aljernig.files.wordpress.com · web viewscholarly communication: a study of the needs and...

Scholarly Communication: A Study of the Needs and Concerns of Faculty in the UNC System

Action Research Project

LIS 600 – Dr. Hersberger

Amy Leanne Jernigan

April 4, 2011

Scholarly Communication 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………..3

Defining the Problem…………………………………………………………………………3-6

The Rise of the Electronic Journal and the Serials Crisis……………………………………………….4 Traditional versus Open Access Publishing…………………………………………………………4-5 Implications for Libraries…………………………………………………………………………..5 Research Questions………………………………………………………………………...……5-6 Predictions and Expectations…………………………………………………………………….....6

Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………….7-10

Level of Awareness of a Crisis………………………………………………………………………7 Level of Satisfaction within the Discipline…………………………………………………………….8 Motivation to Publish…………………………………………………………………………….8-9 Thoughts on Open Access Publishing……………………………………………………………..9-10 Perceptions of the Academic Library……………………………………………………………….10

Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………11-12

Sample Selection………………………………………………………………………………...11 Survey Coverage………………………………………………………………………………...12

Findings……………………………………………………………………………………...13-19

Research Question 1: Level of Awareness of a Crisis…………………………………………………13 Research Question 2: Level of Satisfaction within the Discipline……………………………………….14 Research Question 3: Motivation to Publish……………………………………………………...15-16 Research Question 4: Thoughts on Open Access Publishing………………………………………..17-18 Research Question 5: Perceptions of the Academic Library……………………………………………19

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………20

Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………..21-27

Appendix A: Survey Instrument………………………………………………………………..21-24 Appendix B: Comments Table…………………………………………………………………25-27

Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………………..28


INTRODUCTION

Scholarly communication has long been a concern for academic librarians, but has been a subject of growing concern in recent years as it evolves from an entirely print to a mostly electronic phenomenon. The vast majority of it takes place via scholarly journal publication, a medium for which libraries pay hefty prices to provide access to their patrons. While always expensive, the price increases of the last ten years rendered many libraries unable to renew subscriptions to journal titles imperative to research at their institutions, hindering communication among scholars at a time when—in theory—it should be gaining momentum. Open access publishing is a promising solution, but it just isn’t clear what form an open access model should take, what role (if any) the library should take in its realization, and how open scholars are to its inception. Although certainly an issue across-the-board, the degree to which the effects of the serials crisis as well as new attitudes toward SC have permeated scholars at the individual and institutional level is somewhat obscure. This study attempts to aid local academic librarians, helping them better serve their scholarly patrons by assessing the overall communication needs and concerns of researchers at three universities in the UNC system—UNC Greensboro, UNC Pembroke, and UNC Wilmington.

The crisis in scholarly communication is too far-reaching and elusive for a library to tackle. No amount of action research is going to uncover a solution, nor is it solely the responsibility of libraries to solve a problem outside its scope and capabilities. The purpose of this study, then, is to familiarize three academic libraries with the common perceptions of its own scholars so that they may at least stay relevant in the work of their most important user group. Since academic librarians prioritize the needs of their researchers, it is imperative to stay abreast of their needs and concerns amidst a changing scholarly landscape.

DEFINING THE PROBLEM

The current crisis in scholarly communication is multi-faceted. It would be beyond the scope of this study to explore each aspect in-depth, but some background on recent increases in the status of journals in SC as well as the serials crisis is necessary to understand the origin of the problem, which began in but now extends far beyond the reach of academic libraries. While open access publishing models comprise potential solutions to the problem, their realization may or may not involve the library as heavily as traditional models in facilitating scholarly communication: a problem which is scary and somewhat threatening to librarians whose roles, like scholarly publishing, are defined by long-established tradition. The problem this research attempts to address is most eloquently summed up in one of the one of the surveys from which this study is adapted, when Kevin Guthrie states that “changing behaviors and practices increasingly put the academic library at risk of being disintermediated from the discovery process, a possibility that, if realized, could cause libraries to be irrelevant in one of their core functional areas” (Guthrie, 20011, p. 81).


The Rise of the Electronic Journal and the Serials Crisis

Traditionally, scholarly research began in the physical library and was limited to monographs and print journals which were purchased and thereafter owned by the academic library. Scholarly communication was neatly contained within this realm and academic librarians had a solid concept of the role they—and the library—played in the process: a “gateway” or starting point for locating information. Now that most journals have moved online and can be accessed electronically outside the physical library, those roles have become somewhat hazy. The problem is here to stay, as e-journal use has become the medium of choice for SC in every discipline.

In a presentation titled “Shifting Costs in the Journal Publishing World,” presenters gave a brief overview of the extent to which commercial journals have come to dominate scholarly publishing in recent years. Since 1983, the number of scholarly articles presented for publication in journals has grown 3% annually. The number of journals has more than doubled, with 24,000 journals circulating from 2,000 publishers in 2008 (Gupta, 2009). Scholars appreciate the speed of delivery, peer-review process, an ease-of-use associated with electronic serials, causing them to far surpass books as the medium of choice for SC—and their popularity continues to increase.

