Interdisciplinary differences in attitudes towards deposit in institutional repositories

Allen, James Interdisciplinary differences in attitudes towards deposit in institutional repositories., 2005 Masters thesis, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK). [Thesis]


Download (407kB) | Preview

English abstract

The attitudes and behaviours of academics from different disciplines towards depositing their work in institutional repositories are compared. This is achieved through the use of a survey strategy, and by examination of the contents of a twenty-five UK institutional repositories. The survey targets humanities academics, and the data is compared to that from previous surveys focusing on scientific, technical and medical (STM) disciplines. The number of humanities documents in institutional repositories is currently far lower than that in STM disciplines. Awareness of Open Access amongst humanities academics is also low. However they perceive many advantages to depositing their work in institutional repositories, especially for the reader, not for themselves. Around two-thirds of respondents would deposit work in institutional repositories, despite having several concerns. Those who would not deposit work in this way perceive the same disadvantages: potential for plagiarism, the apprehension of interfering with publishing their work elsewhere, and the fragility of online means of dissemination. Increased depositing in institutional repositories in the future depends on encouraging authors of the advantages of doing so, not only to others but also to themselves. At this early stage of development understanding the attitudes of academics in different disciplines is crucial.

Item type: Thesis (UNSPECIFIED)
Keywords: open access, institutional repositories, scholarly publishing, online publishing, universities, open archives
Subjects: E. Publishing and legal issues.
H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HS. Repositories.
Depositing user: James Allen
Date deposited: 16 Dec 2005
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:02


ALPSP, 2004. Authors and electronic publishing: the ALPSP research study on authors’ and readers’ views of electronic research communication. Worthing: ALPSP.

ANDERSON, R., 2004. Author disincentives and open access. Serials review 30 (4) pp.288-291.

ANDREW, T., 2003. Trends in self-posting of research material online by academic staff. Ariadne [online] 37 [cited 7 July 2005] <>

BIOMED CENTRAL [online] [cited 26 January 2005] <>

BJORK, B., 2004. Open access to scientific publications: an analysis of the barriers to change. Information research [online] 9 (2) [cited 17 February 2005] <>

BRAND, A., 2001. CrossRef turns one. D-Lib magazine [online] 7 (5) [cited 20 January 2005] <>

CHAN, L. et al., 2002. Budapest open access initiative [online] [cited 14 July 2005] <>

CLAYTON, C., 2004. STM research literature and the general public. Library and information update, 3 (10) p.15.

COCKERILL, 2004. Assessing the impact of Open Access. Open access now [online] 23 [cited 26 January 2005] <>

CRAWFORD, W. and GORMAN, M., 1995. Future libraries: dreams, madness and reality. Chicago: American Libraries Association.

CROW, R., 2002. The case for institutional repositories: a SPARC position paper [online] [cited 12 May 2005] <>

DAY, M., 2003. Prospects for institutional e-print repositories in the United Kingdom: ePrints UK supporting study, no. 1, version 1.0 [online] [cited 7 July 2005] <>

DELAMOTHE, T. and SMITH, R., 2004. Open access publishing takes off: the dream is now achievable. British medical journal, 328 pp.1-3.

DIRECTORY OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS [online] [cited 23 May 2005] <>

ELSEVIER, 2004. Elsevier’s comments on evolutions in scientific, technical and medical publishing and reflections on possible implications of Open Access journals for the UK [online] [cited 17 June 2005] <>

EPRINTS, Archives using GNU EPrints [online] [cited 17 February 2005] <>

E-PRINTS UK PROJECT [online] [cited 14 July 2005] <>

ESPOSITO, J., 2004. The devil you don’t know: the unexpected future of Open Access publishing. First Monday [online] 9 (8) [cited 21 January 2005] <>

FRANK, M., REICH, M., and RA’ANAN, A., 2004. A not-for-profit publisher’s perspective on open access. Serials review 30 (4) pp.281-287.

FRIEND, F., 2004. How can there be open access to journal articles? Serials [online] 17 (1) pp.37-40 [cited 14 May 2005] <>

GADD, E., OPPENHEIM, C., and PROBETS, S., 2003. RoMEO studies 2: how academics want to protect their open access research papers. Journal of information science 29 (5) pp.333-356.

GRACZYNSKI, M. and MOSES, L., 2004. Open access publishing: panacea or Trojan horse? Medical science monitor 10 (1) pp.ED1-ED3.

