LR58,9

660

Library ReviewVol. 58 No. 9, 2009pp. 660-669# Emerald Group Publishing Limited0024-2535DOI 10.1108/00242530910997946

Received 20 February 2009Reviewed 10 April 2009Revised 10 May 2009Accepted 20 May 2009

Open access initiatives adoptionby Nigerian academics

Samuel C. Avemaria UtuluRUN Library, Redeemer’s University, Redemption City, Nigeria, and

Omolara BolarinwaMedical Library, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine Nigerian academics’ adoption of open accessinitiatives as authors and readers of scholarly resources. The study was necessitated by the growingneed to have the number of Nigerian scholarly publications increased on the internet and accessibleto scholars around the world through the use of open access initiatives.Design/methodology/approach – Academics of two first generation Nigerian universities selectedusing convenient sampling technique were surveyed using the questionnaire to find out the extent oftheir awareness and use of open access initiatives as authors and readers of scholarly works. Twohundred and fifty questionnaire copies were distributed in the two universities out of which 189copies were returned, while 180 copies were found to be useable for the study.Findings – It was revealed that the respondents were aware of the pre-print and open access journalinitiatives than the post-print initiative. In terms of the use of open access initiatives, although thestudy revealed insignificant use among the academics, academics in sciences showed more promiseof adopting open access initiative as authors and readers of scholarly resources than theircounterparts in the humanities.Research limitations/implications – Unlike studies that assessed specific subject based andinstitutional repositories that allowed for the search and extraction of depositors’ names andcharacteristics, this particular study relied on respondents’ responses as a source of their actual use ofopen access repositories.Originality/value – This paper reveals that academics’ perception and publishing culture, and notawareness, determines the extent of their use of open access initiatives in Nigeria.

Keywords Serials, Nigeria, Information services, Academic staff

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe major concern raised in this paper is how research contents emanating fromNigeria can be increased on the internet and made accessible to other scholars throughthe adoption of open access initiatives by Nigerian academics. As experienced throughthe years, researches carried out in Africa and on African subjects are disseminatedusing only the paper media that are less effective and efficient than electronic systemsand the internet in dissemination. African academics as readers of scholarly papershave been reported to have had access to limited scholarly publication produced inAfrica. It has also been reported that Nigerian academics who have authored valuableand relevant scholarly papers have had limited visibility and impact in the globalacademic circle (Nwagha, 1980; Arunachalam, 2003; Alemna, 2005; Aina, 2005 andSmart, 2005). Even with the proliferation of electronic scholarly information systems,Nigeria and the whole of Africa still lag behind. Major internet-based scholarlyinformation databases are mostly run by western countries, which leaves Africa withless than 4 percent of internet content.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0024-2535.htm

The contributions of Bidemi Durosaro of the Department of Actuarial Sciences, Redeemer’sUniversity are acknowledged.

Open accessinitiativesadoption

661

Good examples of this scenario are the E-LIS repository for library and informationprofessionals and Emerald evaluation of authorship in Africa. At present the overallcount of information deposited in E-LIS is put at 8,663. Of this number, Africadeposited 58 (58, 0.7 percent), with 37 emanating from South Africa, that is, 63.8percent of Africa’s deposit. Nigeria on the other hand has deposited only eight that is,13.8 percent of Africa’s deposit (ELIS, 2008). Similarly, Emerald reported that only 2.16percent of authors that got their works published by Emerald 2008 were based inAfrica at the time their works were published (Foster et al., 2008). This by all standardsis very small when compared with scholarly activities going on in Africa and Nigeria inparticular as exemplified by the numbers of journal published by Nigerian academics.Example of Africa’s scholarly activities can be drawn from the African Journal Online(AJOL) where Nigeria has the highest number of journals published in the continent.AJOL lists 331 African journals out of which 138, that is 41.7 percent, are published inNigeria (AJOL, 2008). Mabawonku (2005) also listed 16 LIS journals published inNigeria, a number which is more than the number published by other West AfricanCountries put together. It may be said therefore, that the problem of limited Nigerianresearch content in the internet is not as a result of limited research activities, butpublishing culture, extent of availability of computer and internet technologies,perception, interest and awareness among others.

