The effect of scholarly communication practices on engagement with open … · 2020-02-05 ·...

i

Theeffectofscholarlycommunicationpracticeson

engagementwithopenaccess:

AnAustralianstudyofthreedisciplines

Athesissubmittedforthedegreeof

DoctorofPhilosophyofthe

AustralianNationalUniversity

DannyAKingsley

December2008

i

Thisthesiscontainsnomaterialthathasbeenacceptedfortheawardofanyotherdegree

ordiplomainanyuniversity.Tothebestoftheauthor’sknowledgeandbeliefitcontains

no material previously published or written by another person, except where due

referenceismadeinthetext.

DannyAKingsley

December2008

LicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution‐Noncommercial‐ShareAlike2.5Australia

License

ii

Acknowledgements

Whileostensiblyrepresentingoneperson’sworkoverseveralyears,aPhDistheproduct

ofahugeteamofpeople,andthisismyopportunitytoacknowledgethosewhohelpedme

withthiswork.

Firstly of course my beloved husband Jason for being incredibly and unfailingly

supportive,movingthefamilytoanewcitysoIcouldattendtheANU,providingasteady

income,andlisteningtomystreamsofconsciousnessasItriedtounderstandwhatIwas

doing.

I am grateful for a fantastic team of supervisors and advisors, Sue Stocklmayer, Roger

ClarkeandColinSteele,whohaveeachbrought theirownperspectivesandstrengthsto

thetable.ThankyoutoSueforfastresponsesandcleardirection,thankyoutoRogerfor

beingavoiceofreasonandforofferingaco‐authoringopportunity,andthankyoutoColin

for being a perpetual source of information and for championing me. I also owe an

enormousdebttoDonLambertonforhissageadviceanddirectionintheearlierpartsof

the project. I also thank the many people at the ANU who volunteered their time to

explainsystemsandideasandgivemeadvice.

Therewas a wider support teamwho helpedwith the logistics of balancing study and

familybetweentwocities.GregandDeewhohousedandfedmeandAlexinourmonthly

trips to Canberra for the first two years andKatewho looked afterAlexwhile Iwas in

meetingsandatcoursesduringthattime.

Lastly tomychildren ‐Alexwhosebirthpredatedmystipendofferbyoneday,andhas

onlyknownhismothertobeaPhDstudent,andNatasha,whooffsetherearlyarrivalby

beingacalmandeasybaby,allowingmetocompletethiswork–Iwillnowbeabletobea

propermothertoyouboth.

This thesis is dedicated to thememory ofmy beloved dance teacherMargaret Chapple

whotoldmeat15tofollowmydreamsandnottoworry,‘yourbrainwillwait’.Itdid.

iii

Abstract

Thisdissertationaddressesaspecificaspectofthebroadareaofcommunicationsystems

usedamongresearchers.Thisresearchhasundertakentoestablishabroaderviewofthe

communication practices of scholars to understand the motivations behind their

publicationchoices.Openaccessoffersasolutiontoissueswiththescholarlypublication

system such as delays in publication and restricted visibility of research due to high

subscriptioncosts.Theprincipleofopenaccessistoenablemaximumaccesstofindings

frompubliclyfundedresearchtomaximisesocialreturnsonpublicinvestments.Despite

theapparentbenefitsofopenaccess,theuptakehasbeenlimited.

Thisthesisresearchtakesaholisticviewoftheresearcherasacommunicatortouncover

the reasons why researchers are making the publishing decisions they are. In‐depth

interviewswereconductedwith43researchersinthreedisciplinesattwoinstitutions,the

Australian National University and the University of New SouthWales. The disciplines,

Chemistry, Sociology and Computer Science, were known to have different publication

practices, Thequestions asked about all aspects of researcher communication including

researching, authoring, informal communication, article submission, refereeing,

mentoringanddatastorage.

Thefindingsshowthattraditionalargumentsforopenaccessareineffective.TheReward

function of scholarly publishing is central to managing academic careers and supports

traditional publishing systems. While having work openly accessible increases an

academic’s exposure and possibly therefore their citation counts, unless alternative

internet‐based forms of metrics are adopted, the open access option will not directly

appealtoresearchers.

Information‐seeking behaviour demonstrates how disciplinary differences affect

researcher’s interactionwith technology. The disciplines showedmarked differences in

almostalltheareasexplored,andthebehaviouralnormsexpressedineachdisciplinehave

directbearingonthelikelihoodofmembersofthatdisciplineembracingopenaccess.The

‘institutional/disciplinary divide’means that researchersmust publish inways that run

counter to their disciplinary norms in order to satisfy institutional and grant funding

requirements.

iv

Until governments, and particularly university administrations, recognise the need to

consider the discipline and the need to consider the individual and respond to these

needs, and until there is a realisation that different disciplines may require radically

differentapproaches,therewillnotbealarge‐scaleadoptionbyindividualresearchersof

thecurrentopenaccesstools.Eitherinstitutionalrepositoriesneedtoadaptdramatically

to offer work practice benefits or the broader academic population will only use

institutional repositories under duress, which is not the situation envisaged by open

accessadvocates.Thealternative is forcommunities todeveloptheirownsubject‐based

repositories,adevelopmentthatagainislikelytobehighlydependentoncommunication

normsindifferentdisciplines.

v

GlossaryofAbbreviations

AAP AmericanAssociationofPublishers

ACM AssociationofComputingMachinery

ACS AmericanChemicalSociety

ADFA AustralianDefenceForceAcademy

ANDS AustralianNationalDataService

ANU AustralianNationalUniversity

APAC AustralianPartnershipforAdvancedComputing

APSR AustralianPartnershipforSustainableRepositories

ARC AustralianResearchCouncil

ATN AustralianTechnologyNetwork

BMJ BritishMedicalJournal

CEDAM CentreforEducationalDevelopmentandAcademicMethods

CoRR ComputerResearchRepositories

CSIRO CommonwealthScienceandIndustryResearchOrganisation

CUL CornellUniversityLibraries

DEST DepartmentofEducationScienceandTraining

DOAJ DirectoryofOpenAccessJournals

ERA ExcellenceinResearchAssessment

ESCE Electrical,ComputerandSystemsEngineering

HERDC HigherEducationResearchDataCollection

IDEAS InternetDocumentsinEconomicsAccessService

IRU InnovationResearchUniversities

ISI InstituteofScientificInformation

JAMA JournaloftheAmericanMedicalAssociation

JCR JournalCitationReports

MIT MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology

NGU NewGenerationUniversities

NHMRC NationalHealthandMedicalResearchCouncil

NIH NationalInstitutesofHealth

NSF NationalScienceFoundation

OAKLaw OpenAccesstoKnowledgeLaw

OECD OrganisationforEconomicCo‐operationandDevelopment

OJS OpenJournalSystems

vi

OpenDOAR OpenDirectoryofOpenAccessRepositories

PNAS ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences

PRF PetroleumResearchFund

PRISM PartnershipforResearchIntegrityinScience

QUT QueenslandUniversityofTechnology

RAE ResearchAssessmentExercise

RCUK ResearchCouncilsUK

RePEc ResearchPapersinEconomics

ROAR RegistryofOpenAccessRepositories

RQF ResearchQualityFramework

SC ScholarlyCommunication

SCI ScienceCitationIndex

SIGMOD SpecialInterestGroupinManagementofData

SPARC ScholarlyPublishersAssociationResourceCoalition

STM Science,TechnicalandMedical

UK UnitedKingdom

UNSW UniversityofNewSouthWales

USA UnitedStatesofAmerica

vii

TableofContents

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ii

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ iii

GlossaryofAbbreviations ................................................................................................................v

TableofContents.............................................................................................................................. vii

Chapter1–Introduction..................................................................................................................1

Chapter2–Argumentsforopenaccess................................................................................... 11

Chapter3–Researchersandrepositories.............................................................................. 39

Chapter4Researchdesign ........................................................................................................ 63

Chapter5Scholarlycommunicationresults ....................................................................... 95

Chapter6–Careerresults..........................................................................................................165

Chapter7Implementingrepositories .................................................................................209

Chapter8–Implicationsoffindings .......................................................................................223

Chapter9–Conclusion................................................................................................................249

Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................257

Appendices .......................................................................................................................................279

Listofwebsitesaccessed .............................................................................................................405

1

Chapter1–Introduction

Scholarly communication and the Internet

Scholarly communication systemsare in aperiodof transition.Although the systems in

many disciplines havemaintained an adherence to the journal publication process that

hasbeen inplace inacademia for longperiods,evolving technologieshaveallowednew

formsof communication todevelop, andhaveofferedalternativepublishingoptions for

researcherslookingtonewwaysofsharingtheirresearchfindings.

In the same way that the new technology of the printing press revolutionised the

distributionof text, theadventof thecomputer inmodern timeshascompletelyaltered

thewaypeopleworkandcommunicate.Theprintingpressresulted inaperiodofgreat

change.Indeed,“theshiftfromscripttoprintprecededatransformationofworldviews”

(Eisenstein, 1979, p. 459). The technology itself was not the changing factor, however,

becausethereneededtobeaperiodofdevelopmentofthesocialandhumansideofthe

endeavour toallow the technology tobeusedasawayof assisting change.Prior to the

printed word, information resided in a 'collective memory' ‐ transmitted by word of

mouth and by transcribed manuscripts. These methods were unable to make the

information 'public' in its complete form, a situation that was altered when printing

emerged(Eisenstein,1979).

There have been many parallels made between scholarly journals emerging from the

invention of the printing press and the advent of the Internet leading to new scholarly

communicationprocesses.However,thisphaseofchangeisonlybeginning.Ittookmore

thantwocenturiesafter the inventionof theprintingpressbefore theemergenceof the

firstscholarlyjournal,JournaldesSçavans,shortlyfollowedbythefirstscientificjournal,

thePhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSociety,in1665.

Printingwasonlypossibledue to theprior inventionofpaper (Febvre&Martin,1976),

and similarly the development of computing provided the infrastructurewhich allowed

the Internet to be built. Since the 1960’s, computing technology has doubled its

performanceperunitofsiliconareaevery18months,aphenomenonknownasMoore’s

Law (Bacon, 2006). When considering the impact of the Internet on scholarly

communication,theanalogywiththeinventionoftheprintingpress leadingtoscholarly

2

journals indicates we are currently in the developmental period between the two.

Eisenstein is at pains to explain that other forms of printing (of scientific results for

example) were in circulationwell before journals began to be distributed. In the same

way, academia, governments and publishers are currently experimentingwith different

waystousethenewtechnologies.

If scholarly communication were designed now, “equipped with the World Wide Web,

computers inevery laboratoryor institutionandaglobalviewof the scientific research

effort”itwouldtakeonaverydifferentformtothecumbersomesystemwehaveinherited

(Swan, 2007)1. Today’s scholarly communication system still reflects the very early

journal publication system, with adaptations that have accumulated over the years.

Scholars still undertake their research, write their papers, and send them in for

assessment. Once reviewed, these papers are published in compendiums of journals or

conference papers whereupon they are (sometimes) sourced and read by other

researchers.TheonlytrueconcessiontotherevolutionoftheInternetisthatpapersare

nowavailable online, but they are still ‘papers’ in the sense that they are formatted for

printing, and often paginated. There has yet to be a widespread embrace of the

possibilitiesandchangesofferedbynewtechnologies.

Technology is a driver of change and the Internet is a technology that offers possibly

unprecedentedopportunityforchange.TheInternetmovedfrombeingarestricted‐access

network to a widely available network between 1990 and 1995 (Clarke, 2004). While

some academic groups were using early Internet tools such as email and Usenet, the

InternetdidnotbecomepubliclyaccessibleuntilthedevelopmentoftheWorldWideWeb

in1991andthesubsequentreleaseofMozillain1994(whichbecameNetscapein1995).

TheInternetintheintervening13yearshastransformedthewayasignificantproportion

ofthepopulation,atleastinfirstworldcountries,conducttheirworkingandsociallives.

Tothelibrariesandsomeresearchers,theInternetwasseenasanagentofchange–away

ofaccessingcontentatthework‐desk,andofavoidinglibraryshelvesgroaningunderthe

weightofunreadbound journals. Inaddition the Internetofferednew indexingsystems

thatcouldprovideamorestreamlinedaccesstotheburgeoningamountofliteraturenow

available. Stevan Harnad was an early, and continues to be a tireless, campaigner for

1 Many of the references in this thesis are to electronic‐only sources (such as this one). When

possibleIhaveincludedasectionnumberfordirectquotes,butoftenthereisnowayofindicating

whereinthetextthequotecamefrom.IfIhavegivenadirectquotewithoutapagereference,this

iswhy.

3

change to scholarly communication. He first came to prominence in this field with his

‘subversiveproposal’, suggestingaradicallydecentralisedscholarlypublishingmodel, in

which scholars self‐publish their works, which thenmay ormay not be peer reviewed

(Brent, 1995). However academics did not take up these calls for change. Instead,

publishersbegantopresent journalselectronically, changedtheirsubscriptionstructure

andcontinuedtomakelargeprofits(Kingsley,1995).

The open access concept grewout of these early debates, and it is here that this thesis

beginsitsstory.Therationalebehindopeningaccesstoresearchoutputsisfundamentally

an issue of fairness. It addresses a broad criticism of the current scholarly publication

system:thatacademicarticlesarewrittenbytheacademiccommunity,peerreviewedby

the academic community and often edited by the academic community, with no

compensation, yet thehigh subscription costs of commerciallypublished research are a

barrier to the effective dissemination of knowledge. In addition, open access offers the

potentialbenefitof:

… enhanced access to, and greater use of, research findings,whichwould, in

turn,increasetheefficiencyofR&Dasitbuildsonpreviousresearch.Thereis

alsosignificantpotential foropenaccesstoexpandtheuseandapplicationof

research findings to a much wider range of users, well beyond the core

researchinstitutionsthathavehadaccesstothesubscription‐basedliterature

(Houghton,Steele,&Sheehan,2006,p.vi).

Manyauthorshavestatedthattherearefunctional issueswithscholarlypublishingas it

stands, such as the delay between submitting a paper and the paper eventually being

published, the problem of data management, and the assessment of research. These

problemsarediscussedinChapter2.Theycouldbeaddressedbyadifferentapproachto

technologyinthisarena.Whilethesearenotnewproblems,newtechnologiesmaymean

the solutions to these questions are within reach. In the words of the Budapest Open

Accessinitiative(2002):“Anoldtraditionandanewtechnologyhaveconvergedtomake

possibleanunprecedentedpublicgood”.

Scholarly communication and open access

Open access generally refers to the dissemination of research in a way that is freely

available to any interested reader with an Internet connection. This is achievable in

several ways, such as through an open access online journal, as an open access article

withinaproprietaryjournal,orbyplacingacopyoftheworkonlineinadigitalrepository

developedeitherbyaninstitution,ascholarlyassociationoramulti‐disciplinarygroup.

4

Empirical evidence suggests that the academic community supports the idea of open

access, with figures indicating that over 80% of researchers would deposit their work

online if theywere required to (Swan & Brown, 2005). Despite this finding, andmany

otherstudies indicatingawillingnesstoengagewithopenaccessdisseminationoptions,

the actual numbers of articles available in an open access format show that these

expressedattitudesandwillingnesshavenotresultedinactiononbehalfoftheacademic

community.Approximately10%ofall journalsappear tobeopenaccess journals (Lund

University Libraries, 2008). Recently several publishers have offered alternative open

access options, such as the ability to pay for open access publication within selected

proprietary journals, andwhile details on the uptake levels of these options are scarce,

early indications are that approximately 10% of articles are being published as open

accessinthesehybridjournals(Suber,2006).

Generally,digitalrepositoriesprovidingopenaccess toarticlesappear tohaveadeposit

rateof about15%of all articlespublished (Sale, 2005b), althougha recent study found

11.3% of articles published in 2006 had a usable copy in a repository (Bjork, Roosr, &

Lauri,2008).This lowdepositrate isparticularlymarked inrepositories thathavebeen

developedby, andareoperatedby, institutions suchasuniversitiesandpublic research

organisations. These figures suggest there is an inconsistency between the findings of

severalsubstantialattitudinalstudiestowardsopenaccessandtherealityoftheuptakeof

openaccessdisseminationoptions.

InresponsetothissituationHarnadhasmorerecentlyturnedhisattentiontothebenefits

of author deposit in repositories and has written extensively advocating policies and

mandates for the use of institutional repositories (Harnad, 2003, 2005; Harnad et al.,

2004a).Theseargumentsarepartofwhatisnowaninternationalopenaccessarchiving

movement,discussedindepthinChapter3.

Early calls for the adoption of open access dissemination (Max Planck Institute, 2003;

OpenSocietyInstitute,2002)havebeenmetaroundtheworldwithmandatesbyfunding

bodies(NationalInstitutesofHealth,2005;ResearchCouncilsUK,2005a;WellcomeTrust,

2004b), at a government level (UK House of Commons Science and Technology

Committee,2004b),andbytheOrganisationforEconomicCo‐operationandDevelopment

(OECD)whichreleaseda reportstating: “Theprinciple is toenablemaximumaccess to

findingsfrompubliclyfundedresearchtomaximisesocialreturnsonpublicinvestments”

(Houghton&Vickery,2005).

5

InAustralia,wheretheresearchreportedoninthisthesiswasundertaken,therehasbeen

considerable support for open access at a government level, (Australian Government

DepartmentofEducationScienceandTraining,2007)withrequirementsforuniversities

to develop institutional repositories (Harvey, 2008), and the two main funding bodies

requesting researchers to place versions of their findings into repositories (Australian

Research Council, 2007a; National Health and Medical Research Council, 2007). In

addition, a much anticipated report on innovation in Australia recommended (among

otherthings)that:“…aspecificstrategyforensuringthescientificknowledgeproducedin

Australia is placed in machine searchable repositories be developed and implemented

usingpublic fundingagenciesanduniversitiesasdrivers” (Cutler,2008,p.20).However

despite thisapparentlywidespreadsupport foropenaccessatgovernment, fundingand

institutionallevels,theAustralianacademicpopulationmirrorsthelowengagementwith

openaccessthatisdisplayedworld‐wide.

This thesis examines this inconsistency between support for open access at the

governmentandinstitutional levelcombinedwiththeproclaimedsupportdemonstrated

byresearchintotheacademicpopulation,andtherealityofthelowuptakeofopenaccess

dissemination options. In broad terms it seeks to explore the barriers to the uptake of

openaccessscholarlycommunicationinAustralia.

Several largestudieshavebeenundertakentoascertainauthors’attitudestowardsopen

access (J. Allen, 2005; Pelizzari, 2003; Rowlands, Nicholas, & Huntington, 2004b, 2006

#775;Swan&Brown,2003,2004#94;2005),whicharediscussedindepthinChapter3.

ThesehavegenerallybeenInternetsurveysaddressing‘what’questionssuchas:‘whatare

people’sattitudes?’and‘whataretheydoingaboutpublishing?’Inaddition,thesesurveys

haveoftenalsoincorporatedapredictiveelementsuchas‘whatwouldbetheresponseto

certaincircumstances?’.

Questionswhichhavenotbeenaddressedinthesestudies include: ‘whyareresearchers

notengagingwithopenaccess?’and‘whyareresearcherschoosingtosupporttraditional

publishing systems when technology offers an efficient and more immediate way of

achievingthefunctionsofthesystem?’Onecluecouldresideinhistory,atthetimeofthe

adventof theprintingpress.Now,as then, thenewtechnology is itselfnot thechanging

factor.Scholarsarecurrentlyinasimilarperiodofdevelopmenttothatexperiencedwith

printing,andthesocialandhumansideofchangestoscholarlycommunicationneedtobe

addressedtoallowthetechnologytobeusedtoassistchange.

6

Thisresearchbeganwiththreepremisesdrawnfromtheliterature,whichisdescribedin

Chapters2and3.Thefirstpremisewasthatthegenerallackofawarenessofopenaccess

intheacademicpopulationisonlyasmallfactorinthepopulation’slowengagement.The

second premise was that the reward system in academia is a considerable part of the

reasonwhyopenaccessisnotbeingadoptedasquicklyassomeadvocateswouldlike.The

third premisewas that an important element in the uptake of open access is the individual

researcher.Tothatend,itappearedunlikelythatmuchinformationwouldbegainedfrom

directquestionsaboutopenaccess.Thisworkthusbeganwiththeassumptionthatopen

access itself is not the central issue, rather, it is broader issues with the scholarly

publicationsystemthatarepreventingengagementwithopenaccess.Inordertoaddress

thesepremises,theresearchquestionofthisthesisis:

Howarethecommunicationpracticesbetweenresearchersaffectingtheuptakeof

openaccessscholarlydisseminationinAustralia?

Thisthesisthereforemovesbeyondthe‘what’questions.Itisevidentthattheconceptof

open access is not resonating with academic communities. By establishing what the

barrierstoopenaccessare,thisthesissetsouttoanswer‘why’?

Actors in the scholarly communication system

It appears likely the scholarly communication systemwill change and there is a danger

that without considered discussion and debate amongst all of the groups of actors

entangled in it, the system will end up with more problems than it has now. What

ultimately happenswill bemore than partly determined by the activities and decisions

madetoday.Thechangescurrentlybeingdevelopedandadoptedarelargelytheresultof

theagendasofsomeinterestedplayersratherthanwhatwillactuallybeofmostbenefitto

the communication of information. It is instructive to look at those groups and their

position in the scholarly publication system. This research focuses primarily on the

academicpopulation as they are the generators, andmainusers, of published academic

literature. They are not, however, the only group affected by a potentialmove to open

access. Scholarly publishing is a large and complex system, worth billions of dollars

annually,andembracesmanyinterestedparties.

Anychange toscholarlycommunicationsystemswillaffectallof thesegroupsofactors.

Openaccessisarelativelynewconcept,andintroducingthisideatothevariousplayersin

the debate can be described in terms of the adoption of an innovation. This will be

7

examined more closely in this thesis. Openaccessaffectsthewholecommunicationsystem,

but it affects each section of that systemdifferently.While themain focus of the thesis

remainsonhowopenpublishinghasanimpactontheacademicpopulation,theliterature

reviewalsoincorporatesabriefexaminationofhowthesegroupsareshapingtheformof

openaccessdisseminationoptions,andhowopenaccessaffectsthem.

Scholarly publishers

Important among these actors are scholarly publishers, who acquire the copyright,

reproduce the articles or express them in reproducible form, and enable controlled

discoveryofandaccesstotheinformation‐thecommoditybeingtradedinthissystem.

Open access poses an economic challenge to commercial publishers who make

commercial decisions, such as gauging how much the market can bear in terms of

subscriptionprices,anddecidingthegranularityoftheofferingstheymakeavailablefor

purchase, inparticular thebundlesof journalsandassociatedservices.Manypublishers

acquirethecopyrightofpublishedacademicworkasaconditionofacceptingthearticle

forpublication.Onewayofmeetingthechallengeofchangehasbeentheglobalisationof

scholarly publishing, with the smaller, independent and society publishers being

amalgamated into a few large publishing firms. This is particularlymarked in the STM

market:“Combined,thefourleadersrepresent49%ofthemarket.MarketleaderElsevier

servesone‐quarterofthemarket.Thetop15players,includingpubliclylisted,privateand

non‐profitproviders,combineforaboutUS$6.0bn,or78%ofthetotal”(Worlock,2004,p.

292).This trend isaccentuating,witha2006analysis stating that the top11publishers

were producing more than 70% of journals in scientific publishing at the time (Ware,

2006).TheinfluenceofpublisherswillbediscussedinChapter2.

Libraries

Libraries, particularly those within universities and other research organisations, also

havea financialstake in theopenaccessdebate.Librarianswereoneof the firstgroups

affected by problems in the scholarly communication process. They have known for

decades that thesituationcouldnot continueas is.Documenteddissatisfactionwith the

scholarlypublishingsystemdatesbacknearlyacentury,butthecurrentdebatebeganin

thelate1980swithwhatwasdescribedatthetimeasa‘serialscrisis’.Thisarosefromthe

combinationof twofactors: first, thenumberofscientificpaperspublishedannuallyhas

beendoublingevery10‐15years for twocenturies (Odlyzko,1996)andsecond, journal

subscriptionprices rose110%between1985and1993 (Stix, 1994).These increases in

subscription prices have been far higher than inflation(King & Tenopir, 2000).

Institutional libraries, as the brokers between researchers and publishers, realised the

8

situation was not sustainable and began agitating for change. To librarians, the

introduction of electronic journals then, and open access now, offers away of fulfilling

their role as information brokers without the difficulty of escalating costs. Libraries

worldwide have been working on alternatives to the scholarly publication system,

includingdevelopingandtakingresponsibilityfordigitalrepositories.

Funding bodies

Theactorsalsoincludethosewhofundresearch,suchasgovernmentsandfundingbodies,

the administrative arms of institutions housing researchers, conference organisers,

scholarly societies, institutional libraries, and the general public, whose taxes pay for

research. As mentioned above, in Australia almost all research is publicly funded and

boundbyvariousfundingrules.

Individual researchers

This research focuses on individual researchers, who, unlike governments, institutions,

publishers and libraries, do not necessarily perceive the big picture in scholarly

communication,primarilybecausethereisnoneedforthemtodoso.Theyhaveremained

largely buffered from the serials crisis as they are not responsible for the serials

acquisitionbudget.Inmanywaysresearcherssitoutsidetheopenaccessdebatewhichis

primarily occurring amongst publishers, librarians and at government level. This thesis

postulates that the individual researcher is the key to the uptake or otherwise of open

access dissemination options, and has been largely absent from consideration in the

developmentandimplementationofrepositoriesintouniversitiesinAustralia.

Academic researchers are not a homogenous group. They have their own areas of

research, theirownwaysofcommunicatingwithoneanotherandtheirownpublication

venues.While some research operates on very short timeframes, such as in computing,

otherresearchtakesyears.Thespeedofinformationproductionandreticulationislikely

to be an important factor in the perception of the necessity and urgency for change

amongsttheparticipants.Manytoolsareavailabletosupportreticulationofinformation

on the Internet, and more continue to emerge. Which of these will be used in future

scholarlycommunicationsystemsisyet tobedetermined.Thosethatareprevalentnow

maynotbetheprimaryformofcommunicationevenwithinthenext10to20years.This

thesisexaminesthepresent,andwhiletakingaseriousandconsideredassessmentofthe

situation, it is limited by its circumstances to a snapshot of a period in the process of

change.

9

The researchdescribed in this thesis has therefore asked researchers in three different

disciplines individually about their research andwriting practices in order to establish

whytheyaremakingthedecisionstheyareaboutpublication.Aninterviewtechniquewas

employed rather than using questionnaire‐based surveys about their attitudes. The

research intends to reveal whether the lack of engagement with open access has a

commonelementacrossdifferentacademicgroups,withinparticularacademicgroups,or

ifitisanindividualdecision.

Thisthesiscommencesbytakingabroadviewofthescholarlycommunicationsystemand

howscholarlypublishingfitsintothesystem.Chapter2exploresthechallengesfacingthe

scholarly communication systemas the technology supporting it changes, anddiscusses

howopenaccesscanaddressmanyofthesechallenges.Chapter3detailshowopenaccess

isachievedbeforediscussingthetypeofresearchtodatethathasbeenconductedabout

thelevelofresearcherengagementwiththeseoptions,notingthattodatethattherehas

beenlittleattentionfocusedonwhytheselevelsarelow.InChapter4theresearchdesign

for the empirical aspect of thework is outlined. Chapter 5 describes the results of the

empiricalworkfocusingonscholarlycommunication,andChapter6discussestheresults

in relation to academic careers. Chapter 7 is a description of the triangulation of the

empirical work in terms of the diffusion of innovations, and incorporates the

master/apprentice aspect of the results. Chapter 8 explores the broader implications of

the results in terms of disciplinary differences and information seeking behaviour and

how these are central to the adoption of institutional repositories. A conclusion to the

work isprovided inChapter9.By takingaholisticviewof thecommunicationpractices

between scientists, this thesis aims to illuminate possible future pathways for scholarly

communicationsystems.

11

Chapter2–Argumentsforopenaccess

Introduction

In order to answer the question “How are the communication practices between

researchersaffectingtheuptakeofopenaccessscholarlydisseminationinAustralia?”itis

necessarytoadoptaholisticviewofthecommunicationpracticesofscholars,inparticular

the motivations behind the publication choices they are making. Broadly, the research

question relates to scholarly publication and how it fits within the wider scholarly

communication landscape. This thesis is looking at a specific area of scholarly

communication, and will not attempt to address the entire scholarly communication

landscape,howeveracomprehensivebackgroundchapterisrequiredtofullyencompass

the wider vested interests, financial and otherwise in any change to the scholarly

communicationsystem.

Thischapterwillbeginwithadiscussionofthescholarlycommunicationsystem,looking

at the integral role journals play in the system and how researchers engage with the

system.Theeconomicsofscholarlypublishingisbrieflydiscussed,includinghowthishas

changedwithamovetoelectronicpublishing,andthelevelofawarenessresearchershave

of the economic imperatives. The concept of open access is then introduced. The

remainder of the chapter is a discussion of the five functions of scholarly journals,

Awareness,Certification,Reward,ArchivingandRegistration,howeachofthesefunctions

are being affected by difficulties with the current scholarly publishing system, and

whetheropenaccessoffersa solution to thesedifficulties.The issueof copyright is also

briefly discussed in this context. The bulk of the literature on this topic focuses on

scientific,technicalandmedicalpublishing,andwhilethescopeofthisresearchiswider,

theliteraturereviewreflectstheavailableliterature.

The scholarly communication system

The formal scientific communication process has been described in terms of four

functions:Registration(oftheauthor’sclaimforpriority),Awareness(ofthepublication),

Certification (a result ofpeer review)andArchive (long termretentionof thematerial)

(Roosendaal&Geurts,1997).VandeSompel(2004)proposedthefifthfunctionofReward

forpromotionandappointments.Asixthfunctionhasbeenrecentlyaddedtothemix,that

12

ofNavigation,“providingfiltersandsignpoststorelevantworkamidthehugevolumeof

publishedmaterial”(Ware,2006,p.5),butIwillnotbeexploringthisfunction.

Thepublishingaspectofthescholarlycommunicationsystemhasinmanywayschanged

littleinthecenturiessincethefirstscientificjournal.Researcherswriteuptheirworkinto

an article, conference paper or book, submit it to the publication outlet of choice,

whereuponitissentouttootherresearchersinthefieldforreview.Iftheworkisdeemed

originalandvalidresearch,itispublished,andthereforeavailablefortheremainderofthe

scholarly community to read. However, this simple summary glosses overmany of the

difficultiesinthesystemtoday,andtheseissuesarethefocusofthischapter.Itshouldbe

notedthatwhilemuchofthematerialinthischapterisdiscussingjournalarticles,thisisa

reflection of the available literature rather than a conscious effort to restrict the

discussiontothejournalarticleattheexpenseofotherformsofscholarlypublishing.

This thesis builds on a rich history of researchwhich suggests it is time to change the

scholarly communication system. The literature indicates there has been dissatisfaction

with the journal system for decades. In 1960, for example, delays in publication,

restrictionsonarticlelengthwiththenecessaryomissionofrelevantsupportingdata,high

costspreventingfullcoverageofanyfieldandthetime'wasted'oneditingandreviewing

wereallperceivedtobeproblemswiththesystem(Phelps&Herlin,1960).Decadeslater,

thewholescientificcommunicationsystemcameunderscrutiny:“Itseemsinevitablethat

people should automatically point to the scientific journal system itself as something in

needofradicalchange”(Piternick,1989,p.260).

The suggestion that individual papers should replace journals as the primary unit of

distribution was first made in the early 20th century with a suggestion for central

depositoriesofbackgroundmaterial(whatwecallgreyliteraturetoday),whichcouldbe

“mimeographedorotherwiseduplicatedandplaced incertainrepositories”(W.E.Allen,

1922). A 1933 proposal suggested replacing journals with an international publishing

house,a‘ScientificInformationInstitute’,totakeoverallexistingscientificpublishingand

bibliography,whereauthorswouldsubmittothecentre.Avariationonthisthemewasthe

ideaof a central editorial bureauof scientific experts to review, correct, edit and verify

papers (Phelps & Herlin, 1960). However these authors concluded that the case for

replacingthescientificperiodicalwithacentrallycontrolledsystemofseparateswasnot

proved. That said, there is evidence to show that the articles people are reading are

increasinglysourcedas individualarticles rather thanaspartofa journal.The journal’s

importanceinscholarship(tothereader)isdecreasing:

13

With evolution toward advanced systems, scientists seem to browse journals

lessoftenandspendmoretimesearchingonline.Itmaybethatscientistsmove

away from traditional browsing of journals as electronic access to secondary

databasesandtoaggregatedfulltextsbecomesmoreubiquitous(Tenopiretal.,

2003).

Theelectronicerahasallowedforamyriadofnewpossibilities.Odlyzkoproposedin1996

thatelectronic journalscouldexistascollectionsofunpackagedbutpotentiallyrefereed

documents in a central server (Odlyzko, 1996). The inspiration for this was Paul

Ginsparg’sworkingarticleserveratLosAlamoscalledarXivi,whichbeganin1991,andis

now run from Cornell University. Thiswas followed by the prediction of an “universal,

Internet‐based,bibliographic and citationdatabase” (R.Cameron,1997).The conceptof

an ‘electronic aggregator’ was put forward in 1999, consisting of a collection of self–

publishedpapers(Kling&McKim,1999).

Current complaints about journals donot differ significantly from those raised in1960.

WhathashappenedsincethattimeistheadventofcomputersandtheInternet,offering

unprecedentedopportunityforchange.

Journals and the scholarly communication system

Scholarlypublicationusedtobesynonymouswithscholarlycommunication,butthisisno

longer the case.Over thepast400years, thepublishing functionof journalshas shifted

from a method of communication to a career tool. The emphasis has moved from

Awareness and (to a lesser extent) Certification, to Registration and Reward: “the

fundamental purpose of the journal has changed. In no small measure, scholarly

communicationhaschangedtobecomepublishing”(Peek,1996,p.5).

The separation of the scholarly journal from the scholarly communication system is

evidencedbytheincreasinguseofjournalsasacareertool.Few(ifany)sciencescholars

usejournalarticlesasaprimarycommunicationtool:"Scientificinformationisexchanged

in a multi‐tiered manner, and those myriad other channels render the scientific

manuscript optional, if not obsolete … Often the journal article, the bedrock of peer‐

reviewed scientific knowledge, is the last information source consulted" (Seringhaus &

Gerstein,2006).

Journalsstillprovideavaluableservice,accordingtosomearguments,providingastable

archiveoftheliteratureand“[t]ogether,theyservetheneedoftoday'sscientistsformore

14

knowledgefromawidervarietyofsources”(Tenopir&King,2001).Inaddition:“Journals

have formedthebasis fornetworksofscholars, forwhich theeditor formsa focalpoint

aroundwhichmembersoftheeditorialboard,regularreviewers,contributorsandreaders

orbit.Suchnetworksofscholarshipcanbeextremelyimportant”(Houghtonetal.,2006,p.

52).

Thisargumentof ‘community’ centredaround the journalhasbeenraisedbyothers: “A

journal will, by virtue of its history, present purpose, and current editors, have a

personality and a set of concerns that stake out a distinctive territory recognised by

readersandauthors”(Horton,2003,p.1512).Somearguethathavingajournaliscentral

to the establishment of a new discipline (Paul & Matasar, 1993). However, scholarly

communicationembracesamuchwiderremitthansimplyjournalpublication.

Researchers and scholarly publishing

The academic researcher wears two hats, that of author and that of reader, and the

scholarlycommunicationsystemofjournalpublicationmeansdifferentthingsdepending

on the hat in question (Guedon, 2001). Journals are important to authors because the

name,statusandimpactfactorofajournalhaveimplicationsforassessment,tenureand

grant applications. In this context the journal fulfils the roles of Registration and

Certification. Authors have specific requirements of the journal system: “theywant the

ability to targetaveryspecificgroupofkeyreaders…andtheywantthe imprimaturof

qualityandintegritythatagoodpeer‐reviewed,high‐impacttitlecanoffer,togetherwith

reasonablelevelsofpublisherservice”(Rowlands,Nicholas,&Huntington,2004a,p.273).

Readers,ontheotherhand,arenotfocusedonjournals,theyarefocusedonarticles.This

situation creates problems as “researchers as authors want to publish more, while as

readers they want to read less” (Mabe & Amin, 2002, pp. 150‐151). To a reader of an

article,theonlyfactoristhequalityofthecontent,whichispartlyverifiedbypeerreview,

andthejournalname(orbrand,touseamarketingterm).Thisconceptoftheprestigeor

‘brand’ofthejournaldoesnotguaranteehighqualityarticles.Itexists,"simplybecausein

thepast[thejournal]hasservedasameetingplacewhereablescholarshavecoordinated

theireffortsandlibrariestheirpurchases"(T.Bergstrom,2001,p.12).

Scholarlycommunication,andthesubsetactivityofscholarlypublishingiscentraltothis

research,whichislookingatthecommunicationpracticesofresearchers.Itisnecessaryto

understand the changing nature of scholarly communication as technology changes the

wayresearchiscommunicatedandadministered.

15

Researchisapublicactivity,with‘communism’,anextendedsenseofcommonownership

of goods, an integral element of the scientific ethos: “The institutional conception of

scienceaspartof thepublicdomain is linkedwith the imperative forcommunicationof

findings” (Merton, 1973, p. 274). This communication has traditionally been bywriting

and publishing academic articles. Merton stressed the ‘universality’ of science, that

nobody should be excluded from the science process. In order for that to happen,

“scientific knowledge must be common property as it otherwise has not optimised its

value in the process” (Roosendaal, 2007, p. 2). However, this chapterwill demonstrate

thatthescholarlycommunicationsystemasitstandsisrestrictingpeople’saccesstothat

knowledge, and therefore the fundamental basis of the activity of science is being

hindered.

The economics of scholarly publishing

Oneofthemainbarriersthatscholarlyjournalsposetothedisseminationofknowledgeis

their subscription cost. Indeed itwas their escalating costs thatprecipitated the ‘serials

crisis’decadesago.Thesubscriptionmodelfragmentsresearchinformationbehinddeals,

copyrightrulesand formats,preventingsimplesearches forresearch(Terry,2006).The

economicsof journalpublishingfuelsmanyoftheargumentsforchangetothescholarly

publishingsystem.

Science and therefore scientific publishing boomed after the 1950s, when commercial

publishers became an ever‐increasing presence in themarket. In Economics alone, the

count has increased from 120 journals in 1980, at the time evenly split between

commercial and not‐for‐profit publications, to almost 300 in 2000, butwith two‐thirds

ownedbycommercialpublishers(C.Bergstrom&Bergstrom,2001).Scientific,Technical

and Medical (STM) publishing is a US$7 billion industry (Gooden, Owen, Simon, &

Singlehurst,2002;Worlock,2004).Inthepasttwodecades,journalpriceshaveincreased

faster than inflation.Since1986theaveragepriceofa journalhasrisenby215%,while

thenumberof journalspurchasedhas fallenbyonly5.1% indicatingahuge increase in

subscriptionbudgets.Thenumbersareevengreaterwhenrestrictedtoscience.Between

1984and2002, thepriceofscience journals increasedbynearly600%(bepress,2005).

