Severin Anna, Egger Matthias, Eve Martin Paul, Hürlimann Daniel
Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland.
Swiss National Science Foundation, Bern, 3001, Switzerland.
F1000Res. 2018 Dec 11;7:1925. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.17328.2. eCollection 2018.
Many of the discussions surrounding Open Access (OA) revolve around how it affects publishing practices across different academic disciplines. It was a long-held view that it would be only a matter of time before all disciplines fully and relatively homogeneously implemented OA. Recent large-scale bibliometric studies show, however, that the uptake of OA differs substantially across disciplines. We aimed to answer two questions: First, how do different disciplines adopt and shape OA publishing practices? Second, what discipline-specific barriers to and potentials for OA can be identified? In a first step, we identified and synthesized relevant bibliometric studies that assessed OA prevalence and publishing patterns across disciplines. In a second step, and adopting a social shaping of technology perspective, we studied evidence on the socio-technical forces that shape OA publishing practices. We examined a variety of data sources, including, but not limited to, publisher policies and guidelines, OA mandates and policies and author surveys. Over the last three decades, scholarly publishing has experienced a shift from "closed" access to OA as the proportion of scholarly literature that is openly accessible has increased continuously. Estimated OA levels for publication years after 2010 varied between 29.4% and 66%. The shift towards OA is uneven across disciplines in two respects: first, the growth of OA has been uneven across disciplines, which manifests itself in varying OA prevalence levels. Second, disciplines use different OA publishing channels to make research outputs OA. We conclude that historically rooted publishing practices differ in terms of their compatibility with OA, which is the reason why OA can be assumed to be a natural continuation of publishing cultures in some disciplines, whereas in other disciplines, the implementation of OA faces major barriers and would require a change of research culture.
许多围绕开放获取（OA）的讨论都集中在它如何影响不同学术学科的出版实践上。长期以来人们一直认为，所有学科全面且相对均匀地实施开放获取只是时间问题。然而，最近的大规模文献计量研究表明，不同学科对开放获取的采用情况存在很大差异。我们旨在回答两个问题：第一，不同学科如何采用和塑造开放获取出版实践？第二，可以识别出哪些特定学科的开放获取障碍和潜力？第一步，我们识别并综合了相关的文献计量研究，这些研究评估了各学科的开放获取普及率和出版模式。第二步，我们从技术的社会塑造视角出发，研究了塑造开放获取出版实践的社会技术力量的证据。我们考察了各种数据来源，包括但不限于出版商政策和指南、开放获取授权和政策以及作者调查。在过去三十年里，随着可公开获取的学术文献比例不断增加，学术出版经历了从“封闭”获取到开放获取的转变。2010年之后出版年份的估计开放获取水平在29.4%至66%之间变化。向开放获取的转变在两个方面因学科而异：第一，各学科开放获取的增长不均衡，这表现为不同的开放获取普及率水平。第二，各学科使用不同的开放获取出版渠道来使研究成果实现开放获取。我们得出结论，历史悠久的出版实践在与开放获取的兼容性方面存在差异，这就是为什么在某些学科中可以认为开放获取是出版文化的自然延续，而在其他学科中，开放获取的实施面临重大障碍，需要改变研究文化。