Earlier research by Antleman (2004) revealed factors that determine the adoption ofopen access initiatives as follows: existing scholarly publication culture, scholars’perception of electronic publishing and availability of a persuading mechanism to takeup new electronic publishing models. Considering Antleman’s revelation, it becomesnecessary to assess factors that determine the extent to which Nigerian academics areadopting open access initiatives and since the need to have access to researchemanating from Nigeria in the internet through the open access initiatives cannot beover emphasized. This is due to the unprecedented ways these initiatives have openedup the documentation and dissemination of scholarly publications. Antleman (2004)has proved how articles published in open access journals have more academic impactthan those published in paper journals. Crow (2002) has also documented the economicimpact of open access initiative to scholarly publishing.

In the light of this, this research assessed Nigerian academics’ adoption of openaccess initiatives in their quest to carryout their roles as authors and as readers ofscholarly papers. Basic factors that were evaluated were their awareness and useof open access initiatives, first as authors, and secondly as readers of scholarlypublications. Hence, this study found out the status of awareness and actual utilizationof open access initiatives among Nigerian academics.

AssumptionThe study assumes that the extent of Nigerian academics’ adoption of open accessinitiatives is not as a result of lack of basic computer and internet technologies andnon-awareness but as a result of lack of flair for open access initiatives.

Literature reviewThe serials crisis which began in the 1970s and reached its crescendo in the 1980sresulted to the evolution of the open access movement. Before the call for open accessinitiatives, Nigeria, like other African countries, has approached the challenges of theserials crisis with the adoption of the CD-ROM technology (Salanje, 1995; Chesinga,1995; Oketunji, 2000; Mosuro, 2000; Obajemi et al., 2004 and Igbeka and Okpala, 2004).

LR58,9

662

In the same vein, the improvement and proliferation of computer technology and theinvention and eventual publicizing of the internet provided a more economicalapproach to solving the problems associated with the distribution and use of scholarlyinformation. Various studies like Omagbemi et al. (2004), Ehikhamenor (2003a, 2003b)have appraised and reported how the internet has been used by Nigerian academics toharness their information needs. With the resulting increase in the commercializationof scholarly information available in the internet, academic libraries in Nigeria startedfacing another level of serials crisis. This meant that Nigeria, and other Africacountries that could not afford paid-access to journals in the internet had to look elsewhere.

Recently, the open access movement provides Nigeria and the whole of Africa anopportunity to freely use and disseminate scholarly information. Theoretically, openaccess initiatives have been described as scholarly communication models thatpromote making scholarly works and publications freely available on the internet tothe global academic community without any form of restriction resulting frompayment, geographical location, belief, or creed. Bjork (2004) put forward that openaccess ‘‘means that a reader of a scientific publication can read it over the internet, printit out and even further distribute it for non-commercial purposes without anypayments or restriction p3.’’ Extracting key concepts from declarations in Budapest,Bethesda and Berlin, Willinsky (2006), Broody and Harnad (2005) and Harnad et al.(2004) have all defined open access initiatives. Moed (2007) however, recognized thatopen access comes in many forms, either through open access journals, or electronicpublication that freely make available academic resources irrespective of if they havebeen published before, that are deposited through self-archiving, by the authors ortheir representatives in personal home pages, institutional repositories and subject-based repositories.

Irrespective of how open access initiative is represented above, its practicalapplications have not been as easy as it sounds. Literature has provided variouschallenges that besiege the adoption of open access initiatives among academicsaround the world either as authors or as users. Papin-Ramcharan and Dawe (2006) forexample presented the benefits of open access publishing to the developing world, butwent further to call for the amelioration of challenges that hampers its smoothadoption. Similarly, Frandsen (2009) postulated that irrespective of the fact that openaccess journals production and influence are growing in the science fields, the non-science fields have found it much more difficult to adopt them. Using multivariatelinear regression his study found differences in the integration of open access journalsin citation practices across fields and media. Xia (2008) endeavoured to evaluate theinfluence of disciplinary culture of depositing scholarly works in subject-basedrepositories and the eventual deposition in institutional repository. His study found outthat there is no correlation between disciplinary culture of past use of subject-basedrepository and the present practice of self-archiving in institutional repository. In otherwords, academics that have used subject-based repositories did not resort to usinginstitutional repositories when they were introduced in their universities.