Thenichenatureofthemarketandtherapidgrowthinthebudgetsofacademiclibraries

havecombinedtomakescientificpublishingthefastestgrowingsub‐sectorofthemedia

industryover thepast15years(Goodenetal.,2002).These figureshave fuelleda long‐

standingtensionbetweenpublishersandlibraries:

16

The economics of scholarly journal publishing are incontrovertibly

unsustainable. Taming price inflation is not enough. Unless we change the

currentmodel, academic libraries anduniversitieswill beunable to continue

providingfaculty,students,andstaffwiththeaccesstheyrequiretotheworld’s

scholarshipandknowledge.Scholarswillbeunabletomaketheresultsoftheir

researchwidelyavailable(UniversityofCaliforniaAcademicSenate,2004,p.1).

However,while libraries have been aware of this issue for decades, individual scholars

appeartobeunawareoftheproblemanddonot(orchoosenotto)seethemselvesaspart

oftheproblem(Jeon‐Slaughter,Herkovic,&Keller,2005).Thisobservationwasalsomade

by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2004b): “It is

disappointingthatmanyacademicsarecontenttoignorethesignificantdifficultiesfaced

bylibraries.Untiltheystarttoseetheprovisionofjournalsas,inpart,theirproblem,the

situationwill not improve”. Scholars aredisassociated from thepricing structure of the

communicationsysteminwhichtheypartake.

Given this, it is not surprising that an international survey has found that authors of

papersdonotconsidercostwhentheyarechoosingajournaltowhichtosubmitwork:“In

their role as authors … the price of the journal, hence its ultimate affordability, was

perceived to be the least influential of the reasons they gave for publishingwhere they

did” (Rowlands et al., 2004a). This study also found that the high level of contribution

authorsaremakinginpreparingtheirpapersandreviewingothersforpublicationmeant,

“theirperceptionsofthecostsneededtosustainthesystemarefarlowerthanthoseofthe

publishersthemselves”(Rowlandsetal.,2004a).Thislackofinterestintheeconomicsof

scholarlypublicationhaspotentialimpactonscholarlycareers.

Whileauthorsdonotseemtotakeinterestintheissueofjournalsubscriptioncosts,these

haveadirectbearingonauthors’needtoensuretheirworkisvisible,andthereforecited.

It may seem counter‐intuitive, but publishing in traditional journals may be an

impediment tohavingworkreadby the largestnumberofpeople: "Themain thing that

academicauthorswantoutofpublishingistoreachanaudience.Thehighpricescharged

byjournalpublishersareanobstacletothis"(Gasson,2004).Increasedsubscriptioncosts

haveanegativeeffectonreadership,andthisaffectspublishers’abilitytomaintaintheir

journals’Awarenessfunction.

Theissueofthehighcostofjournalsubscriptionsandhowthisaffectsthedissemination

of research is central to many arguments for a move to open access dissemination.

17

However, the lack of interest or comprehension of this situation by the research

communitydirectlyimpactstheirwillingnesstoengagewithopenaccess,thefocusofthis

research.

Open access scholarly publishing

The open access concept has been debated for over a decade. Broadly advocating that

peer‐reviewedscholarlymaterialshouldbefreelyavailableontheinternetatthetimeof

publication, themovementoriginallydeveloped froma reaction to the scholarly ‘serials

crisis’ofthe1990’swhenjournalpricesskyrocketed(Harnad,2003).

Defining open access

Thereissomedebateaboutwhatexactlyconstitutesopenaccess,andtherearenumerous

definitions, includingtheBudapestDeclaration(OpenSocietyInstitute,2002), theBerlin

Declaration(MaxPlanckInstitute,2003),andtheBethesdaStatement(2003).Oneofthe

simplerdefinitionsis:

Openaccesstoscientificjournalarticlesmeansonlineaccesswithoutchargeto

readers or libraries. Committing to open access means dispensing with the

financial, technical, and legal barriers that are designed to limit access to

scientific researcharticles topaying customers. Itmeans that, for the sakeof

acceleratingresearchandsharingknowledge,publisherswillrecouptheircosts

fromothersources(Suber,2002).

Clarke(2007)alsonotesthat“Fromalegalperspective,theterm'openaccess'impliesthat

the consumer is not constrained by copyright or other laws from making such

reproductionsasarenecessarytoenableaccessinaformconvenienttothatconsumer”.

Inordertoensurethebroadestdiscussionoftheliteratureonthistopic,thisworkusesa

broaddefinitionofopenaccess,which includesmostof the ten ‘flavours’ofopenaccess

described byWillinsky (2006). One flavour of open access that causes some debate is

delayed‐access, where the articles are made freely available after an embargo period.

Some commentators argue that this does not constitute open access, as for items to be

trulyopenaccesstheyshouldbemadeavailableimmediately(Clarke,2007;OpenSociety

Institute,2002;Suber,2007b). I class thedelayed‐accessoptionaspreferable toclosed‐

access,butnotwithinthespiritofmostdefinitionsofopenaccess.

Withoutusingaspecificdefinition,IconcurwithHoughton(2006),that:“Thekeyelement

ofopenaccessisthatthematerialismadeavailablefreelyandopenly,withoutchargeor

usagerestrictions, toanyonewith internetaccess” (p.5). Inaddition,openaccess isnot

18

restricted to scholarly articles, but includesoriginal scientific research results, rawdata

and metadata, source materials, digital representations of pictorial and graphical

materialsandscholarlymultimediamaterial(MaxPlanckInstitute,2003).Thatsaid,this

workisconcernedprimarilywiththescholarlyarticle.

Openaccessisgenerallyachievedinoneoftwoways,bythepublisherofajournalmaking

the articles freely available (in some cases thewhole journal, in others specific articles

fromanygivenissues),orbytheauthormakingthearticleavailableonline,onawebsite

orinadigitalrepository.Thesetworoutesofopenaccesswillbediscussedindepthinthe

nextchapter.

Institutional, organisational and government support for open access

There are currently various programs providing wider access to published material,

includingPubMedCentral,theOpenArchivesInitiative,andtheScholarlyPublishingand

Academic Resource Coalition (SPARC). PubMed Centralii was set up by the US National

InstitutesofHealthandisacentraliseddigitallibraryprovidingfreeaccesstothefulltext

of all peer‐reviewed life‐science research articles. Publishers can place delays on their

publications on the system, giving their subscribers exclusive access for up to a year

before the information is freely available, an example of delayed‐access. The Open

Archives Initiativeiii in Britain aims to create a global online archive of all published

research.

SPARCivwascreatedin1998aspartoftheAssociationofResearchLibrariesintheUSA.It

aims to return ‘science to scientists’ by “encouraging scientists to create journals that

directlycompetewiththosethoughttobeoverpriced;bygivingconfidencetoscientiststo

create journals innewareasof inquiry;andbybackingscientistswhocreateweb‐based

resourcesotherthanjournalsfortheircommunities”(Tamber,Godlee,&Newmark,2003).

SPARC has created low priced journals in competitionwith commercial ones: “Inmost

cases the commercial publisher’s journal has been quickly eclipsed by the start‐up”

(Gasson,2004).Generally,theseinitiativesareusingopenaccessprinciples.

Whileopenaccessdevelopedfromaneedtoaddresstheserialscrisis,itisnowseenmore

widely “as a way to improve public, educational, and political impact of research”

(Willinsky,2003). Therehasbeen“considerable interest inrecentyears, internationally

and in Australia, amongst government agencies, universities and other organisations in

‘open access’ to the results of publicly‐funded research, including data and research

papers”(AustralianGovernmentProductivityCommission,2007,p.5.34).InJanuary2004

19

Australiawas one of the 34 signatories to theOECDDeclaration onAccess toResearch

DatafromPublicFunding.TheDeclarationrecognises:

that an optimum international exchange of data, information and knowledge

contributesdecisivelytotheadvancementofscientificresearchandinnovation

… [and] thatopenaccess to, andunrestricteduseof,datapromotes scientific

progressandfacilitatesthetrainingofresearchers(OECD,2004).

Since2000,asubstantialnumberofstudiesinstigatedatthegovernmentlevel(Australian

GovernmentDepartmentofEducationScienceandTraining,2007;AustralianGovernment

Productivity Commission, 2007; UK House of Commons Science and Technology

Committee, 2004b) and funding body level (Research Councils UK, 2005a; Wellcome

Trust, 2003) have looked into the issue of access to scholarly literature. Asmentioned

above, there have been several open access declarations at an international level, and

position statements at a funding level (National Health and Medical Research Council,

2007;NationalInstitutesofHealth,2005;ResearchCouncilsUK,2005b;WellcomeTrust,

2004b).Notallpositionstatementshavebeen in supportofopenaccess (RoyalSociety,

2005),althoughinthis lastcasethepositionseemstohavesoftened,which isdiscussed

below.

Open access and public good

Manyofthesereports,declarationsandstatementshavecometoverysimilarconclusions.

One aspect of the debate has been the economic issue. A report to the Australian

government argued that the benefits of having public sector research openly accessible

throughrepositorieswouldbe51timesgreaterthanthecosts(Houghtonetal.,2006).The

report argues that benefits aremore than just economic, expanding to issues of ‘public

good’:

Scientific publishing also plays an important role in making research more

efficient … Dissemination of findings helps other researchers define their

research work, minimises duplicative activities andmay provide data which

mightotherwisehavebeencollectedagain.Moreoverasanevolvingprocessof

buildingonfindings,rapidpublicationanddisseminationhelptoacceleratethe

advancement of science and, thereby, economic development (Houghton &

Vickery,2005,p.17).

The Wellcome Trust, after commissioning two substantial studies into the costs of

scientificpublishing(2003,2004a)releasedastatementinsupportofopenaccesswhich

said in part that the organisation: “has a fundamental interest in ensuring that the

20

availability and accessibility of thismaterial is not adversely affected by the copyright,

marketing anddistribution strategies usedbypublishers (whether commercial, not‐for‐

profitoracademic)”,andthatit“supportsunrestrictedaccesstothepublishedoutputof

research as a fundamental part of its charitable mission and a public benefit to be

encouragedwhereverpossible”(WellcomeTrust,2004b).

Thisinternationalinteresthassparkedaconsiderablebodyofresearch,muchofwhichis

discussedinthisthesis.OnesignificantworkisabookbyWillinsky(2003)whichmakes

the(substantial)caseforopenaccess,arguingthatamovetoopenaccessisinthepublic

good as it creates additional sources of public knowledge. This knowledge has been

increasingly withheld behind spiralling subscription costs, a situation which is very

serious in developing countries. In addition Willinsky argues that public access to

scholarly publications, particularly in the areas of health and the environment, is

groundedinthepublic’s‘righttoknow’andresultsinaninformedpublicandsupportfor

research.

Another public good argument is that by making work available, open access creates

additional sources of public knowledge because it increases the likelihood of cross

fertilisation of ideas – with new areas of research becoming possible (Swan, 2007;

Velterop, 2008). For example, “textmining will enable new facts to be discovered that

wouldnotbepossiblebyhumanssuchasgeneassociations”(Terry,2006).

This chapter will now turn to the five functions of scholarly journals, Registration,

Awareness,Certification,ArchivingandRewardand lookathoweachof these functions

are being affected by difficulties with the current scholarly publishing system, and

whetheropenaccessoffersasolutiontothesedifficulties.

Registration

Registration,establishingintellectualpriority,isachievedwithinthetraditionalscholarly

publishing system by publishing articles in journals. Digital repositories offer an

alternativeway of establishing intellectual priority. Placing pre‐review articles, or post‐

prints into a repository identifies the author of the idea at the time of deposit. Digital

repositoriesincludemetadataaboutthearticleincludingsubmissiondate.

The Registration function is not integral to the discussion in this thesis but is included

here because it is essential to the individual scholar within the scholarly publication

system.

21

Awareness

The functionofAwareness isbeing compromised in the traditional scholarlypublishing

system in two ways. High subscription costs pose a barrier to the widespread

disseminationofpublishedwork,anddelaysinthepublicationprocesscreateabarrierto

theuseofjournalsasacommunicationtool.

Subscription costs and Awareness

Bergstrom (2001) looking at the field of Ecology and extrapolating to Economics,

Atmospheric Sciences, Mathematics, Neurobiology, and Physics, has undertaken

substantive calculations to support his argument that the high charges of for‐profit

publishersarenotreflectedintheirreadershipnumbers. Indeedtheremaybeareverse

correlation: "The sixmost‐cited economics journals listed in the Social Science Citation

Index are all non‐profit journals and their library subscription prices average about

US$180per year.Only five of the twentymost‐cited journals are ownedby commercial

publishers,andtheaveragepriceofthesefivejournalsisaboutUS$1660peryear"(p.1).

Whenconsideringthesenumbers,itisimportanttonotethatnon‐profitpublishersdonot

havetopaytaxforwhichratescanvarybetween30‐50%.TenopirandKing(2001)also

argue that commercial journals have comparatively low circulations, with the median

circulation for commercial publishers in 1995 being 1400 subscriptions (compared to

5,600 for societypublishers).When the calculations arebrokendownby citation in the

fieldofEconomics,thevalue‐for‐moneyissueisevenstarker.Theaveragepriceperpage

ofthecommercialjournalsisaboutsixtimesashigh,andtheaveragepricepercitationis

aboutsixteentimesashigh,asforthenon‐profitjournals:"Whilethenonprofits(sic)are

supplying most of the information used by economists, the commercial presses are

absorbingthelion’sshareoflibrarybudgets"(T.Bergstrom,2001,p.4).

While scholars choose to ignore the realities of their choice to publish in commercial

journals, they are potentially ‘underselling’ their research by restricting its distribution.

Perhaps more critically, by not taking advantage of the benefits of having global open

availabilityofresearchonline,thescholarlycommunicationsystemasitstandsisslowing

theprogressofscience(Uhlir,2006).

Delays in publication and Awareness

Delaysinpublicationmeanthattheideaspresentedinanarticleareknowntoresearchers

in a scholarly fieldwell before publication. In a time of instantmessaging (for younger

researchers), a 12 month‐plus delay is interminable. Communication tools are being

developed to take advantage of needs in themarketplace not beingmet by traditional

22

publishers (Esposito, 2004). These include email lists, deposited pre‐prints,mailgroups,

weblogsandotherformsofmoderncommunication.Theavailabilityofthesetoolsraisesa

question,atleastintheareaofeconomics:

… what does ‘published’ mean, exactly, for a paper that has already been

downloaded thousandsof times,whosesummarizedcontentshavebeenread

by many more thousands …? Whatever the economics journals are doing,

‘publishing’ishardlyanaccuratedescription(Deaton,2006,p.6)

Therecentintroductionofelectroniccommunicationmethodshasnotalteredthespeedof

publication for many disciplines since 1960, when "a committee of the American

AssociationfortheAdvancementofScience…reporteddelaysofoneyearfromthetimeof

acceptanceofapapertoitsappearanceinprint"(Phelps&Herlin,1960,p.61).Thisisa

seriousproblemforfast‐paceddisciplineswherethecitationhalf‐lifecanbeasshortasa

year or two,making it imperative topublish asquickly aspossible to avoid irrelevance

(Miller,2004).Publishingdelaysareexacerbatedbythepeerreviewprocess,discussedin

theCertificationsectionbelow.

Open access and Awareness

Consideringthesmallsizeoftheintendedaudienceofaparticularpieceofwork,itisnot

surprising that many scholarly papers are never cited. A core of approximately 2,000journals now accounts for 95% of cited articles (Steele, Butler, & Kingsley, 2006). However, any potential audience is considerably greater if the information becomes

openlyaccessible.Thereissubstantialevidencetoshowthatarticlesthataremadefreely

available online have a far greater impact than those languishing behind toll barriers.

Indeed there is an ongoing bibliography of all research into the relationship between

impactandaccess(Hitchcock,2006).

A study of the online availability and citation counts of 119,924 conference articles in

ComputerScienceandrelateddisciplinesfound“aclearcorrelationbetweenthenumber

oftimesanarticleiscitedandtheprobabilitythatthearticleisonline…Themeannumber

ofcitationstoofflinearticlesis2.74,andthemeannumberofcitationstoonlinearticlesis

7.03, an increaseof157%” (S. Lawrence, 2001).Analysis ofPhysics articles from1992‐

2001showedopenaccesstonon‐openaccesscitationratiosof2.5‐5.8(Brodyetal.,2004).

Hajjemetal.(2005)examined10disciplinesfrom1992‐2003andfoundwhencomparing

open access and non open access articles in the same journal/year, the open access

articles had consistently more citations, the advantage varying from 25%‐250% by

discipline and year. These and other studies postulate that when access to articles is

23

unrestrictedauthorsareabletoreadthemandcitethemmoreeasily.Thisisreferredtoas

the‘openaccesseffect’.

The‘increasedvisibility’argumentputsforwardtheseandotherfindingsasanincentive

forresearcherstomaketheirworkavailablebypublishinginopenaccessjournalsorby

depositingtheirworkinrepositories.However,argumentshaveemergedinlaterstudies

thatthereismorethanasimplecauseandeffectbetweenhighercitationandopenaccess:

…claimsthatthecitationrateratioofpapersopenlyavailableontheinternet

(via ArXiv or some other mechanism) vs those not available through those

means is caused by the increased readership of the open articles … are

somewhatoverstated,especiallyforwellfundeddisciplineswithhighbarriers

toentry(Kurtzetal.,2005).

These authors argue that there are several possible explanations for thehigher citation

ratesforopenaccessarticles.Oneofthereasonsforhighercitationsissimplybecausethe

article appears sooner, so it has primacy and longer time in the public eye. This is

described as the ‘early access’ postulate. Obviously any advantage gained by an article

beingavailableearlyismitigatedasthepercentageofopenaccessarticlesavailablemoves

towards100%.

Another possible reason for the higher citations is that the articles beingmade openly

accessible arehigherquality articles, referred to as the ‘self‐selectionbias’ (Kurtz et al.,

2005). There is certainly evidence to show the self‐selectionbias exists.Whenprofiling

peoplewhovoluntarilyself‐deposit, itappearsthatsomeself‐selectionisoccurring,with

evidencetoshowthatitemsdepositedinrepositoriestendtobemorerecentandhigher

quality articles that have appeared in top journals (T. Bergstrom & Lavaty, 2007) It

appears that “journalswithahigher impacthavea larger fractionofpapers that canbe

foundonlineatnon‐journalsites”(Wren,2005,p.3).

It is not surprising that it is the higher quality articles that are finding their way into

repositories. This reflectswhatWillinsky (2006) describes as the ‘vanity factor’, where

greaterresearchimpactistheeconomyofresearchers:

recognitionof one’s peers is theprincipalmeasure of one’s contribution to a

field of inquiry… the particular ego economyof being cited by name, and of

beingsocloselyidentifiedwithone’spublishedwork…isnotentirelywithout

otherkindsofrewards,whichfollowonthisrecognitionfactor(p.21).

24

Therehasbeenanattempttoexplainmoreclearlythereasonfortheopenaccessimpact

advantage. A study that specifically attempted to estimate the effect of 'early view' and

'quality bias' by comparing those papers published in specific journals which were

available in thepreprint server arXiv and those thatwerenot, found that therewasno

sign of a general 'open access advantage' but did show that having papers in arXiv

acceleratescitationbecausepapersareavailableearlier(Moed,2007).

Itislikelythattheearlyaccessandself‐selectingbiasareonlytwoofmanyexplanations

fortheincreasedvisibilityadvantage.Onecluethatthisisacomplexareaisastudywhich

foundthatarticlesthatareopenaccessonajournal’ssitehavehigherimpactthanarticles

thataremadeopenaccessbyothermeanssuchasdepositintoarepository(Eysenbach,

2006).Interestingly,articlesthathavebeenmadeopenaccessthroughdepositontonon‐

journal websites are as likely to have been published in an open access journal as a

subscriptionjournal,whichmeanssomeauthorsaredepositingarticlesintorepositories

thatarealreadyavailableasopenaccess(Suber,2005a).Clearlythereismoreworktobe

doneinthisarea.

Makingresearchopenlyaccessibleofferstheindividualscholargreatercontrolovertheir

own career by increasing the visibility, and therefore Awareness of their work. Open

accesspotentiallyoffersbenefits toresearchers.Thiswouldappear tobeaconsiderable

incentive for researchers to adopt open access dissemination options, however they do

notappeartobedoingso.Thisresearchisattemptingtounderstandwhy.

Certification

As discussed above, the function of Awareness is being compromised in the traditional

scholarly publishing system partly because delays in the publication process create a

barriertotheuseof journalsasacommunicationtool.Alargereasonforthesedelaysis

thepeerreviewprocess,Certification.Ofthefivefunctionsofthejournaldiscussedinthis

thesis,Certification is theonly function journalsplay forbothreadersandauthors.Peer

review represents a third role for the scholar, that of reviewer. This role is effectively

hidden,withmostpeerreviewoccurringwithoutrecognition,butthisdoesnotmeanthat

aconsiderableamountoftimeisnotdevotedtothetask.

Oneofthereasonspeerreviewiscausingdelaysinpublicationistheincreasingvolumeof

literaturebeingsubmittedtojournalseachyear.ForexampletheJournaloftheAmerican

MedicalAssociation (JAMA) had6,000majormanuscripts submitted in2005, adoubling

since 2000 (McCook, 2006).Nature receives around 9,000manuscripts a yearwhich is

25

double that of 10 years ago (P. Lawrence, 2003).Nature Cell Biology’s submissions are

increasing by 10% each year; The New England Journal of Medicine received 5,000

submissions in2005, and submissions increase10% to15%eachyear (McCook,2006).

This increase in information is reflected in the growing size of journals. The Journal of

Biological Chemistry published 19,862 pages in 1988 and 53,130 pages in 2003. This

growth is similarly reflected inDiabetes Care, which published 853 pages in 1988 and

3368pagesin2003(P.Banks,2004).

Onitswaytoprint,amanuscriptwillbescrutinisedbyarevieweronlyifithaspassedthe

journaleditor'sfirstappraisal.Itmayberejectedoutrightifitisobviouslyflawedordeals

with a topic clearly outside the journal's scope. The New England Journal of Medicine

publishesabout6%ofsubmissions,butapproximately50%ofpapersarerejectedbefore

peerreview,asareapproximately25%oftheJournalofOccupationalandEnvironmental

Medicine. Science is rejecting approximately 6,000 papers per year before peer review,

about half of the submissions the journal receives annually. These submissions are

steadilyincreasing(McCook,2005,2006).Inmakingthesedecisions,theeditorsofthese

highprofilejournalsareeffectivelythemainreviewersandtheirdecisionshave“become,

quantitatively,muchmoreimportantthanthejudgementofthereviewers”(P.Lawrence,

2003, p. 260). Those articles that pass through the editor’s cut are despatched to the

reviewers. Most journals select two reviewers for each paper (Vries, 2001, p. 235),

although this is discipline specific. This system can cause delays of up to a year. Even

journalswithwhatisconsidereda‘fairlyrapid’turnaround,usuallytakesixtoeightweeks

tomakeadecision.Ifthisdecisionispositive(usuallysubjecttoamendment),thestudyis

then publishedwithin a fewmonths of the finalmanuscript being received (Torgerson,

Adamson,Cockayne,Dumville,&Petherick,2005).

Ironically,havingahighsubmissionrateandthereforehighlevelsofrejectionisasignofa

journal’sprestige(Vries,2001,p.236).HigherprofilejournalssuchasJAMAhaverejection

ratesashighas92%(DeAngelis&Musacchio,2004).AlljournalsintheNaturestablehave

anacceptancerateoflessthan10%(McCook,2006),andNatureitselfhastorejectabout

95%ofbiomedicalpapers(P.Lawrence,2003).Evenjournalswithaconsiderablysmaller

scopeareaffected.TheEconomicRecordpublisheditsrejectionratesfortheyears2001‐

2004whichrangedfrom56%to70%ofthecompletedsubmissions(Editors,2005).The

rejection rate forPlastic and Reconstructive Surgerywas approximately 55% (Goldwyn,

2005).

26

Thesheersizeof thesenumbers indicatesthatauthorsareoverestimatingthequalityof

theirresearchand ‘aimingtoohigh’whensubmittingtheirworktoa journal,andsoare

contributing to the delay in publication of their paper. This is partly due to the intense

pressure to be published in a handful of top journals because of the Reward function

discussed below, so instead of sending less‐than‐groundbreaking work to second‐ or

third‐tierjournals,morescientistsarefirstsendingtheirworktoelitepublications,where

they often clearly donot belong.Unsuccessful papers are then resubmitted to a second

journalandsoon,ricochetingdownthepublishingchain(Steeleetal.,2006).Adelay in

havingapaperpublished isonlyoneoutcomeof this informationexplosion.Eachpaper

thathasbeenrefereedandthenrejectedalsorepresentstimethatascholarhasdonated

tothepublishingsystemasareferee.

A large proportion of the academic community is engaged in some sort of peer review

activity suchas reviewingpapers, editing, andpaper selection (Rowlandset al., 2004a).

This is undertaken by the academy for the publishers, usually for little or no

compensation.Whilenotexploredinthisthesis,itshouldbenotedthatpeerreviewisnot

limited to reviewing papers for journals or conferences. Scholars also spend time

assessing grant applications and promotions as well as PhD2 and Masters theses. Peer

reviewisoneofthecommunicationpracticesresearchersundertake.

Open access and Certification

The process of peer review, however flawed, is centrally important to the academic

community.However,asdiscussedabove,thecurrentpeerreviewsystemisinefficient:“A

pre‐print does not need to be resubmitted to multiple rejecting journals of decreasing

qualitytofinditsappropriatepublicvenue”(Rodriguez,Bollen,&Sompel,2006,p.151).

Thequestionarises,canopenaccessofferanyimprovementstothepeerreviewsystem?

Thissectionwilldiscussseveralexamplesofalternativewaystoimprovethecertification

process in new publishing systems. For example, the Berkeley Electronic Press, or

bepressv,allowsauthorstosubmittoacentralpointforassessmentsotherefereeingonly

occurs once. This ismore efficient because it uses only one set of referees to publish a

paper,andhasbeendescribedas“amarketforarticles”(R.Watson,2005).

Amoreradicalproposalisforreviewtotakeplaceafterpublicationratherthanbeforeit

(Esposito,2004).Ineffect,‘preprints’wouldbetheprimarypublication,andbothinformal

andformalreviewswouldbeappendedtothem.Ifeditorial‐boardapprovalisgiven,most

2Attheriskofsoundingobsequious,mayIthankyouhereforyourtimeinassessingthisPhD.

27

likelyforarevisedversion,thepaper’sdetailswouldbeenteredintotherelevantjournal’s

contents‐page,witha link to thataccreditationadded to thepreprint.Under thismodel,

thejournal‘goesvirtual’.Ifthisweretobecomeamethodofpublishing,effectiveversion

management would be essential for citation purposes (Pitts & Stanley, 2007). Work is

currently underway on developing international standards for version identification

(Pinfield,2007).

In some ways, this model is already being used in PLoS One, an international, peer‐

reviewed,open‐access,onlinepublicationwhichacceptsreportsonprimaryresearchfrom

anyscientificdiscipline.Submissionsareassessedontechnicalconcernsbyamemberof

theeditorialboardbeforepublication.Oncethepaperispublished,usuallywithin14days

of submission, it is made available for community‐based open peer review involving

onlineannotation,discussion,andratingvi.

The peer review system is evidently flawed and requires a large input of researchers’

effortandtime,andnewtechnologies includingopenaccessdisseminationoptionsoffer

alternatives to the traditional system. The question that arises that is relevant to this

researchiswhetherpeerreviewisperceivedbytheresearchcommunityasbeingflawed

or a drain on research time, and therefore whether arguments that open access can

improve peer review are effectivewithin the research community as a reason to adopt


Archiving

Issuesofarchivingarenotnecessarilyconsideredessentialbyindividualscholars.Indeed,

inonestudy,thetwoleastimportantconditionsofusingadigitalrepositoryaccordingto

the respondents were the long‐term preservation of the work (22.6%), and

interoperabilitywithotherarchives(37%)(Pelizzari,2003).

Open access and Archiving

Traditionally,paperversionsofjournalsweredistributedworldwide,sotherewerecopies

ofthesamejournalissueinseparatelocations.Thismeantlibrariesactedasarchivesby

default.Nowthat librariesoftenonlysubscribetotheelectronicversionof journals,and

somejournalsdonotactuallyhaveaprintversion,anelectronicreplicaoftheoldsystem

hasbegun,calledLotsofCopiesKeepStuffSafe–LOCKSSvii.

Libraries are entrustedwith the long‐termpreservation of knowledge, and institutional

digitalrepositorieshavebeenpromotedasapotentialdestinationforthegreyliterature

28

arising from research at a given institution (M. Banks, 2005). Recent calls have echoed

these ideals,withadeclarationmade in2004about theopennessofdata inrecognition

that,“anoptimuminternationalexchangeofdata,informationandknowledgecontributes

decisivelytotheadvancementofscientificresearchandinnovation”(OECD,2004).Open

access digital repositories offer a solution to the long‐term issue of archiving grey

literature,thesupplementarydataandbackgroundinformationthatsurroundsaresearch

project,which isoften important toother researcherswishing to replicateandbuildon

theworkatalaterstage.

The function of Archiving is relevant to this thesis in that it provides an incentive for

governments and funding bodies to develop repositories and encourage researchers to

place material in them, however Archiving does not appear to be top of mind for the

individualresearcher.

Reward

Possibly the most important function of journals to individuals within the scholarly

publication system is the fifth function, Reward. This is the function that has been

substantiallyresponsibleforthejournal’schangeoffocusfromcommunicationtocareer

tool:

Research practices are directly shaped by systems of evaluation, changing

fundingpatternsandpriorities.Existingevaluationandrewardstructurestend

to lead to conflicting incentives in relation to scientific and scholarly

communication(Houghton,Steele,&Henty,2003,p.127).

Funding bodies and Reward

Fundingforresearchisincreasinglytiedintoametricassessmentofaresearcher’soutput.

A2002reportonelectronicpublishinginsciencestatedthat:“Inscience,publicationisthe

key currency. It is the primary measure of a scientist’s productivity, and affects one’s

reputation,promotion, intellectualpropertyclaimsandfutureaccesstoboth intellectual

andfinancialrewards”(AmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience,2002,p.1).

TheRewardfunctionofjournalsisoftenmanifestedintermsoffunding,whichisregularly

assessedbymeasuringresearcherpublications.Moneyforscientificandmedicalresearch

comes fromvarious sources. InAustralia, theUKand theUSA, the largestproportion is

governmentsponsored,throughuniversitiesandresearchinstitutions,"84%ofthe65,000

articlesoriginatingintheUKin2002derivedfrompublicly‐fundedresearch"(UKHouse

of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2004b). In Australia, the Federal

29

Government provides the main source of research funding through direct university

funding and through fundingbodies such as theAustralianResearchCouncil (ARC) and

the National Health andMedical Research Council (NHMRC). In the USA, organisations

suchas theNational InstitutesofHealthand theNationalScienceFoundationaremajor

sourcesoffunding.

Othersourcesof funding include trust funds (suchas theWellcomeTrust in theUK). In

addition,“[n]umerousnon‐governmentalorganizationsandfundingbodiescontributeto

science.TheAmericanChemicalSociety,forinstance,administersthePetroleumResearch

Fund(PRF).ThePRFdistributessomeUS$20millionannually,providingseedmoneyfor

researchanddevelopmentinenergyandfuels”(Chesler,2004,p.292).Whendetermining

whethertoallocatefundstoagrantapplication,thesebodiesneedawayofassessingthe

valueofaparticularscientist'swork.Regardlessofthemanyproblemswiththissystemof

measurement, institutions and governments world‐wide are increasingly relying on

metrics to make grant and promotion decisions, partly because of the difficulty with

assessing the papers of a candidate working outside their own subdiscipline

(Monastersky,2005).

For example, in the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is moving towards a

metrics based system after the 2008 round called the Research Excellence Framework,

which “will make greater use of quantitative indicators in the assessment of research

quality than the present system, while taking account of key differences between the

differentdisciplines”(HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland,2008).InAustraliaa

change in government at the end of 2007 spelt the end of a planned Research Quality

Framework(RQF)(ExpertAdvisoryGroupfortheRQF,2005)basedontheRAE,however,

this has been replaced by a new assessment process called Excellence in Research

Assessment (ERA), bearingmany similarities (S. K. Carr, 2008). A recent phenomenon,

university‐ranking systems, such as those produced by the Times Higher Education

Supplementviii and the Shanghai Jiao Tong Universityix, use metrics as one of their

assessmentfactors.

Impact factor and Reward

Thesemetric systems rely on the Science Citation Index (SCI)whichwas developed by

EugeneGarfieldin1961asawayto:“evaluatethesignificanceofaparticularworkandits

impactontheliteratureandthinkingoftheperiod.Suchan'impactfactor'maybemuch

more indicative than an absolute count of the number of a scientist's publications"

(Cawkell&Garfield,2001,p.154).

30

TheSCI countshowmany times an article is 'cited' byother articles.Thisnumber then

contributes to a journal's impact factor, which is published in Journal Citation Reports

(JCR).Themoreprestigiousthejournal,thehighertheimpactfactor(Garfield,2000).The

best scenario for an academic is to have an article published in a high impact journal

because the JCR impact factor “hasmoved in recent years fromanobscurebibliometric

indicatortobecomethechiefquantitativemeasureofthequalityofajournal,itsresearch

papers, the researcherswhowrote thosepapers and even the institution theywork in”

(Amin&Mabe,2007,p.1).TheJCRimpactfactorofajournaliscalculatedbydividingthe

numberof citations it receives in thecurrentyearby thenumberof researchor review

articlesitpublishedduringtheprevioustwoyears.Journalswithhighimpactfactorstend

toattractleadingresearchers,andthosewhoaspiretobeleadingresearchers,asthereisa

strongperceptionthat thehigherthe impact factor, the ‘better’ the journal(Steeleetal.,

2006).

It is widely agreed that using a journal’s impact factor as a system of measurement is

highlyflawedformanyreasons(Bollen,Sompel,Smith,&Luce,2005;B.D.Cameron,2005;

Hecht, Hecht, & Sanberg, 1998; Steele et al., 2006). These include the small number of

‘core’ journalswhich are counted in impact factors, the problemwith using a two year

citation window in disciplines where papers have a considerably longer half‐life, the

advantage of disciplines with a high citation rate, the emphasis on English language

papers,thedifficultieswithassumingthatallpapersinajournalofagivenimpactfactor

are of the same quality and the questionable formula used tomake the calculations. A

majorcriticismoftheSCIisitslackofscope,coveringonlyafewthousandcorejournals,a

smallfractionofallscientificjournalspublishedintheworld:"Ineffect,whatGarfielddid

wastocollapsetheentiresetoflittlespecialty'cores'intoonebig'scientificcore'andhe

used this set of journal titles as the basis of ISI's emerging Science Citation Index"

(Guedon,2001,p.12)3.Bymeasuring thequalityof the journal rather than thearticle it

leavestheridiculoussituationofabadpaperinagoodjournalbeing‘worth’morethanan

excellent article in a nondescript journal. This system is partly responsible for the high

submissionloadofprestigiousjournals.

3EugeneGarfieldAssociateswhichoriginallydevelopedtheSCI,becametheInstituteofScientific

Information (ISI) which was sold to Thomson Scientific, which in turn has recently become

ThomsonReuters.

31

Researchers’ publication and Reward

Researchers in Australia answer to three ‘masters’. First, they are members of one or

several academic communities consisting of the people working in their specific sub‐

specialisation.Thesecommunitiesareoftenspreadacrosstheworld.Thesecommunities

have their own norms and expectations. However, researchers also work within

institutionsandmustreport to that institution forpromotion.Their third ‘master’ is the

grantfundingbody.Grantsarehighlycompetitive,ofthe4112proposalsforARCfunding

in 2008, only 21.4% were successful (Australian Research Council, 2007b). Of those

successful grant applications, few are allocated the full amount that was requested

(Rowbotham,2008).IntheUK,whereapplicationstotheRCUKhavea28%successrate,a

studybyResearchCouncilsUK(ResearchCouncilsUK,2006)hasshownthattheannual

amount spent on preparing and submitting grant research proposals is £121.5million.

Thisrepresentsapproximately6%ofthetotalcostsofthecouncils.Thecostofpreparing

grantapplications inAustralia isproportionallyevengreatergiven thesmaller research

community,with one estimateputting the figure atAU$114million a year in researcher

timealone(Houghtonetal.,2006).

Researchers are altering their publishing behaviour to meet changing requirements.

Butler (2003) showed that when changes were made to the assessment for funding

allocation inAustralia in1993to includepublicationoutput, thenumberofpublications

rosedramatically,butbecausetherewasnomeasureofquality, theseextrapublications

tendedtobeat the lowerendof the impactscale.Pinfield(2004)madetheobservation

that the UK’s RAE does not just measure but also determines publishing behaviour in

universities: “Institutions and their authors behave in ways that they believe will

maximisetheirRAEscores”(p.308).Morethanadecadeago,theobservationwasmade

that:

theincreasingawarenessofjournalimpactfactors,andthepossibilityoftheir

useinevaluation,isalreadychangingscientists’publicationbehaviourtowards

publishinginjournalswithmaximumimpact,oftenattheexpenseofspecialist

journalsthatmightactuallybemoreappropriate(Seglen,1997,p.498).

Examples of this behaviour include self‐citation anddeliberatelywriting reviewarticles

because of their generally higher impact (Steele et al., 2006). The emphasis on impact

factorsbypromotionandgrantingbodieshasspurredpapersthatexplaintoresearchers

specifically what journal impact factors and citation indices are, with the potential

attendant aim of demonstratingways tomaximise citations, for example (Cartwright &

McGhee,2005).

32

Thisrelianceonpublicationoutputisaserioussituationformanyresearchers.Theworld‐

widemovetowardsmetric,dubiouslyquantitative,assessmentofworkpotentiallyposes

the greatestbarrier to a revolutionof the scholarly communication system.The reward

system provides a compelling reason for scholars resisting changes to current work

practices as any change to the practice potentially jeopardises the academic’s standing

(Bjork,2004;Harley,Earl‐Novell,Arter,Lawrence,&King,2007;Steeleetal.,2006).

Open access and Reward

There have recently been several suggested alternatives to the current Reward system,

whichreliesalmostsolelyonajournal’s impactfactorprovidedbyThomsonReuters.As

discussedthis isahighly flawedmethodofmeasurement.Onealternative is the ‘journal

diffusion factor’,which looksat citationrepetition (Rowlands,2002).Others include the

Hirsch’sh‐indexwhich states: “A scientisthas indexh ifhofhis/herNppapershaveat

leasthcitationseach,andtheother(Np−h)papershavenomorethanhcitationsearch”

(Hirsch, 2005). There have been criticisms that this index gives undue merit to

researcherswhopublishmanypapers,andisnotnecessarilyanindicatorofquality.More

recently,Egghe’s(2006)g‐indexhasbeenproposed,whichaimstoimproveontheh‐index

bygivingmoreweighttohighly‐citedarticles.