GRIVELL, L., 2004. Access for all? EMBO reports, 5 (3) pp.222-225.

GUEDON, J., 2004. The ‘green’ and ‘gold’ roads to open access: the case for mixing and matching. Serials review 30 (4) pp.315-328.

HARNAD, S., 1994. Scholarly journals at the crossroads: a subversive proposal for electronic publishing [online] [cited 18 July 2005] <>

HARNAD, S., 2000. E-knowledge: freeing the refereed journal corpus online. Computer law and security report [online] 16 (2) pp.78-87 [cited 17 February 2005] <>

HARNAD, S., 2001. The self-archiving initiative. Nature webdebates [online] [cited 17 February 2005] <>

HARNAD, S., 2003. Open access to peer-reviewed research through author/institution self-archiving: maximising research impact by maximising online access. Journal of postgraduate medicine [online] 49 (4) [cited 14 April 2005] <>

HARNAD, S., 2004. Fast-forward in the green road to open access: the case against mixing up green and gold. Ariadne [online] 42 [cited 13 August 2005] <>

HEERY, R. and ANDERSON, S., 2005. Digital repositories review [online] [cited 14 July 2005] <>

HEY, J., 2004. Targeting academic research with Southampton’s institutional repository. Ariadne [online] 40 [cited 13 August 2005] <>

HOUSE OF COMMONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE, 2004. Scientific publications: free for all? London: The Stationery Office Limited

HUBBARD, B., 2004. Evidence on scientific publications for the Science and Technology Committee of the UK Parliament from the SHERPA project [online] [cited 4 April 2005] <>

JISCMAIL, Humanities [online] [cited 23 February 2005] <>

JOHNSON, R., 2002. Institutional repositories: partnering with faculty to enhance scholarly communication. D-Lib magazine [online] 8 (11) [cited 17 February 2005] <>

KASER, D., 2002. Ghost in a bottle: Elsevier Science chairman Derk Haank responds to the Public Library of Science initiative. Information today [online] 19 (2) [cited 14 July 2005] <>

KLING, R., and McKIM, G., 2000. Not just a matter of time: field difference and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American society for information science, 51 (14) pp.1306-1320.

LAWAL, I., 2002. Scholarly communication: the use and non-use of e-print archives for the dissemination of scientific information. Issues in science and technology librarianship [online] 36 [cited 17 February 2005] <>

LAWRENCE, S., 2001. Online or invisible? [online] [cited 21 July 2005] <>

LYNCH, C. A., 2003. Institutional repositories: essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age. ARL bimonthly report [online] 226 [cited 20 January 2005] <>

MacCOLL, J. and PINFIELD, S., 2002. Climbing the scholarly publishing mountain with SHERPA. Ariadne [online] 33 [cited 10 May 2005] <>

McVEIGH, M., 2004. Open access journals in the ISI citation databases: analysis of Impact Factors and citation patterns [online] [cited 26 January 2005] <>

MARKLAND, M. Institutional repository questionnaire [online] [cited 17 May 2005] <>

MARSHALL, C. and ROSSMAN, G., 1995. Designing qualitative research, 2nd edition. London: Sage.

MEYERS, B., 2004. Open access: a matter for definition. Society of scholarly publishing, issue status report [online] June 2004 [cited 21 July 2005] <>

MORRIS, S., 2004. Open access: how are publishers reacting? Serials review 30 (4) pp.304-307.

MORRIS, S. and OLIVIERI, R., 2004. The secret life of STM publishing. Serials, 17 (2) pp.111-117.

NICHOLAS, D., ROWLANDS, I., and HUNTINGTON, P., 2004. Open access publishing: what authors say. Library and information update, 3 (11) pp.34-35.

OAISTER [online] [cited 17 February 2005] <>

ODLYZKO, A., 1995. Tragic loss or good riddance? The impending demise of traditional scholarly journals. Notices of the American mathematical society [online] 42 (1) [cited 14 July 2005] <>

ODLYZKO, A., 1997. The economics of electronic journals. First Monday [online] 2 (8) [cited 14 July 2005] <>

ODLYZKO, A., 2002. The rapid evolution of scholarly communication. Learned publishing, 15 (1) pp.7-19.

OPEN ACCESS NOW, 2003. Financial analysts warn about impact of changes in the scientific publishing industry. Open access now [online] 11 [cited 17 February 2005] <>

OPPENHEIM, A., 1992. Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement, new edition. London: Continuum.