Similar to the position above is Jantz and Wilson’s (2008) evaluation of selectedinstitutional repositories to find out the extent to which faculty has deposited intothem. They found out that faculty participation is low or non-existent in about one-third of the institutional repositories evaluated. The background of Jantz and Wilson’sstudy was based among other factors on studies carried out by Ferguson (2006),Thompson et al. (2006) and Foster (2004), which warned academic librarians not to

Open accessinitiativesadoption

663

absolutely rely on the perceived benefits of institutional repositories as mechanism tosalvage the problems associated with the distribution and access to research contents.Apart from academics’ interests and deposition rates, respectability is also a majordraw back that affects the growth and adoption of open access initiatives amongacademics (Royster, 2008 and Papin-Rancharan and Dawe, 2006). In Royster’s words:‘‘Online electronic publication does suffer from a relative lack of respectability. It issometimes difficult to achieve the type of recognition that the materials merit.’’ Davisand Connolly (2007) also pointed to the effect of lack of reward to academics thatpublished or deposited in pre-prints servers.

Also, various studies that have considered the economic implications and impact ofopen access initiatives exist in the literature. Arguments have been raised particularlyabout how open access publishing can use free and/or voluntary services to cuts costs(Crow, 2002). Recent arguments favor cutting publishing cost through accessing fundsfrom institutions, organizations and individuals who fund research. Universities arealso been called upon to intensify their contributions and funds to the growth of theopen access initiative (Mill et al., 2007). Also, scholars and practitioners have workedon developing better economic models to justify the cost effectiveness of the openaccess initiative. Clarke (2007) for instance, presents cost profiles of electronic journalpublishing that attempted to develop sustainable cost management and justificationfor open access initiatives. His study actually proved that open access publishing ismore economical than paper-based publishing.

However, research on open access initiatives in Nigeria is meager. Nwagwu (2005)and Dennis (2007) was the only research available to the authors as at the time of thisstudy. Library and information science scholars in Nigeria have not started consideringlooking the way of open access initiatives in their studies. This may have resulted fromthe fact that none of the 94 universities in Nigeria has an institutional repository andother open access initiative outlets. Scholars may be aware of open access initiatives asa result of their exploration of the internet for scholarly information and through theiracademic libraries. Considering this, this research was carried out to start off apreliminary evaluation of Nigerian academics adoption of open access initiatives.

MethodologyAcademic staff members of two first generation universities in Nigeria were studied:University of Ibadan (UI) established in 1948 and University of Lagos (UNILAG)established in 1962. The two universities were chosen using the convenient samplingtechnique, with the expectation that they would present a platform to have a first handassessment of the adoption of open access initiatives by academics in Nigerianuniversities. In 2005 there were about 1,120 academic staff members in UI, whileUNILAG had 1,104 staff members (NUC, 2006). In effect, the two universities had 2,224academic staff members. We have assumed, based on observed trends in academic staffemployment and retirement in Nigerian federal universities, a 1.5 percent increase inthese statistics between 2005 and 2008 when this study was carried out. The method ofdata collection adopted for this study is the questionnaire. The questionnaire wasdesigned to collect qualitative data, which were used to evaluate the awareness and useof open access initiatives. Consequently, 250 questionnaire copies were distributed inthe two universities, 189 responded, amounting to 75.6 percent response rate, while 180questionnaire copies were found usable. This represented 8 percent of the assumedpopulation of academic staff in the two universities studied.

LR58,9

664

LimitationsThe study was carried out to find out Nigerian academics adoption of open accessinitiatives as authors and readers of scholarly publications. Unlike other studies thatstudied specific subject-based repositories and institutional repositories that allowedfor the search of depositors’ names and characteristics directly from the repositories,this particular study relied on respondents responses as a source of their actual use ofopen access repositories. This then means that the accuracy of respondents’ responsesdetermined the nature of their use of open access initiatives reported in this study. Thishowever, did not reduce the validity and reliability of this study since questionnairesare also valid instrument for the analysis of the kind of subject treated in this study.Another point to consider here is that this study only expressed the perception ofacademics and not institutions (research institutes, universities and publishers) thatalso play very crucial role in the provision of a platform for the use of open accessinitiatives.