There are simple electronic alternatives to straight citation counts such as counting the

number of times an electronic article is downloaded. This means “scholars can have a

muchmoreaccuratepictureofwhatisbeingreadthanwhatisofferedbythetraditional

relianceoncitations”(Galvin,2004).Oneoftheissuesofmeasuringusageofelectronically

published papers is that the number of hits or downloads a paper has had does not

necessarily translate into the paper being read. Because of this, one suggested way of

incorporating the use of online technologies has been to make comparisons between

downloadsandcitationdata(Bollenetal.,2005).Therehasbeensomeevidencerecently

thatcitationsofcertainarticles in journalsdonotreflect thedownloadsofarticles from

thesameissue(Coats,2005),whichmayindicatethatcitationsarenotnecessarilyagood

indicator of actual use of articles. This is countered by research that found Thomson

Reuters citations correlated well with web citations if these included all types of web

citations, that is: not only citations, but being included in a reading list, if the paper is

listed on a CV, if the paper is in Medline, if it is cited in a conference and if a Web

bibliometricserviceliststhearticle(Vaughan&Shaw,2004).

Researchthathasquantifiedtheuseofelectronic journals foundthatonlineresearchers

readonlytheabstractsof longerarticlesbutshorterarticlesarereadin full(Nicholas&

33

Huntington, 2006, p. 50). However it seems there is a relationship between online hit

countsandsubsequentcitationsofthepaper.Onestudyhasshownthat,“earlyhitcounts

captureatleasttosomeextentthequalitiesthateventuallyleadtocitationinthescientific

literature” (Perneger, 2004). This opens up an unparalleled opportunity to track article

usage.

Inaddition,therehavebeenseveralaggregatingtoolsdevelopedrecentlyincompetition

withThomsonReuters’Webof Science. Scopus, launched in2004byElsevier, claims to

provide full coverage from 1996 onwards and covers 33million abstracts, 15,000 peer

reviewed journalsand386millionscientificwebpages,according to itswebsitex. Scopus

howeveronlyprovidescitationdatafortheitemsindexedbyit.AnotherisGoogleScholar,

which does not provide information about how many records it includes. Its website

statesthatbecauseitisfreelyavailable,GoogleScholarindexesdatafrompublishersonly

if thepublisherwillprovide theabstract freexi.However,allaggregatorsarenotcreated

equal,acomparisonoftheh‐indicesofspecificresearchersbasedoncitationcountsfrom

thetraditionalWebofScience,ScopusandGoogleScholarshowedthereweredifferences

both between the databases, and between disciplines (Bar‐Ilan, 2008). A separate

comparison of the three tools showed little difference between theWeb of Science and

Scopus, but that Google Scholar produced more citation counts (Bauer & Bakkalbasi,

2005).AstudybyClarke(2008)foundthatfortheinformationsciencediscipline,Google

ScholarofferedbettercoveragethantheWebofSciencedatabase.Theseresultsindicate

that none of the aggregators are completely reliable, There aremany other aggregating

toolsbeingdeveloped,forexamplethefreelyavailable‘PublishorPerish’xiicreatedbyAnn

Harzing, and journal ranking tool Eigenfactorxiii, which includes journal articles and

referencebooks,newspapers,trademagazinesandsoftwarepackages.

TheissueofRewardiscentraltothereasonsresearchersadheretothecurrentscholarly

publishingsystem.Theyneedpublicationsforpromotionandfunding.However,thelink

between publication and research evaluation and funding also provides the potential

‘leverage’ required to encourage open access (Houghton et al., 2006). This research

therefore aims to answerquestions abouthowdeeply embedded thequestionof future

reward outcomes are in the choices researchers make when communicating and

publishing their work, and whether this affects their engagement with open access

disseminationoptions.

34

Copyright

Copyrightsitsoutsidethedescribedfunctionsofthejournal,andyetisintegraltomanyof

theargumentsforachangetothescholarlypublishingsystem.Copyrightisasetofrights

that sits with the originator of a work of a literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, or

cinematographic nature (Clarke, 2005) The basic principle of copyright “protects and

balancestherightsoftheauthorandpublic”(Willinsky,2006,p.41).Copyrightrepresents

control of the academic output, and when considering the costs associated with the

scholarlypublishing industry it iseasy tosee therearegroupswithconsiderablevested

interest.

Universities generally waive their copyright on research outputs, which means that

researchers own the copyright of their written work unless they sign it away (Gadd,

Oppenheim,&Probets, 2003). TheRegistration functionof journals requires authors to

publishinrecognisedoutlets,andcopyrightisanissueintheopenaccessdebatebecause

currentlymostcommercialandmanynot‐for‐profitpublishersrequireauthors tosigna

copyrighttransferagreementwhentheyreleasetheirworktobepublishedinajournalor

conference proceedings. Signing transfer agreement forms giving the distributors

(publishers) copyright over theirwork before publicationmeans the author of a paper

must apply for permission to use their own published work if they wish to reproduce

someofitlaterinanotherform.

Inanelectronicera,thefocusofscholarlycommunicationhasmovedfrompublicationto

dissemination.There isaneedforcopyright lawswhichreflect technologiesavailableto

the community. Core values of science include access and affordability of scientific

information. Increasingly, governments and the scientific community are realising that

thereisaneedfor“evolutionarychangesinthepatternsofcurrentlicensingpracticesfor

electronicpublishingarerequiredthatencouragewider,faster,lessexpensiveaccesstoa

broad rangeof scientificworks” (AmericanAssociation for theAdvancementof Science,

2002, p. 3). This requires authors to havemore control over the dissemination of, and

accessto,theirwork.

Whilepublishersandgovernmentsare focusedoncopyright (Benkler,2001`), there isa

questionwhether individual scholarscareaboutgivingaway theircopyright. Itmaynot

necessarilybeapressingissueformanyresearchers,butstudieshaveshownthatauthors

dohaveconcernsaboutcopyright.Onestudywhichattemptedtoascertainwhatlevelof

copyright protection researchers wanted, found that “academics have a wide range of

views on the protection their self archived works require” (Gadd et al., 2003, p. 350).

35

Anotherstudyfoundthatcopyrightisanegligibleissueforauthors:"Only13%saidthat

they took a 'detailed interest' in the small print of the copyright agreementwhen they

publishedtheirlastarticleand,significantly,nearlyhalfofallauthors,46%,admittedthat

they took no interest at all" (Rowlands et al., 2004a). Those authors who did express

interestincopyrighttendedtobeunhappywiththecurrentcopyrightsystem.

Open access and Copyright

Allocationofthecopyrightofscholarlyarticlestopublishersisconsideredbymanyopen

access advocates to be an issue that must be resolved in any move to an open access

system.Whiletheownershipofcopyrightofpublishedscholarlyworksisnotnecessarilya

majorconcern tomostresearchers, the technicaland legalaspectsof this issuemustbe

addressedforopenaccesstowork.

Onecontributionoftheopenaccessmodelisavoidanceofthelossofcopyrightcontrolby

theauthors.Itcanbearguedthatpublishersrequiresomedegreeofcopyrightcontrolasit

is by thismeans that theyobtain subscriptions. Even allowing for that, there is still the

problem that publishers currently hold the copyright controls in perpetuity. One

alternativetothissituationisthatprimaryresearchpapersshouldbeheldintrustbythe

publishers for the scientific community rather than owned by the publishers (Hopkins,

2001). Another possibility is that there should be retention of copyright by publishers

even under an open access system, but only in the case of commercial usewhere a fee

wouldbeapplicable.Thisensures“thepublishedcontentisnotmisusedinanywaythat

wouldserveacommercialcompany’sbusinessendsattheexpenseoftheintegrityofboth

the researcher and the journal. We maintain another revenue stream for the journal,

which allows us to keep author charges as low as possible in the immediate future”

(Gedye,2004,p.272).

Willinsky(2003)argues that the fee‐basedmodelofaccess toresearchrunscontrary to

thespiritofcopyrightlaw.Retentionofcopyrightisoneoftherecurringissuesintheopen

accessdebate:“Theonlyconstraintonreproductionanddistribution,andtheonlyrolefor

copyrightinthisdomain,shouldbetogiveauthorscontrolovertheintegrityoftheirwork

and the right tobeproperlyacknowledgedand cited” (OpenSociety Institute,2002). In

2008, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University introduced amandate for

depositing all published articles in the university repository which included copyright

retention, placing those rights in the hands of the institution running the repository

(Darnton,2008).

36

Therehavebeenseveralmajorprojectsaddressingthecopyrightdilemma.Onesolutionis

forauthorstoattachanaddendumtothepublisher’sagreement:

For articles published in journals with more restrictive copyright policies,

authors may employ a ‘pre‐print + corrigenda’ strategy, where they post an

additional file,which lists changes and additions,with the archivedpre‐print

draftofthearticle.Thisisalegalmethodthatauthorscanusetoregaincontrol

overtheirownwork(C.Hess,2005,p.9).

To that end, several organisations have released author rights addenda for authors to

attachtopublisher’scopyrightagreements,(MIT,2007;ScienceCommons,2007)beinga

smallsample.Addendaarelegalinstrumentstoallowauthorstoretaincertainrightsfor

theirarticles“suchasdistributingcopiesinthecourseofteachingandresearch,posting

thearticleonapersonalor institutionalwebsite,orcreatingderivativeworks”(SPARC,

2007).Theseaddendaareneeded for thepublishers thatdonotallowselfdepositingof

articles into repositories, and for situations where the journal later changes its access

policy. Many of these addenda have arisen from a large non‐profit project out of

Massachusetts Institute of Technology called Creative Commons, which “provides free

tools that let authors, scientists, artists, and educators easily mark their creative work

withthefreedomstheywantittocarry”(CreativeCommons,2007).

Not unexpectedly, publishers have started fighting back, with the International

Association of Scientific Technical andMedical Publishers, the Association of American

Publishers Professional and Scholarly Publishing and the Association of Learned and

Professional Society Publishers releasing a white paper emphasising an appropriate

‘balance’forpublishersandauthors,statingthatacademicauthorsandinstitutionsshould

be able to use and post their own content for “internal institutional non‐commercial

research and education purposes” but that publishers “determine when and how the

officialpublicationrecordoccurs”(STMAAPPSP&ALPSP,2007,p.3).

Theissueofcopyrightisrelevanttothisthesisbecausemanyproponentsofopenaccess

state that copyright issues are central to change. However, the question is whether

copyrightisanissuethatresonateswiththeacademicpopulationandthereforewhetherit

isabarriertotheuptakeofopenaccessscholarlycommunicationinAustralia.

Summary

This chapter has provided background to the research question “How are the

communication practices between researchers affecting the uptake of open access

scholarly dissemination in Australia?” by examining the challenges facing the scholarly

37

communicationsystemwithinwhichresearchers function.Thesechallengesare that the

Reward system requires an increasing amount of literature to be produced and sent to

those journalswith the highest impact resulting in a high rejection rates and increased

timespent in thepeer reviewaspectofCertification, and thesedelays in turnaffect the

Awarenessfunctionofjournals.

This analysis articulates the broad inadequacies of the scholarly publication system

definedinChapter1:thatacademicarticlesarewrittenbytheacademiccommunity,peer

reviewedbytheacademiccommunityandofteneditedbytheacademiccommunity,with

nocompensation,yetthehighsubscriptioncostsofcommerciallypublishedresearchisa

barrier to increased and improved dissemination of knowledge. This chapter also

indicatesthatopenaccessofferssolutionstomanyoftheseissues,andpotentiallyoffersa

cheaperandeffectivemethod for thedisseminationofknowledge.Thiswouldappear to

bea considerable incentive for researchers toadoptopenaccessdisseminationoptions.

This research therefore aims to answer questions about how deeply embedded the

question of future reward outcomes are in the choices researchers make when

communicatingandpublishingtheirwork,andwhetherthisaffectstheirengagementwith


Thenextchapterwilllookathowrepositoriesprovideanopenaccessoptionandexplores

theuptakeofopenaccessamongsttheacademiccommunity.

39

Chapter3–Researchersandrepositories

Introduction

The previous chapter described how open access offers solutions to many of the

challengesfacingthescholarlycommunicationsystem.Thischapterexplorestheideathat

understanding the communicationbehavioursof the individual scholar is central to any

largescaleuptakeofanewscholarly communicationsystem,and that research into the

field of repository use has, to date, been restricted to snapshots of the scholarly

communityvialargeinternetsurveys.

The chapter begins with a description of the two ways of achieving open access

dissemination: publishing in open access journals and depositing articles in digital

repositories. It then describes how open access will affect different members of the

scholarlycommunity.Thechapterwill thenexplore thequestionofwho issharing their

work in thismanner tohelp illuminate thequestionofwhymanyscholarsarechoosing

nottodothis.

Achieving open access – the gold road

If, as Chapter 2 has demonstrated, open access offers a wider and more inclusive

disseminationof informationthanthecurrentscholarlycommunicationsystem,thenext

questionis:howisopenaccessachieved?Therearegenerallytwoways,describedasthe

‘gold’ and ‘green’ roads to open access, referring to open access journals and digital

repositories respectively (Harnad et al., 2004b). For reasons explained below, this

researchwillfocusmorecloselyonrepositoriesthanonopenaccessjournals.However,to

ensureacompletepictureoftheopenaccessdisseminationlandscapeisprovidedinthis

work,abriefdiscussionoftheopenaccessjournaloptionisprovidedhere.

AsstatedinChapter1,openaccessgenerallyreferstothedisseminationofresearchina

waythatisfreelyavailabletoanyinterestedreaderwithaninternetconnection.The‘gold

road’ to open access dissemination refers to open access journals, broadly defined as

journalsthatdonotchargeasubscriptionfee.Wilinksy(2006)offersten‘flavours’ofopen

access,severalofwhichare‘gold’.Insomecasesthejournaloperateswithoutcosttothe

readeror the author, an exampleof ‘Cooperative’ typeof openaccess journals, inother

cases subsidies from scholarly societies or elsewhere provide the financial support for

40

‘Subsidised’openaccess,andthere isalso ‘Dual‐mode’wherethesubscriptionsforprint

editionsalsocoverthecostofopenaccessonline.

AfourthgoldflavourofopenaccessWillinskydescribesis‘Authorfee’,whichisabusiness

modelthatemergedtoallowcommercialpublishers(andscholarlyassociationswhorely

onmembershipinexchangefor journalpublication)topublishopenaccess journalsand

alsocontinueinbusiness.Thisisachievedbycharginganup‐frontfeetocoverthecostsof

reviewingandeditingthepaper,oftenreferredtoasthe‘author‐pays’model.Thistermis

slightlymisleading,asitisusuallytheauthor’sinstitutionorfundingbodythatcoversthe

cost, so the term ‘pay on acceptance’ is more accurate. There are institutional models

under thissystem,suchasBioMedCentralwhere the institutionpaysamembership for

theresearchers topublish in theopenaccess journals. Itshouldbenoted,however, “OA

journals that chargeprocessing feesusuallywaive them in casesof economichardship”

(Suber, 2007b). Some examples of policies of fee waivers are (BioMed Central, 2008;

NucleicAcidsResearch,2008;PLoSPublicLibraryofScience,2008).

There are potential issueswith this system. For example the sustainability of a pay on

acceptance model is particularly problematic for journals with high rejection rates

(DeAngelis&Musacchio,2004).Thesystemthathasauthorspayingforpublicationeither

directlyor throughsponsorship frominstitutionsor interestedthirdpartiesmeansthat,

“sciencewilleitherhavealesseffectivefilter,orwillrequiretheintroductionofnewpost‐

publication filtering mechanisms” (Crawford, 2003). The system is biased towards the

author’sgoalofpublicationratherthanthereader’sgoalofeffectivefiltering.Thereisalso

apotentialconflictofinterestintherefereeingprocess,where“theincentivesforeditors

inanauthor‐paysmodelwillbetopublishmorepapersnot fewer”(Horton,2003).This

issuehasalsobeenraisedinsurveysofauthors’attitudes:“Feedbackhasalsohighlighted

the essential requirement that author charging and editorial decisions be completely

separatedandseentobeseparated.Authorsshouldbereassuredthattheirabilitytopay

publicationchargeswillnotinfluenceeditorialdecisionsinanyway”(Richardson&Saxby,

2004).

Onemethodpublishershavedeveloped to introduce the ideaof authorspaying tohave

theirworkfreelyaccessibleistodevelopahybridmodelfortheirjournals.Inthismodel,a

journaloffersauthorstheopportunitytopublishtheirworkinopenaccessforafee,and

(intheory)reducesthesubscriptioncostinproportiontothenumberofarticlesthatare

published in this fashion. If the author chooses not to pay a fee their work is only

accessibletosubscribers.Someofthejournalsofferingahybridoptionhave‘anticipated’

41

the subscription cost of the journal will be reduced according to the number of open

accessarticles thatappear in the issues (Suber,2006).This ishappeningwithat leasta

fewpublishers,withOxfordJournalsannouncing:

In2008,theaverageincreaseacrossallOxfordJournalstitlesis6.9%.Forthe

28OxfordOpen titleswithopenaccessuptake in2006 (the last full calendar

yearonwhichwecouldcalculate),theaverage2008online‐onlypriceincrease

is just 1.7%. This is due to adjustments to the online‐only prices of these

journals which reflect increases in the percentage of open access content

publishedbetween2005and2006(Richardson,2008).

Therehasbeenarecentsurgeinhybridmodels,withtheproportionofpublishersoffering

this to authors growing from 9% in 2005 to 30% in 2008 (ALPSP, 2008). Of hybrid

journalsavailabletoresearchersin2007,12werepublishedbyfor‐profitpublishers,and

65bysocieties.Onlytwohybridjournalswereinthesocialscienceswiththeremainderin

the STM fields. “Hybrid journals are clearlymost common in the fields inwhichmost

authors have research grants from which they might be able to pay the journal’s

publication fee” (Suber&Sutton,2007).There is little available evidenceof the level of

uptake of this option by authors, although apparently 18% of authors publishing in

journalspublishedby theAmericanPhysiologicalSocietyhavedoneso (Biello,2007).A

2008studyshowedthat“thetake‐upoftheauthorpaysopenaccessoptionisexceedingly

low”(ALPSP,2008).

Some institutionshaveprograms topay forpublicationcharges inopenaccess journals,

for example the University of Nottingham (2007) has established an Open Access

PublicationsFundandtheLibraryoftheUniversityofAmsterdam(2007)hasalsooffered

anopenaccessfundsinceJanuary2007.TheUniversityofCaliforniaBerkeleylauncheda

program in January 2008. Established programs have not had a high uptake, the

UniversityofNorthCarolina‐ChapelHill launchedaprograminMarch2005butonly14

grants had been allocated byMay 2008. TheUniversity ofWisconsin‐Madison program

offeringauthorshalfofOAfeeshasallocatedonly16awardssince its inception in2006

(Adams,2008).

Apotentialdrawbackof thehybridmodel is the ‘tippingpoint’whensubscribersdecide

thatenoughofthejournalisonlinetowarrantcancelingthesubscription(Prosser,2003).

This is probablymore of an issuewith individual subscribers, as libraries tend to hold

theirsubscriptionsinbundles,whichwouldmakeindividualcancellationsdifficult.Infact

the hybrid model initially increases costs to the institutions (universities, funders and

42

governments) because they will be, at least for a while, paying for both kinds of

publication(Suber,2005b).

Open Journal Systems

Openaccessadvocateshavedevelopedtools tohelppeoplewanting tostartupanopen

access journal. Open Journal Systems (OJS)xiv is open source software that has been

developedbythePublicKnowledgeProjectattheUniversityofBritishColumbia.Itbegan

asaproofofconcepttotestthedegreetowhichanopensourceandeasilyconfigurable

pieceofsoftwarecanreducethecostofrunninga journalbymovingtheprocessonline,

not only in the publishing and distribution of the journal, but in its actual day to day

management (Willinksy, 2006). OJS sets up a website for the journal which acts as an

editorialofficeforeditors,reviewers,authors,copyeditorsandothers.Theprogramlabels,

filesandtracksallsubmissions.

AsoneexampleofhowOJSworks,theNationalLibraryofAustraliahasadoptedOJSandis

successfullymanaginganonlineopenaccessjournalpublishingservice.Thelibrarybegan

bymigratingthejournalfromtheAssociationfortheStudyofAustralianLiterature,JASAL,

toanonlineformat,usingOJStoassistwitheverystageoftherefereedpublishingprocess,

fromsubmissionsthroughtoonlinepublishingandindexing.Itisnowincreasingitsstable

ofopenaccessjournals(Graham,2006).

Achieving open access – the green road

Thealternativetoopenaccessjournals,the‘green’methodofopenaccessdissemination,

is achieved by making the author’s versions of articles available online. This can be

throughanauthor’sownwebsite,althoughgenerallydigitalrepositoriesareconsideredto

bemore‘robust’becauseindividualwebsitesarelikelytodiewiththeauthororbelostif

the author changes employment. Digital repositories are also searchable due to a

requirement that they comply with the Open Access Initiative (OAI) Protocolxv which

requires interoperable standards for searchingof repositories.The term ‘self‐archiving’,

while widely used in open access discussions, is inaccurate because the personwho is

doing the ‘archiving’hasnocontrolover the long‐term lifeof the item.Amoreaccurate

term,andonewhichwillbeusedthroughoutthisthesis,is‘self‐deposit’.Itisimportantto

notethatdepositinganarticleinarepositorydoesnot,initself,constitutepublishing.

The word repository can mean many things. This thesis is concerned with digital

repositorieswhichare:“usuallyconsideredtomeanaplacewhereonedeposits…objects

such as peer‐reviewed researchmanuscripts for the purpose of providing open access.

43

The…objectneedstobecapturedatcreationtimeotherwiseitissoonlost”(Sale,2005a).

A simpler definition includes the descriptors: cumulative, perpetual, open and

interoperable(Ware,2004a).Incorporatingallthesedefinitions,repositoriesprovidethe

meansforthealternative, ‘green’roadtoopenaccess,whenanauthorcanselfdeposita

pre‐print, the digital text of a peer‐reviewed research article before refereeing or post‐

print,acopyoftherefereedarticle,inadigitalrepository.

Repositoriesaredevelopedwithdifferentpurposesinmind.Thisthesisispredominantly

concerned with institutional and subject‐based repositories. While this author has

previously argued that “the term institutional repository is often narrowly applied to

repositories run by universities and other research‐oriented employers. It is more

appropriately used as a broad term to encompass both those and the repositories that

havebeenrunbylearnedassociationsandotherscholarlycommunitiessinceasearlyas

1991” (Clarke & Kingsley, 2008), the discussion in this thesis requires a delineation

betweendifferenttypesofdigitalrepositories.

A functional definition of an institutional repository adopted in this thesis is: “A set of

servicesthatauniversityofferstothemembersofitscommunityforthemanagementand

disseminationofdigitalmaterialscreatedbytheinstitutionanditscommunitymembers”

(Lynch,2003).Analternativetypeofrepositoryisasubject‐basedrepository.Thistermis

used in the literature but is not the optimum word to explain this type of repository

because the term generally refers to repositories that not only belong to a scholarly

community,butalsoadisciplineorresearchdomain.

Despitethelargeamountofmaterialwrittenaboutdigitalrepositoriesthereisstillasmall

proportion in existence in institutions world‐wide. As of September 2008, 1145

repositorieswere listedon theRegistryofOpenAccessRepositories (ROAR).xviOf those,

611are ‘ResearchInstitutionalorDepartmental’.TheWorldListofUniversitiesxviionthe

samedaylists8136universitiesin198countries.Asimplecalculationindicatesthatonly

7.5%ofuniversitiesworldwidehavearepositorywith thecorrelatingresult that92.5%

do not. However, Australia is in a unique positionworldwide because as of September

2008,32of the39universitieshave active repositories, ofwhich31areopenaccess.A

furtherthreeuniversitiesareplanningtolaunchtheirrepositorieslaterin2008,twohave

plans to launch in 2009, and the closed access repository is planning to open access to

items in2009.Thismeans37Australianuniversities shouldhaveactive repositoriesby

theendof2009(Kennan&Kingsley,2009).

44

For thosewho argue that a digital repository’smain function shouldbe to provide free

access to the literature, the breakdown of the content in repositories must be

disappointing.Asurveyof45repositoriesundertakenin2003hadanaveragenumberof

documentsperarchiveof1256.Thebreakdownofthesewas22%e‐prints,includingpre‐

printsandpost‐prints.Thesesanddissertationsmadeup20%,with theremaining58%

made up of other documents including grey literature, such as technical reports, and

workingpapers(Ware,2004b,p.25).DespitethelargenumberofAustralianrepositories,

looking at the number of items in Australian repositories listed on the OpenDOARxviii

websitedemonstratesthatinitialuptakeoftherepositorieshasbeenslowinthatcountry.

AmorerecentsurveyhasshownthatoftherepositoriesinAustralianuniversities,three

have more than 5,000 open access items, the remainder have 1000 or fewer items

(Kennan&Kingsley,2009).

Clearly there is a barrier to scholars depositing theirwork in institutional repositories.

Generally, subject‐based repositories are enjoyinga greater level of self‐depositing than

institutionalrepositories.Asademonstrationofthispreference,itisinstructivetolookat

theparticipationlevelsofthreesubject‐basedrepositories4.Accordingtoitssite,arXiv,at

the time of writing, offers: “open access to 451,387 e‐prints in Physics, Mathematics,

Computer Science, Quantitative Biology and Statistics”. RePEc (Research Papers in

Economics)xix, holds 222,000 working papers, 316,000 journal articles, 1,500 software

components and numerous listings from books and chapters, author content and

publicationandinstitutionalcontacts.Inthebiologicalandlifesciences,PubMedCentralxx,

runby theUSNational InstitutesofHealth (NIH), is a freedigital archiveof the journal

literature. Begun in 2000, the archive holds approximately 650,000 items including

digitisedversionsofarticlesdatingbacktothe1800saswellasnewmaterialaddeddaily.

Institutionalrepositories,bycontrast,havenotenjoyedthiskindofuptake.OpenDOARxxi

isawebsitelistingprovidinginformationonover1,000academicresearchrepositories.A

cursory glance shows that in Australia, institutional repositories contain between a

handful and several thousand items, with the larger numbers often representing

collections of images, or metadata items without the full access version of a paper

attached.This lowparticipation rate in institutional repositories is reflectedworldwide.

Even at Cornell University, the home of arXiv, academic deposits into the institutional

4 A more comprehensive list of subject‐based repositories can be found at:

http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/perx/analysis.htmunder3.3AnAnalysisofGapAreas,accessed1April

2008

45

DSpacerepositoryhavebeenlow,withfacultyindicatingthatthoseusingasubjectarchive

found it fulfilled their needs, making the institutional repository redundant (Davis &

Connolly,2007).

Variously,institutionalrepositorieshavebeenmootedas:asimplewayofachievingopen

accesswithout changing the scholarly communication systemor threateningpublisher’s

livelihoods (Harnad, 2003), amethodof streamlininguniversity administration systems

(O'Brien,2006),awaytoassistwithacademicworkflows(Foster&Gibbons,2005),ora

toolwithwhich to fundamentallychange thewholescholarlycommunicationsystem(L.

Brown, Griffiths, & Rascoff, 2007; Crow, 2002). There is no doubt that institutional

repositories are potentially a very useful tool for many aspects of an institution’s

administration,fromofferingamethodforcollatingalltheoutputfromaninstitution,to

reporting to funding bodies. Some of the roles of a repository, such as disseminating

scholarlycommunication,overlapwiththetraditionalrolesofauniversitylibrary.Others,

such as preserving material and data that is sometimes not usually seen (for example

laboratorynotes),ornegativeresultsthatmightlaterbeusedforanalysis,arenewtothe

library'srolewithintheinstitution.However,whiletheserolesassistadministrationsand

institutions, they do not necessarily assist researchers and there appears to be greater

voluntary uptake amongst the research community of subject‐based repositories over

institutionalones.

The focus of this research

Thisresearchinvestigateshowthecommunicationpracticesbetweenscientistsaffectthe

uptakeofopenaccessdisseminationoptionsinAustralia.Currentlythecoverageofopen

access journals is not complete across all academic disciplines. The exact number is a

‘moving target’ but was around 3‐5% in 2006 and remains below 10% of the journal

market (Willinsky, 2006). Even an academic committed to open access is dependent on

either an open access journal being available in their field, or those journals that they

publishinadoptingahybridsystemthatmovescloserandclosertoafullyopensystem,or

on a publisher making the decision to launch a new open access journal (as PLoS has

done).

Repositorieson theotherhandhaveenjoyedanexplosionof interestand investment in

Australia and currently offer a faster (and free to the academic) route to open access.

RepositorieshavebeenlaunchedinalmosteveryuniversityinAustralia,soforAustralian

researchers to make work openly accessible through a repository is not restricted by

46

availability. For that reason this research focuses mainly on the use of and rollout of

repositories.

Publishers and open access

Inevitablytherewillbesomegroupsinthescholarlypublishingsystemthatwillbemore

profoundlyaffectedbysubstantialchangethanothers.Themainargumentsagainstopen

accesscomefromtwoactorgroupsinthedebate,commercialpublishersandnotforprofit

publisherssuchasscholarlyassociations.Commercialpublishersarguethatopenaccess

threatens the viability of publishers, which could lead to a collapse of the scholarly

publishing system,becausewithout thepossibility of new journals becoming financially

viableitisunlikelypublisherswillstartnewtitles,andifpublishersoffertheirmaterialas

open access or allow material to be placed in repositories, libraries will cancel

subscriptions.

Publishers are central to the communication practices of scientists, as all formal

communication via scholarly articles must currently be submitted to and published by

publishers.Therefore,theapproachpublishersaretakingtotheopenaccessissuewillto

an extent shape some scholar’s opinions about the issue. This chapterwill now look at

howpublishersaremeetingthechallengesthatopenaccesshascreated.

Commercial publishers

Publishers are supporting open access in many ways. Some publishers, under their

copyrightagreements,allowauthorstoplacetheirversionofapublished(orsubmitted)

paper onto a website or into a repository. At first glance, the list of publisher’s self‐

depositing policiesxxii seems highly supportive of authors self‐depositing their work in

archives.The‘currentjournaltally’inSeptember2008lists95%ofpublishersas‘green’–

adescriptionused forpublisherswhoallowself‐depositing.Thereare,however, several

caveats to this figure.Tobeginwiththere isadistinctionbetween ‘full‐green’and ‘pale‐

green’ with the former representing the 62% of publishers who allow post‐print self‐

depositingandthelatterreferringtothe29%whoallowonlythedepositingofpre‐prints.

But this website has (as at November 2008) processed the policies of 457 publishers,

which isnot the totalnumberofpublishers. It isdifficult toestablishexactlyhowmany

publishers thereare in theworld,butanestimate canbemade. InNovember2008, the

Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishersxxiii had just under 300

membersinNovember2008,theAssociationofAmericanPublishersxxivhad260members

and the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishersxxv had

‘about’100members.Manypublisherswillbemembersofallthreeassociations,butone

47

analysisstatesthemainEnglish‐languagetradeandprofessionalassociationsfor journal

publishers collectively include657publishersproducingaround11,550 journals (Ware,

2006).Itisclearthatthetotalnumberofpublishersworldwideisgreaterthan457.

Insomecasespublisher’sarchivingpolicieshavetheveneerofopeningaccesstoresearch

whileactuallyprotectingtheircommercialinterests.Anexampleofoneofthesepoliciesis

Nature Publishing Group, which in January 2005, announced a change to their self‐

archivingpolicy:“Authorsareencouragedtosubmittheauthor’sversionoftheaccepted,

peerreviewedmanuscripttotheirrelevantfundingbody’sarchiveforreleasesixmonths

after publication.” (author’s emphasis) (Nature Publishing Group, 2008). This embargo

period means this is actually delayed‐access rather than full open access. The

announcementaccompanyingNature’sstatementdidnotmentionopenaccess:

This policy has been developed to extend the reach of scientific

communications,andtomeettheneedsofauthorsandtheevolvingpoliciesof

funding agencies that may wish to archive the research they fund. It is also

designedtoprotecttheintegrityandauthenticityofthescientificrecord,with

thepublishedversionclearlyidentifiedasthedefinitiveversionofthearticle.5

Anearlyargumentagainstopenaccessmadebythepublisherswasthatthereissomesort

of inherent danger in there being free and open access to scientific and medical

informationbythegeneralpublic.DrJohnJarvis,directorofWileyEuropearguedin2004

that if material were more easily available then the general public might use the

informationbadly:

Iwill say again; let us be careful because this rather enticing statement that

everybody should be able to see everything could lead to chaos. Speak to

peopleinthemedicalprofession,andtheywillsaythelastthingtheywantare

people who may have illnesses reading this information, marching into

surgeries and asking things.Weneed to be carefulwith this very, very high‐

levelinformation(UKHouseofCommonsScienceandTechnologyCommittee,

2004a).

Thisstatementwas laterdismissedasa“sillyone,probablyexpressedintheheatofthe

debateandnotmeantseriously”(Velterop,2008,p.118).

5InformationfromAmericanScientistOpenAccessForumavailableat:

http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind05&L=american‐scientist‐open‐access‐

forum&F=l&S=&P=3001accessed29September2008

48

The publishers’ arguments have since become more sophisticated, with the American

Association of Publishers (AAP) hiring a public relations consultant on the issue (Giles,

2007),which led to the launch of thePartnership forResearch Integrity in Science and

Medicine (PRISM)xxvi in 2007. This appears to be an attempt by publishers to ‘market’

themselvesas theonlymedium that canbe trustedwitha gate‐keeping role (Firestone,

2007).

Thispartnership stated that it intended to alert policymakers and citizens to “the very

realthreattopeerreviewthatill‐consideredgovernmentinterferencerepresents,andto

explore the ways in which we can safeguard peer review as a critical component of

scientific integrity” (Firestone,2007).Manycommentatorshavecomeout in reaction to

thisinitiative,claimingthatopenaccessdoesnotthreatenpeerreviewandthatPRISMisa

thinlydisguisedlobbyinggroupforthepublishingindustry(Suber,2007c).DespitePRISM

notpubliclydeclaringwhotheirsupportersare,itappearsthemainorganisationsbehind

itaretheAAP,Wiley,ElsevierandtheAmericanChemicalSociety(Giles,2007).

PRISMhas alsohadnegative feedback from thepeople andorganisations it purports to

represent,withsomegroupsandcommentatorsspecificallyasking forclarification from

their own publishing groups (Rust, 2007). At least one member of the council of AAP

resigned over the issue (Howard, 2007). The Rockefeller University Presswrote to the

AAP to ask that theyput adisclaimeron the site stating that theywerenot in anyway

associatedwith PRISM6. In the context of the open access debate, the launch of PRISM

indicates that the publishing industry is concerned enough about the moves by

governmentsandfundingbodiestowardsmandatingopenaccesstotakeaction.

Another argument that is put forward by publishers against the widespread use of

repositories for open access content is that as more material becomes open access,

libraries will start to cancel subscriptions. There is little evidence to support this

argument.LookingatthearXivexample,thishighlysuccessfulandalmostuniversallyused

(in the relevant disciplines) repository has been shown to have had no effect on the

subscriptionratesof the journalspublishingthefinalversionsof thepaperappearing in

therepository(Beckett&Inger,2006;Swan&Brown,2005).There isevidencetoshow

thatreadersusethepreprintversionuntilitappearsinthejournal,afterwhichtimethe

journal is where readers turn for the article. This represents “coexistence rather than

6 One group calling themselves the “Partnership for Integrity in Scientific Dis‐semination” have

developedaparodyofthePRISMwebsite:http://pisdcoalition.orgaccessed5October2008

49

competition” (Pinfield, 2007). Two studies that have asked the question of subscription

cancellations (Beckett & Inger, 2006; Mark Ware Consulting, 2006), found pricing and

usagewerefarmoreimportantfactorsincancellationthantheavailabilityofmaterial in

anopenaccessformat.Despitethefindingthatthethreattosubscriptionsishighcharges

rather than the author’s ability to deposit articles in repositories, these two studies are

beingusedbythepublishingindustrytoarguethatinstitutionalrepositoriesspellavery

realthreattopublisher’slivelihoods(Morris,2007b).

Non-profit publishers

Scholarlyassociationsorlearnedsocietiesareagroupofactorswhoarekeyplayersinthe

scholarlycommunicationsystem,sowillbeaffectedbyanychange.Whileexactnumbers

aredifficulttoascertain,approximatelyhalfofthejournalslistedinUlrich’sappeartobe

associated with non‐profit organisations. Scholarly associations generally publish their

own journals, but in some cases association journals are published by the commercial

publishing sector. The five largest publishers produce just under 14% of the journals

ownedorsponsoredbynon‐profitorganisations(Morris,2007a,p.302).

Scholarly associations have a revenue stream from membership fees and (often

subsidised) subscriptions to their journals. Associations use any surpluses from

membershiporsubscriptionsforseveralpurposes,includingkeepingconferencefeeslow,

providingbursariesforattendanceattheorganisation’sownandothermeetings,offering

research grants, public education, and keeping membership dues low and generally

supportingtherunningcostsoftheorganisations(Baldwin,2004).However,itseemsthat

thepricecharged tomembers for their society subscriptions is, ingeneral,not covering

the costs of providing the print journal, which means there is heavy reliance on

institutional subscription revenue to support the journals, while the number of

institutionalsubscriptionsisfalling(Waltham,2006).

The open access debate has been particularly relevant to scholarly associations as they

existtoadvancetheprofessionalwell‐beingoftheirmembers,includingprovidingaccess

to a forum for advancing knowledge. Given this, it is difficult to argue that keeping the

statusquowithsubscriptionsasasourceof incomeisaddressingthesegoals(Willinsky,

2003).Thisdebatehasopenedquestionssuchas:shouldscholarlysocietiesprimarilybe

fund‐raisingorganisationsforotheractivitiesintheirdisciplines,usingtheirpublications

to bring in the necessary money, or should they be promoters of efficient scholarly

communication and use their publications more directly to that end ‐ for instance, by

embracingopenaccess?(Velterop,2003).

50

Thereisnosuggestioninthesedebatesthatsocietiesabandontheirpublisherrole,asthey

are arguably best placed to organise Certification, Rewards and the sixth function of

Navigation(Armbruster,2007).Howeverresearchersinonestudyhaveexpressedthata

move to open access means scholarly associations may not remain financially viable:

“therewas deep concern expressed over the financial sustainability of a switch to [the

open access]model across the board” (Pitts& Stanley, 2007, p. 26). This is despite the

open access model being aligned with societies’ missions and providing increased

visibility to their journals, and the authors and research they publish. At least one

commentatorhasarguedthatmovingtoopenaccesswouldactuallybebeneficialtosmall

publishers (many of which are society publishers) because author charges represent a

new source of income, and “small publisherswill be able to compete for this source of

revenue equally with large publishers as it is the impact of the journal and quality of

publishing experience for the author that is important, not the ability to bundle large

packagesofjournals”(Prosser,2004,p.21).

Recent research byWaltham (2008) has shown that having cheap access to the society

journalisnottheprimaryreasonforpeoplejoiningsocieties:

Numerous surveys show that the primary reason for being a member of a

society is for the opportunities that membership brings for conferences,

networking and collaboration. The journal is always further down the list,

sometimes in second place but never in first. Jobs and grants also usually

feature quite highly, but the main reason for joining is the chance to get

togetherwithlike‐mindedpeople(pp.9‐10).