Despite the ever-growing need for access to scholarly journals in research, the serials crisis has rendered most library budgets inadequate to cover journal costs, which have risen dramatically. One electronic journal can cost anywhere from $500 to $500,000 to put online, with $2,000 to $5,000 per year to host and maintain it. Highly customized sites cost the publisher even more: “for customized sites it is possible to spend $500,000 to $1,000,000 a year and be hosting one title” (Gupta, 2009, p. 98). The implication for research libraries is that subscription costs continue to rise, depleting budgets and forcing librarians to make tough choices between titles and subject areas. Although the relevance of and need for serials is rising, the crisis keeps gaining momentum, with surveys in 2009 showing the average academic library cancelling upwards of 177 titles a year.

Traditional versus Open Access Publishing

Most of the literature views open access publishing in some form as the future of scholarly communication and the ultimate solution—if one can be had—to the serials crisis. Institutional repositories exist for scholars to publish or re-publish their work so that it is freely accessible to the scholarly community. Open access journals are a more popular option, and websites, blogs and wikis are the least popular. An article called “Blog to the future?: Journal publishing in the twenty-first century,” explains that “the arrival of open access can be seen as a direct reaction to journal price increases, and may yet threaten the foundations of the publishing industry. Supporters of OA view the outputs from research as a public good, to be available to all” (Phillips, 2010).

Open access movements, while certainly in progress, are easy to stand behind in theory but difficult to see through in reality, mostly because the criteria scholars use to decide where to publish are prioritized according not only to tradition but to university requirements and


expectations for promotion and tenure. Phillips asserts that “publishers provide quality assurance and peer review, as well as the value attached to being published in a journal with a high impact factor. For a researcher, publication in a high-impact journal may affect career advancement and the distribution of research funds. A respected journal brand, which may have taken many years to build, offers credibility and reassurance” (Phillips, 2010).

Because open access publishing doesn’t currently offer the credibility and reassurance of commercial journals, support for the open access movement is slow to take off. The UNC system study will hopefully help us to understand the extent to which ideas about open access have permeated the UNC scholarly community. Is the institutional repository a success, or are scholars even aware of it? Do open access journals hold more or less appeal? Are blogs and wikis considered at all? Do UNC’s scholars see open access as the future of scholarly communication?

Implications for Libraries

There is a chance, of course, that these sorts of questions are being asked a bit too soon. It isn’t clear the level of impact the serials crisis has had on scholars at individual universities, and whether its effects distribute evenly across disciplines in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences. One goal of this research, then, is to determine whether researchers in the UNC system are feeling the effects, and if so, what—if anything—they feel can be done by their libraries to help out. Another is to gauge scholars’ receptiveness to new publishing models so that librarians have some idea of the future of SC at their institution. It is only with this knowledge that their roles may appropriately evolve.

Although similar surveys have been done of extremely large populations (one covered every major university in the country) their findings cannot be generalized in a way that is helpful to any specific academic library. Jackson Library, for example, is not serving “scholars in general” but a very specific set of researchers with varying levels of awareness of the topic. It is imperative, then, to adapt these studies at a micro-level to ask questions whose answers synergize to inform and reshape library policy. Librarians need to know how aware the library’s scholarly community is of the serials crisis and its impact on the accessibility of much-needed research. Is the overall scholarly consensus that of unmet needs, and if so, do they understand the mechanism behind the library’s inability to meet them? They need to know what role the institution perceives the library to assume in relation to scholarly research so that they may work to fulfill their obligations and work to spread awareness of lesser-valued roles. Furthermore, as the keepers of institutional repositories, academic librarians need to know how aware their institution’s scholars are of open-access and other innovative publishing models. These goals synergize to form five research areas the study attempts to explore.

Research Questions

1.) How aware are UNC system scholars of a crisis in scholarly communication overall, and does the level of awareness differ among humanists, social scientists, and


scientists—or among researchers of different ranks?

2.) How satisfied are scholars with the state of scholarly communication within their discipline, and does the level of satisfaction correlate with disciplinary categories or ranks?

3.) How much influence do publisher reputation, promotion and tenure considerations, affordability and accessibility for end users, copyright and republication issues, and speed of publication have on how scholars choose to publish their work?

4.) How aware are scholars of open access publishing options like institutional repositories, open access journals, and websites/blogs, and how willing are they to publish in them?

5.) What role do scholars perceive their library to play in facilitating scholarly communication? How well do they feel their research needs are met by their university libraries? What could be done differently to better serve them?

Predictions and Expectations

It is hard to predict--given the subjectivity of the questions being posed—what conclusions the survey will yield. “Awareness of a crisis” is a slippery thing to gauge. Since much of the ‘crisis’ is fueled by skyrocketing serials prices, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that respondents in the sciences, having theoretically suffered greater losses since their research tends to be the most expensive, will be more cognizant of a problem than those in the humanities and social sciences. As result, they are expected to be less satisfied with the library’s ability to meet their research needs and may be more likely to see its primary function as a “buyer.” There are no expectations as to whether rank or status coincides with a particular level of awareness, but it will be interesting to see if such correlations exist.

Perhaps more practical and concrete is an assessment of scholarly publishing habits, preferences, and requirements; the expectation being that many are tied down in some way to traditional publishing methods, although aware of the recent emergence of new options. The overarching expectation is that tenure and promotional considerations as well as other “status” related factors like the reputation of the publisher severely limit the way in which scholars choose to publish, perpetuating a system which is becoming more of a detriment to scholarly communication as prices spiral more out of control. It is hypothesized that, because of these limitations, few scholars will be aware of the range of open access publishing options. Although most are probably aware of NC Docks, few of the respondents are expected to have actually published work in an institutional repository. Scholars are most likely hesitant to publish open access content in the future because of the constraints of the current system.