Data presentation and analysisDemographic dataEighty four (46. 7 percent) of the respondents were from UI, while 93 (51.7 percent) werefrom Unilag. 3 (1.7 percent) did not indicate the university they were affiliate with.Based on assumed research experience respondents may have acquired, AssistantLecturers and Lecturer II cadres were considered as junior cadre while Lecturer I SeniorLecturers and Professors were considered as senior cadre. Consequently, academics inLecturer I, Senior Lecturer and professorial cadres constituted 52.1 percent of therespondents, while academics in assistant lecturership and Lecturer II positionsconstituted 43.4 percent of the respondents.

Furthermore, the respondents were categorized into two large academic disciplines:sciences and humanities. Sciences cover basic and natural science engineering andtechnology, while humanities cover arts, management, social sciences and law. Thiswas as a result of the fact that a thorough break down of disciplines into smaller(faculties or departments) units is not necessary for this preliminary study. In this way105 (58.3 percent) of the respondents were academics in the sciences, while 72 (40.0percent) were academics in the humanities. 3 (1.7 percent) did not indicate theiracademic fields. The respondents’ gender analysis showed that only 51 (28.3 percent) ofthe respondents were females while 126 (70.0 percent) were males. 3 (1.7 percent) didnot indicate their gender Table I.

Awareness and use of open access initiativesTable II presents data on respondents’ level of awareness of pre-prints, post-prints andopen access journals. A significant percentage of the respondents claimed that they

Table I.Distribution ofrespondents by theiracademic cadre

Academic cadres Number Percentage

Assistant Lecturer 66 36.7Lecturer II 12 6.7Lecturer I 63 35.0Senior Lecturer 24 13.3Professors 6 3.8

Total 180 100.0

Open accessinitiativesadoption

665

were aware of pre-prints and open access journals, but those who claimed that theywere aware of post-prints were less than half, (48.3 percent) of the respondents. Aquarter of them (26.7 percent) asserted that they do not have adequate knowledgeabout the post-print initiative.

With regards to the use of open access initiatives, only 54 (30 percent) of therespondents have deposited their scholarly works as pre-prints, 42 (23.3 percent) havedeposited their scholarly works as post-prints, while 63 (35.0 percent) have publishedtheir papers in open access journals. Also, about 78 (43.3 percent) respondents haveconsidered publishing in open access journals. Seventy two (40.0 percent) havedownloaded and used pre-prints and post-prints from subject-based repositories, while84 (46.7 percent) have used academic papers published in open access journals. Thelow usage recorded above is consistent with Utulu (2008) earlier study of academics useof electronic research information resources in Nigerian private universities. Thisthen gives a strong indication that Nigerian academics in both pubic and privateuniversities have not started using open access initiative for the dissemination of theirresearch meaningfully.

Cross tabulationsThe cross tabulation that follows was based on expressing the awareness of openaccess initiatives (n) as percentage of the total number of respondents in the fields ofsciences and humanities (N ). Table III showed that the awareness of pre-prints amongthe respondents in both sciences and humanities was significant. On the other hand,respondents’ awareness of post-print is at the average among academics in both thefields of sciences and humanities. Awareness of open access journals was more amongacademics in the humanities than their science counterparts.

The cross-tabulation of respondents’ academic field with the extent to which theyhave deposited contents into open access initiative outlets showed that despite the factthat both fields did not have significant contribution, that respondents in science-based

Table II.Distribution of

respondents awarenessof open access initiatives

Open accessI am

awareI am not

awareI am

against it

Noadequate

knowledgeabout theinitiative

Noresponse Total

initiatives No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Pre-prints 117 65.0 33 18.3 15 8.3 9 5.0 6 3.4 180 100.0Post-prints 87 48.3 39 21.7 6 3.3 48 26.7 – – 180 100.0Open accessjournals 108 60.0 30 6.7 15 8.3 27 15.0 – – 180 100.0

Table III.Cross-tabulation of

respondents’ academicfields and their

awareness of openaccess initiatives

Awareness ofpre-prints

Awareness ofpost-print

Awareness of openaccess journals

Fields n N % n N % n N %

Science 69 105 65.7 51 105 48.6 57 105 54.3Humanities 48 72 66.6 36 72 50.0 48 72 66.6

LR58,9

666

disciplines deposited their works in open access outlets more than those in art-baseddisciplines. This revelation is in line Frandsen (2009), Table IV.

