Open Access Publishing

English: Open Access logo and text
Open Access logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As an embryonic researcher, I am following the debate about open access with some interest. Within academic publishing, open access means free access to peer-reviewed scholarly research. Open access is facilitated by the internet and by the resultant change in reading habits and use of databases.

As observed by Renear and Palmer, during the last 30 years scientists have almost doubled the number of scientific papers read per year. Meanwhile, the time spent reading each article has decreased from 48 minutes to just over 30 minutes (Renear and Palmer, 2009). So, reading habits are changing – no longer do researchers traipse to the library to pore over heavy volumes of various journals. Instead, much of journal reading is done online, encouraged by the use of excellent citation managers and biblographic databases, as discussed in my previous blog post Using Referencing Software. Is open access the way to support this evolution and encourage rigorous, broad and extended research?

Benefits of Open Access

Open access enables the general public to engage with current research. Access to the evidence supporting political and scientific argument in the form of research articles is key. One of the most positive examples of this is the case of Jack Andraka, a boy who used Google Scholar to access journal articles. Aged 15, Jack used his research to develop an early test for pancreatic cancer that allegedly has the potential to save many lives. This story may or may not be true, given the dearth of peer-reviewed papers around the discovery. However, the truth of this one story does not reduce possibilities for new and unexpected disoveries. Open access can potentially encourage a wider audience and so elicit different perspectives and insights.

Members of the public have the right to have access to the research that, in many cases, is funded by their taxes. This right is accepted and even explicitly promoted by ethical boards such as BERA, whose guidelines state that “researchers have a responsibility to seek to make public the results of their research for the benefits of  educational professionals, policy makers and a wider public understanding of educational policy and practice” (2011, p.10). Public understanding is a goal of research and so public availability of research articles is the right of the public and the responsibility of the research community.

University libraries cannot possibly subscribe to every journal out there. Equally, researchers, especially poverty-stricken postgraduates such as myself, cannot pay for all the articles within their sphere of interest that are published outside their library’s subscriptions. Perhaps that article, although investigating from a different perspective or within a different context or epistemology, could inspire and improve the quality of my research. The ability to reference and build upon other’s research is one of the major motivations for open access.

Challenges of Open Access

Perhaps the major potential drawback to open access is that of funding. If the financial burden of publishing is shifted from the reader to the research community, money may be diverted from funding research to funding publication. Some stakeholders argue that this is potentially more devastating in fields with lower funding such as many of the social sciences (Meadows, 2014). However, given the prohibitive costs universities already pay in subscription fees, this deficit may not cause such a shortfall as predicted.

Another potential drawback is the possible reduction of reliability. Universities have a vested interest in their faculty being published and so it is argued that internal peer-review may be less rigorous than that conducted by independent publishers. This may indeed be true, if for no other reason than it is harder to critically review someone that you know and admire (especially if they sit further up the career ladder). Anonymity is not possible in the same way as for traditional peer-review. However, a potential alternative is that of crowd-sourcing peer review, such as that described by Cohen (2010). Crowd-sourcing would retain anonymity, encourage breadth of reviewers and of commentary. A parallel can be seen in fan fiction sites and other creative writing web platforms – critical commentary is encouraged and (often) acted upon. So, while there is a danger to independent review by encouraging open access, there are alternatives that can promote independence, breadth and interaction with non-traditional reviewers.

I leave you with a final thought – I have butted heads with one or two teachers about making resources such as worksheets available on iTunes U, TES and the like. Their argument is that they put a lot of time into their resources and why should anyone else be able to waltz in and use them? Is the quality of their teaching is in any way diminished by sharing resources? No. What excellent resources or ideas have they gained from other teachers’ sharing? Lots. I feel the same way towards academic research as I do towards teaching practice and resources. No man is an island, entire of himself – we need to share and grow as a community rather than working as isolated individuals.