LITERATURE REVIEW

Among the literature detailing similar attempts to establish current trends in thinking about the state of scholarly communication, three recent studies were used to establish precedent, referred to after their introduction as “the UC Berkeley survey,” “the UC system survey,” and “the Ithaka survey.” Some of the content for the scholarly communication survey was adapted directly from this literature in order to collect similar data for comparison. Although each of these studies covered even more than detailed below, conclusions on scholarly awareness of a crisis both overall and within the discipline, motivations behind publications, thoughts on and receptiveness to open access publishing, and perceptions of the role of the academic library in scholarly research are presented below in a manner which facilitates direct comparison to the results of the current study.

Level of Awareness of a Crisis

At the University of California at Berkeley a major (non library-centric) study was carried out. The results were drawn from personal and focus-group interviews of 160 researchers from 45 universities and published in a report titled “Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines.” It asks scholars about what drives their publishing choices, what is required for tenure and promotion, how technology has affected SC practices, and what new developments in SC are expected within the field. Generalizations are drawn within the 7 disciplines, and comparisons are made between disciplinary trends in the humanities and the sciences.

The level of awareness of a crisis in scholarly communication among their interviewees was relatively low. Among their interviewees, they “heard little of a crisis in scholarly communication, with a few exceptions.” Scholars in biology were aware of the outrageous Elsevier prices and were biased in favor of open access journals. Among humanists, who rely more on books and monographs than journals, “there were quite a few rejections of the idea that there is a publishing crisis.” It was mentioned, however, that the method used for sampling resulted in many interviewees from “elite” universities, who most likely have some financial protection from the effects of the serials crisis (Harley, 2010, p. 11).

A separate study carried out by the University of California Office of Scholarly Communication surveyed 1,118 faculty members in every discipline across the UC system, publishing the results in a the report “Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication: Survey Findings from the University of California.” They found that despite outreach, “the faculty remain largely unaware of and disengaged from scholarly communications issues, University policies, and the tools and services that are available to foster innovation” (UC, 2007, p. 6). Not only were they unfamiliar with their institutional repositories, but most were uninformed of a year-long debate among the University Senate proposing to mandate publication in them! If the level of awareness is this low among the university system which produced two of the three major studies on the topic, it seems reasonable to expect even less of universities elsewhere.


Level of Satisfaction within the Discipline

While it is useful for an office of scholarly communication to gauge awareness of entire institutions, the information which is most useful to an academic librarian will be specific to certain disciplines. Without differentiating, the library won’t know whether one discipline feels underserved compared to another, and it wouldn’t make sense to keep adding expensive journal titles in a field which is satisfied with the current ones when the money could be spent developing an inadequate collection. The surveys among all the literature acknowledge the value of differentiating responses by discipline—in fact, such differentiation is a defining characteristic of the UC Berkeley survey, which states its reasoning: “The academic values embodied in disciplinary cultures, as well as the interests of the individual players, have to be considered when envisioning new schemata for the communication of scholarship at its various stages”—as trends among faculty values, needs, and concerns among certain disciplines do emerge (UC, 2007, p. iii).

If scholars’ knowledge of the state of scholarly communication overall is low, it may be a direct result of being overly concerned with problems within their disciplinary focus. The UC system survey, however, didn’t detect this. In addition to the general level of obscurity, a peculiar belief surfaced system-wide: “While faculty often acknowledge problems with the current system of scholarly communication, they tend to disassociate themselves from these issues.” An overwhelming majority believe that high journal prices negatively impact research in other fields, but “relatively few say that the problem affects them” (Harley, 2010, p. 5).

How can it affect scholarly communication as a whole but not individual disciplines? Are scholars overly optimistic about their own fields? Do they share so much amongst themselves that most resources become accessible this way? Is the problem exaggerated? When asked to characterize the general health of the current SC system within their discipline, 72% said that minor or substantial changes needed to be made, with “minor” being more popular than “substantial.” In response to the assertion “high journal prices have made it difficult for me to access the literature I need,” 68% of respondents disagreed. Even more peculiar: a majority of respondents who agreed to this statement—as well as a minority of respondents who thought no changes needed to be made to SC in their discipline—were in the humanities (Harley, 2010).

Motivation to Publish

One commonality shared by the UC Berkeley survey and the UC system-wide survey was extensive questioning about the criteria scholars use when deciding where to publish their research. The general consensus is that, despite the emergence of new models, traditional publication models—that is, publication via books and commercial journals—remain firmly in place. According to the UC system survey, “faculty generally conform to conventional behavior in scholarly communication” and “the current tenure and promotion system impedes changes in scholarly behavior” (Harley, 2010, p. 4). When polled as to how important specific criteria are, it found that 98% were very concerned with a journal’s reputation, 93% with its impact factor, and 78% with its bearing on promotional and tenure considerations.


The UC Berkeley study focused also on speed of publication, which seemed to be of particular concern for the sciences, and on the potential for the research to reach the target audience—both of which were ranked below reputation and promotion concerns in both studies. While their respondents have occasionally published using non-traditional methods, doing so was not viewed as “counting for much.” This collective attitude was even reflected in the advice respondents gave to young scholars: “Focus on publishing in the right venues and avoid spending too much time on public engagement, committee work, writing op-ed pieces, developing websites, blogging, and other non-traditional forms of electronic dissemination” (UC, 2007, p. 10).