DiscussionIT facilities (computers and internet) ownershipWith regards to awareness and use of open access resources among Nigerianacademics, it became clear that even though a significant percentage of therespondents were aware of pre-prints and open access journals, they did not matchtheir awareness with eventual use of pre-prints and open access journals as authorsand readers of scholarly publications. Field (sciences and humanities)-based evaluationshowed that respondents in the two fields were aware of open access initiatives. On theother hand, it was the actual use of the open access initiatives that recorded significantnon-use, but with academics in the sciences showing increased willingness to use openaccess initiatives as author and readers. Intrinsically, their awareness of post-print isinsignificant and this may be as a result of copyright requirements of paper-basedjournals which most Nigerian academics are familiar with. It actually seems muchmore difficult to think about ‘‘publishing’’ elsewhere an already published scholarlywork. The fact that 26.7 percent of the respondents claimed that they do not haveadequate knowledge of post-prints means that the limited use of the post-printinitiative may be as a result of lack of adequate knowledge on its practicability.

Considering the revelation in this study, open access adoption either as authors orreader still suffers major set back among Nigerian academics. Irrespective their levelof awareness, the actual use of open access outlets as medium of publishing anddissemination of research is still not encouraging. In other word, awareness was notmatched with actual use either as authors or as readers of scholarly works. Openaccess journals recorded a higher percentage of use irrespective of the fact that itrecorded a lower percentage of awareness among the respondents. A cumulativepercentage of the respondents who have actually used open access journals to publishtheir papers and those intending to do so is put at 135 (75.0 percent). The use of openaccess journals more than pre-/post-prints may be connected with their acceptance andvalue as formal scholarly dissemination outlets. Institutions in Nigeria are beginning toaccept publications in open access journals for rewards and as scholarly contributionsto the formal web of knowledge. This strongly points to the fact that with time openaccess journals use may become popular among Nigerian academics.

ConclusionThe study concludes that the initial assumption that the extent of Nigerian academics’adoption of open access initiatives is not as a result of lack of basic computer andinternet technologies and non-awareness but as a result of lack of flair for open accessinitiatives, is correct. Having faced the challenges that the nation’s universities facedduring the serial crisis, Nigerian librarians have become used to the challenges ofadapting to new initiatives in order to make themselves relevant in the cycle of

Table IV.Cross-tabulation ofrespondents’ academicfields and depositionof papers in openaccess outlets

Pre-prints Post-prints Open access journalsFields n N % n N % n N %

Science 39 105 37.1 33 105 31.4 48 105 45.7Humanities 15 72 20.8 9 72 12.5 12 72 16.6

Open accessinitiativesadoption

667

research and university education management. With this in mind, the extent of use ofopen access initiatives as currently experienced in the Nigerian university environmentshould be taken up as the next challenge by Nigerian academic librarians. Issues to beconsidered primarily should be a thorough education of academics and the generaluniversity community, especially university management teams, on the important andadvantages of the open access initiative. Considering the revelation in this study, whatNigerian universities need is awareness which will allow management at all levelsdevelops policies and plans to accommodate the adoption of the open access initiatives.Such plans might include the harnessing external support from universities that havedeveloped open access initiatives to advanced stages and encouraging open accessmovement to come and mount awareness and training programs in Nigeria to helpincrease the current level of use. This will aid technology transfer and knowledgeexchange which will in turn reduce cost and speed up the processes of adopting theopen access initiatives. If this can be done, Nigerian academics will not only be able toaccess research emanating from among them, they will also have the opportunity tomake other academics around the world to have access to the vast knowledge beingproduced within the country’s university sector.

References

Aina, L. (2005), ‘‘The impact and visibility of Nigerian-based scholarly journals in theinternational scholarly community’’, in Aina, L.O., Alemna, A. and Mabawonku, I. (Eds),Improving the Quality of Library and Information Science Journals in West Africa: A StakeHolders Conference, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, 7-8 December, pp. 81-92.

