A Study on Types of Content and Venues for Faculty Self-archiving

본 연구는 대학 교수들이 셀프 아카이빙하는 저장소와 저작물의 종류 및 그러한 결정의 배경이 되는 이유에 대하여 조사하였다. 미국 17개 연구 중심 대학의 교수들을 대상으로 설문지와 전화 면담을 수행하였으며 본 연구는 480명의 설문 응답과 41명의 후속 전화 면담 분석을 바탕으로 하였다. 분석 결과 교수들은 개인 홈페이지나 연구 그룹 홈페이지를 통하여 심사를 거친 논문을 셀프 아카이빙하는 경우가 많았다. 이를 통해 교수들이 학술 자료의 질적 수준 관리 기제로서의 논문 심사를 셀프 아카이빙에서도 중요한 요소로 인식한다는 것을 알 수 있다. 기관 레포지토리에서의 셀프 아카이빙 참여도는 저조한 편이었으나 몇몇 교수들은 다양한 종류의 학술 자료들을 디지털 형태로 보존할 수 있다는 점에서 그 발전 가능성을 언급하였다.

keywords: 셀프 아카이빙, 교수, 기관 레포지토리, 학술 출판, 디지털 보존, Self-archiving, Faculty, Institutional Repositories, Scholarly Publishing, Digital Preservation, Self-archiving, Faculty, Institutional Repositories, Scholarly Publishing, Digital Preservation

Abstract

This study investigated the self-archiving venues that university faculty members have used, the types of content that they have made publicly accessible on the web, and their rationales for such decisions. The present study was based on the analysis of 480 survey responses and 41 telephone interviews from professors at 17 Carnegie Doctorate-granting universities in the U.S. It was found that faculty members tended to self-archive referred articles on their personal websites or research group websites. This indicated that the faculties perceived peer-review process to be important in self-archiving practices as a quality-control mechanism. The rate of self-archiving in institutional repositories was low, although several interviewees envisioned the potential of the repositories regarding the ability to preserve various types of research works in digital form.

keywords: 셀프 아카이빙, 교수, 기관 레포지토리, 학술 출판, 디지털 보존, Self-archiving, Faculty, Institutional Repositories, Scholarly Publishing, Digital Preservation, Self-archiving, Faculty, Institutional Repositories, Scholarly Publishing, Digital Preservation

참고문헌

Allen, J. 2005. Interdisciplinary differences in attitudes towards deposit in institutional repositories. M. A. thesis, Manchester Metropolitan University. [online]. [cited 2010.02.17]. <http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00005180/01/FULLTEXT.pdf>.

Andrew, T. 2003. “Trends in self-posting of research material online by academic staff.” Ariadne, 37. [online]. [cited 2010.02.17]. <http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue37/andrew/>.

Antelman, K. 2006. “Self-archiving practice and the influence of publisher policies in the social sciences." Learned Publishing, 192: 85-95.

Borgman, C. L. 2007. Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 47-74.

Brown, C. 2001. “The E-volution of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomers." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 523: 187-200.

Coleman, A., & J. Roback. 2005. “Open Access Federation for Library and Information Science: dLIST and DL-Harvest.” D-Lib Magazine, 1112. [online]. [cited 2010.02.17]. <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december05/coleman/12coleman.html>.

Covey, D. T. 2009. “Self-archiving journal articles: A case study of faculty practice and missed opportunity.” portal: Libraries and the Academy, 92: 223-251.

Davis, P. M., & M. J. L. Connolly. 2007. Institutional Repositories: Evaluating the reasons for non-use of Cornell University's installation of DSpace. D-Lib Magazine, 133/4. [online]. [cited 2010.02.17]. <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march07/davis/03davis.html>.

Doorn P., & H. Tjalsma 2007. “Introduction: archiving research data.” Archival Science, 7: 1-20.

10.

Foster, N. F., & S. Gibbons. 2005. “Understanding faculty to improve content recruitment for institutional repositories.” D-Lib Magazine, 111. [online]. [cited 2010.02.17]. <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.html>.

11.

Gadd, E., C. Oppenheim, & S. Probets. 2003. “RoMEO studies 2: How academics want to protect their open-access research papers.” Journal of Information Science, 293: 333-356.

12.

Griffiths, A. 2008. “The publication of research data: Researcher attitudes and behaviour." Paper presented at the 4th International Digital Curation Conference, Scotland: Edinburgh.

13.

Guédon, J. C. 2003. “Open access archives: From scientific plutocracy to the republic of science." IFLA Journal, 292: 129-139.

14.

Gunnarsdóttir, K. 2005. “Scientific journal publication: On the role of electronic preprint exchange in the distribution of scientific literature." Social Studies of Science, 354: 549– 579.

15.

Harnad, S. 2003. “Open Access to peer-reviewed research through author/institution self-archiving: Maximizing research impact by maximizing online access." Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 494: 337-342.