Bibliography

BERA (2011) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. Available at:  http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/Ethical%20Guidelines [Accessed: 2 Jan 2014]

Cohen, P (2010) Scholars Test Web Alternative to Peer Review Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/arts/24peer.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0 [Accessed: 2 Jan 2014]

Meadows, A. (2014) A Brighter Future for the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences?. The scholarly kitchen, [blog] 2nd January, Available at: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/01/02/a-brighter-future-for-the-arts-humanities-and-social-sciences/ [Accessed: 2 Jan 2014].

Renear, A. H., & Palmer, C. L. (2009). Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing. Science, 325(5942), 828–832. doi:10.1126/science.1157784

Using referencing software

I recently discussed with other PhD candidates the use of bibliographic software such as EndNote or Zotero. They were all of the opinion that a well-organised thesis should not need software to keep track of the referencing. They also felt that learning how to use it would take time better spent doing other things. I disagree with both opinions.

People no longer mention word-processing skills or digital literacy on CV’s because it is, to a large extent, assumed. It is vital to remain au fait with current technologies in your career field, whether or not it is an explicitly technological field. In fact, I would argue that it is a professional responsibility to have a working knowledge of the most common tools. So, in any field of research, it is important to learn at least one referencing software and preferably more, in the same way as it is important to learn methodological tools or understand different epistemologies within your field. Therefore, in pursuing a career path in research, I would argue that it is short-sighted not to learn the functions and possibilities of referencing software.

Professional researchers are reading an increasing number of research articles per year (Tenopir and King, 2001), possibly due to the facilitation of online journals and databases. Conversely, while the overall time spent reading articles has increased, the time allocation per article is decreasing (Renear and Palmer, 2009). It is therefore ever more important that researchers (even amoebic ones like myself) work smart – reference management software is easy, quick and gives instant returns in time saved.

Instead of copying and pasting bit by bit every salient detail of the authors, journal, publication date, doi etc., you click a button and that information is automatically stored for you. Many of the reference managers will also download a pdf of the source and connect it with the citation information also by that one click. Then, when writing your thesis, you just type in the first few letters of the author into the add-ins box (if you are using Word) and like magic the appropriate citation appears in the format of your choice.

Many of the software packages store the library remotely, so you can access your library from any computer or tablet. This is incredibly convenient if, like me, you have family in other countries and don’t want to lug a laptop through security, if you want to get some work done on the train, or if you just have several different devices. You can also choose to share your library with someone else – for example your supervisor or a reading group.

For me, however, one of the most appealing aspects of using reference management software is the ability to add your own tags and notes connected to the citation information. These can then be used to call up all the articles relevant to, for example, ‘argumentation’ or ‘psycholinguistics’ and so on. I have also used this capacity as a useful way of ranking articles. I add a tag that says ‘rank 1’ if I feel it is incredibly useful, persuasive and relevant to my research. Conversely, a ‘rank 5’ will be something I consider as mostly un-useful, unconvincing or irrelevant. Again, this means that when writing my literature review I can recall the most relevant and important research according to my own classification.

In summary; the benefits of using reference management software are:

  1. speed – it is much quicker to create a citation using software than manually
  2. convenience – rather than transferring or emailing a document with all your citations, the software will store it for you
  3. organisation and annotation – tagging and making notes easy and connected to citations
  4. professional development – if everyone around you is using it, you most certainly need to be too (and many universities offer training in their favoured software – MIT has a good comparison of the major software packages ).

The only drawback to reference management software, as far as I can see, is the one proposed by my colleagues – learning it in the first place. If you are a student, you are there to learn, so this is part and parcel of that process. If you are a researcher, you are still invested in the learning process, so the motivation to learn and develop should still be present.

Go forth and love your referencing software!

Bibliography

Renear, A. H., & Palmer, C. L. (2009). Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing. Science, 325(5942), 828–832. doi:10.1126/science.1157784

Tenopir, C., & King, D. (2001). The use and value of scientific journals: past, present and future. Serials: The Journal for the Serials Community, 14(2), 113–120.