It will be interesting to see whether UNC system faculty are less constrained. Most likely, requirements for promotion and tenure dictate publishing habits among all universities. Sadly, libraries can only use this information to measure receptiveness to open access publishing models, as little can be done by librarians or scholars to change requirements imposed by the institution. While librarians can work to advocate for and spread awareness of their institutional repositories and other open access models, significant change will only manifest gradually, if at all—and only if it offers more incentive to scholars than it does in the current system.

Thoughts on Open Access Publishing

As few are even aware of a crisis in scholarly communication, it isn’t particularly shocking that few are taking dramatic steps to reform it. More than three quarters of respondents in the UC system survey weren’t even aware of the university’s proposal to require submissions to the institutional repository, and only 47% indicated that they would be in favor of the proposal. Many admitted to not even knowing enough about the topic to respond knowledgeably, which isn’t surprising, considering that 82% didn’t even know the institutional repository existed (UC, 2007, p. 71). Almost as many were unaware of blogs and wikis as a scholarly publishing option, but more respondents were knowledgeable of open access journals, perhaps because of the peer-review process associated with journal publication. While most expected their traditional publication activities to stay the same or increase, respondents reported less intent overall to publish in open access journals, and even less in institutional repositories (pg. 86).

When presented with the statement “open access will dramatically change scholarly communication in my field in the next two years,” 43% agreed strongly or somewhat, and significantly more in the arts agreed than in the sciences (UC, 2007). When asked about the need for new publishing models, respondents in the UC Berkeley survey spoke of a need for shorter monographs in the humanities and longer articles in the sciences, but seldom mentioned a shift to open access to accompany these changes. Blogs, they said, were absolutely not considered as a source of scholarship, as there is currently no way to regulate the quality of or impose standards on information published so easily and arbitrarily (Harley, 2010, p. 15). Where innovation and experimentation is occurring, it is “taking place within the context of relatively conservative value and reward systems that have the practice of peer review at their core” (p. 13).

Scholars participating in the UNC system survey are expected to mirror these attitudes toward open access, and it will be interesting to see if they are as ill-informed of NC Docks as UC scholars are of their own institutional repository. With open access publishing still in its infancy, university libraries can use this information to determine just how much harder they need to


advocate to encourage submissions to the collection, but also to understand the forces which drive resistance to new models. As the UC Berkeley interviews uncovered, “enthusiasm for the development and adoption of technology should not be conflated with the hard reality of tenure and promotion requirements in highly competitive and complex professional environments” (Harley, 2010, p. 12).

Perceptions of the Academic Library

Neither of the studies reviewed thus far has a library focus, and indeed much of this information is useful not for dictating a concrete and dramatic change in library practices but for defining a problem which the university library may play some part in alleviating. The third and most recent study—a 2011 article entitled “Repackaging the Library: What do Faculty Think?” in the Journal of Library Administration presents a detailed overview of the problem shifting methods of scholarly communication present specifically for libraries. Their survey was administered to faculty across the United States in multiple disciplines, with results drawn from 3,025 respondents nationwide—by far the largest response rate within the literature.

The Ithaka survey asks questions designed to reveal the perceived role of the library—if any—in facilitating scholarly communication. It begins by showing that researchers are much less likely than in the past to start research in the physical library—in fact, most access journals online through the library website. When asked to choose their most common starting point between the library building, the online library catalog, a general purpose search engine or a specific electronic research resource, most researchers surveyed indicated that they go directly to the e-resource they are accustomed to, usually within their discipline. While the library used to be much more directly involved in their research habits, the study concludes that they are now facilitating access more “behind the scenes” (Guthrie, 2011, pg 81).

What role, then, do scholars in these surveys perceive the library to play in their research? The Ithaka survey polled for three functions of the library in research: gateway, archival, and buyer. In this instance, calling the library a “gateway” simply means that it serves as the starting point in any research endeavor. The “archival” function refers to the library’s role in archiving, preserving, and ensuring perpetual access to materials. The library assumes the role of “buyer” when it pays the hefty prices required of publishers to make material accessible to its users. The survey, done at intervals over several years, made an unnerving discovery: perceptions of the primary function of the library as “gateway” are much less common than they used to be. The “buyer” function, long viewed as secondary, has recently taken precedence: according to the article, “as individual faculty subscriptions have declined in favor of an increasingly broad set of library-licensed resources, faculty perceptions of the importance of the library as their ‘purchasing agent’ have steadily increased” (Guthrie, 2011, pg 85).

Two questions on the UNC system survey are designed with this in mind, to gauge whether UNC scholars are as attached to the idea of the library as a purchasing agent as those previously polled. With some idea of where the library stands in the eyes of its users, it may work to better fulfill or redefine that role as it sees fit to preserve or increase its relevance in the future. As widespread perceptions of the need (or lack of need) for the library evolve, librarians will need to evolve to keep up, lest they be left behind and rendered obsolete.


METHODOLOGY

As demonstrated in the existing literature, the subjective nature of the information being gathered calls for a survey of a large sample of researchers among various disciplines. The existing studies varied considerably in their methodology. The Ithaka study sampled colleges and universities throughout the country and covered 34 disciplines, but focused its questions almost exclusively on scholarly perceptions of the role of the library and technology in SC. It was given four times over several years to document changing attitudes. The UC Berkeley study relied on an even more focused 5-question open-ended survey which was limited to only 7 disciplines (and not the major ones.) They used “snowball” sampling which eventually reached over 45 institutions for a large sample population. The 2007 UC study, which used a more broad 35 question survey (multiple choice and other formats) administered only to researchers in the 10 schools in the UC system most resembles the survey used for this study.