AJOL (2008), List of African Journals by Country, available at: www.ajol.info/browse-journals.php?z¼z&tran¼0&order¼g (accessed 15 December).

Alemna, A. (2005), ‘‘Improving international visibility of journals’’, in Aina, L., Alemna, A. andMabawonku, I. (Eds), Improving the Quality of Library and Information Science Journals inWest Africa: A Stake Holders Conference, University of Ibadan, 7-8 December, pp. 75-80.

Antleman, K. (2004), ‘‘Do open access articles have a greater research impact?’’, College andResearch Libraries, Vol. 65 (September Issue), pp. 372-82.

Arunachalam, S. (2003), ‘‘Information for research in developing countries-informationtechnology, a friend or foe?’’, International Information and Library Review, Vol. 35,pp. 133-47.

Bjork, B. (2004), ‘‘Open access to scientific publications – an analysis of the barriers to change?’’,Information Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, paper 170, available at: http://informationR.net/ir/9-2/paper170.html (accessed 14 July 2005).

Broody, T. and Harnad, S. (2005), Keynote Lecture: Providing Open Access to Peer-reviewedArticles to Maximize and Measure their Research Impact, available at: www.oal.unizh.ch/symposium/docs/Harnad.ppt (accessed 25 December 2008).

Chesinga, J. (1995), ‘‘The status of information technology in Zambian Libraries’’, African Journalof Library, Archival and Information Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 11-17.

Clarke, R. (2007), ‘‘The cost profile of alternative approaches to journal publishing’’, FirstMonday, Vol. 12 No. 12, 3 December, available at: www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2048/1906 (accessed 30 December 2008).

Crow, R. (2002), ‘‘The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper’’, available at:www.arl.org/sparc/IR/IR_Final_Release_102.pdf (accessed 17 December 2005).

Davis, P. and Connolly, J. (2007), ‘‘Institutional repository: evaluating the reasons for non use ofCornell University’s Installation of DSpace’’, D-Lib Magazine, Vol. 13 Nos. 3/4, available at:www.dlib.org/dlib/march07/dvis.html

LR58,9

668

Dennis, A. (2007), ‘‘The impact of open access movement on medical based scholarly publishingin Nigeria’’, First Monday, Vol. 12 No. 10, available at: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_10/dennis/index.html

Ehikhamenor, F. (2003a), ‘‘Internet resources and productivity in scientific research in NigerianUniversities’’, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 107-16.

Ehikhamenor, F. (2003b), ‘‘Internet facilities: use and non-use by Nigerian University Scientists’’,Journal of Information Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-48.

ELIS (2008), List of E-print Deposit by Countries, available at: http://eprints.rclis.org/view/countries/ (accessed 15 December).

Ferguson, A. (2006), ‘‘Black talk: institutional repositories wars and dream field to which too feware coming’’, Against the Grain, April.

Foster, A. (2004), ‘‘Papers wanted!’’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, June.

Foster, K., Heppenstall, R., Lazarz, C. and Broug, E. (2008), Emerald Academy 2008 Authorship inAfrica, available at: http://info.emeraldinsight.com/pdf/report.pdf (accessed 3 January2009).

Frandsen, T. (2009), ‘‘The integration of open access journals in the scholarly communicationsystem: three science fields’’, Information Processing and Management, Vol. 45, pp. 131-41.

Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallier, F., Hitchcock, S. and Gingras, Y. (2004), ‘‘The green and the goldroad to open access’’, Nature (Web Focus), available at: www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/21.html (accessed 25 December 2008).

Igbeka, J. and Okpala, A. (2004), ‘‘Analyses and patterns of CD-ROM database use in KennethDike Library, University of Ibadan, Nigeria’’, The Information Technologist, Vol. 1 Nos. 1/2,pp. 39-50.

Jantz, R. and Wilson, M. (2008), ‘‘Institutional repositories: faculty deposits, marketing, and thereform of scholarly communication’’, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 34 No. 3,pp. 186-95.

Mabawonku, I. (2005), ‘‘Quality assurance of library and information science journals publishedin Nigeria: a critical overview’’, in Aina, L.O., Alemna, A. and Mabawonku, I. (Eds),Improving the Quality of Library and Information Science Journals in West Africa: A StakeHolders Conference, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, 7-8 December, pp. 19-34.

