Open Access: The Whipping Boy for Problems in Scholarly Communication - A Response to the Rebuttals

被引:0
作者
Kingsley, Danny A. [1 ,2 ]
Kennan, Mary Anne [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Australian Natl Univ, Australian Natl Ctr Publ Awareness Sci, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
[2] Univ Cambridge, Scholarly Commun, Cambridge CB2 1TN, England
[3] Charles Stuart Univ, Sch Informat Studies, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[4] Univ New South Wales, Sch Informat Syst Technol & Management, Australian Sch Business, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
来源
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS | 2015年 / 37卷
关键词
Scholarly Publishing; Open Access; Predatory Publishing; Institutional Repositories; Article Processing Charges; Subscriptions; Hybrid Publishing; Mega Journals;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
In this paper, we respond to five rebuttals to Kingsley and Kennan (2015). Four researchers in the information systems field and a university library director of research infrastructure provided these rebuttals. Almost without exception, the rebuttals from the information systems researchers take an analytical approach to the question of scholarly communication in their field. However, in undertaking their individual analyses of scholarly publishing or communication, they do not directly address the issues raised in our original debate piece. The rebuttal from the university library administrator (Groenewegen, 2015) alone directly addresses the discussion points raised in the original debate. As researchers in the field of scholarly communications, while this was not how we originally envisioned the debate, the rebuttals as a body of work have opened up some interesting themes, which we explore in addition to responding to the individual rebuttals.
引用
收藏
页码:383 / 394
页数:12
相关论文
共 69 条