Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science (한국문헌정보학회지)

Korean Society For Library And Information Science (한국문헌정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Open Access Status of Domestic Author's Papers Published in International Journals: Based on Highly Cited Papers

국내연구자가 출판한 국제학술지 논문의 오픈액세스 현황 - 고피인용된 논문 중심 -

  • 조재인 (인천대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2020.01.15
  • Accepted : 2020.02.11
  • Published : 2020.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study used the Unpaywall API, one of the open tools to track the OA version, to empirically identify the OA of 3,905 papers that have been published by Korean corresponding authors since 2015 in international journals. As a result, the following facts were found. First, less than 30% of papers have been open accessed, and more than half of them were bronze OA. Secondly, the archiving site of the Green OA papers was found not to be domestic but mainly subject repositories or institutional repositories of overseas universities to which co-authors belong. Third, only 19.6% of research fund granted papers were open accessed and half of them were in the medical field. In contrast to the international trends in which the OA papers showed higher citations, the analyzed OA papers showed no higher citations than the non-OA papers.

본 연구는 OA 버전을 추적하는 개방형 도구 중 하나인 Unpaywall API를 이용해 2015년 이후 내국인이 국제 학술지에 출판한 논문 중 고피인용되고 있는 논문 3,905건을 대상으로 OA여부를 실증적으로 파악하였다. 분석 대상 논문의 공개 여부와 방식을 이해하고 학분 분야에 따라 차이가 존재하는지 살펴 본 결과, 다음과 같은 사실을 발견하였다. 첫째, 의학 분야를 제외하면 30%이하의 논문만이 공개되고 있었으며, 공개 방식도 브론즈가 절반 이상을 차지하였다. 둘째, 그린 OA된 논문의 아카이빙 장소는 국내가 아니라 주로 공동저자가 소속된 해외 대학의 기관레포지토리이거나 주제레포지토리인 것으로 조사되었다. 셋째, 연구비 수혜 논문의 경우에도 단지 19.6%만이 공개되고 있으며 그 중 절반은 의학 분야가 차지하는 것으로 나타났다. 마지막으로 OA된 논문이 더 높은 피인용도를 보이는 국제 추세와 달리, 분석 대상 논문은 비 OA 논문에 비해 높은 피인용도를 보이지 않았다.

