Worldwide inequality in access to full text scientific articles: the example of ophthalmology

Boudry, Christophe; Álvarez-Muñoz, Patricio; Jorge, Ricardo Arencibia; Ayena, Didier; Brouwer, Niels J.; Zia, Chaudhuri; Chawner, Brenda; Epée, Emilienne; Errais, K.; Fotouhi, Akbar; Gharaibeh, Almutez; Hassanein, Dina H.; Herwig‐Carl, Martina C.; Howard, Katherine; Kaimbo, D. Kaimbo Wa; Laughrea, Patricia A.; López, Fernando Manuel; Machin-Mastromatteo, Juan D.; Malerbi, Fernando Korn; Ndiaye, P. D.; Noor, Nina Asrini; Pacheco‐Mendoza, Josmel; Papastefanou, Vasilios P.; Shah, Mufarriq; Shields, Carol L.; Wang, Ya Xing; Yartsev, V.D.; Mouriaux, Frédéric

doi:10.7717/peerj.7850

Cited by 33 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, accessing free online material is a popular means of accessing literature for both groups. These findings are expected, given the critical role of access in influencing information-seeking behaviour (Connaway et al, 2011) and the prevalence and necessity of informal and alternative routes of access in countries with poor access to literature, such as India (Gaulé, 2009;Boudry et al, 2019). It also reflects a previous study that found openaccess literature to be the most important source of information among conservation practitioners as well as university and non-university researchers in low-middle income countries (Gossa et al, 2015).…”

Section: Information Pathways and Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 58%

Peer Review #1 of "Access to scientific literature by the conservation community (v0.1)"

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Access to the scientific literature is perceived to be a challenge to the biodiversity conservation community, but actual level of literature access relative to needs has never been assessed globally. We examined this question by surveying the constituency of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a proxy for the conservation community, generating 2,285 responses. Of these respondents, ~97% need to use the scientific literature in order to support their IUCN-related conservation work, with ~50% needing to do so at least once per week. The crux of the survey revolved around the question, "How easy is it for you currently to obtain the scientific literature you need to carry out your IUCN-related work?" and revealed that roughly half (49%) of the respondents find it not easy or not at all easy to access scientific literature. We fitted a binary logistic regression model to explore factors predicting ease of literature access. Whether the respondent had institutional literature access (55% do) is the strongest predictor, with region (Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and gender (male) also significant predictors. Approximately 60% of respondents from Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have institutional access compared to ~50% in Asia and Latin America, and ~40% in Eastern Europe and in Africa. Nevertheless, accessing free online material is a popular means of accessing literature for both those with and without institutional access. The four journals most frequently mentioned when asked which journal access would deliver the greatest improvements to the respondent's IUCN-related work were Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, Nature, and Science. The majority prefer to read journal articles on screen but prefer to read books in hard copy. Overall, it is apparent that access to the literature is a challenge facing roughly half of the conservation community worldwide.

show abstract

Section: Information Pathways and Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 58%

Peer Review #1 of "Access to scientific literature by the conservation community (v0.1)"

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, accessing free online material is a popular means of accessing literature for both groups. These findings are expected, given the critical role of access in influencing information-seeking behaviour ( Connaway, Dickey & Radford, 2011 ) and the prevalence and necessity of informal and alternative routes of access in countries with poor access to literature, such as India ( Gaulé, 2009 ; Boudry et al, 2019 ). It also reflects a previous study that found open-access literature to be the most important source of information among conservation practitioners as well as university and non-university researchers in low-middle income countries ( Gossa, Fisher & Milner-Gulland, 2015 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Access to scientific literature by the conservation community

Larios

Brooks

Macfarlane

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Access to the scientific literature is perceived to be a challenge to the biodiversity conservation community, but actual level of literature access relative to needs has never been assessed globally. We examined this question by surveying the constituency of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a proxy for the conservation community, generating 2,285 responses. Of these respondents, ∼97% need to use the scientific literature in order to support their IUCN-related conservation work, with ∼50% needing to do so at least once per week. The crux of the survey revolved around the question, “How easy is it for you currently to obtain the scientific literature you need to carry out your IUCN-related work?” and revealed that roughly half (49%) of the respondents find it not easy or not at all easy to access scientific literature. We fitted a binary logistic regression model to explore factors predicting ease of literature access. Whether the respondent had institutional literature access (55% do) is the strongest predictor, with region (Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and sex (male) also significant predictors. Approximately 60% of respondents from Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have institutional access compared to ∼50% in Asia and Latin America, and ∼40% in Eastern Europe and in Africa. Nevertheless, accessing free online material is a popular means of accessing literature for both those with and without institutional access. The four journals most frequently mentioned when asked which journal access would deliver the greatest improvements to the respondent’s IUCN-related work were Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, Nature, and Science. The majority prefer to read journal articles on screen but books in hard copy. Overall, it is apparent that access to the literature is a challenge facing roughly half of the conservation community worldwide.

show abstract

“…However, accessing free online material is a popular means of accessing literature for both groups. These findings are expected, given the critical role of access in influencing information-seeking behaviour (Connaway et al, 2011) and the prevalence and necessity of informal and alternative routes of access in countries with poor access to literature, such as India (Gaulé, 2009; Boudry et al, 2019). It also reflects a previous study that found open-access literature to be the most important source of information among conservation practitioners as well as university and non-university researchers in low-middle income countries (Gossa et al, 2015).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Access to Scientific Literature by the Conservation Community

Larios¹,

Brooks²,

Macfarlane³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

13Access to the scientific literature is perceived to be a challenge to the biodiversity conservation 14 community, but actual level of literature access relative to needs has never been assessed 15 globally. We examined this question by surveying the constituency of the International Union for 16 Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a proxy for the conservation community, generating 2,285 17 responses. Of these respondents, ~97% need to use the scientific literature in order to support 18 their IUCN-related conservation work, with ~50% needing to do so at least once per week. The 19 crux of the survey revolved around the question, "How easy is it for you currently to obtain the 20 scientific literature you need to carry out your IUCN-related work?" and revealed that roughly 21 half (49%) of the respondents find it not easy or not at all easy to access scientific literature. We 22 fitted a binary logistic regression model to explore factors predicting ease of literature access.23

show abstract

Worldwide inequality in access to full text scientific articles: the example of ophthalmology

Cited by 33 publications

References 36 publications

Peer Review #1 of "Access to scientific literature by the conservation community (v0.1)"

Peer Review #1 of "Access to scientific literature by the conservation community (v0.1)"

Access to scientific literature by the conservation community

Access to Scientific Literature by the Conservation Community

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About