OPEN ACCESS TEAM FOR SCOTLAND [online] [cited 26 July 2005] <

OWENS, S., 2003. Revolution or evolution? A shift to an open-access model of publishing would clearly benefit science, but who should pay? EMBO reports 4 (8) pp.741-743.

PELIZZARI, E., 2003. Academic staff use, perception and expectations about open access archives: a survey of social science sector at Brescia University. [online] [cited 17 February 2005] <>

PHELPS, C., 1998.Achieving maximal value from digital technologies in scholarly communication. ARL proceedings [online] 133 [cited 28 June 2005] <>

PICKERING, B., 2004a. BioMed Central hits out at open access ‘myths.’ Information world review, 201, p.1

PICKERING, B., 2004a. Big guns fire at open access. Information world review, 201, pp.14-15.

PINFIELD, S., 2003. Open archives and UK institutions. D-Lib magazine [online] 9 (3) [cited 10 May 2005] <>

POYNDER, R., 2002. Not pleading poverty: Elsevier Science chairman Derk Haank addresses industry and end-user issues. Information today [online] 19 (4) [cited 14 July 2005] <>

POYNDER, R., 2004. Interview: put up or shut up. Information today [online] 21 (8) [cited 14 July 2005] <>

PUBLIC LIBRARY OF SCIENCE [online] [cited 26 January 2005] <>

RAMACHANDRAN, R., 2004. The ‘free access’ debate. Frontline [online] 21 (2) [cited 7 July 2005] <>

REGAZZI, J., 2004. The shifting sands of open access publishing: a publisher’s view. Serials review 30 (4) pp.275-280.

REICH, M., 2003. Peace, love and PLoS. Physiologist [online] 46 (4) p.137-141 [cited 7 July 2005] <>

RESEARCH COUNCILS UK, 2005. RCUK position statement on access to research outputs [online] [cited 3 August 2005] <>

RICHARDSON, M., 2005. Open access and institutional repositories: an evidence-based approach. Serials [online] 18 (2) pp.98-103 [cited 10 August 2005] <>

ROBSON, C., 2002. Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers., 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.

ROMEO [online] [cited 17 February 2005] <>

ROWLANDS, I., NICHOLAS, D., and HUNTINGDON, P., 2004. Scholarly communication in the digital environment: what do authors want? [online] [cited 24 January 2005] <>

SHERPA [online] [cited 17 February 2005] <>

SMITH, M. et al., 2003. DSpace: an open source dynamic digital repository. D-Lib magazine [online] 9 (1) [cited 20 January 2005] <>

SUBER, P., 2002. Where does the free online scholarship movement stand today? Cortex, 38 (2) pp.261-264.

SUBER, P., 2003. Removing the barriers to research: an introduction to open access for librarians [online] [cited 11 May 2005] <>

SWAN, A. and BROWN, S., 2003. Authors and electronic publishing: what authors want from the new technology. Learned publishing, 16 (1) pp.28-33.

SWAN, A. and BROWN, S., 2004. Authors and open access publishing. Learned publishing, 17 (3) pp.219-224.

TALJA, S. and MAULA, H., 2003. Reasons for the use and non-use of electronic journals and databases: a domain analytic study in four disciplines. Journal of documentation, 59 (6) pp.673-691.

TWYMAN, N., 2004. Launching PLoS Biology: six months in the open. Serials, 17 (2) pp.127-131.

VAN DE SOMPEL, H. et al., 2004. Rethinking scholarly communication: building the system that scholars deserve. D-Lib magazine [online] 10 (9) [cited 24 January 2005] <

VELTEROP, J., 2003a. Public funding, public knowledge, publication. Serials, 16 (2) pp.169-174.

VELTEROP, J., 2003b. Should scholarly societies embrace open access (or is it the kiss of death)? Learned publishing, 16 (3) pp.167-169.

WARE, M., 2004. Universities’ own electronic repositories yet to impact on Open Access. Nature webdebates [online] [cited 7 July 2005] <>

WATSON, L., LOGIN, S., and BURNS, J., 2003. Exploring new ways of publishing: a library-faculty partnership. Journal of the medical library association, 91 (2) pp.245-247.

WELLCOME TRUST, 2003. An economic analysis of scientific research publishing, revised edition [online] [cited 24 January 2005] <>


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item