Thereisanargumentthatsocietieswouldcontinuewithoutthefinancialincomederived

fromsubscriptionsbecause:“If learnedsocietiesarevaluedbytheircommunities,which

webelievetobethecase,membersarelikelytoremainloyalirrespectiveofthepublishing

model employed by their society” (UK House of Commons Science and Technology

Committee,2004b).Thisargumenthasbeensupportedinatleastonestudywhere:

all the researchers agreed that non‐profit societies serve many necessary

functions, in addition to journal publishing, for the fields they serve. Their

memberswouldnotallowthemtofalter,andwouldifnecessarysupporttheir

journalthroughincreasedmembershipdues,ifconvertingtoanOAmodelwere

tohavetheeffectofreducingsocietyrevenues”(Pitts&Stanley,2007,p.247).

51

Bothpublishers and scholarly associationspotentiallyhave challenges theywill need to

address to be able to continue within an open access system. It is worth noting their

responsestothesituation,becausethiscouldhavebearingonhowindividualresearchers

perceiveopenaccess.As statedearlier, it is the individual scholarwhoholds thekey to

widespreaduptakeof open access, so this chapterwill nowdiscuss in somedepthhow

researchershaverespondedtoopenaccessdisseminationoptionstodate.

Researchers and open access

Central to the question “How are the communication practices between researchers

affectingtheuptakeofopenaccessscholarlydisseminationinAustralia?”,istheindividual

scholar. In Chapter 2 it was shown that open access offers a more effective way to

disseminate knowledge than the traditional scholarly publishing system. It was also

demonstratedthatopenaccess isarelativelysimplepublishingoption.This leadstothe

question,ifthescholarlycommunicationsystemissoproblematicandopenaccessoffersa

betteralternative,whyhasopenaccessnotenjoyedwidespreaduptake?

Scholarsengagewiththescholarlysystemonadailybasis,asauthors,asreadersandas

reviewers.Theyhaveavested interest in thesystembecause itunderpins theircareers.

Anychangetothescholarlysystemwillonlyoccurifindividualscholarsareconvincedthe

changewillincreasetheusefulness,effectivenessandusabilityofthesystem.Information

onindividualviewshasgenerallybeenobtainedthroughsurveysinEuropeandtheUnited

States,withseveraltakingabroadsweepoftheinternationalscholarlycommunity.

Awareness of and attitudes towards open access

It is interesting to note that despite several years of active debate and conferences,

including legislationchanges in theUSandaparliamentaryenquiry in theUK, “levelsof

awareness of the kinds of issues that are the focus of publishing seminars and library

conferencesarereallysurprisinglylowamongtheresearchcommunity”(Rowlandsetal.,

2004a). It is clear there remains a large proportion of the academic communitywho is

unawareoftheconceptofopenaccess,letalonetheinitiativestheymightbeabletouse.

Oneinternationalstudyof3787authorsshowedthat82%ofrespondentsknew‘nothing

atall’or‘alittle’aboutopenaccess.Thestudypointsoutthatthisissurprisinggiventhat

therespondentswerea self‐selectinggroupwhochose tocompletea surveyaboutnew

developmentsinjournalpublishing(Rowlandsetal.,2004a).

Whileawarenessofopenaccess is limited, there issome indication in the literaturethat

attitudes in academic populations reflect open access principles. One study found

52

researchers, “tended to view OA from a ‘philosophical’ perspective – as a fundamental

requirement of largely publicly funded research, facilitated by the ease of electronic

dissemination” (Pitts & Stanley, 2007, p. 246). Other studies have demonstrated that

researchershaveatheoreticalwillingnesstopublishinopenaccessoutlets.Inastudyof

thefacultiesofEconomicsandLawoftheUniversityofStudyofBrescia,Italy,over66%of

respondents answered theywereprepared topersonallydeposit their own scientific or

educationalmaterialinaninstitutionalrepository,oncetheconditionstheyrequestedhad

beenfulfilled(Pelizzari,2003).Theseconditionswere(inorderofnumbersofrequests);

thepossibilityofcontinuingtopublishintraditionalchannels,guaranteeingtheintegrity

oftheirwork,andindexationoftheworktoprotectagainstirretrievability.

A study of 75 researchers has indicated that over two thirds of the respondents do (or

would ifa repositorywasavailable)deposit in institutional repositories (J.Allen,2005).

Anothermuch larger study of 1296 researchers found that 81% of respondents would

‘willinglycomply’iftheiremployerorresearchfunderrequiredthemtodepositcopiesof

their articles in an open archive (Swan&Brown, 2005, p. 63). However, these positive

attitudesandexpressionsof intentarenot translating intoaction,and it is important to

understandthereasonswhy.

Barriers to publishing in open access outlets

Thereisanargumentthatthedemandforopenaccessdisseminationislimited.Anopen

accessdebate thatwas run throughNature in2003and2004didnot endupgreatly in

favouroftheidea(D.Butler,2004).Anotheranalysisinthesameyearconcluded:“Clearly

there is some sort of groundswell, but it certainly was not overwhelming, and early

indications fromproceedingsofNationalAcademyof Sciences inAmerica and such like

havenotreallysupportedthecontentionthatitishuge”(UKHouseofCommonsScience

andTechnologyCommittee,2004a).Thisanalysisfoundthegroundswellappearstobein

themolecularbiologyendofthesciencespectrum.Thismaybebecausemolecularbiology

hadanunprecedentedexperiencewithopenaccesswhentheHumanGenomeProjectxxvii

was abandoned by traditional publishers and was created as an open access program,

whichtransformedbiomedicalscience.

Giventheevidenceofincreasedvisibilityforopenaccessarticles,itmightbeexpectedthat

researcherswouldbeclamouringtobeinvolved,yetasdiscussedinChapter1,theuptake

hasbeenlow,withapproximately15%ofarticlesbeingdepositedintoadigitalrepository

(Poynder,2005;Sale,2005b),andonly10%of journalsasopenaccess(LundUniversity

Libraries,2008).Howeveramorerecentestimateindicatesthenumbersareevenlower,

53

with8.1%ofarticlesopenlyaccessibleinjournalsand11.3%ofarticlespublishedwhich

are available as copies deposited in e‐print repositories or homepage. Combining these

twofiguresgivesanestimateof19.4%ofthetotalyearlyoutputwhichcanbeaccessed

freely(Bjorketal.,2008).Thisestimateisanadditionof4.6%ofjournalarticlesthatwere

openaccessfortheyear2006andafurther3.5%whichweredelayed‐accessandavailable

afteranembargoperiodofoneyear,totalling8.1%.

Thereisconcernthatpublishinginopenaccessjournalsdoesnotcountforpromotions.In

astudybySwanandBrown(2004a),“69%[oftraditionalauthors]saidtheyperceivedOA

journalsintheirfieldtohavelowimpactandthesameproportionsaidtheyperceivethe

OAjournalsintheirfieldtohavelowprestige”(p.220).Thisisnot,infactthecase.Astudy

of the nearly 200 open access journals that Thomson Reuters covers, found that the

impact factors were similar to traditional journals, ranking close to the 50th percentile

within their fields (Testa&McVeigh,2004). Inaddition,55%of traditionalauthorssaid

theythoughtpublishinginanopenaccessjournalwouldadverselyaffecttheirchanceof

winninggrants,74%thought itwould limit thepotential impactof theirwork,andonly

42%thoughtitwouldadverselyaffecttheirchanceofappointmentandpromotion.

Encouragingresearcherstodeposittheirworkinrepositorieshasprovedtobeadifficult

challenge. It appears there are threemain barriers to filling repositories. The first, and

largest, isa lackofawarenessorunderstandingeitherofopenaccessitself,orofhowto

participate.The second is amarketing issue. In asking faculty to add to theirworkload,

thereappearstohavebeenlittleconsiderationtothe‘what’sinit forme?’question.The

thirdchallengeisthedifficultiesfacedbythoseresearcherswhoareawareandwillingto

deposit,butdonot(orperceivethemselvesnotto)havethenecessaryskillsorexpertise

toself‐deposit.

Alikelyreasonforthelowlevelofdepositsindigitalrepositoriesis“ignoranceorinertia”

(Swan&Brown,2004b,p.69).Theconcernsthatauthorshaveaboutdepositingmaterial

in an institutional repository include technical issues, the submission process, concerns

about having preprints in the public domain and concerns about copyright (Pinfield,

2001).Inonestudy,whereaboutafifthofrespondentshaddepositedscholarlymaterial

in an institutional repository, the most published format was theses, followed by

conferencepapers,acceptedpapers,pre‐printsanddatasets(Rowlandsetal.,2004a).The

problemmight simply be one of a lack of awareness. The level of awareness of e‐print

archiveswasmuch lower than therespondent’s familiaritywithopenaccess journals in

onestudy(Swan&Brown,2004a).

54

Anotherreason for the lowuptakeofrepositoriescouldbe theneedtomakerepository

contentmore accessible and usable. There aremany search engines apart fromGoogle,

whichisverywidelyused(Swanetal.,2005),includingScopus,OAIsterandBASE,butwe

area longwayfromtheholygrailof the ‘OneGreatScholarlySearchEngine’(Willinksy,

2006). One method of encouraging repository use is to integrate them into current

workflows, as is occurring in some disciplines. Today, some journals require pre‐print

submissiontobemadeviaarepositoryandthepeerreviewprocess isdirectedthrough

therepository,wherereviewersaresenttheurloftherepositoryitemratherthanafile

(AdvancesinTheoreticalandMathematicalPhysics,2007).

Several case studies have offered different methods for obtaining material for the

repositories, from trawling researcherwebsiteswithmaterial and asking permission to

transferthesetotherepository(Andrew,2003),tofindingoutwhichjournalsallowedthe

self‐depositofarticles,andtrackingwhichresearchersattheinstitutionhavepublishedin

those journals (Mackie, 2004). Two other approaches have attempted to make the

repositorymoreinlinewiththeresearchers’naturalcommunicationrequirements,such

ascreatingpersonalwebprofilesforindividuals(Foster&Gibbons,2005)anddeveloping

communities for appropriate groups with their own workflow (Chan, 2004). The

University of Melbourne has chosen a holistic approach, attempting to tie the UMER

repository in with the university’s administrative, financial and reporting systems. The

aim is that users enter their details once and the information is then available in all

relevantpartsofthesystem.Thisaimstolinkfunding,research,data,publications,access,

citation,impactandassessment(O’Brien,2006).

Anobviousbarriertoself‐depositinrepositoriesisthedifficultiesintheprocessofplacing

an article in a repository, including entering the metadata about the article. Metadata

describesthearticleandallowsittobeharvested,citationlinked,andsearchedseamlessly

asifallpaperswereinaglobalarchive.Informationincludesauthor,title,publicationand

date. A study analysing the number of ‘keystrokes’ this process takes found that, “a

researcherwritingoneco‐authoredpaperpermonth…spendsabout39minutesperyear

inmetadataentrytasksrelatedtoselfarchiving”(L.Carr&Harnad,2005,p.6).Thisresult

wasbasedontheconclusionthat,onaverage,thetimetakentouploadapaperandenter

themetadatawas 10mins 40 secs,with an average 1500 keystrokes to self‐deposit. In

addition,thisdeposittimeshrinksasauserdepositsmorepapers.Theimplicationofthis

result is that self‐depositing articles is a simplematter, and this study is often used by

openaccessadvocatesintheirarguments,howeveritdoesnotreflectthetruesituation.

55

It is reasonable to argue that researchers should not have to take responsibility for

depositing material: “Faculty are typically best at creating new knowledge, not

maintainingtherecordofthisprocessofcreation…Mostindividualfacultylackthetime,

resources, or expertise to ensure preservation of their own scholarlywork even in the

short term” (Lynch, 2003). Having an administrative person undertake the depositing

process was identified as a positive for a group in one study which showed the

respondentsobjectedtothe ideaofself‐depositing,notonmoralorconceptualgrounds,

butonpurelypracticalones:

Asubstantialpartofthe16%whodeclaredtheirunwillingnesstoself‐archive

do so, not somuch as a refusal of the initiative but rather as a request that

otherscarryouttheactivityofarchivingthematerialproducedbytheauthors

(generally, departmental or faculty technical/administrative personnel are

mentioned)(Pelizzari,2003,section6.5).

Anotherbarriertoadoptiongenerallyexperiencedacrossmostdisciplinesisalackoftime

or technical expertise on behalf of the academic. “All of the options for self‐submission

assumeabasic levelof IT literacy…Inany institution there isanenormousrangeof IT

literacybothbetweenandwithindepartments”(Pinfield,2001).Therearedifficultieswith

using proprietary software for items being deposited into a repository for what is

intended to be the longer‐term (Barnes, 2006b). Issues such as Microsoft Office Word

2007 not being backwardly compatible to previous versions of Word illustrate the

difficultiesofusingthissoftware ina long‐termstoragecapacity.Onewayofaddressing

thisistoaskauthorstoconverttheirdocumentstoapdfbeforedepositingthem.Anopen‐

access software program is currently being developed in Australia to automate these

conversions(Barnes,2006a)butuntilthisisoperationalanddeployed,thealternativeis

toprovideastaffmembertoassistwiththeconversionanddepositingprocess.

Asmentionedearlier,theissueofthelogisticsofcopyrightisonethatmustbeaddressed

foropenaccesstobesuccessful.Asdiscussedabove,manypublishersdoallowarchiving

ofpre‐and/orpost‐printsandthereisawebsiteresearchersandadministratorscanuse

to determine publisher copyright policiesxxviii, however most researchers appear to be

unaware of this. There is also the complicating factor of a changing publishingmarket,

where larger publishers are often buying smaller and independent titles. The self‐

depositingstatusof theauthorofapaperthatwaspublishedunderthe imprimaturofa

publisher that is now owned by a new company remains somewhat unclear. Self‐

depositing,whileinprincipleasimpletask,canbemorecomplexthanitatfirstappears.

56

In the case of the University of Toronto, which launched T‐Space in early 2003, the

decisionwasmadetoemployaperson12hoursaweektodigitiseprintdocumentsand

converting files intoAdobe’spdf format,checkingcopyrightandsendingoutpermission

requests to publishers: “The library’s decision to perform archiving is intended to

maximizetheworkloadofthefaculty,tofilltherepositoryquickly,andtolearnaboutthe

rangeof issuesthatmayariseasaresultofdiversetypesofsubmission”(Chan,2004,p.

288).TheT‐Spacerepositorycontainsover16,000itemsinNovember2008,andaquick

calculation based on the ‘browse by date’ facilityxxix indicates that therewas a surge in

depositsin2004and2005withover2200itemsdepositedinbothyears.

Deposit mandates

Severalcommentatorsintheopenaccessdebatearguestronglyfortheneedtomandate

self‐depositing at a national or institutional level, rather than relying on individuals to

makethedecisiontodoso(Harnadetal.,2004a;Law,2006;Sale,2007b).In2005several

significant funding bodies released policies requiring or requesting grant recipients to

depositanypapersresultingfromtheirgrantsinapubliclyaccessibledigitalrepository.In

October of that year, twomandatory policies came into effect in theUK. TheWellcome

Trust,whichgrantsfundingthatproducesapproximately3500papersayear,statedthat

“copiesofthefinalmanuscriptsofallauthors’researchpapers,supportedinwholeorin

partbyWellcomeTrustfunding,mustbedepositedinPubMedCentralassoonaspossible,

andnolaterthansixmonthsafterpublication”(WellcomeTrust,2005).Thisstatementis

inlinewithitspositionstatementinsupportofOpenAccessPublishing(WellcomeTrust,

2004b).TheResearchCouncilsoftheUK(RCUK)releasedapolicyeffectivethesamedate

stating that all grant recipients should deposit a copy of any resulting work in an

appropriatee‐printrepository(ResearchCouncilsUK,2005b).

TheScientificCouncilof theEuropeanResearchCouncil (ERC)distributesabout15%of

theEuropeanUnionresearchbudget.InDecember2007,theERC(2007)issuedamandate

tomakebothdataandarticlesfundedbytheERCopenaccess.ThisisthefirstEuropean

Unionwidemandate.FromApril2008, theNational InstitutesofHealth(NIH) in theUS

hasrequiredinvestigatorstodeposittheirarticlesstemmingfromNIHfundingintheNIH

onlinearchive (AssociationofResearchLibraries,2008).This field is constantlymoving

andnew initiatives arebeing announcedona regularbasis, suchasHarvardUniversity

mandatingthatallresearchbeavailableinopenaccessformat(Darnton,2008).

57

Certainlynon‐mandatedrequestsforrepositoryusedonotresultinuptakeofrepositories

onalargescale,asdemonstratedintheUSwherea2005‘request’thatresearchersfunded

bytheNIHdepositcopiesoftheirworkintoPubMedCentral(NationalInstitutesofHealth,

2005)wasmetwithlimitedsuccess,by2007only10,000oftheasmanyas65,000articles

derived from NIH‐funded research, were available at PubMed Central. Surprisingly,

authorssentinonly4%ofarticlescomparedto10‐12%submittedbypublications(Biello,

2007). The NIH has since upgraded to a mandate requiring deposit within 12 months

(AssociationofResearchLibraries,2008).

AsatSeptember2008 therewere five institutionalmandates inplace inAustralia,QUT,

Charles Sturt University, Macquarie University, James Cook University and Central

QueenslandUniversity.Inaddition,fiveotherAustralianuniversitieshaveindicatedthey

are intending to implement a mandatory deposit policy (Kennan & Kingsley, 2009). In

addition,twomajorfundingsourcesinAustraliahaverecently`requestedtheplacement

ofscholarlyoutputintorepositories.

Australian research grants are generally funded through two bodies which “encourage

researcherstoconsiderthebenefitsofdepositingtheirdataandanypublicationsarising

from a research project in an appropriate subject and/or institutional repository

whereversucharepositoryisavailabletotheresearcher(s)”(AustralianResearchCouncil,

2007a,p.13;NationalHealthandMedicalResearchCouncil,2007).Thisdevelopmenthas

beenwelcomedbycommentators(Sale,2007a).TheARCpolicygoesfurther,sayingthatif

theresearcherchoosesnottodosotheymustincludetheirreasonswhynotintheirFinal

Report. To some observers, this requirement for a justification of non‐compliance has

meant, “this effectively converts the request into amandate” (Suber, 2007a).While this

appears to be supporting open access, in reality, the soft wording used (such as

‘encourage’ and ‘consider’) means there is currently little imperative for Australian

researcherstovoluntarilyplacetheirworkinrepositories.Howeverthereareindications

the Australian Government will strengthen these requirements and there has been a

commitmentonbehalfoftheARCtocheckcomplianceofthefundingrules(Cooke,2008).

There is a distinction between institutional repositories and subject‐based repositories

thatisrelevanttothediscussionhere.Inthecaseofinstitutionalrepositories,thepolicies

ontheselectionandretentionofmaterial,aswellasthegeneralscopeandorganisationof

therepository, isdeterminedbytheinstitution.Thisstandsincontrasttothediscipline‐

or subject‐based repository where depositing policies are determined by the research

communities.Theseoftendevelopinan‘organic’mannerinresponsetoaspecificneedin

58

a discipline (Chan, 2004). Attitudinal research of law and economics researchers has

indicated a preference for subject‐based repositories over an inter‐discipline based

archive(Pelizzari,2003).In2006thereweremanymoresubjectbasedrepositoriesthan

institutionalones: “of theestimated2,200suchdigital repositories,only11%arebased

around a specific institution or institutional department and approximately 35% are

subject based” (Regazzi & Caliguiri, 2006, p. 188). Within the subset of subject based

repositories,PubMedCentralandarXivaccountedfor84%ofallrecordsinthatanalysis.

AstudyundertakenatEdinburghUniversityanalysedtheresearchmaterialalreadyheld

ondepartmentalandpersonalwebpagespriortoestablishinganinstitutionalrepository,

andfoundadirectcorrelationbetween“thewillingnesstoselfarchiveandtheexistenceof

subject‐basedrepositories.Mostoftheacademicunitsthathaveahighpercentageofself‐

archivingscholarsalreadyhavewell‐establishedsubjectrepositoriessetupinthatarea”

(Andrew,2003,p.12).

In summary, despite open access dissemination options becoming increasingly more

available, and the existence of variousmandates to deposit in repositories, the level of

engagementwithopenaccessbyresearcherscontinuestobelow.

Previous research into researcher engagement

There have been several studies looking at the level of uptake of open access. Some of

these studies have tried to establish the level of self‐depositing through electronic

searchesoftheliteraturetodeterminehowmuchhasbeenmadeavailableasopenaccess.

ForexampleAntleman(2006)undertookanonlinesearchof self‐depositedarticles that

hadbeenpublished in six social sciencedisciplinesoveran18monthperiodand found

that authors are self‐archiving according to the norms of their respective disciplines

ratherthanfollowingself‐archivingpoliciesofpublishers.Bergstrom(2007)searchedfor

open access versions of articles published in a set of economics journals and compared

theseresultstothosefromasimilarexerciseinpoliticalscience,findingthatabout90%of

articles in the most‐cited economics journals and about 50% of articles in less‐cited

journals were available, compared to about 30% of the political science articles which

werefreelyavailable. Whileusefulsnapshotsoftheuptakeofrepositories,thesestudiesdonotanswerthequestionofwhyresearchersaremakingthesepublishingdecisions.

Bjork (2004) in a review article of the topic, concluded that general awareness of the

advantagesofopenaccesswasaprerequisite for scientists choosing touseopenaccess

channels, and that branding and creating a criticalmass of userswouldhelp encourage

59

repositoryuse.Thisarticle isanexampleofmuchof thecurrentresearchand literature

whichfocusesontheperceivedbenefitsofinstitutionalrepositories.

Otherresearchhasbeenintheformoflargequantitativesurveys.ForexampleaGerman

surveyofover1000respondentswhichwasundertakentodeterminetheacceptanceand

use of open access publications in the German scientific community asked about

publishing habits of researchers and their means of accessing information. The study

found few people engage in open access, andmany have reservations about both open

access itself and about spending their research budgets on open access journal

publication, but many expressed an enthusiasm for the concept of open access (Over,

Maiworm,& Schelewsky, 2005). There have been several other quantitative surveys on

this topic, findings from which have informed the discussion above (J. Allen, 2005;

Pelizzari,2003;Pinfield,2001;Rowlandsetal.,2004b,2006#775;Swan&Brown,2003,

2004#94;2004b,2005).

Therehasthusbeenconsiderableresearchintothe‘howmany’andthe‘who’questionsof

open access, and particularly repository uptake. Many of these studies have been

conductedasinternetsurveys,which,likemailandtelephonesurveys,havethelimitation

ofhavinganswersrestrictedbythechoicesonthequestionnaire,orleadingthesubjectsto

makechoicesbasedonthestructureofthequestion(Detlefsen,1998).Todate,therehas

beenlittleworkthatattemptstoanswerthequestionof ‘why’scholarsarenotengaging

with open access, and there is a question whether a survey would be appropriate to

answerthisquestion.OneexceptionisresearchbyHoughtonetal.(2003),which"focused

onwhy researchersdowhat theydo, rather than simplyonwhat theydo, because it is

onlybyunderstanding theevolvingneedsof leading researchers thatwecaneffectively

resource research activities in the future" (p. ix). That work was an examination of

evolvingworkpracticesandtheirimplicationforscholarlycommunicationandoutlineda

coherent agenda for the evolutionary development of a scholarly communication

infrastructure.

Brown (1985) states that structuredquestionnairesareauseful researchprocedure for

establishing what people have experienced. In this type of research, the investigator

attemptstoexplaintherelationshipsfoundinthequestionnaireresponses.Hegoesonto

arguehowever, that“enablingtherespondenttoprovidehisorherownaccountofwhy

eventsoccurredmayoftenbringtolightaspectsthatmayremaininvisiblewhenlookedat

inatraditionalway”(p.220).

60

Therehave,nevertheless,beenfewstudieswhichhavetakenaqualitativeapproachtothe

issueofresearchengagementwithopenaccess.Oneexampleisastudywhichconsistedof

semi‐structured telephone interviews with 28 randomly selected international authors

who submitted to the BMJ in 2003. It investigated attitudes towards open access

publishingandauthorcharges(Schroter,Tite,&Smith,2005).Thisstudyfoundthatwhile

almost all participants supported the concept of open access, few had submitted to an

openaccessjournalandthiswasbecauseofacombinationofalackofawarenessofwhich

journalspublishasopenaccess,concernaboutjournalqualityandadislikeoftheconcept

ofchargingauthorsforpublication.

The best estimates of Australian participation in open access come from large

international studies which include a small number of Australian researchers (Primary

ResearchGroupInc,2007;Rowlandsetal.,2004a;vanWestrienen&Lynch,2005).These

numbers alone do not give any further indication as to why these researchers are

generallynotembracingopenaccess.

There are some indications that looking at different disciplines would be a useful

approachtounderstandingtheproblem.OneexampleisanindepthpaperbyKling(2000)

whichreferstothe“socialpracticesthatsupporttrustworthycommunicationsindiverse

scientific disciplines” (p.1315). Given that the research question is concerned with

communicationpractices,thedifferencesinpublicationbehaviourbetweendisciplinesis

highlyrelevant.This,however,hasnotbeenafocusofmuchoftheliteratureinthisfield.

“Unfortunately much of the literature about scholarly e‐publishing homogenizes the

character of publishing” (Kling & McKim, 1999, p. 896). Kling notes that there is little

understanding between disciplines of differences in publishing. For example, while

humanities disciplines value books as a publication forum, the lab sciences typically

devalue book and book chapter publication. This is an important issue, and should be

addressed.

Itiscleartherefore,thatthekeytothesuccessorotherwiseofopenaccessinthefutureis

the individual scholar. In particular, a focus on their disciplinary practices has the

potential to contribute to understanding the problem. Differences between disciplines

havebeenrecordedinfewinstances,andtheseareelaboratedfurtherinChapter4.This

thesisthereforeaddressestheseissuesandinformstheopenaccessdebateinanareathat

has,todate,beensomewhatneglected.

61

Summary

Scholarlycommunication,whileabilliondollarbusiness, isostensiblyatoolforscholars

to share their research findings, and for research to build upon itself. This tool has,

however,becomelesseffectivesincetheSecondWorldWarandthesubsequentexplosion

in scientificpublishing.The literature indicates thatopenaccessoffersa solution to the

broadcriticismsofthescholarlycommunicationsystemlistedinChapter1andtoeachof

the issues identified in Chapter 2. Despite this, the open access dissemination options

currently available to scholars, open access journals and repositories, are not being

embracedbytheacademiccommunity.

Abroaderviewof thecommunicationpracticesof scholars isneeded tounderstand the

motivations behind the publication choices they are making. This thesis picks up the

argumentofHoughtonetal.(2003)that:

Itwillbeessential totakeanholisticapproachto ‘re‐engineering’ thesystem,

which treats the creation, production and distribution of scientific and

scholarly information, the management of information rights and access,

systems of evaluation and the underlying infrastructure as parts of a single

research information infrastructure and scholarly communication system (p.

127).

Whiletherehavebeenmanystudiestodatesurveyingresearcherattitudes,andtherehas

beenstrongaggregatedatacompileddescribingpublicationpractices,therehasbeenvery

littleattentionpaidtotheholisticviewoftheresearcherandhowheorshecommunicates

withallmembersofhisorherworkingcommunity.Untilthisisestablisheditwillnotbe

possible to truly understand a researcher’s motivations, and therefore not possible to

address theunderlyingreasons for the to‐date lowuptakeofopenaccessdissemination

options.Animportantandneglectedareaofexplorationisthatofdisciplinarydifferences.

ThereisalsoalackofinformationaboutAustralianresearchersmoregenerally.

This research thereforeaddresses thisproblembyasking: “Howare thecommunication

practicesbetweenresearchersaffectingtheuptakeofopenaccessscholarlydissemination

inAustralia?”Theworkisfocusedontheindividualscholarasthekeytochange.Scholars

are the catalyst for, and the providers and users of scholarly communication and any

changetothescholarlycommunicationsystem,suchasamovetoopenaccess,willneedto

beembracedbythescholarlycommunity.Thefollowingchapterwilldescribeindetailthe

researchdesignusedinthisresearch.

63

Chapter4Researchdesign

Introduction

AsChapter3hasdemonstrated,evenallowing fora lackofawarenessofopenaccess in

the academic community, there appears to be a divide between people’s belief in, and

professedsupportfor,openaccessandtheirwillingnesstoadoptthebehaviouralchange

that will make it happen. Despite the widely published benefits of having scholarly

literatureopenlyaccessible,thelevelofuptakeofopenaccessdisseminationremainslow

intheinternationalacademiccommunity.Australiaisnoexceptionandthisstudyaimsto

discoverwhyresearchersinAustraliaarenotembracingopenaccessbyasking:“Howare

the communication practices between researchers affecting the uptake of open access

scholarlydisseminationinAustralia?”

As indicatedinChapter3, thisresearchfocusesonthe individualacademic.Thestudyis

concerned with Australian researchers and their publication decisions. Determining

engagementwithandattitudes towardsopenaccess isonlypartofwhat theresearch is

designedtouncover.Ittakesabroaderviewofthescholarlycommunicationprocessand

investigates how individual researchers view their refereeing responsibilities, how they

search for informationandhow theydecidewhere to send theirpapers forpublication.

Therefore,themoredetailedquestionsthatwillbeaddressedare:

• What is the general awareness and use of open access by Australian

researchers?

• Isthereareasonotherthanlackofawarenessforthenon‐uptakeofopen

accessoptions?

• Whatfactorsdoresearchersconsiderwhenchoosingapublicationoutput?

• Howdoresearchersfindtheliteraturetheyuseintheirwork?

• Iscopyrightaconsiderationforresearchers?

• Dofundingrequirementshaveaninfluenceonpublishingbehaviours?

• Whatisthelevelofsatisfactionofthecurrentpeerreviewsystem?

Thisresearchusesgroundedtheorybutbeginswithsomepremisesdrawnfromprevious

work.Despite the understanding that in grounded theory, the theory emerges from the

research,studiesusinggroundedtheoryoftenbeginwithsomepremises,howeverquietly

64

whispered (Silverman, 2001). In this instance, the first premise is that the reason

Australian researchers have yet to embrace open access communication is not simply

becausetheyareunawareofit,butbecausethemeanstoachieveopenaccessruncounter

totheirscholarlycommunicationnorms.Thesecondpremiseisthattherewardsystemin

academiaisaconsiderablepartofthelargerpicture.Thethirdpremiseisthat an important

element in the uptake of open access is the individual researcher.Thisthesisisnotquestioning

whetheropenaccessshouldbeaconsiderablepartofthefutureofscholarlypublishing.

This chapter describes in detail the approach used for this research. The researchwas

qualitative,basedontheconclusionsreachedinChapter3.Thereisalsoadescriptionof

otherfactorsaffectingthedecision‐makingwhenchoosingthemethodsofthisstudy.The

chapter includes a comprehensive description of how the people selected for the study

weresourced,aswellasadescriptionofthestepstakenintheanalysisoftheirresponses.

There is a description of the triangulation study that was completed in order to

consolidatesomeoftheideasemergingfromtheanalysis.Thechapterconcludeswithan

acknowledgementofthelimitationsofthisstudydesign.

Overview of the research

This research explores researcher behaviour, and this is a good example of the type of

phenomena “that are difficult to convey with quantitativemethods” (Strauss & Corbin,

1990, p. 19), but whose intricate details can be uncovered by the use of qualitative

methods. Qualitative methods can be used to gain novel and fresh slants on areas of

researchthathavealreadybeenstudiedinotherways.Thebroadresearchquestionofthis

thesis is attempting to uncover the nature of researchers’ experiences with scholarly

publication.

Thisresearch is focusedontryingtounderstandtheprocessofchangesto thescholarly

publicationsystem.‘Changeandprocess’studiesusuallybeginwithquestionsaboutwhat

is happening in a given situation and are often grounded theory studies (Morse &

Richards,2002,p.55).Thisresearchisnotattemptingtotestahypothesisaboutreality,

but is trying todeterminehow the ‘actors’ in this scenario (researchers inuniversities)

interpretreality(Suddaby,2006).Thisattempttounderstandchangeandprocessreflects

thegroundedtheoryapproach:“takingtheperspectivethatrealityisnegotiatedbetween

people,alwayschanging,andconstantlyevolving…themethodsofmakingandanalysing

data [in grounded theory] reflect a commitment to understanding the ways in which

realityissociallyconstructed”(Morse&Richards,2002,p.54).

65

Themainpurposeofusingthegroundedtheorymethodistodeveloptheory.Todosothe

research process needs a research question or questions that give the flexibility and

freedomtoexploreaphenomenonindepth(Strauss&Corbin,1990,p.37).Thequestion

“Howarethecommunicationpracticesbetweenresearchersaffectingtheuptakeofopen

access scholarly dissemination in Australia?” is deceptively simple, masking the

complexityofthetopic.Thenumberandrangeofquestionsthatwereusedtoattemptto

elicit this information gives an indication of this. The next section describes several

possibleresearchmethodoptionsandtheirappropriatenessforthisresearchproject.

Literature analysis

Onemethodofdatagatheringisaliteratureanalysis.Thisisseparatefromtheliterature

reviewalreadyconductedinthisstudy,whichhasinformedtheresearchquestionandis

detailedintheChapters2and3.Whenconsideringundertakingaliteratureanalysis,the

obvious issue is theamountand typeof literatureavailable to theresearcher.Given the

subjectmatterofresearchintheareaofscholarlycommunication,thepotentialliterature

is vast – the entire published output of the Australia academic community for a given

periodof time.However, in termsof open access issues, an analysis of this information

alonewouldonlyprovideaguidetothelevelofuptakeofopenaccessinAustralia.

Thereissomescopeforasmallliteratureanalysisinastudyfocusedonthemotivationsof

particular researchers. Patterns such as a tendency to publish in certain journals, or

choosingopenaccessjournals(andwhethertheyareawareoftheseornot)provideeither

astartingpointforanintervieworaninterestingbackgroundforasurvey.Inaddition,the

availability of aparticular academic’spublication list – be it on an individualwebsite, a

departmental website or sent as an attachment ‐ gives an indication of how openly

accessibletheresearcher’spublicationsareoutsidethesubscriptionsystem.Thereforethe

research design has included a request for a publication list from every academic

contacted.

Observation and interviews

The research design of this thesis has drawn on work undertaken at the University of

Rochester that aimed to “understand the current work practices of faculty in different

disciplines in order to see how an IR [institutional repository]might naturally support

existing ways of work” (Foster & Gibbons, 2005). Work‐practice studies, they state,

generally“spendlongperiodsoftimewiththepeopleunderstudy,observingthemasthey

conduct the usual tasks associated with their work”. Often videotape is used for later

analysis.FosterandGibbonsdetermined in their study that itwasnot feasible tospend

longperiodsof timetapingandobservingtheiracademicsubjects.Theyopted forhour‐

66

long interviews, which were videotaped, and supplemented this data with information

gatheringandtelephoneinterviews.

ThefocusofthisresearchisslightlydifferentfromthatofFosterandGibbons.Thespecific

activitiesthatacademicsdothatareofinterestandrelevancetotheresearchquestionsin

thisstudyaresearchingforinformation,writingpapersandreviewingpapers,allofwhich

involvecognitiveworkrather thanaction.Toobserveandunderstandwhatresearchers

weredoingandwhy,itwouldbenecessarytointerruptconstantlytoaskmotivationsfor

certainbehaviours.Thiswouldbehighlydisruptivetothesubject,anditwouldbeunlikely

that more than a handful of people would agree to participate. For these reasons

observationwouldbeaninappropriatedatagatheringmethod.

This research therefore consisted of a semi‐structured interview with each of the

researchers in their own offices. Semi‐structured interviews are used inmany different

researchmethodologies includinggrounded theory(Morse&Richards,2002,p.91)and

consist of open‐ended questions developed in advance, along with prepared probes.

Unplanned,unanticipatedprobesmayalsobeused.Thepurposeoftheinterviewsinthis

study is to gain a deeper understanding of the academic’s motivations behind their

publishingandresearchingdecisionsthanwouldbepossiblebyasimplewrittensurvey.

The study also hopes to understand how deeply the academic understands the link

between publication and reward in Australia, and the amount of time each academic

spendscontributingtothejournalpublicationsystem.

Pilot study

Grounded theory uses early results and experiences in the empirical process to inform

further research, and as outlined in the analysis section of this chapter, the first set of

interviewswasusedtorefinethequestionlistforsubsequentinterviews.Bywayofapilot

of the questions, I met with a consultant at the Statistical Consulting Unitxxx at the

AustralianNationalUniversity(ANU)todiscussthequestionlistanddeterminewhether

the number of questions were reasonable in the given time (40 minutes). During the

meeting,Iconductedapilotrun,byinterviewingtheconsultantfollowingthequestionlist

as it stood.This consultationdemonstrated theneed to reorganise thequestions soany

mentionof theexpression ‘openaccess’or ‘institutional repository’occurredat theend.

The issueof theorderof thequestions isdiscussed indetail later in thischapter. Itwas

also clear after this interview that I needed to have a standardised definition of open

accessandinstitutionalrepositorytogivetothosepeoplewhowereunfamiliarwiththe

terms.

67

Influences on the research design: a personal perspective

Someofthebackgroundknowledgeinformingthisresearchdesignwasnotobtainedfrom

previously published research, but instead was a mixture of informal interviews and

personal experiences. Described below, the attempt to ‘immerse’myself in the topic at

handbyvariousmeanswasadeliberateresearchtactic.Thistechnique,ofusingpersonal

experiences, general knowledge and the stories of others is described as ‘anecdotal

comparison’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). These comparisons can be “especially useful in

starting researchanddeveloping core categories.The researcher canaskhimselfwhere

elsehehaslearnedaboutthecategoryandmakequickcomparisonstostarttodevelopit

andsensitizehimselftoitsrelevancies”(p.67).

In order to gain an insight into the repository situation within Australian research

institutions, in 2006 I accepted a one‐year, part‐time position at the Australian

Partnership for Sustainable Repositories (APSR)xxxi in 2006. APSR was one of four

programsfundedbythefederalgovernmentundertheSystemicInfrastructureInitiative,

administered by the (then) Department of Education Science and Training (DEST). The

stated aim of APSR was to ‘establish a centre of excellence for the management of

scholarly assets in digital format’. Based at the ANU, the partnership consisted of four

researchuniversities(theANU,theUniversityofQueensland,theUniversityofSydneyand

the University of Melbourne), the National Library of Australia and the Australian

PartnershipforAdvancedComputing(APAC).

APSRwashousedinoneoftheANUlibraries,andmanyofthestaffhadpreviouslyworked

intheDivisionofInformation,manyinthelibrary.ThismeantthatIwasinclosecontact

withthosestaffresponsiblefortheANUrepository.MyroleatAPSRwithintheNational

Services Program meant I was involved in the planning and execution of several

workshopsand I attended theseandothermeetingsaroundAustralia.Thisaffordedme

the opportunity to meet with many people in Australia and New Zealand who were

involvedinthedevelopmentandadvocacyofrepositories,anddiscusstheirexperiences

inaninformalsetting.

Inaddition,Iwasinvolvedinthepublicationofseveralprojectreportsandpapersrelating

totheworkundertakenatAPSR(2007;Henty&Kingsley,2007).Thepapersthatresulted

fromempiricaldatahadlookedataparticularaspectofthedevelopmentofinstitutional

repositories.However,therewereareasofthisdatathathadspecificrelevancetomyown

68

research, despite being gathered with a different purpose in mind.While I will not be

usingthisAPSRdatadirectly,mythinkingandconclusionshavebeenaffectedbothbymy

experiencesworkingatAPSRandbytheresearchIundertookwhileastaffmemberthere.

