Contact Us | Donate | Advertise Follow us on TwitterFollow us on facebookFollow us on LinkedIn

tfzfnvxz.jpg

For the most complete display of articles, please login.

Editor - Christine Willis, AHIP
Managing Editor - Susan Talmage
Full Editorial team - click here
MLAConnect is updated continually. Most articles are restricted to MLA members and/or to members of specific MLA sections. For the most complete display of articles, please login.
Submit to MLAConnect.
Refer to the MLA Style Manual when writing articles.
Products, services, and events published in MLAConnect do not constitute MLA’s endorsement or approval. Opinions expressed in MLAConnect are the authors’ and do not necessarily express those of the association.

MLAConnect < Article detail

RTI Research Spotlight: Librarian-Led Research Shows the Need for Greater Open Access Outreach to Change Misconceptions of Early Career Researchers

A recent study published in the Journal of the Medical Library Association found that early career professionals in the field of cancer research have a complicated relationship to open access (OA) publishing.

The study analyzed the publication data of clinical and research fellows at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) over a five-year period. Publication rates climbed every year among clinical and research fellows, but the overall number of publications that were available OA remained relatively flat. The study found that publications where the fellows were first author were significantly more likely to be available OA. The fellows’ publications were also evaluated to determine if they fell under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy, and the overwhelming majority did.

The study also attempted to discern the fellow’s perceptions of OA publishing and public access, specifically the NIH public access policy, through individual interviews. Overall, the fellows perceived OA publications as being lower quality, less credible, and less prestigious than non-OA publications. The fellows did acknowledge the potential of OA to aid in research dissemination but expressed confusion surrounding legitimate OA journals and predatory journals, as well as frustration with author processing charges (APCs) in “hybrid” OA journals. Fellows were largely familiar with the NIH public access policy overall, having “grown up” with it (the policy was officially mandated in 2008).

Lead author Robin O’Hanlon* described the impetus for the study as stemming from her interactions with early career professionals at MSKCC who questioned the value of publishing OA:

I think often as information professionals we are advocating for open access without understanding the lived experience of the researchers we are supporting. It’s important to understand how misperceptions about OA are reinforced by organizational reward systems and power structures. The fellows in this study were not philosophically opposed to open access, but they are essentially locked into a system that reinforces journal status above all else.

O’Hanlon’s collaborators included Jeanine McSweeney, Scholarly Communications, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and Samuel Stabler, Sociology, Hunter College, City University of New York.

The article was approved for MLA’s Independent Reading Program.

* Robin O’Hanlon is a Fellow of the 2018 MLA Research Training Institute (RTI), and this project was the focus of her research. The RTI project was made possible in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (RE-95-17-0025-17).

If no content displays, it may be because the access to this article is member-only. Please login below, and then use the back page control to get back from the home page to the page displaying the article.