Sample Selection

The three universities included in the study were UNC Greensboro, UNC Pembroke, and UNC Wilmington. Their selection wasn’t entirely random, as together they contribute half the content of the NC Docks institutional repository. NC DOCKS is the collective institutional repository for six universities in the UNC system, three of which are the universities sampled. Since awareness of open access publishing options is a theme of the survey, it seemed useful to sample institutions which could be asked specifically about an open access publishing option available to them. Questions 10 and 11 are designed to assess awareness of and willingness to publish not only in NC Docks, but in open access journals and websites/blogs. Another operating assumption is that since the same IR is shared between them, they are likely similar enough in size and scope to treat as one entity, but there was a demographic question on the survey to differentiate them if this happened to not be the case.

The survey is electronic, created and hosted by Google Documents and distributed via e-mail. Department heads were contacted and asked to forward the survey to researchers in their discipline; a modified version of the “snowball sampling” used in the UC Berkeley study. Major disciplines in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences were included. Because the method of distribution was ultimately arbitrary (up to individual department heads) it is not known how many potential respondents actually received the survey.

Within a week of distributing the survey, 67 people responded: 21 from UNCG, 14 from UNCP, and 32 from UNCW. Among the respondents, 23 Disciplines are represented, with 45% classifying their discipline within the arts & humanities, 27% in the social sciences, 22% representing the sciences, and 6% which classified themselves as falling into some other category. Respondents represent a broad range of disciplines and ranks, with 33% full professors, 34% associate professors, 25% assistant professors, 4% lecturers, and 3% holding some other research position.


Survey Coverage

The survey, simply titled “Scholarly Communication Survey” first explains the purpose of the research—a class project—and the manner in which results will be handled. As an incentive for them to participate, it was decided that results will be shared with corresponding libraries, and this is made clear before beginning. 14 questions comprise the survey, 4 of which are demographic in nature.

The expectation was that certain demographic information would be useful for extracting meaningful correlations between various responses and the institutional rank/status as well as discipline. Although rank had little bearing on responses in the literature, the survey still allows for the possibility that variations among respondents of different ranks exist. The survey gathers the following demographic information:

-name of institution

- rank/title

-disciplinary category (humanities, sciences, etc.)

-specific field of study

The survey then proceeds to ask the research questions outright, each addressing a different critical aspect of scholarly communication, including:

-awareness of a crisis (overall)

-satisfaction with scholarly communication within the discipline

-individual research needs

-satisfaction with the library’s ability to meet needs

-motivations driving publishing habits

-awareness of popular open access publishing models

-intent or willingness to publish open access work

-perceptions of the library’s role in SC

Several questions were adapted from the surveys in the literature review for comparison. Elaboration is encouraged in several areas and comment boxes are provided for respondents to address related concerns. See Appendix A for the actual survey instrument. While major points of concession or conflict are remarked upon in the analysis following each graph or table, the findings, detailed below, are arranged by headings identical to those of the literature review for easy and convenient comparison.


FINDINGS

Although there were 67 respondents, not everyone contributed to every question as participation was entirely voluntary and all questions were optional. Most of the findings below reflect the attitudes of at least 63 respondents—some more. See Appendix B for a transcript of comments.

Research Question 1: Level of Awareness of a Crisis

1. How aware are you of a crisis (overall) in scholarly communication?

very aware 9 13%vaguely aware 21 31%unaware 31 46%don't know 4 6%

As was the case in the literature, nearly half of the scholars polled were unaware of the existence of a crisis in scholarly communication. Roughly a third was vaguely aware of a crisis, and those who answered “very aware” were the minority. 6% didn’t know.

The following table shows levels of awareness by disciplinary category:

Arts & Humanities Social Sciences SciencesUnaware 42% 52% 56%Vaguely aware 36% 30% 25%Very aware 16% 6% 19%Don’t know 6% 12% 0%

It was hypothesized and proven by the UC Berkeley study that scholars in the sciences would be more affected by the serials crisis and would thus be more aware of the problem. If this were the case, then the table would show more science respondents who answered “very aware” than


“unaware,” and the ratios between the percentages for each category would not resemble each other. The data, however, shows the opposite, with ratios that are very similar among humanities, social science, and science respondents, and a larger percentage in sciences that are unaware. Most were unaware, some were vaguely aware, and few were very aware across-the-board, regardless of discipline. When respondents were arranged by rank instead of discipline and the data is analyzed similarly, the results showed that rank has no correlation with awareness.

Research Question 2: Levels of Satisfaction within the Discipline

2. How satisfied are you with the current state of scholarly communication within your discipline?

very satisfied 7 10%somewhat satisfied 48 72%unsatisfied 5 7%don't know 6 9%

Assuming awareness of the state of SC within their discipline, scholars were asked if they thought changes needed to be made. Most were “somewhat” satisfied, indicating that some changes should be made but not a complete overhaul. Scientists were not any less satisfied than humanists or social scientists, as further analysis shows only one of five “unsatisfied” respondents in a science discipline—the other four were in the humanities. The data actually yields the opposite conclusion, as 43% of those who were “very satisfied” were in the sciences. Although unintuitive, this data mirrors that of a similar question asked in the UC Survey, where 72% thought minor changes should be made, and significantly more science respondents expressed disciplinary satisfaction than those in the humanities.

3. In your own research, how often do you find you cannot access a resource that you need?


very often 10 15%occasionally 48 72%never 7 10%don't know 0 0%

This question, which asked how well their research needs were being met, produced a similar looking graph; with most scholars deprived of research materials only occasionally. An interesting correlation was found between social scientists (all of whom were psychologists) and the option which indicated they never lacked access to a needed resource. 57% of particularly satisfied respondents were in the social sciences. Also interesting and unexpected: 90% of respondents who answered “very often” were in the Arts & Humanities. Only 10% represented a science discipline!

Research Question 3: Motivation to Publish

4. Please rank the following considerations by their influence on how you choose to publish your work (1 being the most influential, 5 being the least): Reputation of the publisher, affordability and accessibility for other researchers, level of freedom to retain copyright and/or re-publish, requirements for or likelihood to encourage promotion or tenure, and speed of publication.

Reputation of the publisher:

Affordability and accessibility for other researchers:


Level of freedom to retain copyright and/or re-publish:

Requirements for or likelihood to encourage promotion or tenure:

Speed of publication:

The results reinforce the expectation that scholars are more motivated to publish in traditional journals with an established track record. The reputation of the publisher and the likelihood to encourage promotion or tenure were almost equally considered first and foremost—although in cases where one was ranked lower, promotional considerations proved to be less important than the reputation of the publication. One respondent even emphatically reiterated this fact in the


comments section, stating the “reputation of a press/journal is the main consideration.” The remaining considerations seem to be widely distributed among the next three slots, with no one concern occupying the #5 slot consistently.

The survey recognizes that these are not the only important considerations which factor into a scholar’s decision of where to publish. Comments provided by the respondents highlighted many other concerns, including:

-suitability/subject matter of the journal; it must “thematically fit the content best” -likelihood to reach intended or “target” audience

-likelihood to reach a broad, international, and/or “general public” audience -quality of research published in the journal

-peer-review processes associated with the publication -likelihood of submitted work to be accepted

-value to students in classes taught by the researcher

Research Question 4: Thoughts on Open Access Publishing

5. Traditionally, universities purchase books and pay for access to scholarly journals. What is your level of awareness of the following alternative (open access) publishing options?

Institutional repositories (NC DOCKS):

Open access journals:


Websites, blogs, etc.:

As whole, UNC scholars are much less aware of NC Docks as they are of open access journals, and more seem to have published in the latter. 41% of respondents completely unaware of their own university’s institutional repository—although no small percentage—compares favorably to


the 82% of UC system respondents who had no idea an institutional repository existed. Respondents were as aware of websites & blogs for publishing as they were of open access journals, but indicated more of a reluctance to publish on the web. Awareness, it seems, does not necessarily imply action—as many more people who described themselves as “very aware” of each option have not yet published work in that way.

6. If you haven’t yet published open access research, do you plan to do so in the future?

Yes 6 9%No 15 23%Maybe 20 30%Don't know 12 18%

The statistics show a broad range of intent with regards to future open access publishing activity, with only 9% planning to publish this way. (Of course, the wording of the question excludes those who already have, so the percent of scholars overall who publish open access is most likely much higher.) The most popular response, “maybe,” suggests that some remain open to the possibility, which is more promising. The fact that 18% chose “don’t know” suggests that more should be done to educate scholars on the benefits of publishing this way.

Respondents were encouraged to explain their reasons for supporting or opposing open access, among which several trends emerged. Below is a summary (see Appendix B for comments).

- open access journals are viewed as subpar in that they lack peer review and have “lax standards”; as a result scholars fear that they “dilute academic standards” and “proliferate poor research”

- there is a perception that it is expensive to publish in them- they are viewed to have little bearing on tenure and promotion- several scholars expressed that they would have more credibility if the library became

more involved with them- some stressed that print journals are still useful and important in their research- there should be a “system-wide push” to provide better access to electronic resources,

and the university should help scholars pay for access to needed databases- institutional repositories are of little use to scholars in the sciences- websites and blogs “do not count” and have no value in research

Research Question 5: Perceptions of the Academic Library


7. How well do you feel your university library meets your research needs?

very well--all my needs are met 17 26%well--but some resources are lacking 37 56%not well--existing resources are insufficient 10 15%

don't know 0 0%

Most were moderately satisfied with the role their academic library plays in their research. Strangely, all of the 10 who answered “not well” classified their discipline as “Arts & Humanities.” Thankfully for the Jackson Library, only one of these respondents was from UNCG. Even more interesting was that 41% of those whose needs were met “very well” were from the sciences. Only 12% represented the humanities.

8. In your opinion, what is the PRIMARY role your university library plays in supporting your research?

"Gateway"--the library is a starting point for research 38 60%

"Buyer"--the library purchases the materials I use for my research 17 27%


"Archive"--the library archives and preserves resources 8 13%

It is interesting to note that these results contradict those of the Ithaka survey. When the Ithaka survey asked a similar question, the “buyer” function was voted most important, and it gained even more precedence over the “gateway” function as the years passed. UNC scholars, however, perceive the library primarily as a gateway first, and a buyer second. The gateway function was most important for researchers in every discipline, but some trends did emerge: While 9 out of 14 science respondents and 13 out of 18 social science respondents view the library as a gateway, the same was true for only 16 out of 30 in arts & humanities. A greater percentage of humanists viewed the library as “buyer” and “archive” than the other disciplines.

CONCLUSION

As a whole, most scholars at UNCG, UNCP, and UNCW are unaware of a crisis in scholarly communication and levels of awareness do not fluctuate widely with discipline or rank. Scholars in the sciences, contrary to expectations, were even less cognizant of a crisis than those in the arts and humanities. Most respondents are somewhat satisfied with the state of SC within their discipline and are only barred from accessing a needed resource occasionally. Social scientists comprise the vast majority of respondents who are never shorthanded in their research. Scientists indicated a higher satisfaction level than those in the humanities, debunking the assumption that they are most hard hit by the serials crisis, at least throughout UNC.

As expected, requirements for tenure and promotion as well as journal reputation proved the most important criteria when deciding where to publish. Speed of publication is also important and trumps copyright issues and affordability for other researchers. This preoccupation with prestige may be why, as a whole, UNC system scholars show little interest in open access publishing models. Most are unaware of their college’s institutional repository, only vaguely aware of open access journals, and aware but resistant to publish in blogs and wikis. Only 9% indicate that they would definitely publish this way in the future—not the most promising result. While open access publishing would solve a lot of budget problems for libraries, the needs of librarians clearly don’t align with the needs of scholars, who have to consider much more than “access” when deciding how to publish. The good news is that their adherence to tradition is accompanied by traditional views of the role their academic libraries play in research. In contrast to the Ithaka study, UNC scholars still view their library primarily as a gateway to information and has not reduced its role in their research to a mere purchasing agent.

Hopefully this insight into the collective needs and concerns of scholarly patrons will prove valuable to the libraries involved, even if only to inspire further investigation. Why, for example, do those in the arts & humanities feel their needs aren’t being met? Should the library prioritize these disciplines more in acquisitions? Why are so few researchers aware of NC Docks? Should the library devote more resources to spreading awareness of the institutional repository, or take the lack of interest as a sign that significant changes are in order to make it palatable to potential


contributors? Should the library—as was suggested in some comments—assume a role in overseeing open access journals?

At the very least, the academic libraries at UNCG, UNCP, and UNCW can rest assured that they are still highly valued as a starting point for research; that the threat of “disintermediation” isn’t looming in the near future. They can take pride in the fact that the most expensive disciplines to serve—the sciences—seem to be very satisfied with their ability to access research in their respective fields. Although they seem to be doing well given the circumstances, it can’t hurt to have a better picture of the needs of their faculty. The best case scenario will see the concerns of this major user group even better reflected in library policy of the future.

APPENDIX A – Survey Instrument

Scholarly Communication SurveyThis survey is intended to assess the views of scholars at several North Carolina universities on the current state of scholarly communication. Results will be used for a class project and shared with corresponding libraries so they can better meet your research needs. *Trends and conclusions will be shared, but not information that may reveal your identity.

Please select your university from the list.

What is your rank?

Full Professor

Associate Professor

Assistant Professor

Lecturer

Other:

UNCG


In what general category is your research discipline?

Arts & Humanities

Social Sciences

Sciences

Other:

What is your field of study?

How aware are you of a crisis (overall) in scholarly communication?

very aware

vaguely aware

unaware

don't know

How satisfied are you with the current state of scholarly communication within your discipline?

very satisfied--no changes are necessary

somewhat satisfied--some changes would be helpful

unsatisfied--substantial change is called for

don't know

In your own research, how often do you find you cannot access a resource that you need?

very often


occasionally

never

don't know

In your opinion, what is the PRIMARY role your university library plays in supporting your research?

"Gateway"--the library is a starting point for research

"Buyer"--the library purchases the materials I use for my research

"Archive"--the library archives and preserves resources

How well do you feel your university library meets your research needs?

very well--all my needs are met

well--but some resources are lacking

not well--the existing resources are insufficient

don't know

Please rank the following considerations by their influence on how you choose to publish your work (1 being the most influential, 5 being the least.)

1 2 3 4 5

The reputation of the publisher

Affordability and accessibility for other researchers


1 2 3 4 5

Level of freedom to retain copyright and/or re-publish

Requirements for or likelihood to encourage promotion or tenure

Speed of publication

If other factors strongly influence your decision, please list them here. (Optional.)

Traditionally, universities purchase books and pay for access to scholarly journals. What is your level of awareness of the following alternative (open access) publishing options?

Very aware--have published

Very aware--haven't published

Aware--but don't know much

Unaware

Institutional repositories (NC DOCKS)

Open access journals

Websites, blogs, etc.

If you haven’t yet published open access research, do you plan to do so in the future? Skip this question if you already have.

yes

no


maybe

don't know

Please provide any other information pertinent to the topic that you would like to share with your library (your thoughts on scholarly communication, clarification of your research needs, views on open access publishing etc.) Optional

APPENDIX B – Comments Table

0

Submit


This table shows the comments participants provided to elaborate on what drives their selection of publishing venues, thoughts on open access, etc. Specific information about rank and field of study was not included, to protect the identity of participants.

University Discipline Publishing Habits Thoughts on Open Access, etc.

UNCG Sciences Often I publish in an inter-disciplinary manner. Journals that are well reviewed in this area are often difficult to find and publish in.

I think open access should be encouraged, especially by large public university systems, such as the UNC system. Quality control is an important issue, however, and I have witnessed a host of open access journals mushrooming out of the ground without proper justification or background. I am worried that the plethora of publishing platforms will dilute academic standards.

I publish my work in journals that thematically fit the content of the article best.

Currently many open access online publications - even if the articles are reviewed are not considered equal to print journals. This perception is changing thankfully, but change is slow.

It is very expensive to publish in open access journals.

UNCG Social Sciences

Quality of the research published in the journal

Peer review is critical to the scholarly process--ANY possibility that blogs or other open access journals do not undergo the rigors of blind peer review makes them absolutely meaningless to me in terms of wanting to either publish in them or even use them as a resource

The primary factor is the audience for whom the outlet is intended--if the journal is the best way to communicate to those who most need to hear it, that is often more important to me than whether it has "broader" appeal that would miss the intended audience

UNCG Arts & Humanities

No responses. I think journals in print are extremely important. So are books.

UNCP Social Sciences

No responses. In my experience Open access journals have lax standards for peer review and only serve to proliferate poor research. Some have a "pay by the author" fee to publish which discredits them further.



UNCP Arts & Humanities

Value to students in my classes.

I'm in a very competitive field. I'm concerned that my work will not be accepted.

More opportunity to show non-print media/scholarship of campus scholars

It's hard to do research w/a 4/4 teaching load: beyond course prep research, I read rather haphazardly.

International distribution and availability. UNCP library provides excellent electronic resources for research in the humanities and arts, responds to requests from faculty, and provides assistance to faculty in using resources. Interlibrary Loan is reliable and fast.

Publications are accessible to a wide readership, including the general (non-academic) public

Many emeritus faculty remain active in scholarship and need off-campus access to scholarly resources and communication. The UNCP Library director adamantly blocks such access.

I completely support open access publishing and I'm aware of the crisis of pricing in science journals. But in English literature, we don't have those problems--as far as I'm aware, our journals haven't shot up in price, nor are the databases that index our scholarship overly expensive. I hope I'm not just being naive about that, and if I am, I would like to be informed. But it means that I haven't spent a lot of time worrying about the issue as it applies to me or my scholarship, and that drives a lot of my answers to your questions.

UNCW Sciences Suitability of the journal; that is, whether or not my work 'belongs' in the journal and is likely to be accepted.

Open access research journals tend to have relatively low reputations. Therefore, they are not as significant for promotion and tenure decisions.

Target audience of the journal. Website and blog publishing, in my view, do not 'count' (unless they are rigorously peer-reviewed. I have no problem with open-access journals...in fact, I like the idea.Some university libraries have agreements with journals to make articles published by authors at those universities open access automatically. My most recent experience with this is with the University of California and Springer. This was an excellent service that I would like to see at UNC libraries (of course I am new here so perhaps this exists already and I am unaware).

UNCW Social Sciences

Wherever the article gets accepted! :) Basically the strategy my coauthors and I typically use is to start with higher-ranking journals and if the paper doesn't get accepted there, we try a lower-ranking journal. Another very influential factor is the subject matter of the journal. E.g., if my manuscript is about victimization, then I would choose a journal that focuses on this topic (for example, Violence and Victims).

No responses.



UNCW Arts & Humanities

To clarify, when I say library should be "buyer" I am including digital databases such as EBSCO and JSTOR. I'm comfortable with such resources moving online--that often makes them more searchable. If journals move online then the library can play a greater role in archiving resources not likely to move online.

There should be a system-wide push to standardize MUCH broader access to emerging electronic research databases and scholarly journals, but especially the former. The system should use its size and collective resources to create a core level of access; the library system on this question should be far less balkanized--it is a new era for access and I feel like old models are still being used, by database providers and libraries alike. Alternatively, the institution should find ways to help faculty members purchase individual access to databases that are critical for faculty research and teaching but not available on campus.

Reputation of a press/journal is the main consideration.

I am conducting research about open access publishing in my field of professional writing and computers and writing currently. This model has not worked as well in these fields as it has in the sciences for a number of reasons. Archives like NC Docks are laudatory in principle but pose some problems in relation to identifying authoritative versions of texts and further disaggregating journals (which may or may not be a problem).The primary problem is not communication amongst scholars, but the fact that the UNCW library has failed to keep up with the original historical materials that have been digitized, such as newspapers, historical magazines, etc.

Library needs to help with establishing the credibility of online only and open-access journals so that they are more likely to be seen as legitimate publications when assessed for tenure and promotion. Acceptance rates help but more is needed. Libraries can work both ways: help journals to follow best practices (ie: pdf files with actual page numbers!) as well as making acceptance rates easy to find, etc. Then help RTP committees and department chairs in assessing.

Works Cited


University Libraries, UNCG. (2011). NC Docks: Digital online collection of knowledge and scholarship. Retrieved from http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/

Gupta, N., Davis, B., Beckett, C., and Haslam, M. (2009). Shifting costs in the journal publishing world. The Serials Librarian, 56(1), 95-100. Retrieved from Informaworld.

Guthrie, K., and Housewright, R. (2011). Repackaging the library: What do faculty think? Journal of Library Administration, 51(1), 77-104. Retrieved from Informaworld.

Harley, D., Acord, S.K., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S., and King, C.J. (2010) Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. Berkeley, CA: The Center for Studies in Higher Education; University of California. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED512040.pdf

Phillips, A. (2010). Blog to the future?: Journal publishing in the twenty-first century. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 42(1), 16-30. Retrieved from Project MUSE database.

University of California Office of Scholarly Communication and the California Digital Library eScholarship Program. (2007). Faculty attitudes and behaviors regarding scholarly communication: Survey findings from the University of California. California: Office of

SC. Retrieved from http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/responses/materials/OSC- survey-full-20070828.pdf