Because the topic of this thesis encompasses the writing, publishing and reviewing of

academicliterature,itwouldhavebeenremissnottohaveattemptedtotakepartinthis

process once I had obtained publishable data. Concurrently with researching for and

writingthisthesisIwasabletopublishseveralpapers,bothasajointauthorandasasolo

author(Clarke&Kingsley,2008;Kennan&Kingsley,2009;Kingsley,2007,2008b;Steele

et al., 2006). In doing so, I experienced many of the problems with the scholarly

communicationsystemasdiscussedinChapter2includingdelaysinpublicationofovera

year in one instance. The peer review of each of these papers was of varying rigour

(rangingfromwhatappearedtobeaperfunctoryglancebytheeditorononepaper,totwo

fullyreferencedandhighlyconstructivereportsonanother).

In one instance I submitted a paper (on invitation) for the inaugural issue of a journal

focused on open access research, and was only informed that the journal was not

proceedingduetoan‘underwhelminglackofinterest’becauseIfolloweduptheeditorsix

monthslater.Thisarticlewasalteredandresubmittedtoanotherjournal,butduringthe

reviewprocess,therewasachangeofgovernmentinAustralia,whichmeantthesection

discussingtheResearchQualityFramework7wasimmediatelyoutofdate.Thepaperwas

declined.Iamintheprocessofreconfiguringthepapertoresubmitittoajournalwitha

different focus. By publishing papers, I also had the experience of depositingmy post‐

prints into theANU’s repositoryandhaving feedback fromcolleagueswhowereable to

accessmywrittenmaterialusingthistool.

I have also had mixed experiences with conferences. In one instance I submitted, had

acceptedandpresentedapeer‐reviewedpapertoanationalconference(Kingsley,2008a).

Ialsosubmittedandhadapaperacceptedforapeer‐reviewedconferenceheldintheUSA

in June 2007. Due to technical difficultieswith the conferencewebsite, itwas not until

days before departure that the conference program was available, at which point it

became obvious that the focus of the conference had changed from the original

promotionalmaterial. I withdrew at the lastminute. This experience reflected some of

7TheResearchQualityFramework(RQF)wasaplannedchangetothefundingsysteminAustralia

which was due to be implemented in 2008, however the federal government changed after a

November2007electionandtheRQFwasabandoned.

69

thosedescribedbyintervieweesandwhileconferenceshadnotoriginallybeenanareaof

great interest for the research topic,myexperience reinforced someearly conclusions I

wasmaking fromthedata.This isoneconcreteexampleofhowmybroaderexperience

hasinformedthediscussionsandobservationsmadeinChapter7.

As I discovered in the interviews, all of the above experiences are not uncommon and

mostpublished researcherswouldbe able todescribe at least oneof those experiences

during their publishing career. Therefore, experiencing the academic publishing system

first‐hand has given me a much greater insight and understanding of the situations

participants described to me in interviews. It also provided a "resource for assisting

respondents to explore and describe their circumstances, actions and feelings. Indeed,

citing shared experience is often a usefulwayof providing concrete referents onwhich

inquiriesandanswerscanfocus”(Holstein&Gubrium,1995,p.45).

Thistechnique,ofasocialscientistacquiringanunderstandingofthefieldbeingobserved,

has been described as “informed observation”, and offers advantages over “naive

observation”(whichisdifficulttomaintain)and“nativeobservation”whereascientistin

a field becomes a social scientist later, which blurs the distinction between

observer/interviewerandparticipant(Laudel&Glaser,2004).

In terms of the interview process itself, my professional background is as a science

journalist and communicator. Over 12 years in this area of work I have interviewed

literallyhundredsof scientistsabout their research.Thisexperiencewasveryhelpful in

termsoftheinnateskillsaninterviewerneedsduringaninterview,suchasindicatingto

thesubjectmyownlevelofexpertiseandthereforehowcomplextheyneedtobeintheir

answers.This issueofnegotiatingthelevelofcommunicationisdiscussedinLaudeland

Glaser (2004, pp. 20‐23). However, an interview conducted as a journalist to gain

informationforastoryisverydifferenttoaresearchinterview,andinmanywaysIwasa

novicetotheresearchinterview.

This concludes the discussion about the thinking and research that formed the

backgroundtothestudydesign.Theremainderof thischapterwill lookat thedesignof

thestudyitselfandhowitwasconducted.

Study design

The aim of this study was to explore the influences on scholars’ publishing and

researchingbehaviour.Threeprimarysourcespresented themselves: theadministrative

70

procedures at their institution, the funding system that all scholars operate within in

Australia, or influences from the behavioural norms within their discipline. It was

importanttoexploreallthree,plusotherunanticipatedfactors.

Oncethetechniqueofdatagatheringwasestablished,itwasnecessarytodeterminehow

to sample the loosely defined group of ‘researchers in Australian higher education

institutions’.Asaqualitativestudy,thiswasnotarandomsamplingissue,whichattempts

to gain a representative groupwithout bias. It was, however important to obtain valid

representation. There are four options: purposeful sampling, nominated or snowball

sampling,conveniencesamplingortheoreticalsampling(Morse&Richards,2002,p.173).

Ofthese,thefinaltwowerethemostrelevant.Thenextsectionoutlinesthetheorybehind

thesamplegroupthatwaschosen.

The institutional influence

OriginallyIconsideredasurveyofallANUscienceresearchers,butonceitbecameclear

thatthisresearchquestionwouldbebetterservedbyinterviewsratherthansurveys,the

potentially large uptake of this group put the size of the study beyond the resources

available to it. After some consideration, I decided that one way of establishing if the

procedures in place at an institution affected a scholar’s publishing behaviour was to

compare the publishing and research behaviours of scholars at two Australian higher

educationinstitutions,reflectingthetransferabilityoftheresearch(Marshall&Rossman,

1995). The chosen institutions were the ANU and the University of New South Wales

(UNSW). One reason for the decision to compare these particular universities was the

disparatestatusoftheirinstitutionalrepositories.

ANU e‐Printswas the first institutional repository in Australia. It has been in existence

since2001andcontainsnearly3,000items.Anopensourcesoftwarepackage,ePrintswas

createdtoallowforthedepositofauthorpre‐orpost‐printstofacilitateopenaccessto

the material without the reader having to pay a subscription fee. In 2005, the ANU

launchedDemetriusxxxii,arepositorybuiltonDSpace, incorporatingtheePrintscollection

as a ‘community’. DSpace has a wider remit than ePrints, archiving a range of digital

contentincludingimages,datasetsandotherformsofscholarlyoutput(Nixon,2003).

TheUNSWorksxxxiii repositorywasstill inanexperimental stageat theendof2006.This

repository was part of a national research project called ARROW (Australian Research

Repositories Online to the World), which began in 2004 and was another of the four

projects fundedbytheSystemicInfrastructureInitiative.ARROW’sremitwasto identify

71

and test software or solutions to support best practice institutional digital repositories.

ARROWusedFedora,anotheropensourcesoftwareplatformasabase fordevelopinga

proprietary software systemcalledVital.At the timeofmy interviewswithUNSWstaff,

therepositoryhadnotbeenlaunchedandnoadvocacyhadbeenundertakentoincrease

awarenessoftherepositoryatUNSW.

It should be noted that both UNSW and ANU are well funded research intensive

universities,soareideal forthepurposeofobtainingintervieweeswithhighpublication

rates. However the similarities of the universities does cause some limitations to the

generalisationoftheresults,andthesearediscussedindepthlaterinthechapter.

The funding influence

In order to attempt to address the issue of whether research funding in Australia was

affecting a researcher’s publication decisions, I decided to exclude Emeritus (retired)

FellowsandProfessors,andVisitingFellows,asthesegroupsarenotfundedasacademic

staffmembersoftheuniversity.Forthesamereason,andbecausegenerallyPhDstudents

are unlikely to have a publishing record, theywere also deliberately excluded from the

sample.

The disciplinary influence

The thirdpotential influenceon researchers’ behaviourwas their discipline.Givenboth

thedifferingnatureofresearchfieldsandthedifferenttechniquesusedtoundertakethat

research across all academia, it is reasonable to assume that members of different

disciplines all have their own disciplinary norms. This research is concerned with the

communication practices of individual researchers, and specifically differences in

publicationbehaviourbetweensomedisciplinesisdocumented(Kling&McKim,1999,p.

896).Itwasevidentthatthemostlogicalwayofdeterminingwhetherdisciplinarynorms

affectpublicationbehaviourwastocomparedisciplines.

Revisiting the literature, it becameevident that in the literaturediscussingopenaccess,

there is very little by way of discussion of disciplinary differences itself as a field of

enquiry. Certainly several studies on researcher attitude discussed in Chapter 3 have

canvassed researchers fromdifferent fieldswithout distinguishingbetween them in the

analysis (T.Bergstrom&Lavaty,2007;Cozzarelli,Fulton,&Sullenberger,2004;Gaddet

al.,2003;2006;Rowlandsetal.,2004b;2004a,2005).

Research into open access engagement which has specifically looked at differences

betweendisciplines is somewhat limited.There areonly a few studies andmanyof the

72

disciplines studied have been in the humanities and social sciences. Allen (2005)

compared the attitudes and behaviours of researchers from different disciplines in the

humanities towardsdepositing theirwork in institutional repositories andKling (2000)

attempted to create a theory of how scholarly fields adopt and shape technology in the

context of scientific communication. The two other studies have taken an approach of

comparingtheuseoftechnologyacrossdisciplines.Antleman(2006)undertookanonline

searchof self‐depositedarticles thathadbeenpublished in six social sciencedisciplines

and Talja (2004) looked at how environmental biologists, nursing scientists, historians

andliteratureandculturestudiesscholarsusedmailinglists,showingthedifferentialrole

offormalandinformalcomputer‐mediatedcommunicationacrossfields.

Overall in the open access literature there has been little discussion of disciplinary

differencesasaphenomenonwhichmaydeterminetheengagementofanacademicwith

open access dissemination options. Because of this situation, I will take a slightly

unorthodoxpathandincorporateabriefreviewofdisciplinarydifferencesliteraturehere

toinformthedesignoftheresearch.

Choice of disciplines

Theresearchdesignbuildsonalargebodyofliteraturelookingatdisciplinarydifferences

(Becher,1981,1994;Fry,2006;Sparks,2005;Walsh&Bayma,1996;Whitley,1984).

In choosing the three disciplines for this research, Chemistry, Sociology and Computer

Science, the initial consideration was for the way the disciplines publish their work.

Havingseparatecommunicationsystemsisoneoftheconditionsforestablishingscientific

fieldsasdistinctsystemsofwork.AsmentionedinChapter3,theothersare:“a)scientific

reputationsneedtobesociallyprestigiousandtocontrolaccesstocriticalrewards,[and]

b)eachfields(sic)hastobeabletosetparticularstandardsofresearchcompetenceand

craft skills” (Whitley, 1984, p. 29). Chemistry, representing a hard science, traditionally

publishes in peer‐reviewed articles in journals. Sociology, while also publishing in this

manner,hasanattendant traditionofpublishingbooksormonographs,whileComputer

Scienceprimarilyusesconferenceproceedingsforpeer‐reviewedcommunication.

Whilegenerallyresearcherscanbedescribedaspeoplewhoworkwithideas,thenature

of the particular intellectual tasks onwhich specific groups are engaged determines to

some extent their ‘culture’. The divide between disciplines is not limited to the subject

beingexplored.Itextendstoallaspectsoftheresearchendeavour,thelanguageused,the

methodsofcommunicationandthesourcesofinformation,tonameafew.

73

Disciplinesthemselvesarehardtodefine,buttobeadmittedtomembershipofasection

oftheacademicprofession“involvesnotonlyasufficientleveloftechnicalproficiencyin

one’sintellectualtradebutalsoapropermeasureofloyaltytoone’scollegialgroupandof

adherencetoitsnorms”(Becher&Trowler,2001,p.47).

Eachof the threedisciplines explored in this research can in turnbebroken intomany

sub‐disciplines. Chemistry is a heterogenous discipline with several major, distinct

subfields,eachwithdifferentworkmodes(Walsh&Bayma,1996).Chemistryisprimarily

abenchscience,meaningofthethreedisciplineschosenforthiswork,thechemistswere

theonlygroupwhoseworkinvolvessharingsomecostlycomponentofbasicapparatus.In

the case of Sociology, due to the structure of the Sociology departments, several

anthropologistswere included in the interviews.This isaseparatedisciplinealtogether,

despitesharingsomepublicationbehaviourswithSociology.Ageneraldistinctionisthat

sociologists use methodology, as an ‘instrument of science’, whereas anthropologists

experiencefieldworkandinterpretthroughculturalmeaning(Becher&Trowler,2001,p.

61).

Using thedisciplineofComputerScience in this research is complicatedby theway the

facultiesordepartmentsaredefinedwithintheinstitutionsattended.AtUNSWtheSchool

of Computer Science and Engineering is housed in the Faculty of Engineering. The

Computer Sciences Laboratory at ANU is housed under the College of Engineering and

ComputerScience,andtheDepartmentofComputerSciencesatANUiswithintheFaculty

ofEngineeringandInformationTechnology.Thereforeatbothinstitutionsbothengineers

and scientists areemployedunder thebannerof ‘ComputerSciences’. It is important to

recognise the clear distinction between engineers and scientists. In very general terms,

engineersuseknowledgetoproduceend‐itemsandthereisoftenmonetaryreward,which

isoutsidethesocialsystemofacademia.Scientists,howevercontributetotheirfieldwith

new knowledge, under a reward system of collegial recognition through publication

(Pinelli,1991).

Anothercompounding factor in thedisciplineschosenwas that theANUhasaResearch

School of Chemistry and a Research School of Information Sciences and Engineering in

addition to the Chemistry Department and Computer Science Laboratory. In both

disciplinesIapproachedtheresearchersintheResearchSchoolsandtheDepartments.In

theory,researchersemployedwithintheResearchSchoolsdonothaveateachingloadso

74

theirtimeismorefocusedonresearch.Inreality,astheresultsshow,manyofthepeople

interviewedundertheseemploymentconditionswerestillheavilyinvolvedinteaching.

Publishing norms in the three disciplines chosen

Disciplinarypublishingdifferencesextendbeyondtheoutputformatandincludepolicies

towardsdepositingmaterialintorepositoriesoronwebsites.Chemistry,forexampleisa

traditional, ‘hard’ science and its practitioners tend to publish almost exclusively in

journals.TherestrictiveapproachtopublishinginChemistryisreflectedinthepoliciesof

theAmericanChemicalSociety(ACS)whichhasattimestriedtobanscholarlyelectronic

publishing(except intheformofsociety‐sponsoredelectronicversionsofexistingpaper

publications)(Kling&McKim,1999,p.894).Thewordinghassoftenedalittlesincetheir

1997 statement about electronic publication, but the revised 2004 statement still has a

punitiveapproach.TheACSEditorsPolicyonPapersonPreprintServernowreads:

A preprint will be considered as an electronic publication and, according to

positions taken by most editors of ACS journals, will not be considered for

publication. If a submitted paper is later found to have been posted on a

preprint server, it will be withdrawn from consideration by the journal

(AmericanChemicalSociety,2004).

There is resistance to electronic publication of pre‐prints in the European Chemistry

community too, with the European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry stating: “Any

manuscript already available on personal/group web pages will be considered by the

editorsasalreadypublishedandwillnotbeaccepted”(WileyPublishing,2008).

Bycomparison,theAssociationforComputingMachinery’s(ACM)copyrightpolicy,states:

“AuthorsmusttransfercopyrighttoACMuponacceptance.Immediatelyafteracceptance,

authorsmust incorporate theACMcopyrightnotice andACMcitationof thepublication

into copies they personally maintain on non‐ACM servers” (Association of Computing

Machinery,2002).Theyalsoexpresslyprovideacopyrightlicencebacktotheauthor.This

acknowledges the widespread practice in computer science of researchers maintaining

personalcopiesoftheirpublicationsonwebsites.InComputerScience,conferencearticles

aretreatedas:

significantformsofpublication,andcomputersciencejournalsaremorelikely

to republish amplified versions of a conference article. In contrast, natural

scientists insist that journal articles are the primary form of significant

publication,andtheirbestjournalsdonotpublishamplifiedversionsofarticles

thathavepreviouslybeenpublishedinveryobscurejournals(Kling&McKim,

1999p.890).

75

Computer Science has long had difficulty having its publication structure recognised by

universityadministrations. In1994, theNationalResearchCouncil (US)commissioneda

reportontheacademiccareersofexperimentalcomputerscientistsandengineers.Among

other conclusions, it stated that: “thecommitteealso found thatpublicationpractices in

ESCE [Electrical, Computer and SystemsEngineering] emphasize conferencepublication

overarchival journalpublication,a fact likely tobenegatively interpretedbythe“paper

counters” of university promotion and tenure committees” (National Research Council,

1994,p. 60).The report found this ‘negative interpretation’ had resulted in researchers

changing their publication practice: “a large majority of the researchers surveyed also

indicated their belief that journals were much more effective in gaining university

recognition.Mostindicatedthatthereasonforthiswasthatuniversityadministratorsput

more emphasis on journals; very few indicated that journals had higher prestige or

greaterimpact”(p.63).Thestatusquohasnotchanged.In2006thisreportwasgivento

mebyoneComputerScienceintervieweewhostatedthathehadalsorecentlygivenitto

theProViceChancellor to explainhow theypublishas adiscipline.This isdiscussed in

Chapter6.

Sociologycanbeclassifiedasa social science,andwhile thereappears tobenospecific

policyforthedepositofsociologyarticles intorepositoriesbytheAmericanSociological

Association,theReprintPermissionpagedoesstate

Onlineuseislimitedtoasecureorpasswordprotectedserverforamaximum

of one year; digital rights management (DRM) should be utilized to prevent

unauthorized reproduction. Posting for longer than one year requires an

additionalrequestandpaymentofanadditionalfeexxxiv

but it is unclear if this refers to the author’s version of the article. However, some

historical clues may be gained from the policies of another social science. While the

AmericanPsychologicalAssociationcurrentlydemonstratesanacceptanceofresearcher’s

wishestodepositbyallowingauthorstoplaceacopyoftheirworkontotheirownortheir

employer’s website, provided certain conditions are met, including the ambiguous

condition that: “APA does not permit archiving with any other non‐APA repositories”

(American Psychological Association, 2002), this was not always the case. The

Association’s apparently ‘widely publicised’ policy in 1996 made the rather alarming

statement:

AuthorsareinstructednottoputtheirmanuscriptsontheInternetatanystage

(draft, submitted for publication, in press, or published). Authors should be

aware that they run a risk of having (a) their papers stolen, altered, or

76

distributed without their permission and, very importantly, (b) an editor

regards such papers as previously “published” and not eligible as a

submission—apositiontakenbymostAPAjournaleditors(quotedinKling&

McKim,p.893).

Thistypeofstatementmaygosomewaytoexplainingthewarinessofsomeresearchers

workinginsocialsciencestowardstheconceptofplacingtheirpublishedmaterialonline.

Obtaining the interviews

InAustraliaanyresearchinvolvinghumansisrequiredbylawtobeapprovedbyaHuman

ResearchEthicsCommittee, underTheNational Statement onEthical Conduct inHuman

Research (2007)xxxv.. A human ethics research application for this research design was

submittedon1June2006.Itwasgiventheprotocolnumber2006/164andwasapproved

by theChairof theHumanResearchEthicsCommittee,ProfLawrenceCramon30 June

2006. Inkeepingwithmyethicsprotocol, everyperson interviewed filledouta consent

form, indicating theirresponseswouldbekeptanonymous, that theycouldwithdrawat

anytime.AcopyofthisformisattachedasAppendix1.

OnceIhaddeterminedthatIwasintendingtointerviewresearchersatANUandUNSW,I

arrangedameetingwith twopeopleat theUNSWlibraryonthe27 July2006about the

development of the UNSW repository and how the university was approaching the

impendingroll‐outoftherepository.Ifollowedupthismeetingwithanemailaskingthe

best way to approach staff to request their involvement. They indicated that I should

initiallyapproachtheResearchOfficeandtheheadsofdepartment.

Inordertoascertainthebestwaytoapproachthestaffineachdepartment,andtoobtain

anybackgroundinformationthatcouldbehelpfultomyinterviewsIsoughttomeetwith

eachrelevantdepartmentheadatbothuniversitiesbeforeapproachingthestaffdirectly.

With the exception of Computer Science at UNSW and Chemistry at ANU where I was

unable tomake an appointment, these interviews helpedme understand the particular

pressuresonandsituationsof theresearchers in thosedepartments.Appendix2hasan

outlineoftheprocessIfollowedtochooseandinviteparticipationineachdepartment.

Preparing the questions

The literaturereviewconcludedthat therewasagap in the literature, in that, therehas

been very little attentionpaid to the holistic viewof the researcher andhowhe or she

communicates with all members of his or her working community. It is necessary to

establish this view to truly understand a researcher’s motivations, and address the

77

underlyingreasonsfortheto‐datelowuptakeofopenaccessdisseminationoptions.The

literaturereviewalso identified theareaofdisciplinarydifferencesasan importantand

neglectedareaofexploration,andalackofinformationaboutAustralianresearchersmore

generally.

This research addresses this gap by asking: “How are the communication practices

between researchers affecting the uptake of open access scholarly dissemination in

Australia?”Thework is focusedon the individual scholaras thekey tochange.Scholars

are the catalyst for, and the providers and users of scholarly communication and any

changetothescholarlycommunicationsystem,suchasamovetoopenaccess,willneedto

beembracedbythescholarlycommunity.

The purpose of the interviews was to gain a deeper understanding of the academic’s

motivationsbehindtheirpublishingandresearchingdecisionsthanwouldbepossibleby

a simple written survey. It was also designed to understand how deeply the academic

understoodthelinkbetweenpublicationandrewardinAustralia,andtheamountoftime

eachacademicspendscontributingtothejournalpublicationsystem.

Preparing for the interview

Qualitativeinterviewsrequireadepthofunderstandingofthetopicthatisnotachievable

without being familiar with the interviewee’s perspective (Laudel & Glaser, 2004). In

addition to the general information gathering about each discipline, specific work was

required togainbetterunderstandingof each interviewee.This is inkeepingwithgood

interviewingtechnique:“Knowtheinterviewee.Ifatallpossible,asitusuallyis, learnas

muchasyoucanaboutthepersontobeinterviewed.”(Bingham&Moore,1959,p.65)The

emailsenttotheresearchersaskingthemtoparticipatementionedthatIwouldbeasking

foracopyof theirpublication list,whichIdidwhen inemailnegotiationabout thedate

andtimeoftheinterview.Theselistsgavemeseveralbackgroundcluespriortomeeting

with the interviewees. In some cases the interviewee did not have a publication list

available and wrote one in the body of a reply email. Others sent sections of a Word

documentwithoutanyidentifiersonitastowhatthedocumentwas.Severalinterviewees

did not send anything through, although inmost cases thiswas rectified at the time of

interview.

Thisbackgroundknowledgeallowedmeto“movefromthehypotheticalorabstracttothe

very concrete by asking questions about relevant aspects of respondents' lives and

experience,aparticularly fruitful tactic forpromotingcircumstantially richdescriptions,

78

accounts, andexplanations" (Holstein&Gubrium,1995,p. 77).Because this research is

looking at the relationship the researchershavewith the scholarly literature, observing

the way individuals presented their publications was a helpful way to prepare for the

interview.Iwasabletoindividuallytailormyquestionsaboutawarenessofopenaccess,

copyrightortherelationshipbetweenpublicationoutputandtherewardstructurebased

onthesepre‐interviewobservations.

Whenaninterviewwasscheduled,Ilookeduptheintervieweeontheiruniversitywebsite

to see what publicly available information existed about them. If there was an online

publicationlist, Icheckedtoseeifanyofthepaperswerelinkedtoanopenlyaccessible

version.Becauseall correspondencehasbeenvia email, I hadno indication (other than

theirpositioninthedepartment)oftheinterviewee’sage.InsomecasesIhadnoideaof

their sexeither. In caseswhere theuniversity (or the interviewee’spersonal)webpage

providedaphotograph,thisgavemeaninklingofwhattoexpect.

In each interview I began by speaking about my research, describing in general terms

whatIwashopingtoachievewiththeresearch,andtogivethemanideaoftheareathe

questions would be covering. A transcript of this introductory sequence from one

interview,whichwasfairlytypical,ishere:

…Ithinkifyouwanttomakechangestothewaypeopleworkyouneedtohave

anunderstandingof theircurrentworkpractices.Sothat issortofwhat Iam

doing and I’m trying to get a baseline in the interviews I am doing. So the

structure of the research is I am interviewing Computer Scientists, Chemists

andSociologistswhoeachhavedifferentwaysofpublishing theirworkand I

am comparing here [UNSW] to the ANU to see if there is an institutional

difference. I suspect that therewon’tbe, I suspect that thedifferenceswillbe

acrossgroupsratherthanbetweencampuses.Sothatisthewayitisallflowing.

So pretty much what I will be asking about is your interaction with the

literaturebothasa readerandasanauthor.And Iamaskingmostpeople to

start, just togivemesomeidea,abouthowyouareworkingat themoment. I

knowitisdifferentbetweenholidaytimeandtermtime,butabouthowmuch

ofyourtimeisspentinteachingandadminandresearch?

Thisfirstquestion,itshouldbenoted,isnotonethatappearsinthequestionlistbelow.In

manywaysitwasarbitrary,simplyawaytostarttheexchangewiththeinterviewee,and

togivemesomeindicationofhowforthcomingtheywerelikelytobe,followingtheadvice

that questions at the beginning should be simple and ‘factual’ in content to assist in

79

building rapport (DeLamater, 1982). This techniquewas one ofmanyused, such as the

orderofthequestionsexplainednext,toelicittherichestinformationfromtheinterviews.

The order of the questions

Thesuccessorotherwiseofaninterviewreliesontherapporttheinterviewerisableto

strike with the interviewee. This will take time regardless of the charisma of the

interviewer. The order of the questions asked is vital. The literature suggests that

questionsaboutthreateningtopicsshouldnotbeplacedatthebeginningofaninterview

(DeLamater, 1982). I discovered this in the one pilot interview I conducted (discussed

above). Using terminology that is unfamiliar to the interviewee can make them feel

embarrassedandpossiblyhostiletotheinterviewer.

With this inmind, certainquestionsposed a challenge.Asdiscussed inChapter3,most

researchers remain unaware of open access dissemination options. The terms ‘open

access’ and ‘institutional repositories’were likely tobeunfamiliar to the interviewees. I

felt thataskingdirectquestionsaboutopenaccessandinstitutionalrepositoriesearly in

theinterviewwouldbeunproductive,apositionsupportedintheliterature:

Ask questions at first that are not likely to cause refusal to answer or to

provokeanyformofnegativism.Beginwithquestionsthattheintervieweecan

andiswillingtoanswer.Cooperationisensuredpartlybyestablishingthehabit

andattitudeofanswering.Riskquestionsthatmayarouseresentmentonlyasa

lastresortafterrelatedquestionshavefailedtoencouragehimtovolunteerthe

information(Bingham&Moore,1959,p.73).

Howeveraskingquestionsabouthowpeoplelookedforinformationandwhethertheyhad

problems accessingmaterial, and how they approached issues like copyright, could not

only informmy research, but also give an indicationwhether the arguments being put

forwardbyopenaccessadvocateswerelikelytoresonatewiththeacademicpopulation.

Obviouslyitwasnecessarytoincludequestionsaboutawarenessof,andfeelingstowards,

openaccessandinstitutionalrepositories.ConsideringBingham’s(1959)advice:

Donotaskquestionsdirectlyuntil you think the interviewee is ready togive

the desired information and to give it accurately. … Much of the desired

informationwillthenemergewithoutresorttodirectpersonalquestionswhich

sometimescauseresentmentormisunderstanding(p.72)

I included those questions at the end of the list. This meant if the interviewee was

unfamiliarwiththetermsandansweredinthenegative,itdidnotbringthediscussionto

an uncomfortable halt. In practice, those interviewees familiar with open access had

80

already used the expression in the discussion beforewe reached that question. This of

course,thenrenderedthelaterquestionsunnecessaryinthatinterview.

The other advantage of asking behavioural questions about publishing practice first is

there is a distinction between a person’s attitude towards a phenomenon and their

behaviourtowardsit.Inanintervieworsurveysituation,describinganattitudeisopento

theriskof‘responsebias’wheretheintervieweealteringtheirresponsestogiveanswers

theythinktheinterviewerwantstohear(Judd,Smith,&Kidder,1991,p.229).Askingan

intervieweetodescribepastbehaviour,howeverisamoreconcreterequestandlessopen

tomisinterpretation.

The questionwith potentially themost fruitful answerswas: ‘why do you publish?’. In

ordertoelicitthemostfulsomeresponsesitwasimportantthatbythetimethisquestion

was asked, the interviewee felt comfortable. Therefore the question appears halfway

throughtheinterview,afterthediscussionaboutliteraturesearchingandsomediscussion

of publication practice. Because Iwanted the answers to be broad, I often prefaced the

questionwithastatementlike:

Interviewer–thisisquiteabroadquestionandyoucananswerithoweveryou

feel.Whydoyoupublish?

Severalpeopleacknowledgedthedifficultyofthequestionasthisexchangedemonstrates:

Interviewer–OKthisisabitofanoddquestionsojustanswerithowyouthink

isappropriate.Whydoyoupublish?

Interviewee‐WellIamfundedbythepublic.WellImean,OK[pause]it isan

oddquestionbecausetherearesomanydifferentperspectivestoit.Andthere

aremultiplereasons.

Theareaofquestioningthatwasplacedrightattheendoftheinterviewwasaboutgrey

literature. This placement was for twomain reasons. One was that not all researchers

producegreyliterature.Somesociologists,forexample,donotcreatedatasetsaspartof

theirresearch,sothiswasnotaquestionthatIraisedineveryinterview,unlesstherewas

amentionofsomethingearliertotriggerthequestion.ThesecondreasonwasthatIhad

indicated that the interview would last for 40 minutes. Generally this time frame was

achieved,butinsomecasestheinterviewswentlonger,andIwasawarethatpriorother

engagementsmay cause the interviewee to stop the interviewbeforewehad finished. I

81

feltthatofalltheareasofquestioning,thiswasprobablytheonethatcouldbesacrificedif

necessary.

It is necessary to remember, in this discussion of the order of questions, that the

interviews were semi‐structured. I allowed the conversation to dictate the flow of

questions.Incaseswheretheintervieweebroughtupatopicthathadbeenslatedforlater

discussion, I did not stop them to remain ‘on track’ with a pre‐determined order of

questions.Thisisinkeepingwithprinciplesof‘activeinterviewing’(Holstein&Gubrium,

1995), and allowed for an easier discussion and possibly richer information. The

remainderofthissectiondiscusseseachofthequestionsasked.

The rationale behind the questions asked

The information I was hoping to gain from the interviewees fell into nine general

categories:backgroundcareerinformation,researchingbehaviour,publishingbehaviour,

rewardprocesses,copyright,peerreview/editorialresponsibilities,questionsaboutopen

access,publishinginrepositoriesandgreyliterature.Idevisedseveralquestionsforeach

ofthesecategories.Noteveryquestionwasaskedineverycase,thequestionsservedasa

guidetotheinterviewprocessratherthanascript.

Within each set of questions I asked a general question first, followed by increasingly

specific questions. The most detailed questions were at the end. This questioning

techniqueadherestothe‘funnel’principle(Juddetal.,1991,p.246).

82

Interview questions

Thefullquestionlistisreproducedbelow.

Category Questions

Background

career

information

1. Firstly, please give me an indication of the spilt of your time

betweenteaching,researchandadministration.

2.Pleasebrieflydescribetheresearchyouarecurrentlyundertaking–

what form does that research take (interviews, observation,

experiments,computerwork).

Researching

behaviour

1.Howdoyoukeepupwithwhatishappeninginyourdiscipline?

2.Howdoyoudecideifanarticleisworthreading?

3.Doyoueverhitbarrierswhencollectinginformation?

4.Areyousatisfiedwithyourcurrentaccesstotheliterature?

5.Whatchangesinthepast10yearshaveyounoticedinthewayyou

searchandyourabilitytofindthings?

6. Do you think the ease of access to a paper affects the choice of

papersyouuseforresearch?OR:

Doesabarriermeanyouchangewhatyouarelookingfor(findingan

articlethatiseasytogetholdofthatsaysessentiallythesamething?)

7.Howdoyougoaboutobtainingcopiesofthearticlesyouneed?

8.Doyousendoutcopiesofyourworktopeople?

9.Whatproportionofyour informationwouldcome frompublished

literatureasopposedtogreyliterature?

Publishing

behaviour –

journals

1.Whydoyoupublishyourwork?

2. Please describe any formal instruction youwere given about the

publishingprocess.(Iftherewasnone,pleasedescribehowyoufound

outwhatyouknow)

3.Areyou involved inany formalor informalmentoringor training

processforyoungresearchersto‘showthemthepublishingropes’?

4.Couldyouexplainyourchoiceof the journalsyouhavepublished

in?

5.Haveyoueverbeenapproachedbyajournaltopublishyourwork?

6. On average, how often are you accepted by the first journal to

whichyousubmit?

7.Haveyoueversubmittedtomorethantwojournals(andifsowhat

wastheoveralltimetopublication?)

83

8.Onaverage,whathasbeentheperiodoftimebetweensubmission

andpublication–doyouhaveanopiniononthat?

Reward

processes

1. What is your understanding of the relationship between your

publicationoutputandfunding?

2.HowwouldyoufeelabouttheARCallocatingfundstoincludeOpen

access publishing or would you rather the money be spent on

researchapplications?

3. Do you have an opinion about any changes to reporting

requirementsbyyouruniversity/thegovernment?

Copyright

1. What is your understanding of the copyright status of your

academicwork?

2. Is copyright an issue you consider? Does the copyright status

affordedbyajournalaffectyourchoiceofpublication?

3. Are you aware of alternatives to traditional copyright (such as

CreativeCommonslicenceorcopyleft)

Peer

review/editorial

responsibilities

1.Haveyoueverreviewedapaper?

2.Ifsohowmanypaperswouldyoureviewinayear?Andhowmuch

timewouldthistake?

3.Areyouonaneditorialboardofanyjournals?Howmuchtimedoes

thistakeup?

4.Isthissomethingyousoughtorthatyouwereaskedtodo?

5.Haveyoubeencompensatedinanywayforthatwork?

6.Howdoyoufeelaboutreviewing(isitapositiveoranegativetask

foryouandwhy?)

7. What are your feelings about changing peer review to an open

system,inanelectroniccontextforexample?

General

questions about

openaccess

1.Areyoufamiliarwiththeterm‘openaccesspublishing’?

2.Ifso,couldyoudescribeopenaccessasyouunderstandit?

3.Doyouhaveanopinioneitherinsupportoragainstopenaccess?

4.Haveyoueverpublishedinanopenaccessjournal?

5. Are you familiar with the ‘author‐pays’ or ‘pay‐on‐submission’

model?

6.Howwouldyou feel about thisbecoming the standardpublishing

modelforalljournals?

Publishing

behaviour –

repositories

1.Whatisyourunderstandingoftheterm‘institutionalrepository’?

2.Haveyoueverdepositedanyscholarlymaterials, includingpre‐or

postprintsintoaninstitutionalrepository?

84

3.Ifnot,whataboutonpersonalordepartmentalwebsite?

4.Ifnotwhynot?Wouldyouconsiderdoingso?Whatwouldprevent

youfromdoingthis?Whatwouldencourageyoutodothis?

5.Haveyoueversentoutacopyofapreorpostprinttocolleagueson

yourowninstigationoronrequest?

6.Areyouawareofthedepositpermissionstatusofthejournalsyou

havepublishedin?

Greyliterature 1.Doesyourresearchgenerateanysupportingdata?

2.Whatdoyoudowith supportingdata for your research?Howdo

youstoreit?

3.Have youorwould you considerplacing it into your institutional

repository?Ifsowouldyouputopenaccessstatusontoit?

4. Have you ever received requests for supporting data? If so how

oftenhasthisoccurredandhaveyouprovidedthedata?

Table1Listofquestionsaskedintheinterviews

85

Summary of the interviews

In total, 43 peoplewere interviewed, 20 fromUNSW and 23 fromANU. The following

table demonstrates howmany of the people in each departmentwere approached and

howmanywereeventuallyinterviewed.

Department Total no of

academic

staff in

department

No. of

academic

staff (PhD,

emeriti and

visitors

excluded)

Staffinterviewed % of relevant

potential

interviewees

UNSWSociology 19 12 5 42%

ANUSociology 8 8 6 75%

TotalSociology 11

UNSW

Chemistry

25 6 6 24%

ANU Chemistry

Department

10 7 1 16%

ANU Research

School of

Chemistry

22 21 6 33%

TotalChemistry 13

UNSW

Computer

Science

94 55 9 16%

ANU Computer

Science

Laboratory

32 9 4 44%

ANU Research

School of

Information

Sciences and

Engineering

27 15 6 40%

Total Computer

Science

19

86

Table2–Numbersofacademicstaffapproachedandinterviewedineachdepartment

Analysis techniques

Allof the interviewswithrespondentswereaudiorecordedwithaminidisk. Ialso took

comprehensive handwritten notes during the interviews, making notes of the time

counterfromtherecorderduringthediscussionforlaterreference.Theseinterviewnotes

havebeen typedup,with reference to the recordingwhen thenoteswereunclear.This

‘clarification’ and elaboration’ is recommended in the literature (Holstein & Gubrium,

1995).IninterviewswheremynoteswereunclearorIhadindicatedthatsomethingwas

highly relevant, I supplemented my typed up handwritten notes with a partial

transcription of the relevant parts of the recording. One example of each category of

interview(eachdisciplineateachuniversity,sixintotal)hasbeentranscribedinfulland

attachedasAppendices4a‐4ftoallowreaderstoseehowthequestioningwasadaptedto

suiteachdisciplineandindeedeachindividual.Thisprovisionof‘raw’dataissuggestedby

Silverman(Silverman,2001,p.69),toallowthereadertoseparatedatafromtheanalysis

andisentirelyconsistentwithrecommendedpracticeinqualitativeresearch.

The interviews were systematically grouped and descriptions were summarised. This

provideda“coherentorganizingframeworkthatencapsulatesandexplainsaspectsofthe

socialworldthatrespondentsportray”(Holstein&Gubrium,1995,p.79).Then,inorderto

identify themes within and across the universities and disciplines, each interview was

hand‐codedusingcontentanalysisandcoding(Higginbotham,Albrecht,&Connor,2001,

p.248).This initial codinguseda systemdescribedbyBarbaraChevalier8, and involves

labelling data, looking for categories and simple descriptive coding. The second stage

coding, which is structured and conceptual, was undertaken with a mix of NVivo, a

qualitativeanalysissoftwareprogram,andmanuallycodingquotes.Thiscodinginvolves

moving information into natural groups, looking for patterns/relationships in the code.

Thisinturnallowedforthirdstagecodingwherethebiggerpatternsemergeinthedata

andthedifferentgroupsarelabelled.Inkeepingwiththegroundedtheoryapproach,the

analyticalcodeswereself‐generatedratherthanderivedfromtheliterature.