16.

Harnad, S., & Brody, T. 2004. “Comparing the impact of Open Access OA vs. Non-OA articles in the same journals." D-Lib Magazine, 106. [online]. [cited 2010.02.17]. <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/06harnad.html>.

17.

Jantz, R. C., & M. C. Wilson 2008. “Institutional repositories: Faculty deposits, marketing, and the reform of scholarly communication." Journal of Academic Librarianship, 343: 186- 195.

18.

Kankanhalli, A., B. C. Y. Tan, & K.-K. Wei. 2005. “Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation.” MIS Quarterly, 291: 113-143.

19.

J. Kim. 2007. “Motivating and impeding factors affecting faculty contribution to institutional repositories." Journal of Digital Information, 82. [online]. [cited 2010.02.17]. <http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/193/177>.

20.

J. Kim. 2010. “Faculty self-archiving: Motivations and barriers." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, forthcoming.

21.

Kling, R. 2004. “The Internet and unrefereed scholarly publishing." Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 39: 591-631.

22.

Kling, R., L. Spector, & G. McKim. 2002. “Locally controlled scholarly publishing via the Internet: The Guild Model." The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 8. [online]. [cited 2010. 02.17]. <http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/08-01/kling.html>.

23.

Lawal, I. 2002. “Scholarly communication: the use and non-use of e-print archives for the dissemination of scientific information." Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, 36. [online]. [cited 2010.02.17]. <http://www.istl.org/02-fall/article3.html>.

24.

Lercher, A. 2008. “A survey of attitudes about digital repositories among faculty at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge." Journal of Academic Librarianship, 345: 408-415.

25.

Lynch, C. A. 2003. “Institutional repositories: essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age." ARL, 226: 1-7.

26.

Lynch, C. A., & J. K. Lippincott. 2005. “Institutional repository deployment in the United States as of early 2005." D-Lib Magazine, 119. [online]. [cited 2010.02.17]. <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/lynch/09lynch.html>.

27.

Lynch, C. 2007. “The shape of the scientific article in the developing cyberinfrastructure." CTWatch Quarterly, 33: 5-10.

28.

Manuel, K. 2001. “The place of e-prints in the publication patterns of physical scientists." Science & Technology Libraries, 201: 59-85.

29.

Markey, K, Rieh, S.Y., St. Jean, B., Kim, J., & Yakel, E. 2007. “Census of Institutional Repositories in the United States MIRACLE project research findings.” CLIR publication, 140: 167. [online]. [cited 20100217]. <http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub140/contents.html>.

30.

McGovern, N.Y., & A.C. McKay. 2008. “Leveraging short-term opportunities to address long-term obligations: A perspective on institutional repositories and digital preservation programs." Library Trends, 572: 262-279.

31.

Meyer, E. T., & Kling, R. 2002. Leveling the playing field, or expanding the bleachers? Socio-Technical Interaction Networks and arXiv.org Working paper. Bloomington: Indiana University Center for Social Informatics. No. WP-02-10

32.

Ober, J. L. 2005. Postprint repository services: context and feasibility at the University of California. California: The University of California's Office of Scholarly Communication. [online]. [cited 2010.02.17]. <http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/responses/materials/UC_postprintstudy_final.pdf>.

33.

OCLC-CRL 2007. “Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification TRAC: Criteria and checklist." [online]. [cited 2010.02.17]. <http://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/pages/trac_0.pdf>.

34.

Pinfield, S. 2001. “How do physicists use an e-print archive? Implications for institutional e-print services." D-Lib Magazine, 712. [online]. [cited 2010.02.17]. <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december01/pinfield/12pinfield.html>.

35.

Rowlands, I., D. Nicholas., & P. Huntington. 2004. “Scholarly communication in the digital environment: What do authors want?" Learned publishing, 17: 261-273.

36.

Swan, A., & S. Brown. 2004. “ISC/OSI Journal author survey report:" JISC, HEFCE. [online]. [cited 2010.02.17]. <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11002/01/JISCOAreport1.pdf>.

37.

Swan, A., & S. Brown. 2005. Open access self-archiving: an author study. Key Perspective Ltd. [online]. [cited 2010.02.17]. <http://cogprints.org/4385/1/jisc2.pdf>.

38.

Wojciechowska, A. 2007. “Analysis of the use of Open Archives in the fields of Mathematics and Computer Science." OCLC Systems & Services, 231: 54-69.

39.

Xia, J. 2007. “Assessment of self-archiving in institutional repositories: Across disciplines." Journal of Academic Librarianship, 336: 647-654.

바로가기메뉴

논문 상세

Vol.44 No.1

교수들의 셀프 아카이빙 저작물의 종류와 저장소에 관한 연구

A Study on Types of Content and Venues for Faculty Self-archiving

초록

Abstract

참고문헌

한국문헌정보학회지