies were included based on the established inclusion criteria and quality assessment benchmarks. The results revealed that Chinese academic libraries were increasingly integrating international QM models, including ISO 9000, TQM, and EFQM. This integration was driven by six enablers: four external enablers, including the introduction of QM, government support, technological advancements, and quality assessment practices; and two internal enablers, including developmental needs and cultural emphasis on educational excellence. However, these libraries also encountered six challenges in this process: three external challenges, including rapid industrial evolution, deficiency in comprehensive evaluation indicators, and rigorous ISO audits; and three internal challenges, including resistance to change, insufficiency of motivation for improvement, and inequitable distribution of resources. The findings of the current research could deepen the theoretical understanding of the enablers and challenges of QM in academic libraries from both external and internal dimensions. These findings could also support library management, higher education institution leaders, and policymakers in developing sustainable QM strategies for libraries in China and other countries.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality Management in Chinese Academic Libraries: A Systematic Review

Hu,

Moro-Cabero,

De-La-Mano

2024

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In both open access and the delivery of research data management services academic libraries have played a central role from early on (Marcum & George, 2009;Okerson & O'Donnell, 1995). A systematic review by Liu and Liu (2023) Making knowledge open and accessible is a core ideal in the library, and there is great potential in supporting researchers in making their activities more open and accessible. The goal from our point of view is not only to disseminate new knowledge (communicating science), but also to help demonstrate in practice how research is conducted (communicating research), even by bringing data collection into the library or the library into the data collection.…”

Section: Open Research Librarianshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Library's Changing Role in Supporting Music Research: Part of the special collection on MusicLab Copenhagen.

Sørbø,

Good,

Bergstrøm

et al. 2023

Music & Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The widespread use of digital tools to access scientific literature and other relevant information combined with a shift towards Open Research is changing how research is conducted and academic libraries are adapting their research support services to respond to this change. In this paper, we present the case of MusicLab, and especially MusicLab Copenhagen – Absorption with The Danish String Quartet, which served as a mechanism for the University of Oslo Library to test how it can support researchers in developing Open Research practices. MusicLab is a collaboration between the University of Oslo Library and the University of Oslo's Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Rhythm, Time and Motion. Through this case, we outline the role of the research library in supporting Open Research including the different legal and data management issues occurring when conducting open research on intellectual works and people. The insights from this paper will be useful for other academic libraries looking to expand their research support services and for researchers looking to further develop their Open Research practices.

show abstract

Can the principle of the ‘right to be forgotten’ be applied to academic publishing? Probe from the perspective of personal rights, archival science, open science and post‐publication peer review

Teixeira da Silva,

Nazarovets

2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we reflect on how the principle of the ‘right to be forgotten’ (RTBF), specifically the right to erasure as enshrined in Article 17 (and to some extent Art. 19 and Art. 21) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR; Regulation (EU) 2016/679), or the right to delete undesirable, unflattering or reputation‐damaging archived records of oneself from search engines or databases, might apply to academic publishing. In particular, we focus on archival (library and information) science, post‐publication peer review, and reflect on whether RTBF is compatible with open science principles. Even though RTBF became enshrined in EU law in 2018, its trans‐Atlantic export to the United States faces resistance because it is seen as being incompatible with First Amendment rights. We ponder the pertinence of the debate regarding local versus global applicability of RTBF when considering the transnational nature of some collaborative research. Although RTBF applies broadly to search engines such as Google, we question whether authors have this right and also whether publishers are subjected to this law with respect to science databases, or even ‘local’ (i.e., publisher‐controlled) archives, especially in the light of retractions or withdrawals, in which data and files are removed from a preprint or journal's website or, in extreme cases, where all or most bibliometric information is scrubbed clean, as in the case of ‘silent retractions’. We extend our reflections further to appreciate whether authors or editors are entitled to RTBF in extreme instances of misconduct or fraud. The fundamental right to privacy and personal choice, as is suggested by (or enshrined in) RTBF, is not—in our view—compatible with several principles related to the integrity of data and information, or even their preservation, and may be diametrically opposed, depending on the situation. We encourage wider debate on this budding pertinent issue as a fundamental aspect of academic rights and freedoms.

show abstract

The engagement of academic libraries in open science: A systematic review

Cited by 10 publications

References 56 publications

Quality Management in Chinese Academic Libraries: A Systematic Review

Quality Management in Chinese Academic Libraries: A Systematic Review

The Library's Changing Role in Supporting Music Research: Part of the special collection on MusicLab Copenhagen.

Can the principle of the ‘right to be forgotten’ be applied to academic publishing? Probe from the perspective of personal rights, archival science, open science and post‐publication peer review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About