The first setof interviewsundertakenwaswith the sociologistsatUNSW. I interviewed

this group in isolation and then spent some time with my notes from the interviews,

conductingapreliminaryanalysistoascertainhoweffectiveboththequestionsandtheir

8 In a Research Workshop Program called ‘Qualitative data analysis and reporting – without

software’heldatUniversityofCanberraon7February2006.

87

sequencewere. This system also allowedme to see early indications of the issues that

weremorerelevanttothebroaderresearchquestionandtomakeslightmodificationsto

thequestionlistinpreparationforthenextsetofinterviews.Thisiswhatisexpectedof

active interviews: "active interviewing takes advantage of the growing stockpile of

backgroundknowledgethattheinterviewercollectsinpriorinterviewstoposeconcrete

questionsandexplorefacetsofrespondent'scircumstancesthatwouldnototherwisebe

probed"(Holstein&Gubrium,1995,p.46).Theseemergingissuesidentifiednewreading

areastrulygroundedinthestudy,aswouldbeexpected(Strauss&Corbin,1990,p.53),

andthesereadingstheninformedtheanalysisanddiscussionofthisthesis.Inparticular,

informationseekingbehaviour,disciplinarydifferencesanddiffusionofinnovationswere

allimportantareasofreadingthatemergedfromanalysingtheinterviews.

ThiscompleteanalysisofearlyinterviewsisrecommendedbyStraussandCorbin(1990,

p. 30), as it gives guidance to the later interviews. As the research progressed and the

question list became more defined. I was able to interview participants not only from

different institutions but also from different disciplines concurrently. I experienced a

second shift in approach with the first interview I conducted in the Computer Science

department at UNSW.While I had a theoretical understanding that computer scientists

publishdifferentlytoothersciences(mainlyinconferenceproceedings),Ihadnopersonal

experienceof this.The transcriptof that first interviewreadsverydifferently to almost

everyotherinterviewbecauseIwasconstantlyaskingsupplementaryquestionstoensure

Iunderstoodexactlywhat the intervieweewas tellingme.Theway Iapproachedall the

subsequent Computer Science interviews was very different to the approach to the

Chemistry and Sociology ones. This reflects the continual coding undertaken in active

interviews which "takes places (sic) and unfolds as an integral part of the interview

process,notjustbefore‐handorafterwards"(Holstein&Gubrium,1995,p.56).

Thisresearchhasfollowedthegeneralmodeofoperationinthegroundedtheorystyleof

analysis described in qualitative study texts (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 30). As the

research progressed and the theory developed, the relevance of certain answers in the

interviewsaltered.Forexample,onearea,whichdidnotatthetimeofinterviewsseemto

be very important, was the information seeking behaviours of the participants. In

particular, the search engines, databases and computer programs they used to find

literatureappearstoaffectthelikelihoodofthatresearchertoengageinsearchesthatwill

find information stored in institutional repositories.When designing the question list, I

didnotincludeaspecificquestionabouttechniquesofsearching.Ihavehadtogothrough

88

the interviews and pull out the detail in those caseswhere the participant volunteered

thatinformationinthegeneraldiscussionaboutliteraturesearching.

Oneconsiderationofanyresearchprojectistheissueof‘saturation’–thepointwherethe

fieldorareaofstudyhasbeen ‘covered’ in thedatacollectionprocess.Thisconcept isa

difficultoneingroundedtheorybecausethistypeofresearch“usesiterationandsetsno

discreteboundarybetweendatacollectionandanalysis,saturationisnotalwaysobvious,

even to experienced researchers” (Suddaby, 2006, p. 639). While I experienced this

iteration,andeach interviewopenednewideasandpossibleareasofanalysis, Idid find

that there was some level of repetition in the attitudes and themes coming from the

interviewsbythetimeIcametotheendoftheinterviewprocess.Thatsaid,itwouldbean

interesting (separate)experiment to re‐interview the firstgroupof sociologists to see if

mymoreinformedviewpointwouldelicitdifferentresponses.

In addition, when I returned to the literature with a more informed perspective, the

patterns thatwereemerging fromthe interviewswerereflected in thenewareasof the

literatureIwasexploring,suchasinformationseekingbehaviour,disciplinarydifferences

and diffusion of innovations theory. This ability to find the patterns in the literature is

describedas saturation in somequalitative research texts (Morse&Richards, 2002,pp.

174‐175).Ofcourse,someoftheanswersgivenbyintervieweesdidnotfittheemerging

model,anditwasimportanttolookatthesecasestodetermineiftheycouldtogetherform

theirownmodeloriftherewerealternativeexplanationsforthedifferences.

Priortothestudy,itwashopedthatbyinterviewingresearchersintheirownofficesthere

wouldbesomefurtherinsightsintotheirworkpracticesorwayofthinkingbyobserving

their surroundings. This also had the advantage ofmaking the interviewee comfortable

and providing privacy, as: “the critical problem in an interview is the establishment of

soundworking relationships” (Bingham&Moore, 1959, p. 65). In practice, the benefits

occurred in unexpected ways. (This is symptomatic of grounded theory!) Many of the

interviewees offered to demonstrate certain behaviours rather than describe them, and

thiswaspossiblebecausetheywereat theircomputers.Somequestionswereanswered

onlyafterconsultationofeitherelectronicorpaperfiles(insomecasesboth).Onseveral

occasionstherewassomefollow‐upmaterialthattheintervieweewantedtoemailtome,

andtheydidsoimmediatelyduringtheinterview.Leavingthistomemoryatalatertime

mayhavemeantthatsomeofthesevaluableresourceswouldneverhavebeensent.For

variousreasonsseveralinterviewswereconductedinneutralpremisessuchasameeting

89

room.Inthesecases,theintervieweeswereunabletorefertotheircomputersandseveral

commentedonthis.

Once the main empirical data gathering was complete, a preliminary analysis

demonstratedstrongthemesemergingfromthedata.Inordertoestablishifthesethemes

wereworth pursuing, it was decided at this point in the research to develop a way of

triangulatingthefindings,discussednext.

Triangulation

Triangulationisusedinresearchtohelpunderstandasocialphenomenonbyexaminingit

“underavarietyofconditions”(Mathison,1988,p.14).Inaresearchprojectsuchasthis,

severaltriangulationoptionspresentedthemselves.Indesigningtheresearch,thenumber

ofpeoplewhoacceptedtobeinterviewedwouldbelimited.Anearlytriangulationoption

wasexpandingmysamplespacetoanother,differentuniversity;originallytheplanwasto

interviewpeoplefromanon‐GroupofEightuniversityasacomparison,discussedbelow.

The difficulty with this was that non‐Group of Eight universities are structured very

differently from ANU and UNSW. While this would strengthen the findings for any

differencesbetweeninstitutions,itwouldalsomeanthatadirectcomparisonwiththetwo

Australianuniversitiesinthisstudywouldbechallengingandnotnecessaryilluminating.

Afterdiscussionwithmysupervisorsitbecameclearthatamoreinformativecomparison

wouldbetoundertakeacasestudyofQueenslandUniversityofTechnology(QUT).QUT

wasuniqueinAustraliaatthetimeoftheinterviewsinthatithadamandaterequiringall

researchers to place a copy of the final version of their peer reviewed and corrected

papersintoQUTePrints(QUT,2004).Asanexample,partoftheQUTpolicystates:

Materialwhich represents the total publicly available research and scholarly

outputoftheUniversityistobelocatedintheUniversity'sdigitalor"Eprint"

repository, subject to the exclusions noted. In this way it contributes to a

growing international corpus of refereed and other research literature

availableonline,aprocessoccurringinuniversitiesworldwide(QUT,2004).This mandatory policy is accompanied by technical and administrative support for

depositingresearchers fromtheQUT library. Idecidedto interviewthetwopeoplewho

hadinstigatedandadministeredtheprocessofimplementingthisrepository.

Interviews were sought on 15 June 2007 and granted with Professor Tom Cochrane,

DeputyViceChancellor(TechnologyInformationandLearningSupport)andPaulaCallan,

eResearchAccessCoordinatorfromQUT(whoundertookthedaytodayinstigationofthe

90

repositorydeposits).Theinterviewswereconductedon10&11August2007.Bothspoke

at length about the reasoning behind the policy and about specific issues faced with

populatingtheirrepository.

Theseinterviewswerestructuredverydifferentlytothoseconductedwiththeacademic

participants, as the purpose of these interviews was to determine if the general

conclusionsthatseemedtobecomingoutofthe interviewsIhadconductedsofarwere

reflectedintheexperiencesatQUTwhenrollingouttheirrepository.Thus,afterreading

several reports on the topic (Callan, 2006a; Cochrane & Callan, 2007) the following

discussionareaswereexplored.

TheinterviewwithPaulaCallanwaswide‐ranging,beginningwithapottedhistoryofthe

repository from its launch and a discussion of her role in the implementation of the

repository.Sometimewasspentdiscussingthetechniquesusedtoencourageuseofthe

repository,andthesuccessorotherwiseofthesemethods.Thisledtoadiscussionabout

the barriers individuals were experiencing in using the repository, and therefore the

reasons researchers are giving for not using the repository. The interview also

encompassed a series of statistical questions about the percentage of output of the

universitythatisheldintherepository,anddownloadstatistics.

The interview with Professor Cochrane began with a discussion of the adoption of a

mandatepolicyatQUTin2004.Theinterviewthenexploredthedisciplineissue,suchas

why a planned discipline‐led approach to building repositories did not work, which

disciplines have shown greatest enthusiasm for the repository, and whether this was

expected.Theissueofwhetherthereisgreaterbenefittotheinstitutionortheindividual

in using a repositorywas discussed. The interview concludedwith questions about the

roll‐outof therepository, thedecision to ‘sell’ therepository tostaff rather thanpunish

those who do not use it, and what barriers are being experienced by QUT with this

approach.Adiscussionofhowtheseinterviewshaveinformedthisresearchisdiscussed

inChapter6.

Thelastsectionofthischapterwillexplorethevariouslimitationsofthechosenresearch

design.

Limitations in this study design

The limitations in this study are several‐fold.Most obviously, the choice of universities

and of the disciplines approached to be involved has limited the scope of the study. In

91

addition, the self‐selecting nature of the method of participant recruitment shows

limitations.

Choice of institutions

To look at the issue of the university choice first, there is a limited ‘generalisability’ in

these findings ‐ what would appear to be the case from observations of these two

universitiesmaynotbetransferabletootheruniversitiesinAustralia,letalonetheworld.

ThisresearchfocusedontwoGroupofEightxxxviuniversities.The‘GroupofEight’(Go8)isa

term given to a self‐selected group of eight universities in Australia that ‘represents

Australia’sleadinguniversities’.Equivalentexpressionsare‘IvyLeague’universitiesinthe

US, and ‘Oxbridge’ in the UK. The Go8 in Australia consists of: ANU, the University of

Sydney,UNSW,theUniversityofMelbourne,theUniversityofQueensland,theUniversity

ofAdelaide, theUniversityofWesternAustralia andMonashUniversity.Asmembersof

the Go8, bothANU andUNSWarewell fundedwith a high research output in terms of

publications, and therefore do not represent the range of academic environments in

Australia.

TheGo8isonlyoneoffourmaingroupingsofAustralianuniversities.Thesegroupingsare

allself‐selectedandhavebeenformedprimarilytopromotethemutualobjectivesofthe

member universities. These groupings offermarketing advantages, practical benefits of

collaboration,and the increased lobbyingpower that comes frombeingpartofagroup.

The other three groups are the Australian Technology Network (ATN)xxxvii, Innovative

Research Universities Australia (IRU Australia)xxxviii and New Generation Universities

(NGU).Not everyuniversity inAustralia is represented inoneof thesegroups.Of these

other groups, the one of most interest to this research is the Australian Technology

Network,becauseitincludesQUT,whichwasusedinthisstudyasauniversitywithwhich

to triangulate. Together with the other members, Curtin University of Technology, the

UniversityofSouthAustralia,RMITUniversityandUniversityofTechnologySydney,QUT

sharesacommonfocusonthepracticalapplicationoftertiarystudiesandresearch.The

ATN universities were all Institutes of Technology before becoming accredited

universities.

Any further study in this area would benefit from taking a broader approach to the

institutionschosen,astheempiricalworkfoundinstitutionaldifferencesdidnotappearto

bea factor in thisresearch.Oneof the fewstudies lookingat institutionaldifferences in

this context has found that the information seeking behaviour of members of the

92

university community changes depending on the focus of the university (Nicholas,

Huntington, & Jamali, 2007). That study compared a Research Intensive University, a

Master'sUniversityMediumSize,ResearchExtensiveUniversityandaMaster'sUniversity

Small.Thedifferencestendedtobeduetothenumberofacademicstaffattheuniversity,

so a subsequent specific study of the academic communities at different universities

would reveal whether the institution itself has an effect on the information seeking

behavioursoftheacademicstaff.

Thequestionremains,isthisaphenomenonoftheparticularuniversitieschosen,orisit

representative of thewider academic institutional community?As an a example of how

broadeningtheuniversitybasewouldmakefurtherstudymorerobust,IRUAustraliahasa

stated aim to incorporate new technologies into their teaching and learning, so it is

possibletoarguethatincludingauniversityfromthisgroupcouldprovideaninteresting

counterpoint to the universities studied. In addition, there are many organisations in

Australiafallingoutsideoftheuniversitycategorywhichhavestaffundertakingresearch

andpublication couldprovide insight intohowdifferentorganisational structuresaffect

publicationbehaviouranddecision‐making.

Choice of disciplines

Anotherlimitationofthisstudyisthedisciplineshighlightedinthestudy.Itisimportant

to consider when reading the forthcoming chapters that while this study shows clear

differencesbetweenthethreedisciplinesofSociology,ChemistryandComputerScience,

thattheextentofthesedifferencescannotbeassumedbetweenotherdisciplines.Whileit

islikelythatthebehaviourofresearchersinothersocialsciencedisciplineswillbemore

closely aligned to those of the sociologists interviewed than to Chemistry or Computer

Science, this cannot be assumed. It is equally possible that the large differences

demonstratedbetweendisciplinesinthisstudyarereplicatedbetweenalldisciplinesand,

therefore, it is not possible to make generalisations about types of research. This

conundrumwillonlybeabletobeaddressedbyamorecomprehensivestudycomparinga

largeranddifferentsetofdisciplines.

Individual subjects

The final limiting factor is the individuals who elected to be interviewed. Because no

pressurewasplacedonindividualstoparticipate,thosepeoplewhochosetoparticipatein

thestudyare,ineffect,self‐selecting.Whilethestudydesigndeterminedwhichdisciplines

wouldbeapproached,itwasamatterfortheindividualsinvitedtodecidetoparticipate.

Table1indicatesthatbetween56%and84%chosenottobeinvolvedandit ispossible

thattheirresponsesmayhavedifferedsignificantlyfromthoseofferedbythepeoplewho

93

didchoosetoparticipate.Certainlytherewasapercentageofpeopleinterviewedwhohad

a vested interest in the area of scholarly communication, either because theywere the

editorofanopenaccessjournaltheywereinvolvedintheimplementationoftheRQFin

theirdepartmentorforpersonalreasons.Thesepeoplemaynotbeageneralreflectionof

their colleague’s awareness of, or attitudes to, the issues discussed. Unfortunately, this

limitationisonethatisnoteasilyaddressed,andanyfurthersimilarstudywillbeaffected

bythesameproblem.

Within disciplines, a broader scope could also be taken in any future study. Due to the

smallnumbersinterviewedineachdiscipline,considerationwasnotgiveninthisstudyto

age,orcareertrajectory.PhDstudentsweredeliberatelyexcludedfromthissample.Their

attitudes and understanding of the publishing system could, however provide some

insightintothefuturedirectionacademiamighttake.Inaddition,theirsearchingsystems

aremorelikelytodemonstrateanelectronicbias,whichcouldprovidesomedatatomake

conclusions about the body of work being used currently, and whether having papers

availableonlinedoesprovideanadvantage.Anyfurtherstudycouldbenefitfrommakinga

comparisonbetweenresearcherswhosetrainingwasbeforetheadventofcomputersand

youngerresearcherswhohaveonlyeverusedtheelectroniclibrary.

A final note about potential limitations with this study. An ethical consideration in

researchinvolvinghumansiswhethertheresearchwouldhaveanimpactonthesubjects.

Whilethisquestionwasansweredinthenegativeintheethicsapplication,itdidopenone

previouslyunconsideredlineofthinking.Bydiscussingopenaccessandtheirinstitutional

repositorieswithparticipants,Iwould,inmanycases,beplayinganinformingrole.While

everyattempt couldbemade to remainobjective, theactof the interviewcould still be

perceived to be taking an advocacy role, certainly if the subjects asked questions and

wantedfurtherdetail(whichafewdid).

Summary

In keeping with the general ‘open access’ philosophy, I offered every participant the

opportunity to remain informedof anypublicationsor findings thathave resulted from

thisresearch.Withoutexceptiontheyaskedtobeincluded.Infulfilmentofthisobligation,

IpresentedatalktoUNSWon13April2007,whichwaswellattended.Ihaveplacedthe

overheadsandrecording intoANU’s institutionalrepositoryDemetriusxxxix. Ialsosentan

emailon18October2007toeveryparticipantwhoaskedforfeedbackwithalistofallmy

publicationstodate.

94

Severalparticipantshaveremained incontact,withsomeemailing informationrequests

as they have come across the issue in their work environment. Others appear to have

takenaproprietaryroleinmyresearch,sendingsuggestedreadingsastheyhavecometo

hand.

Possible outcomes from study design

Itishelpfulbeforeembarkingonastudytoconsiderthewaysomeoftheoutcomesmay

present themselves, and a short summary of my thinking before interviewing is listed

here. Stratifying the sample of researchers by dividing the population up into sub‐

populations means the study is looking at six groups in total. The risk is that the

stratificationmeansthenumberineachstratabecomessosmallthattheresultswouldbe

statistically insignificant.Thatsaid, this isaqualitativestudy,notaquantitativeoneand

there are several advantages to using a range of disciplines with different publishing

emphases.

Aconvergenceof someresponsesacrossallgroupswouldmean itwouldbepossible to

make an argument that these attitudes or behaviours represent the Australian

perspective. If however the responses demonstrate a difference between the two

institutions,butasimilarityacrossthedisciplines,itcouldbearguedthattheserepresent

theattitudesandbehavioursoftheuniversityinquestion.Similarly,thoseresponsesthat

differ from discipline to discipline within an institution, but converge across the

institutionscouldrepresentadisciplinarydifference.

If a strongdifferencemanifested inoneof the six groups, such asone group showing a

highlevelofunderstandingandacceptanceofopenaccess,thenextstepwouldbetofind

outwhatmakes that groupunique amongst the six, and thendetermine if the differing

factor can be applied in someway across the board. It is also possible that all ormost

respondentsshowasimilarityintheirattitudesandbehaviourstoalevelwherethereis

littledistinctionbetweenthedisciplineorinstitution.Thiswouldinitselfbeaninteresting

finding, offering the tempting possibility of a ‘one‐size‐fits‐all’ solution to the problems

facingAustralianuptakeofthenewpublishingsystems.

Aswill be discussed in Chapter 8, only one of these possible scenarios occurred, but it

turned out to be a far richer vein than initially anticipated. The next two chapterswill

discusstheseinterviewsindetail.

95

Chapter5Scholarlycommunicationresults

Introduction

The following two chapters present the results of the empirical research conducted for

thisproject.Thenatureofthestudy,asgroundedtheoryresearch,meansthat ideasand

themes started emerging from the beginning of the interview process. As discussed in

Chapter 4, not every questionwas asked in every interview, and some questionswere

answeredbytheparticipantduringthediscussionofanotherissue.Forthisreasonthese

results are not structured in the format of a question followed by the various answers.

Instead, the information is presented as two chapters encompassing five categories:

researching behaviour, publishing behaviour, peer review/editorial responsibilities,

managing the academic career, and understanding of open access. The results from the

triangulationwithQUTarediscussedindepthinChapter8.

Thisresearchisqualitativeusinggroundedtheory,whichdoesnotlenditselftographical

presentation of results. Instead, examples are given using direct quotes from the

participantstodemonstratethepoint.Whereappropriatethereissomediscussioninthe

resultstohelpthereaderunderstandtherelevanceorsignificanceofthequotesgiven.Itis

impracticaltopresenteveryquoterelatingtoeveryquestion,sothosewhichmostclearly

highlightthepointareincluded.Withtheexceptionofthequestionsabouttheinstitution’s

repositorytherewasnodiscernibledifferencebetweenthe institutionssoall theresults

here are broken down by discipline, but not by institution, unless specifically stated

otherwise.

This chapter begins with researching behaviour, then looks at publishing behaviour,

finishingwithinformationaboutpeerreviewresponsibilities.

Researching behaviour

Thewayresearcherskeep‘ontopoftheliterature’varieswidely,withpeopleusingmany

differentstrategies.Generallyspeaking,researchersundertaketwokindsofsearchingof

theliterature,broadandspecific(Back,1962).Thatsaid,therearevastdifferencesinthe

wayresearchersorganisetheirworkgroupsandtheircollaborations,thewaytheysearch

for information, where they publish and how they communicate both formally and

informally.

96

This section of the chapter describes the answers interviewees gave to the following

questions:

• Howdoyoukeepupwithwhatishappeninginyourdiscipline?

• Howdoyoudecideifanarticleisworthreading?

• Doyoueverhitbarrierswhencollectinginformation?

• Areyousatisfiedwithyourcurrentaccesstotheliterature?

• Whatchangesinthepast10yearshaveyounoticedinthewayyousearchandyour

abilitytofindthings?

• Doesabarriermeanyouchangewhatyouarelookingfor(findinganarticlethatis

easytogetholdofthatsaysessentiallythesamething?)

• Howdoyougoaboutobtainingcopiesofthearticlesyouneed?

• Have you ever sent out a copy of a pre or post print to colleagues on your own

instigationoronrequest?

Peer review is discussed later in this chapter, but in this discussion about researching

behaviour, it is worth noting that respondents in all three disciplines described peer

reviewasoneoftheirinformation‐seekingtechniques:

Reviewingisinteresting.Youcankeepupwithwhat’sgoingon.(Sociology)

Reviewingisgoodinitforcesyoutokeepupwithwhat’sgoingon.(Computer

Science)

InawayIdon’tmindrefereeing.It forcesmetoreadthingsIotherwisedon’t

see.(Chemistry)

This chapterdescribes responsesbypeople in eachdiscipline separately. It beginswith

their information‐seeking, including the electronic tools they use. The importance of

informalcommunicationisdiscussed.Anybarrierstotheinformationtheyneedarethen

explored.

Information-seeking by Chemists

General literature search

Of the three disciplines interviewed, chemists had the most systematic approach to

‘keepingontopof the literature’.Somechemistsstillmaintainpersonalsubscriptions to

paper journals and the departments also maintain paper subscriptions in the libraries

whichareusedbysomeoftheinterviewees.Severalchemistsinterviewedindicatedthat

generalbrowsingof the literaturewasstillpartof theirroutine,althoughmanyof them

97

mentionedhowdifferentthingsaretodayfromtenyearsago,whenputtingasideaperiod

oftimeeachweektositinthelibrarywiththenewdisplayofjournalswasaregularhabit:

In [earlier institution] the scientific librarywasdown the corridor and every

FridayafternoonIwouldgoandsitdowntolookatthechangeddisplayofwhat

hascomeinthatweek…ThatbrowsingtechniqueIcan’tdoitanymore.Istill

browseTetrahedronbecauseIgetitinthemail…NowItrytokeepupwitha

handful of major journals and do it very badly. I get access via the web to

journals,IscantheTablesofContents.

Fridayappearstobethedaythatusedtobesetasidebyseveralchemistsforthisactivity.

Respondents indicated that browsing in thisway had the advantage that it allowed the

browserto“flickthrough,thenyougetthingsfromleftfield”.Itwouldseemthispracticeis

nowentirelyoutmodedinfavourofemailnotification,“Ihavenotpickedupajournalin

the last threeyears. I just remember the lastbastionofpaper. I remember the reading

area in the library”. The chemists, almost without exception, undertook systematic

literature searches. Some have replaced their regular Friday browsing with an online

version:

Igetabstractsof journals sent–keepingupwith itall ishard. I amonemail

lists…Ilookatjournalsonline.WhentheyfirstcameonlineIusedtosethalfa

dayaweektolookatjournalsbyskimmingthroughthejournalabstractsand

flickingthroughthejournals.Ifoundthatquiterewardingasyoucanseethings

youotherwisedon’tsee.

It isevidentthatthevolumeof literatureisnowverylargebutmostoftheinterviewees

strivetokeepupwithjournalsintheirfield:

ThereisaseriesofjournalsthatIreadreligiously–Ilookthemuponlineand

skim [through] the Tables of Contents. Periodically, once a month, I look at

SciFinderorsimilarsearchforcandidateareasorparticularauthors–inareas

closetowhatI’mworkingon.

In some cases this activity is still carried out in the library, often at weekends, “I am

tendingtogointothelibrary[fora]fewhourseachweek.Thelibraryisinthebuilding,it’s

a very good one. Normally [I go] on weekends”. This chemist then prints out any

interesting abstracts and reads them at their leisure. Some Chemistry papers have

abstracts consisting of graphics of the chemical structure discussed in the paperwhich

provideacomparativelyfastwayofskimmingthroughtheliterature.Inaddition, ‘alerts’

whicharecirculatedinthisdisciplinealsoassistinkeepinguptodate:

98

Tenyearsago Ispent farmore time in the library.Nowthecontents listsare

deliveredvia alerts. 40 contents lists. Saturdaymorning is a busyone. I read

them within a few hours of getting them otherwise the inbox gets out of

control.Some journalsaremore important thanothers. Iguess that thereare

10reallyimportantpapersperweek.

Therewere,however,acoupleofchemistswhoweremoresporadicabouttheirsearching,

whileothersusedtheirreviewingasamethodofkeepingup,“Ireviewabouttwopapersa

month…[it’s]anotherwayIfindoutaboutwhat’sgoingon.It’srunningaheadofreading

the literature”. Some chemists described alternative ways of keeping up with the

literature, includingonewhouses theirstudentsasa resource: “Ihaveagroupmeeting

onceaweek.Studentsareassignedjournals–withaspecificlistofcategories.Theypick

uprelevantliteratureanddiscussatmeetings.Idon’tsitdownandtrawl”.

ForthosechemistsIspoketowhodonotundertakethisregularliteraturebrowse,there

appearedtobevestigesofguiltwithnotdoingso:

Idon’tkeepontopofwhat’sgoingonintheliterature.ImostlyuseSciFinder

thesedaysandlookforkeywords.Idon’tsitdownandreadjournals,Ishould

…Youcan’treadeverything.Idoubtmanypeoplehaveenoughtimetoreadthe

literature theywould like… I don’t get emailed theTables of Contents. Even

thenscanningthrougheightto10journalstakesafairamountoftime.

Searching for a specific topic

Thesecondtypeofinformationsearchinvolvesspecificallysearchingforworkthatrelates

to a research project that is being planned, currently in process or being written up.

Chemistsuseavarietyofdatabasesforthispurpose,withtheAmericanChemicalSociety

Abstracts,theWebofScienceandPubMedallmentioned.Thesearchtoolusedbyalmost

everychemistinterviewedwasSciFinder,“[w]ehaveaverygoodchemicaldatabasecalled

SciFinderrunbytheUSChemicalSociety.Oftenitiseasiertofindoriginalpapersthrough

asearch”.Anotherchemistcommentedthat“ithasreallyrevolutionisedthewaywework

withtheliterature”.

One chemist said that rather than restricting themselves to an initial SciFinder search,

their searches continue throughout a study, “[b]ecause Chemistry is going on

everywhere”, and they do notwant tomiss something thatmight have been published

duringthetimeoftheirstudy.Inaddition,asabackuptheir“studentsarealsodoingthat.

Multiplecheck,thereismorethanonepersondoingit”.

99

While“mostof thework is foundonPubMed”,acoupleofchemistsalsomentionedthe

WebofSciencebecause:“itallowsmetogetawaywithmonitoringonlyeightoutof100

journals.ItconnectsmewithpapersIhaven’tseen.It’sacollatingmechanism”.

Electronic search tools

Onechemistcommentedthat,“SciFinderisoneoftwotools.TheotherisGoogle–theyare

complimentary. Sometimesmoremodest journals you can find through Google and get

free access. It is not foolproof, you still get stymied.” Those that admitted they did use

Googledidsosomewhatreluctantly,“IhaveGoogled–generally forclarificationabouta

topic, I am sorry to say”. This mistrust of Google was reflected by another chemist,

“[o]ccasionallyIuseGooglealittle–itisnotsomethingIrelyon”.Insummary,chemists

are systematic in their search of the literature and have good search tools available to

themthattheyusewidely.

Information-seeking by Sociologists

Thesociologistsinterviewedrelyonacombinationofjournalarticlesandbooksfortheir

browsing,followingcitationchains.Theydescribedabroadrangeofinformation‐seeking

techniques, suchasPubMedCentral,ProjectMuse, the library’sownelectronic resource

portal,andgovernmentwebsites.

The idea of ‘keeping up’ with the literaturewas barely evident in the Sociology group,

although one person specifically stated they have Tables of Contents regularly sent to

them:

I am on Ingenta and I get about five or six, oh maybe more, seven or eight

journalsregularly.ButIdon’tusuallyhavetimetoreadthroughthembutitisa

goodwayofkeepingupwithwhatisgoingon.I[also]gointo[theuniversity]

library,lookupthejournalintheelectronicselectionanddownloadit.

Another researcher, who browses through Tables of Contents, tends to link all their

readingtoteaching.Athirdfollows journalsbut inamorerelaxedway,“Ikeep intouch

withwhat journalsaredoing.Everynowandagain[I]go intothe library, lookatserials

and flick through them”. More common was a combination of ‘active and passive’

searching:

ActivelyIhaveafewreferencesandknowwhatI’mlookingfor.Thepassiveis

whenIamlookingatanotherkindofproblemandseesomethingthatmightbe

100

relevant – serendipitous. Imight look at a book –where I know I have seen

somethingbefore.

Onereasonforthistechniquecouldbethebreadthofthediscipline:

Ihaveusedwhateverreferencesareavailablethatwererelevant.Theideasare

interdisciplinary, the field is so broad I don’tworry about covering it… it is

different in the sciences – you always have to cover your tracks and have to

knowwhathasbeendone.

Otherwisetherewasfar lessemphasisthantheotherdisciplinesonregularengagement

with particular journals,with one researcher using “whole transcripts from the Federal

ReserveBankwebsite”.Severalintervieweesdescribedacombinationofbookandarticle

usewithoneresearcherdescribing theuseofkeybooks,butprimarily tending to “read

largelyarticlesbecauseIampursuingnewfields,a lotof literatureinashorttime”.One

self‐confessed ‘book person’ reads “about three books aweek… I buy books out ofmy

ownpersonalbudget”.

Thesociologistsseemedtobeaware,inawaythatwasnotexpressedbytheinterviewees

intheothertwodisciplines,thatthelibraryisprovidingthemwiththeportaltheyneedto

accessthematerialtheyarelookingforthroughelectronicdatabasesthatcanbeaccessed

fromhomeorwork:“Thereareadvantagestobeinginauniversity,atthemomentthere

areadequately trained librarianswhoknowwhichdatabases theysubscribe to.Youcan

beltthrough[asearch]insixweeks”.

Of the three groups interviewed, sociologists are the most likely to respond to the

‘increased visibility’ argument. Interviewees at both institutions described a less‐than‐

optimumaccesstoliteraturethroughtheirlibraries,whichmayexplaintheirawareness.

In addition, there can be a protracted lag time in Sociology between manuscript

submissionandpublication.Theinformation‐seekingbehavioursofthesociologistsvaried

greatly,withmorethanoneANUsociologist“goingtotheNationalLibraryonweekends”,

andtheUNSWsociologistsusingacombinationof“whatisinUNSWorFisher[University

ofSydney]Libraries”.

One sociologistdescribed their approach to the literatureas “non‐systematic searching”

which allows the researcher to experience serendipitous discoveries. In these searches,

browsing in books or on the internet, what turns up is “largely a matter of accident”.

Indeed one sociologist specifically said they did not have notifications sent to them,

101

“becauseIwouldbeoverwhelmed”,statingthat“sometimesit’sanadvantagenottoknow

what’sgoingon–thereissomuchyoudon’twanttogonearit”.

Oneresearcherwritingadictionarynoted theproblemof changingdefinitionsofwords

overtime,whichposesaproblemforinternetsearches:

[It]wasgreatfunsittingintheschoolofmedicinelibrary.Youfindoutsomuch

moreserendipitouslythatyoudon’tcomeacrossontheweb.Youdon’tspotit

becauseofhoweveritiscodedorhowtheyhavechosentokeywordsdoesn’t

triggeranything…Ispenta lotoftimeinthe libraryphysicallypullingthings

offtheshelf.Howtheyhaddefinedorusedaword,whatcontextitwasin,had

itchangedovertime.

Several sociologists described ‘non‐systematic searching’, often referred to as

‘snowballing’,whichconsistsoffollowing“footnotes,referencesinarticles,leadsgivenby

peopleIknow”.Oneresearcherdescribedkeepingupwiththeliterature“bytheseatofmy

pants”, and said refereeing is another source of new references: “It is the pay off in

refereeing.Ipayverycloseattentiontothebibliography–howuptodatetheyare.Ifthere

issomethingIhaven’tseenIcheckitout”.

Electronic search tools

Despitehavingahigherrelianceonbooksasasourceof informationthantheothertwo

disciplines interviewed,many of the Sociologists interviewed also used search engines,

although some expressed frustration at the broad brush Google takes. Even the self

confessed ‘bookperson’ has undertaken someonline searches to “get a sense of how it

playsoutinthediscourse”.Anothersociologistmadetheobservationthat“somematerial

livesonlyon the internet. Future academic researchwon’t involve literaturebecauseof

thealternatives.It’swhatpeoplewant.IamusingGoogleorAltaVistaorYahoo”.

AnothermadearelatedreferencetotheusefulnessofGoogleasasourceofsnowballing:

“Sometimes if I justdoaGooglesearchyoucanpickupthingsthathavebeenplacedon

websites, from a CV. I use this to get a reference when I know part of the details”.

However,anothersociologistobservedthatoneoftheproblemswiththiswas:“Withthe

Internet it’s anightmare.Youput thekeyword in topicyouget300,000hits inGoogle”.

Whilesearchenginesweredescribedashaving“varyingquality”,PubMedwaspraisedby

one researcher, and another said the move to electronic availability of articles means

“[m]ostofthethingsIaminterestedinIcanaccess.It’sbetternowthroughProjectMuse”.

102

Atleastonesociologiststatedtheywereonacoupleoflistserves,butacoupleofpeople

expressed some discomfort with the electronic tools: “A lot of colleagues keep abreast

throughtheweb.Iamstillabookperson…OccasionallyIfindsomethingfromtheweb–I

havebookmarkedafew”.Theseresponsesindicatethatthisgroupofsociologistsarenot

adversetousingelectronicsearchengines.

Information-seeking by Computer Scientists

Computer scientists differ from the other disciplines interviewed in severalways. They

werechosenasagroupbecausetheirpublicationoutputispredominantlypeer‐reviewed

conferencepaperswithsomejournalarticles.

Systematic searching

Some computer scientists do systematic searches of journals in a similar way to the

chemists:

I read the journals. Ihavegotsubscriptions forhardpapercopies.Lotscome

outontheinternet.IgetTablesofContents.UsuallyIhaveaquickscan,ifitis

interestingwillprintitout.OrItakeprintedversionshomeandreadthemin

bed.That’sgeneralsearching.

TwootherresearchersmentionedhavingTablesofContentssenttothem,whichtheyscan

through. However one researcher said if they find something interesting in the journal

they “usually go to the person’s homepage – these havemore information because the

journalistwoyearsbehind–Ifindajournalpaperanddraftsofmorerecentwork”.Inthe

samewayoneofthechemistsmentionedusingtheirstudentsasaresource,at leastone

computer scientist also relieson “people in the group tobemoreup todate thanme. I

have four PhD students and two postdocs. I send them to present at conferences, they

comebackanddiscussothermaterialpresented”.

Somecomputerscientistskeeppersonallibrariesofarticles,bothpaperandelectronic:“I

havegotahugecompactusofpapercopiesofstuffwhichIshouldprobablychuckout. I

usedtofilethemallalphabeticallybyauthor”.Thereseemstobeatrendawayfromthat

becauseofthesubsequentdifficultyof findingpapers later:“nowadaysIoftenchuckthe

papercopyoutwhenI’mdonewithitbecauseIwouldneverfinditagain.That’swhatitis

about, it’s about the findability”. Others keep electronic copies as well as filing paper

copiesbyauthorsbutsaidthatoftenitiseasiertolooksomethingupagainonline:“Iknow

103

there’sapaperon thatbookshelfover there, it isactually faster to forme to type those

wordsintoacomputerthanitistowalkacrosstheroom”.

Electronic search tools - Google

Computerscientists,notsurprisinglygiventheirpropensityforpersonalwebpages,were

keen users of general search engines (as opposed to specific databases). In the most

homogenous answer to any of the questions asked in this research, almost without

exceptionthecomputerscientistsstatedtheyusedGoogle.Insomecasestheinterviewee

describedusingGoogleScholaraswellasGoogle.Universallyhowever,Googlewashailed,

with comments ranging from: “Google is the solution to everything”, to “I tend to use

Google – I can’t live without it”, and “Google is really good – especially in Computer

Science,ithaschangedthewayyoufindthings”.

Electronic search tools – Google alternatives

Googlehowever,isnottheonlymethodoflookingforinformationthecomputerscientists

describedintheirinterviews.LikeChemistry,themainpublicationoutletsarefairlywell

defined inComputerScience.Eachsub‐disciplinehas itsownsetofconferencesthatare

applicable, and within that set there is a ranking. Many interviewees referred to the

proceedings from IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) and ACM

(Association of Computing Machinery) conferences, which allow users to search for a

paper.

Some people mentioned databases on Computer Science websites including DLBP

(DatabaseofLogicProgramming)andCiteSeer.Thesecanbesearchedbykeywords,but

also DLBP has a “public record of people in computing. [It] has great archives, mainly

computing stuff, haspeople classified”. CiteSeer appears tohave some credibility issues

with one person saying “CiteSeer is not up to date”. A second interviewee agreed:

“CiteSeerisgood–ifyoucanfindthepaperthereisguaranteedtobealinktothepaper.

Theproblemisitislaggingbysixmonths”.Anothersaid:“IfitisapaperfromCiteSeerI

amnevertoosureaboutthereliability,[Iwould]probablytrytoobtaintheoriginalfrom

conferenceproceedingsorfromthewebsiteoftheauthor”.

Generallythereisanexpectationthatalltheproceedingsfrommajorconferenceswillbe

available online: “Design automation conferences put stuff up anyway. They do

professionalfilingofpeople’skeynotes,thepaper,andsometimesthepowerpoints”.One

computerscientistsaidthatiftheyhavebeenabletoattendaconferencetheycan“scan

throughthesessionsIaminterestedintoseeifIaminterestedinanypapers”.