Mill, M., Esterhay, R. and Thornewill, J. (2007), ‘‘Using a Tetradic network technique and atransaction cost economic analysis to illustrate an economic model for an open accessmedical journal’’, First Monday, Vol. 12 No. 10, 1 October, available at: www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/1964/1840 (accessed 30 December 2008).

Moed, H. (2007), ‘‘The effect of open access upon citation impact: an analysis of ArXiv condensedmatter section’’, Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology,Vol. 58 No. 13, pp. 2047-54.

Mosuro, T. (2000), ‘‘Potential impact of new technology on libraries and the library user’’, inAjibola, B. and Tiamiyu, M. (Eds), Library Automation for the Information Age (Concepts,Technologies and Strategies), Center for Leveraging Information for Productivity, Ibadan.

NUC (2006), ‘‘Getting better quality teachers (in the right quantity) for the Nigerian Universitysystem’’, NUC Monday Memo, 20 February.

Nwagha, G. (1980), ‘‘Barriers to the accessibility of scientific journals in Nigeria’’, InternationalLibrary Review, Vol. 12, pp. 201-7.

Nwagwu, W. (2005), ‘‘The open access movement: interrogating IT’s potentials for insertingafrican in the global scientific information chain’’, Ibadan Journal of the Social Sciences,Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 41-54.

Open accessinitiativesadoption

669

Obajemi, A., Ogunyande, T. and Nwoye, E. (2004), ‘‘Assessment of CD-ROM usage in academicand research libraries in Nigeria: a case study’’, The Information Technologist, Vol. 1Nos. 1/2, pp. 17-24.

Oketunji, I. (2000), ‘‘Application of information technologies in Nigerian libraries: problems andprospects’’, in Fayose, P. and Nwalo, K. (Eds), Information Technology in Library andInformation Science Education in Nigeria, National Association of Library andInformation Science Educator (NALISE), Ibadan, pp. 7-20.

Omagbemi, C., Akinola, B. and Olayiwola, I. (2004), ‘‘Academic libraries, the internet and itspotential impact on teaching and learning in Nigerian Tertiary Institution’’, Journal ofLibrary and Information Science, Vol. 1 Nos. 1/2, pp. 34-46.

Papin-Ramcharan, J. and Dawe, R. (2006), ‘‘Open access publishing: a developing country view’’,First Monday, Vol. 11 No. 6, 6 June, available at: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_6/papin/index.html (accessed 30 December 2008).

Royster, P. (2008), ‘‘Publishing original content in an institutional repository’’, Serial Review, Vol. 34No. 1, pp. 27-30.

Salanje, G. (1995), ‘‘CD-ROM technology in libraries and information units in developingcountries’’, African Journal of Library, Archival and Information Science, Vol. 5 No. 1,pp. 1-8.

Smart, P. (2005), ‘‘African Journal Online (AJOL)’’, Serials Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 261-5.

Thompson, S., Holms-Wong, D. and Brown, J. (2006), Institutional Repositories: Beware the Fieldof Dreams Fallacy.

Utulu, S. (2008), ‘‘Information technology and web use characteristics of Nigerian PrivateUniversities’’, African Journal of Library, Archival and Information Science, Vol. 18 No.2,pp. 119-30.

Willinsky, J. (2006) The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship,MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Xia, J. (2008), ‘‘A comparison of subject and institutional repositories in self-archiving practices’’,The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 489-95.

Further reading

Adeogun, M. (2006), ‘‘The challenges of a modern tertiary education system: paradigm shifts foreducators and information professionals in Sub-Saharan Africa’’, African Journal ofLibrary, Archival and Information Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 45-52.

Gbaje, E. (2002), ‘‘Use of internet facilities by teaching staff of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria’’,The Information Technologist, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 47-57.

Guedon, J.-C. (2004), ‘‘The ‘green’ and ‘gold’ roads to open access; the case for mixing andmatching’’, Serials Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 315-28.

Morris, S. (2004), ‘‘Open access: how are publishers reacting?’’, Serials Review, Vol. 30 No. 4,pp. 304-7.

Corresponding authorSamuel C. Avemaria Utulu can be contacted at: utulus@run.edu.ng

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints