Exploring the Willingness of Scholars to Accept Open Access: A Grounded Theory Approach

This article aims to explore what factors increase or decrease scholars’ willingness to publish and use articles in open-access journals and discusses how these factors are related to one another. Research-oriented publications on the topic of open-access journals have been few, and there is widespread concern about whether scholars will adopt this new form of scholarly communication. The growing number of open-access journals leads scholars to encounter decision-making situations in which they must choose one journal among multiple alternatives, including open access and non–open access. We conducted open-ended and semi-structured in-depth interviews with eight faculty members and six doctoral students at Syracuse University. Based on the interview transcripts, willingness factors and their relationships were identified and refined using the iterative steps of grounded theory approach proposed by Strauss and Corbin in the 1998 edition of their Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. The findings show seven factors (perceived journal reputation, perceived topical relevance, perceived availability, perceived career benefit, perceived cost, perceived content quality, and perceived ease of use) and eight relationships. There were six positive and two negative relationships. The factors and relationships were then compared to the relevant literature to increase internal validity and generalizability of the study. Both theoretical and practical implications of the research are discussed. Theoretically, this study broadens the scope of relevance criteria studies, first identifies the relationship between two important scholarly communication activities, conceptually contributes to the concept of open access, and applies literature comparison methodology in a pure qualitative study to increase internal validity and generalizability.

[1]  K. Knorr-Cetina,et al.  Epistemic cultures : how the sciences make knowledge , 1999 .

[2]  Carol L. Barry User-Defined Relevance Criteria: An Exploratory Study , 1994, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[3]  Herbert Van de Sompel,et al.  The open archives initiative: building a low-barrier interoperability framework , 2001, JCDL '01.

[4]  Robert L. Cromwell,et al.  Evaluating Internet resources: Identity, affiliation, and cognitive authority in a networked world , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[5]  Diana Crane,et al.  Invisible colleges. Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities , 1972, Medical History.

[6]  Patrick Wilson,et al.  The Cognitive and the Social@@@The Social Construction of Science: A Comparative Study of Goal Direction Research Evolution, and Legitimation.@@@Second-Hand Knowledge: An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. , 1983 .

[7]  Soo Young Rieh Judgement of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web , 2002 .

[8]  Nicholas J. Belkin,et al.  Characteristics of Texts Affecting Relevance Judgments , 1993 .

[9]  Charles Oppenheim,et al.  RoMEO studies 1: the impact of copyright ownership on academic author self-archiving , 2003, J. Documentation.

[10]  Stevan Harnad,et al.  Free at Last: The Future of Peer-Reviewed Journals , 1999, D Lib Mag..

[11]  Susan Gibbons,et al.  Understanding Faculty to Improve Content Recruitment for Institutional Repositories , 2005, D Lib Mag..

[12]  Charles Oppenheim,et al.  RoMEO Studies 2: How Academics Want to Protect their Open-Access Research Papers , 2003, J. Inf. Sci..

[13]  John W. Creswell,et al.  How Chairpersons Enhance Faculty Research: A Grounded Theory Study , 2017 .

[14]  Les Carr,et al.  Linking Electronic Journals: Lessons from the Open Journal Project , 1998, D Lib Mag..

[15]  Bo-Christer Björk,et al.  Open access to scientific publications - an analysis of the barriers to change , 2003, Inf. Res..

[16]  S. Harnad,et al.  Comparing the Impact of Open Access (OA) vs. Non-OA Articles in the Same Journals , 2004 .

[17]  Stevan Harnad Electronic Scholarly Publication: Quo Vadis? , 1995 .

[18]  James H. Keller,et al.  Public Access to the Internet , 1995 .

[19]  Gregory B. Newby,et al.  Scholarly publishing: the electronic frontier , 1996 .

[20]  Rob Kling,et al.  The real stakes of virtual publishing: The transformation of E-Biomed into PubMed central , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[21]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[22]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[23]  Carol L. Barry User-defined relevance criteria: an exploratory study , 1994 .

[24]  Peiling Wang,et al.  A Cognitive Model of Document Use During a Research Project. Study I. Document Selection , 1998, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[25]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of Qualitative Research , 1992 .

[26]  Peter Suber Open access to the scientific journal literature , 2002, Journal of biology.

[27]  Linda Schamber,et al.  Users' Criteria for Evaluation in a Multimedia Environment. , 1991 .

[28]  A. Adam Whatever happened to information systems ethics? Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea , 2004 .

[29]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[30]  E. Burton Swanson,et al.  INFORMATION CHANNEL DISPOSITION AND USE , 1987 .

[31]  Don Schauder,et al.  Electronic Publishing of Professional Articles: Attitudes of Academics and Implications for the Scholarly Communication Industry , 1994, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[32]  James Keller,et al.  Public access issues: an introduction , 1995 .

[33]  Diane M. Strong,et al.  AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment , 2002, Inf. Manag..

[34]  CHRISTINE L. BORGMAN,et al.  Digital libraries and the continuum of scholarly communication , 2000, J. Documentation.

[35]  Soo Young Rieh Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web , 2002, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..