104

Informal communication

Broadly,adisciplineis‘aparticularbranchofknowledge’.Mostoftheintervieweesinall

three disciplineswereworking in small academic groups. The intimate nature of these

groups means researchers are known to one another. This aspect was mentioned by

membersofalldisciplinesinterviewed:

Thenumberofpeople inmyabsolute finite area is in the tens in thegeneral

areaitisinthethousands.Ikeepaneyeonabout20peopleandthereis10‐15

withabroaderinterestIkeepaneyeon.(Chemistry)

It’s a very small pool in Australia. There are only 5‐6 people at the top.

(Sociology)

[Irelyonthe]wordofmouthofcolleagues.ItworksbecauseIknowmostofthe

people active inmy field, they sendme theirwork. 12‐20people. (Computer

Science)

Allthreedisciplinesdescribedformsofinformalcommunication.Indeed,intheinterviews

withthecomputerscientistsandsociologists,personalcommunicationwasgivenasone

ofthewaysinformationisdistributedintheirnetworks.

Thecomputerscientistsshowedahighlevelofinteractionwithoneanother.Possiblydue

to thenatureof their research, computer scientistsdisplayed thehighest levelofuseof

Web 2.0 systems, such as wikis, blogs, Skype, list serves and other informal

communication channelsover the internet.Oneexplained thatwhile researchquestions

werestilldiscussedfacetoface,discussionlistshavebeenreplacedbyforumswhichwere

used“[m]ore for infrastructurearound it,not theresearch itselfeg:discussiontechnical

equipment”. One researcher described a collaboration that was conducted almost

exclusivelyonline:

Iampartofafocusedgroup…wemeetregularlyviavideousingiChat.AndifI

amtalkingtonon‐MacpeopleweareusingSkype.WeuseVoiceover IPover

thephone.Ihaveastrongpreferenceforvideo…WeuseWikisquitealotina

few ways. It is best to do a wiki set up for a project … they are password

protected–justfortheresearchgroupbecausetheyhavegotalotofideasthat

arenotreadytobemadepublic.

Other peoplementioned subscribing to the relatively old‐fashionedmailing lists, which

haveallowedat leastonegroupto,“hookup–websitesblogsetc.withotherdisciplines

dealingwithsimilarproblems”.Mail listswerealsodescribedasaplacewhere“authors

105

announcetheirpapers,orarediscussingparticulartechnicalproblems”.Howevertheyare

notperfect,asonepersonmentioned: “itdependsonwhat’sbeenposted– Idon’t think

thecoverageisverygood”.

Conferences in Computer Science

Due to theemphasis in the fieldonconferencesasa formofdisseminating information,

computerscientistsalsotendtocommunicateinpersonatconferencesandconsiderthis

an important part of their information‐seeking. One researcher described this as an

alternative toreadingpapers: “Ikeepupbycollaboration,by talking topeople.There is

strong support by search engines. I don’t have to go to the library and read. It is not

compensatingtheneedtotalktopeople”.

“Talking to people” was a phrase used by several computer scientists because as one

personsaid, “gossipatconferences isvery important for findingoutwhoisworkingout

what”. These discussions are “a vital part of the publishing regime”. Other informal

methodsinclude‘tracking’people:

I amalso awareofwhatpeople aredoing in a given field. Specificpeople – I

trackwhattheyaredoing.FromtimetotimeIlookattheirwebpagesandtheir

publications.I,ormystudents,emailthemandfindout.

TheemphasisonconferencesmeansthatinComputerScience,peoplearemeetingupwith

oneanotherregularly,whichmeansactiveresearchersknowthe ‘keypeople’: “If Iwant

the latest developments I contact an author I know or search on Google – the draft is

online.Thiscommunityputsstuffonline.Formeemailworksbest– Iemail themdirect

andask foracopy”.Thissentimentwasechoed inanotherresponse“[w]ithstuff that is

specifictothearea–Iknowthepeopleandthefactors”.Alternativelyresearcherskeepan

eyeonwhatisbeingpresentedatconferencesbyservingontheconferencecommittees,

whichmeansthat“usuallyIknowwhatisgoingon.Itisraretofindsomethingoutofthe

blue”.

Sociologists and personal networks

Research is a social activity. Certainly ‘knowing people’ was described by many

sociologists interviewed as a way of finding out about their field: “I have insider

knowledge, people in my field, by speaking to people through email. Personal

relationshipsare forged”.Severalsociologists intervieweddescribedapersonalnetwork

thatpointedthemtorelevantinformationintheirfield,“Ifollow…leadsgivenbypeopleI

know”.Thistypeofnetworkwasdescribedbyanotherresearcheras“asocialnetwork,I

knowpeople”.

106

A culture of sharing?

The question about whether researchers request copies of articles they cannot obtain

fromtheauthor,andwhethertheyrespondtosuchrequestsofthemselves,canpotentially

shedsomelightonthegeneralattitudewithinthedisciplinetosharinginformation.

The culture of sharing in Chemistry

Even chemists, who tend to workwith an in‐house team, will collaborate with a small

numberofcolleagueselsewhere.Whilesomeof thechemists interviewedhadcontacted

authors directly for a paper, a few showed some reluctance to unless they had a prior

relationshipwiththem:“IonlyapproachtheauthorifIknowthempersonally.Ifthepaper

iscomingoutIwillaskfortheproof.Iknowaboutitbecauseofdiscussionsorprevious

papersinthatarea”.Onementionedthatthiswasnotnecessarilyasuccessfultechnique:

“IfthereisanemailaddressImightwritetotheindividual.Thesedaysaskingforareprint

isawasteoftime”.Newtechnologyhaschangedthefrequencyandhowtheserequestsare

made:

I have requested material – yes, and responded to requests, but they don’t

happenveryoften.Sincethingshavebeenavailableelectronicallytherequests

havedroppeddramatically.Youused togetpostcardsrequestingyou tosend

reprints,andnowyousendaversionofapdf.

A couple of people indicated that asking for a paper is uncommon, “Iwould rarely ask

peoplefortheirpaper”,withanotherchemistsayingitwouldoccur,“acoupleoftimesa

yearifthat”.Analternativeistoaskacolleagueatanotherinstitutioniftheyhaveacopy

of the paper, although this toowas described as a rare occurrence, happening “once or

twice”.

Ontheotherhand,manyof thechemistshadbeenapproached forcopiesof theirwork:

“othershaveapproachedme.Inormallysendthemthepdf.OccasionallyIhavehadpeople

askforaprintedversion.Aboutonceayear”.Theserequestsseemtohavebeenmetwith

good humour and compliance: “People have approached me. An article came out in a

journalthatalotofunisinEuropedon’thaveaccessto.Ihad25‐20requests.Isentthema

pdf”.Howevertheserequestshavebecome lesscommon“sincethingshavegoneonline,

evenfromIndiabecausetheyareadvancedatcomputing”.

The requests these days appear to come from people from less developed countries,

described by interviewees as tending to be “newermembers of the EuropeanUnion or

thirdworld countries”whichwerementioned by several people. One person discussed

107

EastIndiaandSouthAmerica.Emailrequestshavereplacedmailedpostcardrequests.The

difficultyfacingtheseresearchersrequestingmaterialistheyhave“noaccesstotheonline

orprintedjournal.Itrytoindulgethem–sendthemapdf”.Itappearsthattheresearchers

tendtousethejournal’spdfforthispurpose,whichwasmentionedbyseveralpeople:

Typicallythejournalwillsendyouanelectronicreprint,whichyouareallowed

todisseminatetopeoplewhomakerequestsofyou.Oftenthereisalimitof20

electronic copies that can be sent to peoplewhomake requests…wewould

neverget20requests.

Thereappearedtobeanattitudewithsomeoftheresponsesthatthepersonrequesting

was simply trying to researchon the cheap, “sometimeswith reviewarticles – they are

savingmoney on photocopies”. Requests thatwould require the author to photocopy a

paperthemselvesarenotcompliedwith:

IdorespondtorequestsifIhaveanelectroniccopy–Iemailittothem.Even

morerarelypeoplecomeforacopyofanoldpaper–Idon’tknowwhattodo.

The culture of sharing in Sociology

Likethechemistsandcomputerscientists,thesociologistsinterviewedbothrequest,and

receive requests for, papers. It seems this is happening less often as more material is

available online. One researchermentioned relying on a well‐resourced colleaguewho,

“hasanenormousrangeofsources.He’dsendusstuff”.Requestingacopyofworkfrom

authors seemed to be unusual in this group, “I rarelymight ask someone to sendme a

copy if theyhaveone”.Anotherpersonobserved: “I have asked if another author could

send it, but normally I wouldn’t do that”. At least one sociologist had found this an

ineffectivemethodofobtainingmaterial,“[a]pproachingtheauthorisawasteoftimefora

paper”.

RequestsforpapersinSociologyalsoappeartobemostlyfromlessdevelopedcountries:

YesIhavehadalotofrequestsforthat,theoverviewjournal,especiallyfrom

the then SovietUnion and India. I don’t think anyone fromEurope,Australia

andUSA.Yougetnotalotbutperhapsadozen“Pleasesendafreecopy,Ican’t

afford tobuyor I can’t get access to it”. I can’t remember, I don’t think I did

anythingtotellyouthetruth.MymemoryisIdidn’tdoanything.

Postcardswereused for requests10yearsago,but thishasalmost completely stopped,

“it’saveryrareevent,contemporarilyspeakingitwouldn’thavehappenedinthelast10

years”, although one researcher said “[I]n the last five years I have received one from

108

India”.Notall requestsarecompliedwith,with theconsensusappearing tobe, “mostof

theworkisoutthere.Iftheycan’tgetholdofoldmaterial,IhaveanelectroniclinkIsend

tootherpeople”.Anotherpersonsaidtheyhavearequestforoneoftheirbooks,“aboutsix

timesayear…Theycangetholdofstuff–mostthingsarereadilyaccessibleonthewebor

theycanbuythem”.Anothermentioned,“whenIgetapostcardfromSwedenaskingmeto

postacopy,Ican’tseethepoint”.

Thegeneralresultsindicatethatdespitehavingtobequiteresourcefulintheirmethodsof

obtainingmaterial, thesociologistswhowere interviewedseemeddisinclinedtocontact

authors direct, and in a couple of examples were reluctant to assist people who were

askingthemforhelp.

The culture of sharing in Computer Science

ItispartofthesocialnormofComputerScienceforresearcherstohavetheirownwebsite

whichattheveryleastlists(andusuallylinksto)alloftheirpublications.Thesewebsites

are often the first port of call for researchers trying to locate a particular paper. In

addition,searchesconductedbycomputerscientistsareoftenlookingfortheauthorover

anythingelse.Almostwithoutexceptionpeoplemadecommentslike,“Ifit’sonawebpage

Iwillpullitoffthat”,or:“InComputerSciencewecangototheauthor’swebsite”.

Several people indicated that thewebpagewas the first place they looked formaterial

becausethereisaproblemwhenkeywordschangetheirmeaningwithinthediscipline:

[Authorsearches]seemmorestablethankeywordsandsubjectsbecausethose

areboundtofashiontrends…Firstyoulookforpersonalwebsites.Iftheyare

half reasonable at handling their network presence, you should get enough

hintsandstartingpointstofind[thework].

Thismethodhas advantages: “I lookup a particular person to seewhat they are up to.

Looking from the people’s point of view is better that looking at individual articles”.

Somewhatsurprisingly,giventheavailabilityofpapersonline,a fewcomputerscientists

mentionedcontactingtheauthor:

Ifapaperisnotinthelibrarysystem,IwillgothroughandemailtopeopleifI

thinktheyhaveit.IwillalsosearchGoogle.ForalastresortIsendarequestto

author‐mostareresponsive.Theywillsendthepaperandtherawdata…This

isverymuchawaytoincreasetheimpactofapaper.Itisindirectlyrelatedto

impactfactor.Inorderforpeopletociteapapertheyhavetoreaditfirst.

109

Some computer scientists emailed authors for papers as a matter of course, “I contact

authors–regularly”.Onesaid“[w]henIstartedin2000‐2001–Ihadtoemailtheauthor

toget copyofpapers– I alwaysdid it”,whichwould indicate that thingshavechanged.

However,otherpeopleindicateditwasarareevent,“inonecase[apaperIcouldn’tfind

was]writtenbysomeonenew. I sent themanemailandgota copy”.Anothercomputer

scientistsaid:“Itdoesn’thappenveryoften.OnlyonrareoccasionsIhavetowritetothe

authorandaskthemtosendbysnailmail.Iemailtoaskforanelectroniccopy”.

This technique is not always successful, because “a lot of people ignore you”. Another

persondescribed“abadexperience.Iemailedtheauthorandgotnothingback”.Another

researcherwhohadhadthesameexperiencegivesupifthey“can’tfindapaper…Iused

tosendtheauthoranemail,oftenthere isnoresponse”.Somecomputerscientistsdon’t

botheraskingtheauthorforoldpapers:“Ihavenotcontactedtheauthorforacopy.Iask

thelibrarytodoit.Theauthorwouldhavetomakeacopyandpayforpostage”.

Inreturn,itisrareforacomputerscientisttobeaskedfortheirmaterial,partlybecause

they generallymake theirwork available. Requests tend to have been “in the past, not

recently,more intheerawhenthingswerenotavailableelectronically”.Anotherperson

explainedthat“sometimespeopleaskforcopiesofthings.Noteverythingisavailableon

mysite.Idosendthem–Iputitinanenvelopeandsenditoff”.

In addition to putting things on websites, at least one computer scientist described

“sendingthingsoutwhenIamsubmittingthemtopromotemyworkalittlebit.Ihavegot

allmypublicationsonmywebpageincludingpdf’swithlinkstopublicationsinjournals”.

Access or barriers to the literature

Barriers for chemists

Theintentionbehindthequestionaboutbarrierstotheliteraturewastoaskwhetherthe

academichasexperiencedaninabilitytoobtainapaperbecauseofasubscriptionbarrier

–forexample,iftheuniversitylibrarydidnotsubscribetothejournaltheywerelooking

for. This was not how the some of the chemists interviewed interpreted the question.

Possiblybecausethetwouniversitiesthatweretargetedinthisresearcharewellfunded

(byAustralianstandards)andbecauseChemistryinparticularhasaspecificanddefined

setofjournals,itappearsthattherearenorealbarrierstotheliteratureforthechemists

interviewed.Onlyacoupleofpeoplementionedbarriers.Onewaslanguage:“thereisabit

ofstuffintheChineseliteraturethatIfindishardtogetholdof.AbitinRussianliterature,

110

but it is pretty rare these days not to have access by onemeans or another”. Another

barrierwas the inability to rememberdetailsabout thepaper to look itupcorrectly, as

onedescribed, “abarrierwouldbeprobably rememberingwhowroteapaper”.Aswith

ComputerScience,amajorbarrierwasolderpapers,“Ineverhitabarrier[whenlooking

fortheliterature].Theonlyexceptionwouldbesomethingthatisoldornotonline,suchas

a1904paper”.

Thatsaid,itdoesn’tmeantheiruniversitysubscribestoeverythingtheyneed,“Icanhave

problems getting hold of papers … In Synthesis you have to subscribe in a funny way.

Patents are very difficult to get. You can at least get the reference”. The chemists

interviewed simply found ways around obtaining copies of hard‐to‐find articles. For

example:

Somesocietieshavescannedolderissuesinrightback120years.Nowwehave

onlineaccesstoUSbutnotBritishmaterialwhichhasaccessonlysince1996.A

lot of paper copies have been put into storage and you can get them out by

goingtothelibraryandrequestingitbutit’sahassle.Oftenpeopleworktheir

wayaroundit.

Evenifthelibrarydoessubscribe,onepersoncommentedthelevelofaccessisnotalways

sufficient:

There isaproblemlocallywithSciFinder– theUniversityonlyhas twoseats.

Mid‐morning/afternoondemand isquitehigh.So ifyoutimetable it right it is

OK.Foralargeinstitutethisisabitdifficult.Theykeepstatsonusage.

Several chemistsmentioned using personal networks to get hold ofmaterial: “I have a

friendatanotheruniversity”.Twootherpeoplementionedthistechnique:“IfIcan’tgeta

paper – thatwill happen once or twice a year. If I do need it I will contact a friend at

anotheruniversityorinterlibraryloan,ittakesacoupleofmonths”,and“Ihavecontacted

apersonatanotheruniversityandtheygetacopy.Thisisnotasolutionforeverybody”.

Anothersolutionistohavepersonalsubscriptionstopapercopiesofjournals,butthisis

becominglesscommon,asonepersonexplained:

ForyearsIsubscribedpersonallytomajorjournalssoIwoulddoit[browsing]

athome.InrecentyearsIhavegivenitupbecauseIhavespentlotsofmoney.

Inthemove[tothenewChemistrybuilding]Ihavethrownawayvastnumbers

ofjournals.

111

Somechemistsuse the library inperson, “I can findahardcopy in theLibrary if I can’t

accesswithout apassword,TheLibrary is shrinkingbut it is still pretty good”.There is

supportforinterlibraryloansbecause“[t]hewaylibrariescuttheirsubscriptionstheytalk

toeachothersosomeone’sgoteverything”.Alternatively, “wecanorderandhave them

faxed though or sometimes you can’t get hold of them and youwork around it”. Again

studentsareusedforthistypeoflegwork,“ifeverIwantedareviewdesperately–Iuse

interlibraryloan.IfI’mpresentedwithabarrierIsendastudenttodoit”.

Thechemistsinterviewedalsousethe‘closeenough’method,althoughapparentlynotas

extensivelyasthecomputerscientists,“ifthelibrarydoesn’tsubscribe–Igiveupandgo

to an alternative paper”with another researcher saying: “if I can’t find a paper easily I

wouldfirsttrytofindasimilarpaper”.

Barriers for sociologists

Some sociologists expressed satisfaction at their access: “[My institution] library

subscription list is comprehensive, I have not used interlibrary loan since being at

[institution]”.Anotherdescribedhaving“noproblemswiththeaccesstotheliterature,no

problems with the cost. I enjoy the hunt – being able to track down obscure articles”.

Thereappearedtobecontentmentwith theaccess to the literaturewithoneresearcher

saying: “I haven’t [experienced a barrier] often enough to cause concern. Lets put it

anotherway.Ihaven’tputinaninterlibraryloaninforanarticleforaboutfiveyears”.

Onedifficultymentionedwasthatofinaccurateindexing:

Ihaveproblemswhentherearemisprintsinthetitleofthearticleoraspelling

mistakeinauthornameIamsearchingforitandcan’tfindit.Itcantakethree

orfoureveningstoworkoutwhatisgoingon.Isthearticleworththechase?

The‘closeenough’techniqueoffindingapaperthatissimilartotheonethatappearstobe

unobtainable,describedbyotherdisciplines, isused inSociologyaswell.Asoneperson

stated:“Inpractice20‐30%ofarticlesonatopicaresimilartosourcearticles”.Oftenthe

articleisnotavailable,“thearticleIwantisnotthereoneoutoffivetimes.Ifitisnotthere

Iusuallyforgetaboutit–therewillbesomethingelse”.Othersechoedthissentiment:

Ihaveencounteredproblemsontheinternetfollowingsomethingup…Ihave

always been able to find alternative sources of information on the web –

billionsofreferencesareontheweb.

112

Avariationonthe‘closeenough’techniqueistogiveup,“IfIcan’tgetsomethingIletgo”.

Anotherpersonmentionedthatnotbeingabletofindsomethingisuncommon,“IfIcan’t

finditIabandonit.Itdoesn’thappenmuchinmyfield”.

Ofthethreedisciplines,thesociologistsusedthemostcreativewaysofobtainingarticles

theydidn’thaveaccessto.Liketheotherdisciplines,theyusedcolleagueswhohaveaccess

elsewhere, “my partner works at ADFA9 so [they] can get stuff. Occasionally I use the

NationalLibrary”.Thistechniqueofusingalternativeinstitutionswasnotuncommonfor

theANUsociologistswhohavemajor institutionsnearby,with theNationalLibraryand

CanberraHospitalmentionedbyseveralpeople:

IfIhavethefullreferenceIusethelibraryelectronicresourceandseeifthere

isanonlinecopy. Ifwedon’thave it, Iwill thisafternoonforexamplestopat

theCanberraHospitalonmywayhomeandgetaphotocopy.Iknowit’sthere

becauseIdonatedasetofjournalstothem.

This last personwent to the greatest lengths of anyone interviewed to obtainmaterial.

Thisresearcherworksoverseasatanotheruniversity,sostockpilesreferencestolookup

whileoverseas,“[i]tisprettyrarewhenIneedsomethingreallyurgentlywhereitcouldn’t

waituntilthenexttrip.Itravelacrosstwiceayearforaboutamonthatatime”.

Oneofthefewinstitutionaldifferencesthatemergedwasinrelationtofeelingsaboutthe

library. Several sociologists at UNSWexpressed disillusionmentwith theUNSW library,

because they had been discarding material and, “if you get rid of books, you get very

concentrated knowledge in elite institutions”. One person expressed concern that: “the

cleanoutisundocumented,[decisionsare]purelyonabasisthatithadn’tbeenused.Ifa

bookisnottakenoutforaperiodwillberemovedto[purgatory]onthewaytohell”. In

addition, a point of contentionwas that the “University of New SouthWales is heavily

orientedtothesciencesandtechnologies”.Theproblemsforonepersonextendedbeyond

thecollectionheldinthelibrary,totheservicesthelibraryoffered,“[i]nterlibraryloanI

haveusedinthepastbutnotanymore.ItwaslengthythelasttimeItriedtouseit”.

Sociologists often source their ownmaterials, subscribing to journals themselves. They

alsobuybooksbecause,asonesaid,“Iamwillingtospendthemoneyforthingstomove

along”,andanothersaid“[t]helibraryranoutofmoneyhalfwayintotheyear.Ibuybooks

importanttomywriting,particularlyonesthatarenotinEnglish”.Onesociologistsaid“I

9AustralianDefenceForceAcademy

113

ambuyingbooksoutofmyownpersonalbudget.IfIhavemyownresearchaccountIcan

usethat.Ispendmoremoneyonbooksthananythingelse”.

One interviewee mentioned that they were given about one third of their books by

publishers.Inalltheinterviews,onlyoneotherperson,whowasalsoasociologistatthe

same university, mentioned this: “It is routine – all academic publishers come around

regularly and work out your areas of teaching – if you are interested they give you a

complementarycopy.I’mgivenacoupleayear”.Thesetwointervieweesseemedtothink

thispracticeiswidespread:

Publishershavearesearchteamwhosejobitistoknowwhoisteaching.Every

week I have a publisher email offering me a book. They are going to every

single academic. Some two times a year, some once a year. I’m on their list.

Sometimes they are interested in youwriting books,mostly they are selling.

Theyleavethemandasktofilloutaformwhatwethinkwouldconsiderusing

astext.

Ididnotaskspecificallyaboutthispractice. Icannotsayifitiswidespreadornot,even

amongstmyowngroupofinterviewees.

Barriers for computer scientists

The‘barriers’totheliteratureexperiencedbythecomputerscientiststendedtoberelated

totheageof thepaper. Ingeneral theystatedthat itwasrarenottobeabletoobtaina

paper.Whentherewasaproblemitwasbecausethepaperpredatedelectroniccopies,for

example: “If I can’t get stuff it tends to be older, pre 1994 – 1995”. Another person

commented:“ItisrarelyIcan’tgetholdofsomething.Itisusuallyifitissomethingolder”.

Thepaperscomputerscientistshavetroubleobtainingrepresentaverysmallproportion

ofthepaperstheyuse:

HaveIbeenstuck?Witholderpapersfrom80’sor90’sthatsometimeshappens

inComputerScience,butveryrarely,OneortwopapersIhaven’tgotholdof,

outofseveralhundred.

ThisproblemofolderpapersisnotcommonbecauseComputerScienceasafieldtendsto

moveveryquicklyandolderpapersarenotusedmuch:“Wedon’tusepapersmorethan

10‐20yearsold”.Eventhen,therearewaysaroundobtainingtheinformation:“Withvery

oldthings–eventhesearescannedinandmadeavailable”,accordingtooneinterviewee.

Other services are being provided to the community: “There are even complete

publicationsfromfamouspeopleinthe40’s50’sand60’s,evenforthoseyoudon’thaveto

stretchouttoomuch”.

114

Itisrareforthecomputerscientistsinterviewedtophysicallygotothelibrary,althougha

coupledid:“Ialmostdon’tgotolibrary,maybeonceamonth”.Anotherresearchersaid,“I

goto the libraryoraskacolleague foracopy. Ithappensoneor twotimesayear”.One

describeditthus:

IfIhaven’tbeenabletogetthepaper–maybeifitisanoldpaperorthereisno

electroniccopy–Icangotothelibrary…Icheckthecatalogueelectronically–

check they have issue there. Then I will go and get it physically (from the

library)ormakeanorderfrom[thelibrary].

Otherwise,thecomputerscientistsdescribedusingthephysicallibraryrarely,evenusing

studentstodotheirinterlibraryloans.Onesaid:“Intheoddcase,Isendastudenttothe

UniversityofSydneylibrary–theygetthebookfromsomewhereandphotocopy[it]”.One

difficultywithusingthelibraryistime:

If[apaper]isnotelectronicallyavailableorinaneasilyaccessibleplacethento

get hold of itwouldmeandoing an inter‐library loan – it takes time towalk

acrosscampus.…ItisalongtimesinceI’veusedinterlibraryloan.Itisnotoften

Iusethelibrary–myuseofthelibraryhasgonegraduallydownovertheyears,

Iusedtouseitphysicallyalot.…ThesedaysImakelittleuseofit,Iammostly

gettingthingsofftheweb.

There is however awareness of the electronic library services amongst the computer

scientistsinterviewed:

…astudent…endedupaskingthelibraryiftheyhad[anobscurepaper]and

beforeheknewithehadapackageonhisdeskThe[library]hadorderedthe

book in, it cost US$200 or something expensive for this little book of

proceedings.Thelibrarygotit,hehaditsittingonhisdesk.

Another researcher described the library acquisition as being: “pretty good. If I get the

referencethe librarycangetholdof it…Iusethe libraryquitea lotbecausematerial is

oftennot available. Interlibrary loan is quite efficient, [but] it costsmoney”. Evenwhen

overseas,researchers“channelthroughtothe[Australianinstitution]andreadthingsthat

wayandthatisextremelyhelpfulbecauseifthelibrariesallburndownbuttheystillhave

thataccesswecouldstilldomuchofourwork”.

115

Onlyonecomputerscienceintervieweementionedhavingpersonalsubscriptions:“Iused

tohavepersonalsubscriptiontofourorfivemainjournalsinarea,nowIhavetwothatI

maintain.Iclaimthemofftax,it’snotveryexpensive”.

Thegeneralattitudeappearstobethatifacertainpaperisunobtainable,thentherewill

beanotherthat is ‘closeenough’.Severalpeoplementionedthatthefirststepistogoto

theauthor’swebsitetoseeifthereisaversionofthepaperthere:

Ilookattheproposedscheduleforconference–ifIfindsomethingthatsounds

interesting–IGoogleitandwillfindasimilarpaper.Thesamenamespopup.I

mightgototheirwebsitewithadraftthere.

Even if there is not a draft of the same paper, the author’s website is likely to have

something similar discussing the samework. As one person described, “If can’t get one

publication,theauthor’swebsitewillhaverelatedpapers”.Evenifthepaperitself isnot

available, therewill beotherpaperswhichhave the relevant information: “If I can’t get

hold of an original paper ‐ if subsequentwork restates something, Iwill use that”. This

concept of using something that is ‘close enough’wasmentioned by several people: “A

coupleoftimesIhavenotbeenabletogetholdofsomething.Ihavederivedresultsfrom

secondhandmaterial”.Anotherpersonstated: “Manypeopleputpreliminaryorcurrent

submissionsontheirwebsite.ImaynotfindtheexactarticlesortheTechnicalReportitis

basedon‐butIgetanideaifIwanttochaseit”.

Alternatively the researcher will simply decide that paper is not necessary: “There are

some journals the [library] doesn’t subscribe to, I just ignore them”. This seems to be

judgedonacasebycasebasis:“Theothertime[Icouldn’tgetholdofapaper]Iwenttothe

catalogue–theydidn’thaveit.[Iaskedmyself]isitthatimportant?Idecideditprobably

wasn’t”.Inanswertothequestionaboutbarrierstotheliterature,onepersonmentioned

that the publishers were not maintaining old material properly, “[o]lder papers –

[supplementary]materialhasdisappeared”.

Summary of researcher behaviour findings

Information seeking

Thechemistsinterviewedcontinueto ‘keepupwiththeliterature’withmanydescribing

howtheyundertakeabroad lookat the literatureonaregularbasis.Someof themstill

maintain personal subscriptions to paper journals and the department libraries also

maintain paper subscriptions which are used by some of the interviewees. General

116

browsingoftheliteraturethroughemailnotificationwasstillpartoftheroutineofseveral

chemists interviewed.Howevermanyof themmentionedhowdifferentthingsaretoday

fromtenyearsago,whenputtingasideaperiodoftimeeachweektositinthelibrarywith

thenewdisplayofjournalswasaregularhabit.

Thesociologistsinthesamplerelyonacombinationofjournalarticlesandbooksfortheir

information.Thereappearstobeconsiderablylessemphasisonthegeneralbrowsingfor

backgroundinformation,possiblybecauseaconceptof‘theliterature’isfarbroaderinthis

disciplinethanChemistry,whichisfairlywell‐defined.Sociologistsalsoreliedmorethan

the other two groups on ‘serendipitous’ research, such as following citation leads and

workingthroughbibliographies.

InComputerScience, it is commonpractice for anacademic tohaveapersonalwebsite

withalltheirpublishedpaperslistedonthatsite.Inmanycasesthereisaversionofthe

paperattachedtothatlisting.Withoutexception,thecomputerscientistsspokentoused

Googleasasearchtool.Computerscientistsexpecttobeabletofindthingsfreelyonthe

Internetandveryrarelyusethelibrary,andalmostneveruseinterlibraryloan.Theywill

putmaterialontheirownwebsiteevenif italreadyappearssomewhereelseasanopen

accesscopy.Thesewebsitesareoftenthefirstportofcallforresearcherstryingtolocatea

particular paper. In addition, when conducting searches, computer scientists are often

looking for the author over anything else. Google however, is not the only method of

searching for information, many interviewees referred to the proceedings from

conferenceswhichallowuserstosearchforapaper.Somepeoplementioneddatabaseson

Computer Science websites. Generally there is an expectation that all the proceedings

frommajorconferenceswillbeavailableonline.

Informal communication

TheChemistry intervieweesdescribedthenumberofpeople intheir finiteareaasbeing

‘inthetens’.Veryfewofthechemistshadrequestedapaperfromanauthor,butmanyof

themhadbeenapproachedbypeoplefromlessdevelopedcountries. Sociologyisalsoa

fieldwherepeopletendtoknoweachother.Onepersondescribeditasa‘smallpool’with

onlyfiveorsixpeopleatthetopinAustralia.LikeChemistry,itisafieldwherebeingable

tonetworkwellcanbeadvantageoustoacareer.Thesociologistsinterviewedtendedto

workaloneorwithoneotherperson.Thismayexplainwhy,despitehaving tobequite

resourcefulintheirmethodsofobtainingmaterial,thesociologistswhowereinterviewed

seemeddisinclinedtocontactauthorsdirectly,anddisinclinedtoassistpeoplewhowere

askingthemforhelp.SomeoftheComputerScienceintervieweesalsodescribedresearch

117

networksofonlyoneortwopeople.Havingcloserelationshipswiththesepeopleisavalid

form of information‐seekingwithin this group. Computer scientists, possibly due to the

natureoftheirwork,werethemostlikelyofthethreedisciplinesinterviewedtoembrace

Web2.0toolssuchaswikis,blogs,discussionlistsandSkype.

Access to the literature

Theresearchers in theuniversitiesstudiedhavegoodaccessto the literaturetheyneed.

Nonedescribedabarriertotheliterature,demonstratingvarioustechniquestoobtainany

literature their librarydoesnothave.These include interlibrary loans,usingalternative

institutionsandacultureofsharingwithintheircommunities.Onebenefitofhavingaglut

of information published is there always appears to be another paper which is ‘close

enough’.

Thechemistsexpressedveryfewbarrierstotheliterature.Someusepersonalnetworksto

obtainmaterials,othersholdpersonalsubscriptions,andotherstryfindingasimilarpaper

toonetheycannotlocate.Thesociologistsalsodescribedusingthe‘close’enough’method

or giving up when faced with a barrier. They described using the libraries of other

institutions, sourcing their own material, subscribing to journals or buying books. The

computerscientistsexpressedfewbarrierstotheliteraturewiththeexceptionoftherare

occasions they needed an older (pre 1995) paper. Overall the respondents expressed

satisfactionwiththeiraccesstotheliterature.

Publishing behaviour

Thissectiondetailsresponsestothequestionsaskedaboutpublishingbehaviours.These

questions address some of the fundamental tenets of the open access concept. The

questions were asked to ascertain what choices researchers are making when they

preparematerial forpublicationanddecidewheretosendit.Questionswerealsoasked

abouthowsuccessfultheywereathavingtheirpapersaccepted.Theothertwoaspectsof

publishingbehaviourwereexplored–theinterviewees’understandingofcopyrightlaws,

andhowtheyfeltaboutthem;andiftheyproducedgreyliteratureinthecourseoftheir

work,whattheydidwithit.

Manyoftheseissueshavebeenpresentedintheopenaccessdebateasproblemswiththe

scholarlypublishingsystem.Theinterviewsattemptedtoestablishiftheyarebeingfelton

the‘frontline’byresearchers.

118

The section begins with a general overview of the three disciplines’ publishing trends,

before looking at why people publish, their rejection rates, problems such as delays in

publishing,andhavingtoreformattoresubmitthesameworktoadifferentpublisher.In

thissectiontheresponsestothefollowingquestionsaredescribed:

• Whydoyoupublishyourwork?

• Couldyouexplainyourchoiceofthejournalsyouhavepublishedin?

• Haveyoueverbeenapproachedbyajournaltopublishyourwork?

• Onaverage,howoftenareyouacceptedbythefirstjournaltowhichyousubmit?

• Haveyoueversubmittedtomorethantwojournals(andifsowhatwastheoverall

timetopublication?)

• Onaverage,whathasbeentheperiodoftimebetweensubmissionandpublication–

doyouhaveanopiniononthat?

• Haveyoueverpublishedinanopenaccessjournal?

Why do researchers publish?’

Generally there were two reasons interviewees gave to this question: ‘Why do you

publish?’Onesetofanswerswasaboutcommunication,theotherwasaboutreward,often

from the sameperson. Tomaintain the integrity of the thematic split of these results, I

havedetailedtheanswersthatdiscussedrewardinthesectiononManagingtheAcademic

Career.Thoseanswersthatdiscussedcommunicationareexploredbelow.

Why do chemists publish?

Thechemistssaidtheymainlypublishtoencourageadialoguewiththeirpeers,afterall:

“Ifyouhavedonetheworkyougetitoutthere”.Asonepersonputit:“[t]hereisnoreason

fordoingwhatwedounlesswecommunicate.Itvalidateswhatwedobecausepeoplesee

it”.Publishing is also: “themajor routeof scientific communicationbar conferences.We

arecertainlykeentohaveourworkknowntothecommunity”.

Chemistsalsomentionedthatpublicationissomethingthatisexpectedofpeoplewhoare

working as researchers, “[I]t is part of the job. I enjoy it. I do research then get it [the

paper]out.Itiswhatacademiaisabout”,becauseasanotherputit,“ItiswhatIampaid

for…Knowledgeisnotagameweplayforourownenjoyment. If it isnotout itdoesn’t

exist”.Generallythefeelingappearstobe,“Iamnotpullingmyweightandaccomplishedif

Iamnotpublished”.

Theideaofegowasalsoraisedamongstthechemists,withonesayingtheypublish,“…not

for selfless reasons, I want to get stuff out there and get noticed. If there was no

119

recognition (from peers) I’d still do it”. Another described the reason they publish as:

“Approbation. Iwant tosharethiswork…Havingcompletedaproject–culminate in to

record in literature for prosperity – I am proud of it. It is like producing a piece of art

peoplemightenjoy”.

The issue of ‘repayment’ also emerged through the chemist’s answers, because the

taxpayer, “paysmy salary, andmy research grants. It is absolutely imperative that you

publish to give back what they pay”. As another respondent put it, “you are using

taxpayer’sdollarstosupportyourresearch.Weareobligedtopublishwhatwedo”,anda

thirdmentioned,“[w]ehavegotanobligationandhavereceivedmoneyforresearchsowe

must publishwork”. One chemist described the need to produce publications to justify

receivingpublicfunding,sayingitisveryimportant,“[g]overnmentgivesyoumoneytodo

what youwant. The only outcome is publication.Whywould they give it to thosewho

haven’tpublished?Publicationsputyouinthegame”.

Whilemany chemistsmentioned that publishing to further their career is secondary, a

clear example came from one person who indicated that even ‘poor’ results should be

publishedforthecommunity’sbenefit:

Toonlyreallypublishtopstuffiswrongbecauseinsyntheticorganicchemistry

wearemakingnewcompounds.TherearesomejournalssuchasARKIVOK–it

takespublicationsofnewcompounds.Peopleuseittoputupnewcompounds.

Imightthinkit’sacrummypaperbutsomeoneelsemightreadit.Theymight

seesomethingthatIdon’tsee.Wemustpublishevenmundanestuff.

Anotherstatedmotivationforpublishingwasasaworkmanagementtool,“Theprocessof

publicationisveryhelpfulingettingthingsdone”.Anotherchemistagreed,stating“[y]ou

can’tbeattherigourofwritingapaperandsubmittingitforpeerreview”.

Why do sociologists publish?

The sociologists interviewed appeared to regard the publishing imperative to be less

importantcomparedtotheintervieweesfromtheotherdisciplines.Careerwascertainly

recognisedbythesociologistsasafactorintheneedtopublish,“[I]nitiallyinyourcareer

publishing is important. Ihaveahighpublication rate. Ihavegone forpromotiona few

times.IwentspeedilytoseniorlecturerbutIamnowstuck”.

However,more importantly, publishing seemed to be to help consolidate ideas, “I can’t

figureituntilIwriteaboutit”,andtofurtherthefield,“[t]hekeytowhyyoupublishisthe

120

socialisation factor, to contribute to the advancement of knowledge”. Not everyone felt

that this goalwasbeingachievedhowever, “[a]cademic life isnot intellectual. Iwant to

engage,haveasenseofenergy.Thereisverylittleofthat”.

Thewordegocameupagainintheconversationswithsociologistsaboutpublishing,“[I]f

youarehonestthereisabigegofactorinvolved…inanyprofessionyougetego/personal

satisfactionfromdoingwellandthecomparatorsarepeoplewhopublishalot”.However,

egodoesnotalwaysmeana‘bighead’:

[whistles]Godknows[whyIpublish].Toanswertheperennialquestionof“Am

I good enough?”.What drives academics has got to do with a profound and

deepinsecuritysomewherealongthelinebecauseyouwouldn’tdothisforthe

moneyandyouwouldn’tdoit forthefun. It’sthepersonaldemonthatdrives

you.

AcoupleofpeopleinSociologyspecificallystatedthattheydidnottakemuchnoticeofthe

careeraspectsofpublishing,eitherignoringthem.Forexampleonestated,“Idon’tseethe

need to follow the DEST10 guidelines”, or tolerating them with frustration as another

expressed:

It is getting totally out of hand, producing papers and books… People don’t

readanymore.Grantsareaboutgettinganothertotallyuselesspublicationout.