Keywords

References

  1. National Library of Korea. 2016. A Study on the Countermeasures for the Change of the Global Open Access Environment. [online] [cited Oct. 19, 2019]
  2. Kim, G. and Chung, K. 2017. "Characteristics of Open Access Journals in Korea: Focused on KCI Journals." Korean Society for Information Society, 34(3): 251-267.
  3. Kim, G. 2016. An OA Policy Study on Research Outcomes Funded by Public Institutions. Korean Library and Information Science Society Winter Conference, November 11, 2016: 337-353.
  4. Kim, H. 2018. eJournal Licensing and Open Access. Korean Library And Information Science Society Summer Conference, 61-71.
  5. Min, Y. and Cha, M. 2017. "A Study on the Open Access Policy of Scholarly Journals Publishing Research Papers Funded by Korea." Korean Society for Information Society, 34(1): 155-176.
  6. Shin, E. 2010. "An Analysis on Current Research Funding and Open Access Status for Science and Technology Articles Published by University Faculties." Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 42(4): 1-21.
  7. Bando, K. 2015. "ResearchGate-SNS for Researchers with Repository." Current Awareness-E, 324, [online] [cited 2019. 10. 19.]
  8. Akbaritabar, A. and Stahlschmidt, S. 2019. Merits and limits: Applying open data to monitor open access publications in bibliometric databases, 17th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2019, 2 September 2019 through 5 September 2019, Sapienza University of RomeRome: Italy.
  9. Antelman, K. 2017. Leveraging the Growth of Open Access in Library Collection Decision Making, ACRL Conference. [online] [cited 2019. 11. 19.]
  10. APA. 2017. Open Access in the Humanities: What is Open Access? [online] [cited 2019. 11. 19.]
  11. Archambault, E., Amyot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A., F., Rebout, L. and Roberge, G. 2013. Proportion of Access Peer-Reviewed Papers At The European and World Levels-2004-2011. [online] [cited 2019. 5. 1.]
  12. Archambault, E., Amyot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A., Provencher, F., Rebout, L. and Roberge, G. 2014. Proportion of Open Access Papers Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals at the European and World Levels-1996-2013. [online] [cited 2019. 6. 3.]
  13. Archambault, E., Cote, G., Struck, B. and Voorons, M. 2016. Research Impact of Paywalled Versus Open Access Papers. [online] [cited 2019. 6. 6.]
  14. ARL. 2019. Comment: ARL Feedback on Plan S Open Access Implementation Guidelines. [online] [cited 2019. 6. 4.]
  15. Austrian Science Fund. 2018. Austrian Open Access Agreement with Publisher Wiley. [online] [cited 2019. 12. 4.]
  16. Bjork B. 2017. "Growth of Hybrid Open Access, 2009-2016." PeerJ, 5: e3878 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3878
  17. Bosman J. and Kramer B. 2018. "Open Access Levels: A Quantitative Exploration Using Web of Science And Oadoi Data." PeerJ Preprints, 6: e3520v1 [online] [cited 2019. 6. 4.]
  18. Carnegie Mellon University. 2019. Carnegie Mellon Publishing Agreement Marks Open Access Milestone [online] [cited 2019. 12. 8.]
  19. Clements, Jeff C. "Open Access Articles Receive More Citations in Hybrid Marine Ecology Journals." FACETS, 2: 1-14 https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2016-0032
  20. Coalition-S. 2019. Guidance on the Implementation of Plan S. [online] [cited 2019. 12. 4.]
  21. Gargouri, Y., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. 2012. Green and Gold Open Access Percentages and Growth, By Discipline. 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI), Canada, 5-8 septembre 2012.
  22. IARLA. 2019. A View of Plan S. [online] [cited 2019. 12. 7.]
  23. Lewis, C. L. 2018. "The Open Access Citation Advantage: Does It Exist and What Does It Mean for Libraries?" Information Technology and Libraries, 37(3): 50-65.
  24. LIBER. 2019. Open Access Working Group: Statement on Plan S guidelines. [online] [cited 2019. 12. 7.]
  25. McGlashan, D. and Hadley, K. 2019. Adapting to a transformative future: Open Access and PlanS. [online] [cited 2019. 12. 8.]
  26. MIT Libraries. 2019. Harvard Library and MIT Libraries Provide Recommendations for Plan S Implementation. [online] [cited 2019. 12. 7.]
  27. Nature. 2013. Half of 2011 Papers Now Free to Read - Boost For Advocates of Open-Access Research Articles. [online] [cited 2019. 12. 7.]
  28. Nature. 2018. China Backs Bold Plan to Tear Down Journal Paywalls. [online] [cited 2019. 12. 6.]
  29. OA2020. 2019. OA2020 Progress Report. [online] [cited 2019. 12. 6.]
  30. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. 2017. Steady Growth of Articles in Fully OA Journals Using a CC-BY License. [online] [cited 2019. 12. 6.]
  31. OpenAIRE. 2019. Open AIRE's response on the Implementation Guidelines of Plan S. [online] [cited 2019. 12. 8.]
  32. Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Lariviere, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., Farley, A., West, J. and Haustein, S. 2018. "The State of OA: A Large-Scale Analysis of the Prevalence And Impact of Open Access Articles." PeerJ, 6: e4375 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375
  33. Powell, J., Klein, M. and Van De Sompel, H. 2017. Autoload: A Pipeline for Expanding the Holdings of An Institutional Repository Enabled by Resourcesync. [online] [cited 2019. 12. 1.]
  34. Quaderi, N., Hardcastl, J., Petrou, C. and Szomszor, M. 2019. The Plan S Footprint: Implications for the Scholarlypublishing Landscape. Institute for Scientific Information. [online] [cited 2019. 12. 5.]
  35. Sciencea-metrix. 2013. Proportion of Open Access Peer-Reviewed Papers at the European and World Levels 2004-2011. [online] [cited 2019. 10. 5]
  36. Sherpa/Romeo. 2019. RoMEO Statistics. [online] [cited 2019. 12. 18.]
  37. SPARC Japan. 2019. PlanS. [online] [cited 2019. 12. 5.]
  38. Springer Nature. 2017. Springer Nature is Delivering on Open Access and Calls for Continued Partnership. [online] [cited 2019. 6. 5.]
  39. Tang, M., Bever, J. and Yu, F. 2017. "Open Access Increases Citationsof Papers in Ecology." Ecosphere, 8(7): e01887 [online] [cited 2019. 4. 3.]
  40. Tay, A. 2017. Open Access Rates of a Institution'S Output Vs A LIS Journal Output - Or Are Librarians Walking the Talk? [online] [cited 2019. 4. 3.]