Ihavelostthedesiretobeassociatedwiththatsortofprocess.

Oneparticularlytime‐poorsociologyintervieweeuseswritingapaperasajustificationto

his/herpartnertonegotiatetimeawayfromthechildrentowrite:

Ireallyenjoywriting–itgivesmeafocusIwouldn’totherwisehave.Itmeans

mytimeneedsarevisible–IcansaytomypartnerIneedhowmanyhours–if

therewasn’tapaperthenIwouldbeputoff.

Inone instancethe intervieweementionedthetextbookstheyhadwritten,whichserve

the student population rather than thewider academic community. Theybeganwriting

becausetheywere“teachingandfrustratedwithother’sbooks.IhaveabeliefIcanwrite

clearlyandinamannermorebalancedthanothertextbooks”.

10 The Department of Science Education and Training, the name of the Australian Government

departmenttowhichresearcherspreviouslyreportedtheirpublications.

121

Overallintheinterviewswiththecomputerscientistsandchemists,theideaoftheimpact

oftheirworkoutsidetheacademiccommunitydidnotcomeupmuch.However,acouple

ofthesociologistsmentionedthis:“Iwanttoinfluencecompaniestooperatemoresafely–

mainly via the books”. Another sociologist also publishes books for the non‐academic

market: “I have [a publication] planned – it is of no value to anyone except Easter

Islanders.Therewillbediscussionaboutdocumentationontheirisland.Theyhaven’tseen

it.IdopublicationsinSpanishandEnglish”.

Why do computer scientists publish?

Overwhelmingly, aside from the issues of needing to publish for career reasons, (which

wereoftenstatedasbeingasecondaryreasonforpublishing),thecomputerscientistssaid

theypublishtocommunicatewiththeirpeers.Theintended‘audience’fortheirpapersis

colleagues, rather than promotions committees. Many of the interviewees were very

animatedwhen answering this question. For example: “I get a lot of satisfaction out of

seeingworkbeingexposedandacceptedandtakenup…researchpublicationisoneofthe

primarywayswedothatinourfield”.

Anotheralsodescribedthesatisfactionofbeingpublished:

Ithinkit’squiteacomplexthing.AtsomelevelyouhavetopublishorIwilllose

my jobbut I don’t think that’s something that causesme todo it. It’s part of

being a real researcher when you get a result that’s how you want to tell

people. You feel excited about it. You know if you tell people they are

interested.Yougetkudosandpeoplewillbepleasedwithyou.Allthesefactors

aswell. I think– it soundskindof cornybut there’sa satisfaction factor.You

have knowingly takenpart in pushing things farther – that’swhy youdo the

job. It is something you didn’t expect or just a proof to work out. You have

advanced things a bit. There is great satisfaction about that. It certainly feels

verysatisfying.IamnottalkingabouttheDean–peoplewhoareactuallygoing

toreadthisstuff.

Othersdescribedpublishing “to get feedback from the community”, or “to get ideas out

there and used or evaluated”. These responseswere describing the academic discourse

that results from publication, “I am not concerned about the impact factor, I ammore

concernedabout theaudienceof thesepapers”.Thisrelationshipwith theaudiencewas

expressedbyanotherresearcherthus:“Reallythefeedback–youwanttoseethereaction

toyourideas.Whenyouarereallypassionateaboutsomearea,allyouarereallylooking

forissomeinteraction.Youcandiscusswithotherswhatyouhavedone”.

122

Acoupleofintervieweesmentionedego,“itisalittlebitofego–youwantotherstohear,

your scientific community”. Indeed, the idea of publishing to gain personal satisfaction

camethroughasacommontheme:“Youwanttotellotherswhatyouhavedonebecause

you think it’s great. It is self promoting a bit, it is theway theprocessworks”.Another

said: “Partof it isegotistical, Iwant tobeat the forefront.Thepure joy thatsomeone is

interested in what I am doing. The ultimate is the significance of being picked up by

others”.

Publication for promotion purposes was mentioned but not given a high priority:

“Somewheredownthere is themotivation ifyouwantapromotionhereyouneedtobe

seen to be publishing – that is low for me”. It appears that recognition within the

community is a muchmore important factor: “To tell people what we have found out.

There isnomonetary reward.There’snobenefit.But it attracts the rewardof status in

community”. The community also recognises measurements used by promotions

committees:

Iprefertopublishasmallnumberofhighlyrespectedpapers.[Thereare]sixor

sevenpapersofmy18thatI’mreallyproudof.Ihave100citationsfromthose

papers.Thatgivesmealotofpride.Only20%ofpapersevergetreferencedby

someoneelse.

Oneresearcherdescribedtheprestigeassociatedwithbeingaccepted intoaconference:

“Onethingisaboutprestige.Sometimestheprojectchairofconferencewilltellyouhow

manypaperswereacceptedandhowmanysentin.ItindicatesyourpaperisintopX”.

Anotherresponsewasrelatedto theuptakeof the interviewee’swork in theiracademic

community,“Thereisnootherway[to]enterdiscussioninmeaningfulway.Itisoneofthe

mostintrinsicpartsofacademiclife”.Anotherindicatedthatthisdiscussionwascentralto

theirwork:

I guess there are several reasons, one is you have done somework and you

wanttotelleveryoneaboutitsoit’s‘lookwhatI’vedone’.Thereisthecriticism

andgrowthofknowledgeargument,yougetyourstuffoutthereandpeoplecan

criticise it. There is the making broader impact, there is the algorithm for

solvingaproblemthatwethinkhaswiderapplicability,ifwepublishitlotsof

peoplemayuseitanddousefulthings.

Inadditionthereisgenerallyanexpectationtopublish,to‘writeitdown’becauseasone

researcher put it, “there is no point in doing anything if others don’t know about it”.

Anotherresearchernotedthat, “ifyoudon’tcommunicatewithyourcommunityyouare

123

not advancing or enhancing science in your area. And it is not benefiting taxpayers or

society”.Severalpeoplementionedtheconceptofpublishingasawayofrepayingthedebt

to thepublicwhoare funding them, “[w]e enjoy theprivilegesof academic life andour

salaries.Wepayhappilyinthatwereportbacktothegeneralpublic.Itisunderlyingthe

work”.

Whiletherewasageneralsenseofneedingtocommunicateviapublicationas ‘payment’

to the taxpayer, only one personmentioned the need to communicatewith the general

publicdirectly,andthatthiswasmorewidespread,“than10yearsagowhenitusedtobe

‘exotic’ to talk to thepress”.This researchermentioned thatoutsideof conferencesand

workshops,s/hetalkedto“press,participateintradefairs,talktolocalcomputerscience

workshops.Itisallpartofthecommunicationprocess”.

Rejection rates

AsdiscussedinChapter2,manyhighimpactjournalshaveveryhighrejectionrates.This

would imply that a considerable amount of time iswasted in both the preparation and

reviewingofpapers submitted to these journals.However, thisdoesnot seem tobe the

casewithinthegroupofpeopleinterviewed.Atbothinstitutions,acrossalldisciplines,the

interviewees seem to be ‘pitching’ their work fairly well, and experiencing respectable

acceptancerates.

The rejection rates of chemists

Incontradictiontotheveryhighrejectionratesofsomejournals,mostof theChemistry

interviewees had very low rejection rates. Chemists are comparatively enthusiastic

authors, so having ‘three or four’ rejections is a very small proportion. Figures ranging

froma2‐3%rejectionrateto5%and10%werecommonlymentioned.Thiswasusually

putdowntogoodselectionof journalsby thechemistsbut: “Iamprettydisappointed if

something gets rejected. Anyone would be but I’m trying to make a balanced decision

betweentherankingofjournalandthelikelihoodofacceptance”.

Forotherchemists,theirrejectionratewasalmostnegligible,withonerespondenthaving

“had one rejection in the last 30 years”, and another having “never had something not

published”.Thesewerenotisolatedresponses.Itwouldseemthatrejectionfromthefirst

choicejournalisrarelyabarriertobeingpublishedforthesechemists,“Isubmittedtoone

journalandwasrejected,thenresubmittedtoahigheronewhichthenacceptedit!”

124

Thosechemistswhodescribedrejectionsindicatedthatthereasonforrejectionisrarely

thescience,ratheramiscalculationofwhichjournaltosenditto.Eitherthejournalwas

inappropriate, “one was culled by editorial board and not sent out, not because of the

qualitybutbecausethejournalwasgeneralinterest”,orbecauseasonechemistexplained

they were not “aiming high enough. Recently I have been sending small papers to top

journals.Onepaperwasrejected– then thenextone, still, it’sout in theworldwithina

year.Ifinditincrediblydepressingandalotofhassle”.

Rejection rates of sociologists

AssessingtherejectionratesinSociologyismorecomplexthantheothertwodisciplines

explored in this thesis.Manyof thesociologists interviewedwerebookauthors,andthe

process of having a book published is long and complex. Several people described a

process simply to have the concept of the book accepted by a publisher that involved

severalpublishers,manyiterationsandaperiodofseveralyears.Evencompletedbooks

takeyearstobepublishedasonesociologistexplained:

Whenyousendabooktoapublishertheycansitonitforsixtosevenmonths

beforetheydecidetorefereeit.Thenitcantakeanothersixmonthsandthere

is the clean up afterwards and doing the index. Thewhole process can take

threeorfouryears.

Booksdifferfromjournalarticlesasapublicationmediuminthisdiscussionbecausethe

copyrightassignmentisdifferent,andbecausetheauthorispaidintheformofroyalties.

Whilethismaynotbeagreatamountofmoney,itrepresentsaconsiderableshiftfromthe

positionofpublishersoverthepublishingofjournalandconferenceproceedings.

Whenaskedaboutrejectionrates(whichwasnotaskedofeverySociologyintervieweein

thiscategory,becauseinsomecasesitwasnotappropriate),somesociologistsresponded

withsurprisinglyhighrejectionratescomparedtotheothertwodisciplines,“[m]yworkis

difficult stuff –my rejection rate is 80‐90% I have to try very hard. Sometimes it takes

severalgoes”.Noteveryoneinterviewed,however,hasahighrejectionrate,“Igotrejected

afewmonthsago.Iwasdevastated[laughs][Myhitrate]isprettyhigh”.

Forthesesociologists,itiscommonpracticetoreviserejectedpapers,“[t]wothirdsofthe

time I get accepted by the initial journal possibly after revision”. An alternative is re‐

sendingthepapertoadifferentjournalexplainedanotherinterviewee,“[y]ouhavetobe

pragmatic ifwork in top journals gets rejected – you send it to the next journal. Some

peoplearemorewillingtoputegoonthelineandsuffertheconsequences”.

125

Acoupleofsociologistsmentionedissueswithformatting.Forexamplesomejournalsare

very specific, “[t]he format follows the number of words or the number of characters

including spaces, visual items must be exact to specific”. Others described journals

rejecting papers on the basis of formatting, which means for some sociologists, “[y]ou

never decide where you are going to send a paper after it is finished because most

publisherswantyoutodotypesetting”.

Thismovesthediscussionintothenextarea,whichisthechallengesdifferentdisciplines

experienceinthepublicationprocess.

The rejection rates of computer scientists

The computer scientists seemed to have fairly high acceptance rates, with a majority

having about two thirds of their submitted papers accepted. One person said not

surprisingly, “it tends to be good research that will just go in first time”. Various

intervieweesdescribedanacceptancerateofabout‘two‐thirds’,60‐75%and50‐70%.

Whileonecomputerscientistwasacceptedtoalltheconferencestheyhadsentpapersto

in2006,thiswasuncommon.Anothersaidofthe13orsopaperstheyhadwritten,they

had had “a couple of rejections so far”. Rejected papers are reworked according to the

reviewer’scommentsandre‐submitted,eithertothesameconferencethefollowingyear,

or,particularlyifastudent’scareerisinvolved,toalessertierconference.

Somecomputerscientistsdescribedahigherlevelofsuccess,withonehavinga“100%hit

rate”.Anotheracknowledged theexperienceof theircolleagues in learninghowtopitch

their papers to the correct conference. The success often depends on their strategy in

choosing which conferences to send papers to as one explained, “[F]rom experience I

knowwhattiertoaimfor–ifitisnotearthshatteringIpickoneinsecondtier.Iusually

managetopickthetiercorrectly”.Oftentherewasastrategyinvolvedinthisprocessas

anotherdetailed:

Byandlargeifyouwriteapaperforthecommunityyouhaveafairknowledge

if this is acceptable for publication. A good number will be published if you

angle the paper properly and target. You can submit things to conferences

whereacceptancerateis15%…Onlyeveronepaperthatgotrejected.

Interviewees mentioned that being rejected was not because of second‐rate science,

ratheritwasoftenbecausetheyhadpitchedthepapertothewrongconference:“lastyear

126

[Iwasrejected]becausemyresearchisnotincoreoftheconference”.Anotherreasonwas

because thewrite‐upwas less thanperfect: “[l]ast year I had a couple rejectedbecause

theywerebadlywritten.IhadaPolishco‐authorandtherewasnotenoughtimetopolish

hiswork”.Onepersonmentionedthedifficultyofhavingunusualideasaccepted,“Ifitisa

bit oddball have to submit it three or four times… Some of it is tweaking the existing

approach,whereasothertimesthisisatotallynewwayofdoingthings”.

Onlyonepersonmentionedthedistinctionbetweenbeingacceptedforajournalandbeing

acceptedforaconference:

My journal papers virtually never get rejected. Conferences are more of a

lottery, theway theywork. Full papers get reviewed. There’s a seasonwhen

this happens, people get overloaded so they are not as careful. There is no

chance of getting a right of reply. It is very tough to get into a conference –

harderthangettingintoajournal.

Summary of publishing behaviour findings

The researchers in all three disciplines interviewed in this research generally did not

expressagreatdealofconcernaboutthepublishingorresearchingaspectsofremaining

engagedwith the literature. It appears that theyaremanaging the scholarlypublication

system, as it stands, well. They are able to pitch theirwork to the appropriate outlets.

Many people indicated that writing publications is a valuable part of their research

process,and ithelps theirworkand their thinking.Publication isalsoawayof fulfilling

theacademic’sobligationtothetaxpayerwhoultimatelypaystheirsalaries.Whilemany

peopleindicatedtheirchoiceofconferencesorjournalsisbecauseoftheimpactfactorsof

the publication, this has advantages to them other than simply ticking boxes for their

career,ashighimpactjournalsarealsolikelytobereadbytheirpeers.Issuessuchasthe

costofjournalsweresimplynotafactorformostinterviewees.

The chemists reported having less than 10% of their papers rejected. The sociologists

tended to have higher rejection rates and commonly revised papers before publication.

Thecomputerscientistsdescribedhavingaroundtwothirdsoftheirpapersaccepted.

Other issues in scholarly publishing

Publication turnaround in Chemistry

Chemistry appears to have relatively fast publication times for its journals, and one

explainedpartofthereasonforarecentdecreaseinthetimetopublicationisautomation

ofthesubmissionprocess:

127

Thetimetakentoprintisfourmonthsorsixmonths.Acceptanceisnowsixto

eightweeksorfourweeks.Itusedtotakelonger,Irememberittakinglonger.

Youemailyoursubmissiononline.Weusedtopost itoff, thathasmadeabig

difference.

Overall,researcherssubmittingtoaChemistryjournalwillknowwhethertheirpaperhas

beenacceptedornotrelativelyquickly,withintwoorthreemonths,whichisfasterthan

theprevioustimeframeofsixorsevenmonths.Oneevensaid,“sometimesthesedaysyou

can hear back in three weeks”. Another researcher described a range of timeframes

dependingonthejournal,“theshortestaboutamonth,thelongestthreetofourmonths”.

AcoupleofpeopledescribedveryquickturnaroundsforChemistrypapers,withseveral

mentioningtherefereesbeingthehold‐up,“[p]rovidingyoudon’tstrikereferees leaving

townyoucanpossiblylearnthatitisacceptedthreeweekstoamonthaftersubmission”.

Journalsare“increasinglyonline,that’sveryquick”.Oneresearchersaid“theworldrecord

was eight days between submission and publication on the web”. More generally, this

researcher said, “it is twoweeks before you get a reply from the editor” and “anything

takinglongerthansixmonthsistooslow”.Anotherresearcheragreed,“ifyouhadn’theard

bythreeandahalfmonthsyouaskwhat’sgoingon”.

TheseveryfastturnaroundsinChemistrywerenotuncommonwithanothersaying,“one

paper that I submitted, itwas accepted inoneday,published inoneweek.A lot of it is

highlyautomatedthesedays”.Thereasonforthisspeed,accordingtothisresearcherwas

“Chemistrypublishingissuchacompetitivefield.Journalsdineoutonhowfasttheycan

getpaperspublished.Sixmonthsmightbetheoutsideboundary.16‐24weeksisatypical

timeframe”.

The formatting issue in Chemistry

Thisissueofthejournalsrequiringtheauthorstodotheformattingwasraisedbyseveral

chemists:“theauthordoesallthewriting,theproofingandthetypesetting.Nowthey[the

publishers] do nothing”. Interviewees described a range of requirements from the

relativelybenign“needtotweak[papers]forreferenceconcerns”tothereformattingofa

paperbecauseithasbeenrejectedandisnowbeingresubmittedtoanotherjournal,which

onerespondentdescribedas,“doublehandling,itisaninefficientwasteoftime”.Overall

the requirements by publishers for papers in final form seem to be onerous, with one

describeditas“youhavetowriteverysuccinctly.Therearedefinitelimitsonthesizeof

thepaper–ifyouprintafigureitcostsXXlinesoftext”.Anotherchemistsaid:

128

Theworkloadinsubmittingpaperhasincreased.Youusedtowrite,printand

send, now you do far more editing. You put it in the template, prepare the

figure(highquality)fileformatatxdpi.Eachpersondoestheirown.

In a couple of cases the problems with these format requirements influenced where

researchers choose to send their papers, for example one person said they “stick to

Tetrahedron because I have finally learned how to use the template”. Another chemist

said,“yougetusedtothelayout.Ineachtieryoutryoneortwojournalsratherthantryto

coverthewhole.Employpragmatismsoyoudon’tgetboundupwiththeirlayout”.

Publication turnaround in Sociology

Acoupleofthesociologistsdescribedinstanceswherepersonalitieshadcausedproblems

inthepublicationprocess,forexample:

Theproblemwithpublicationisitisanabsoluterearviewmirrorofstuffdone

yearsago. [I amabout tohaveapiecepublished ina] topplace foressays to

appear.Iwroteitnineyearsago.Ihadafalloutwithapersonwhoblockedit…

Youaredealingwithcharlatanswhoaretryingtosellsomething.

These difficulties aside (this was a particular incident, and not representative of the

normal situation), the delay between submission and publication appears to be

approximately12to18months.Asoneintervieweeputit:“thereisusuallyaboutayear

delay before publication. Journals are reliant on voluntary labour for refereeing”.While

theymayunderstandthereasonsforthedelays,thisdoesnotmeanthatsociologistsare

happy with the situation, with one describing an 18 month delay as “hopeless”. One

sociologist explained the “spectacularly long lead times” in publishing means it is

important tohave several papers “in thedrain”.One sociologist recognised therewas a

distinction between publishers on this issue: “the biggest internationals are the best –

quick todecidewhether theywill refereeornot…Thesmaller journalsare theworst. I

alwayssendtobiggerjournalsfirst,becauseIknowtheyarequicker”.

Theproblemofdelayedpublicationalsoappearstohavebeenworseningwithtime,with

oneacademicdescribingapreviousprocesstimeofthreemonths,but,“[f]ormyarticles

publishedin2005ittookthreeyearsbetweenbeingacceptedandappearinginprint.This

huge margin happened in five to 10 years, partially because of universities’ increased

obsessionwithlarge[publicationoutput]”.

129

While some concepts in Sociology may be able to withstand very long lead times to

publication,othersaremorecontemporaryandthedelaysarecausingdifficultiesforthe

relevanceofthearticlesinquestion:

One[article]thatisjustpublishedtooksixmonthstoreview.Thechangestoit

tookacoupleofmonthsthen7‐8monthstopublish.Itwasoverayear…Ikept

havingtoupdateit.Bythetimeitgotrevieweditwasonlyjusthanginginthere

asacurrentevent.

The conference conundrum in Sociology

This thesis does not explore non‐refereed publication, and conference proceedings in

Sociologywerenotpartof theoriginal scope.However, inSociology, it appears that the

claim by some conferences that they are peer reviewed is arbitrary: “[t]here is no

correlationbetweenthecostoftheconferenceandDESTpoints.ForexampleIpaid$1000

togo toa conferenceand turnsout Iwasn’t refereed”.Asone sociologistput it, “[e]ven

conferencepapersthatsaytheyarerefereed,everyoneknowstheyarenot.Itisanerror

youngpeoplemake,especiallyfemales”.

AstheinterviewsprogresseditbecameclearthattheareaofconferencesinSociologyis

fraughtwithproblems.One issueappears tobe that stating the conferenceproceedings

willbepublisheddoesnotnecessarilymeantheywillemerge ina timely fashionasone

explained:

Many conferences bring out the conference proceedings three or four years

afterwards,ifever.Theyarerunningatleastthreeyearsbehindonaverage.It

isarealstruggletogetpeopletodoit.Ifyoudon’tgetitbeforetheconference,

goodluck.

One sociologist said this problemof not knowingwhether proceedingswill be refereed

meansitishardtomakeajudgementaboutwhethertoattendaconferenceornotbecause

funds are very tight for these activities, and “[You ask] who are they [the conference

organisers],will Ibother?Is theconferencepublicationdriven?”.Anotherexplainedthat

sometimestheconferenceorganisersgothroughtheprocessof‘peerreview’butgivesuch

broad guidelines that most things won’t get rejected. One described an upcoming

conferencewhichhad“decidedpeerreviewknocksout50%ofthepapers,whichmeans

people won’t go [if they can’t present a paper]”. This concept of peer reviewmeaning

differentthingstodifferentpeopleisexploredfurtherinthesectiononpeerreviewlater

in this chapter.When considering these experiences (which are aworld away from the

conference process in Computer Science, for example), it becomes easier to understand

130

how gulfs of misunderstanding develop between disciplines over different publication

outputs.

Version control in Computer Science

When Foster and Gibbons (2005) undertook their research, they discovered that there

wasaneedfordocumentmanagementsystemsinacademia.Manypapersareco‐authored

by several people who are often not at the same institution, and the problem of

determiningwhichversionofadocumentisthemostuptodateisaperennialone.This

issue was not mentioned by sociologists or the chemists interviewed. This is possibly

becausethesociologistsinterviewedtendedtowritesingle‐authoredpapersandbooks,or

only collaborate with one other colleague. The chemists, as discussed, have a system

wheredespitepapershavingmanynamesonthepaper,thepaperisoftenwrittenbyone

personwho is usually themost senior person on the team. Computer scientists, on the

otherhandseemtodomuchmorecollaboratingonthewritingof theirpapers,which is

doneaspartoftheresearchorexperimentalprocess.SeveralcomputerscientistsIspoke

to had found their own solutions to the version control problem. One described a self‐

devisedsystem:

Email is the firstmethodofcommunication.Onepersonhas thepaperatany

onemoment.Youhavethepaperandatoken.Yousendthepaperandatoken.

You canonlymake changes if youhave the token.WeuseLateX.Oneperson

makes the skeleton of the whole paper and if sections are independent we

writeoneeach.Wehaveanagreementonnotification.

Others described alternatives such as specifically created document management

programs available, such as, “CDS or Subversion … these are concurrent versioning

systems,theyareveryclever”which“allowsmultiplepeopletoeditthesamepaperatthe

same time”. One researcher described a version control system which alerts all the

researchers if there is a changemade by any of them. In that case, “[w]e typicallywill

break the paper up into logical chunks. So any one person can work on it without

conflictingwithanotherauthor”.

Anothercomputerscientistdescribedwikisbeingusedintheinitialbrainstormingphase

oftheresearchuntiltheworkhas“reachedacertainstateandstartstocrystallise,weput

it into LateX and it goes into a version control system… [You can]make changes and

commit it back in”. Computer Science researchers work towards hard deadlines of

conferencesubmissions,andacoupleofintervieweesmentionedthebenefitsofworking

withcolleaguesinEuropeandtheUSwhichmeansapaperisbeingworkedonconstantly,

131

“[b]ecause thepapergetsworkedon24hoursaday then, this isquitea common thing

nowadays”.Anotherdescribedthisas“prettymuchtag‐teamwritingonthepapers”.

Publication turnaround in Computer Science

Asdiscussedearlier,computerscientistschoosetopublish inconferenceproceedings to

communicate with their community. The conferences happen at particular times each

year, for larger conferences the submission deadline is the beginning of April, with

acceptance/rejection notifications in mid June and the conference is in September or

October.Thismeansthesubmissiontimeseachyeararerigid,asoneexplained:

Submissiontakesabouthalfayear,localconferencesaboutthreemonths.Once

papers are selected – organisers advertise itwith a link to the list of papers

acceptedaboutonetotwomonthsbeforetheconference.Reviewacceptanceis

backwithintwomonths.Youhavetwotothreeweekstocorrectthemthenyou

resubmit the final version. You submit thewholepaper – final version, three

monthsbeforetheconference.

Theconferencesare timed for theconvenienceof theNorthernHemisphereresearchers

and it can be problematic for Australian computer scientists who are trying to submit

AustralianResearchCouncil (ARC) grant applications andprepare anddeliver semester

one teaching at the same time. As one explained, “International conferences have

deadlines which overlap badly in the academic year”. There is a second round of

conferences, said another “[a]nother conference is in the middle of second semester. I

havetowriteitinthebreak,itisbecausetheyareintheUSandEurope,itisanadvantage

forthem”.

Computer scientists also publish their work as journal articles but this is considered a

secondary formofpublishing.Thereare several reasons forpreferringconferencesasa

publication outlet, one is because the Computer Science community values conferences

over journals.Forexampleonesaid, “if youarepublishedat conferences it carriesa lot

more weight”. This means that work doesn’t end up in journals, explained another

“particularly in computer science, many conferences are as prestigious or more

prestigious than the journals”. This situation is not necessarily recognised in the non‐

ComputerSciencecommunity,saidoneinterviewee,“outsidersthinkjournalsaregreat”.

However,noteveryconferenceinComputerScience ishighlyregarded.Oneinterviewee

whohadaMathematicsfocus,dismissedconferencesasapublicationforum:

132

Theconferences[inMaths]Igotowillallowalmostanyonetospeak.Yousend

apaperinandunlessyouareacrackpotyoucanspeak…It’suptoustodecide

to submit a paper post speaking – that’s refereed. It piggy backs on the

reputationofthejournal.

Computerscientistsalsopublisharticlesinjournals,anditappearsthatthesearticlesare

often a ‘compendium’ of research that has already appeared in conference papers.

Comments like “you use journals to collect a bunch of papers and collect them up to

becomeajournalarticle”,weremadeseveraltimes.Theissueisoneofspeedsaidoneof

thecomputerscientists,“theturnaroundforjournalscanbetwoyears,itisawfullylong”,

soasonepersondescribedthey“publishconferencepapersIfirstwanttogetoutquickly.

Then after I publish one or two papers in the subject, I collect conference papers and

publishinajournal”.

Manycomputerscientistsmentionedthat journalsplayanarchivalrolewithoneperson

saying:

Youhavearesult,yousubmittoaconference–itisaformofextendedabstract.

Whenitiscommunicatedtothecommunityyouwriteitupandsubmitittoa

journal.Journalsarefordocumentedpurposes–itdoesn’tmatterthatittakesa

longtime.

Another, not insignificant reason for publishing in conferences over journals is the

comparativelylongtimejournalstaketopublisharticlesasoneexplained,“journalpapers

dragforoneandahalfyears.It’swhypeopledon’tpublishinjournals”.Asaresult,some

researchers in Computer Science simply don’t bother with journal publication because

“journals are the repository of established knowledge not the cutting edge. The

turnaroundonajournalisbetweenthreemonthsand12months,bythenI’vebeentofour

conferences”.

Again, this leads to a fairly dismissive attitude to the value of journals as a publication

outlet, “in theComputerSciences lotsofpeopledon’tevenbotherpublishing in journals

becauseit’ssuchafastmovingfield,thepeerreviewprocessfor journalstakessolong”.

The general consensus according to one interviewee is “if youwant results out quickly,

you go to conferences … The first feedback a journal gives about reliable indication

whetheritwillbeacceptedisfourmonths.Ithinkthat’stoolong”.

133

PartofthereasonwhythetimetopublicationisanissueinComputerScienceisbecause

asonepersonsaid, “Computingmovesso fast”.Thissentimentwasexpressed inseveral

waysbyintervieweessuchas,“thefieldisfastmoving”,and“stuffismovingsoquickly”.

Thismeanswork can become out of date and irrelevant very quickly said one person:

“BecauseIamresearchingintheareaoftheweb–it’schangingeveryday.If[myresearch

is] not out in one year … it will go nowhere. One paper out of six or seven will go

nowhere”.

The layout issue, while a point of contention for some computer scientists in terms of

feelingthattheresearchersarehavingtodothework,atleastdoesnotcausedifficultiesin

thewayitdoesforchemistsbecauseconferencestendtouseastandardformatexplained

onecomputerscientist,“itisalmostalways10pagesof9pointor8point.Wehavestyle

templatesanditisbasicallythesameforalmosteverythingweshootforsowehardlyever

thinkofthat”.

Choosing a publishing outlet

One of the questions asked in the interviews was what considerations the researchers

have when they are choosing which journal or conference to send their work. This is

relevant because if one of the considerations is the cost or the long delay before

publication,thenopenaccessdisseminationoptionsmaybeappealingtothosepeople.

How chemists choose where to publish

Many chemists interviewed choose their target journal before writing their papers

(althoughsomespecificallysaidtheydonotdoitthatway).Thismightbebecauseofthe

appropriateness of thework, as one explained: “I decide how good the research then I

choosethejournal”,anothersaid“[Idecidewheretopublish]earlyinthepiece…Itryto

targetresearchtowardshighimpactjournals.Sometimestheoutcomeisasgoodashoped

for”. One reason for choosing their journal before writing is the different formatting

requirementsofjournals.Onechemistsaid:“Idecidefirst[beforewritingapaper]whereI

am going to send a paper because each journal has different requirements in writing”.

Morethanonechemistmentionedtheformatproblem,“theformatforacertainjournal–

yougetitpriortostarting.Diagramsformattedforspecificjournal.[Itis]notcomplicated

–justsemantics.Certainjournalshavelengthandcontentrestrictions.”

Otherpeoplemaketheirchoicecloser to the timeofwriting thepaper,withoneperson

saying that iswhen“wesend[papers] to themostexciting journalwecanreach”.Often

134

thisdecisionismade,saidanother,“onthetypeofworkratherthanthelength”.Another

said:

[Imakea]decisiontowardstheendwhenIamwritingapaper. Istartwitha

relativelysmallnumberof journals that Isendto. Imightchangemymind. It

dependsonthecontentofthepaper.

Morethanhalfthechemistsmentionedthenecessitytochoosejournalswithhighimpact

factors,withoneexplaining“youhavetoplaythesegames. Impact factor isa factor ina

decision”.Anotherresearcheralsomentionedgames:

[Publishingintherightjournalsis]increasinglyimportant.Mypersonalviewis

it’s a load of nonsense but if you don’t play by this game you lose out. If a

chemistpublishesinajournalwithahighimpactfactoritisirritatingbecauseit

isthesamepaperregardlessofthejournals.

Asagrouptheirawarenessoftheconceptofanimpactfactorwashigh,onechemistsaid

they typically publish their work in the “highest ranking journal devoted to Organic

Chemistry”.Anothersaid,“youtrytoselecttheaudiencebychoosingaparticularjournal.

All of us want to get in the highest ranking journals”. One person showed a very high

awarenessoftheuseofmetricstojudgework,mentioningthebibliometricscompanyISI

(nowThomsonReuters):

ISIisafactorinthechoiceofjournals.Thechoiceofjournalequalsthequality

of research. If it is outstanding send to general science journal because they

have a very high impact factor. Impact factor is very important. It is good

enoughforgeneralscientific literatureratherthanjustchemists. Ihavenever

notsentapapertoajournalbecausetheyaretooslow.Thequalityofjournals

comesfirst.

Someof thechemistsdescribed irritationthat theirAmericancounterpartsappeartobe

disinclinedtotakeanynoticeofChemistryundertakenanywhereelseintheworld.There

is a degree of frustrationwith the situation: “Americans only read American literature.

PeoplewillcrawloverbrokenglasssoAmericanswillreadit…Youhavetopublishinthe

USifyouwanttoberead”.

One(latecareer)chemistbuckedthistrend,statingthattheypublishedinthesameplace,

regardlessoftheimpactfactorissue:

135

Over time I have found I publishedwhere I have in the past. Notmuch else.

Peoplepushmoreoncitationratesandgotoadifferentjournalbecause[ithas]

ahigherimpactfactor.IngeneralIdon’tdothat.

Anotherchemistarguedthatsearchenginesamelioratethenecessitytopublishincertain

high‐rankingjournals,andwhilethismaybetrueforreachingthetargetaudienceofother

chemists, it goes against the reporting requirements for promotion. (This person was

closetothepinnacleoftheircareerpathwithintheuniversity,soissuesofpromotionmay

havebeenlessofaconsiderationforthem).Thischemistsaid:

[Factorstobeconsideredwhenchoosingwheretopublishinclude]theprofile

ofthejournalobviously.Howmuchhassleorotherwisethereisgettingthings

into a particular journal. I don’t like double handling so I tend to aim for

journalsthatIamprettyconfidentthingswillgetinto.Myargumentbeingifit

isasufficientlysignificantpieceofwork,regardlessoftheforum,becausethe

searchtoolsarenowsopotent,ifitissignificantenoughitwillgetpickedup.

Onechemistmentionedpublishinginanopenaccessjournal,although“itwasnotafactor

inthechoice,Ipublishedthereforanotherreason”.Anothermentionedthefeestohavea

paperpublished,sothereisatleastsomeawarenessamongstthiscommunitythatcostis

apotentialissueinpublishing:

Choosing a journal, there is a timeframe. How easy is it to deal with, the

attitudesoftheeditors–howmayiteratives…Sometimesthereisanelectronic

loadingupsystem.Howit looks.Theygiveusa template–howwedealwith

figures.InChemistrywedon’thavetopayjournalfees.(Biomedoftenhaveto

pay).JournalofElectrochemicalSocietyhaveafee.

How sociologists choose where to publish

Thesociologistsgenerally,whendiscussinghowtheychoosewheretosendtheirpapers,

mentioned the problem of conferences and the politics with publishing – those replies

havebeencoveredelsewhereinthischapter.However,acoupleofpeopleindicatedthat

thechoiceofpublicationoutletusuallycameafterthepiecewaswritten.Inaddition,the

‘fit’ofthejournaltotheworkwasmoreimportantthantheimpactfactor:

WhenIchoosea journal, it iswho is themost likely topublish. If thework is

Australian focused I use Australian publishers. The topic dictates a narrow

rangeofjournals.Impactfactorisnotreallyafactor.

Anothermentionedtheopenaccessoption:“doyousendittocommercial journalsorto

readilyavailablefreetoalljournals?”

136

How computer scientists choose where to publish

InComputerScience,theprestigeoftheconferenceappearstobeaprimaryfactorintheir

choiceofpublicationoutlet.Asonesaid, “thedecisionofwhere topublish ismainly the

reputation of the conference”. Another interviewee said, “I go for the most prestigious

ones.IfI’mnotsuccessfulthenIdropdown”.Thereasonforthisinsistenceonthehighest

tier conferencesexplainedoneperson is “there is almostnovalue forpublishing in tier

twoandbelowconferences…Icallthemwrite‐onlypublications,youhavewrittenitbut

no‐oneisreadingthem.Theywillhavenoimpact”.

Therewasonecomputerscientistwhobuckedthistrendandexpressedadesiretoavoid

thebigconferences:

Iambeginningtoavoidlargescaleconferences.MostlyIpublishinplaceswith

alongtimescale–forjournalsIaccept[thatpublication]doesn’thappeninone

year.Orsmallscalehighqualityworkshopssoyouhavepeopleatahighlevel

three to fourdaysatone spot. Large scale conferencesaremore regardedas

traininggroundforstudents.

Insomecasesresearchersmakedecisionsoncetheresearchiscompleteasoneexplained,

“[y]ou will do the stuff and then … you would say what’s the calendar for tier one

conferences”.Asanothercomputerscientistsaid,“thequestionofthisorthatconference

is almost entirely [based on] subject matter. Mostly I am looking at international

conferences…IwanttosendpaperstowhatIthinkofasgoodoutlets”.Othersmaketheir

decisions as they start the research process, for example, “I decide [where to submit]

somewhereatbeginningofresearch.Thereare fourconferences Iamaiming for,one in

Asia,Australia,USandEurope.Iknowthedeadlinealongtimeahead”.Researcherswho

usethistechniquepitchtheirworkaccordingly,forexample:

Ilookattheprogramcommitteemembers–ifsomeoneisanexpertinafieldI

tailor the paper to that person. Who is on the program committee. When

writingthepapersitisgoodtohaveinmindwhotheaudienceis.

One person said they committed to sending something to particular conferences each

year,andworkedtowardsthatasagoalbecausethey:

…usetheconferencedeadlinesasapersonalmanagementtool.Sometimesit’s

theotherwayaround–youareworkingonsomethingthatisreadytopublish

soyou lookaround forwhatconferencescansendto.By this timeyouare in

thewikiorbrainstormingphasethenyoudecideonwheretogo.

137

Thecomputerscientistswhopublishinjournalsdescribedconsideringthesuitabilityofa

paper to the journal, thenthe impact factor: “where Ipublishdependsonaspectrumof

Logic to Computer Science where it [the paper] sits”. Although, another researcher

described considering a number of factors, for example: “how good a journal is, how

valuable the contribution is. I consider the area – one paper can go to a few different

journalswith different emphasis,who is the likely audience for thiswork”. The time to

publication another consideration, explained another “there are a number of factors I

consider … How long it takes for the journal to review the paper”. Another researcher

mentioned, “I usually choose a journal because of standards, the right topic, delays too

longetc”.

Alessimportantconsiderationisopenaccessoptions,statedoneinterviewee:

you choosewhich journal does this paper suit? Then impact factor, themost

impactforyourjob.Ifyouaresubmittingwithinterestandimpactyouwantto

go to the highest impact factor. The next stage is if there is an open access

optionIwillgoforthat.

Whendecidingwhethertosendworktoaconferenceorajournal,thefactorscaninclude

the length of the paper according to one person, “partly I consider length – six page

conferencepaperor40pagejournalpiece”.Anothercomputerscientistintervieweddoes

notpublishinconferencesbecauseofhis/herindustryfocus:

A lotofourwork ispublished inbooks.Because I amon the industry side, a

book is the best way of getting the message out. Opinion pieces. I am in

software engineering – interested in taking science and developing ideas.

[Computerscientistsare]moretraditionalintheirfocus.

Summary of publishing issues

The threedisciplineshadgreatlydifferentnorms in relation to the turnaroundbetween

submittingapapertoajournaloraconference,andbeingnotifiedifithasbeenaccepted

andthenuntil itappearsasapublishedpaper.Thechemistsinterviewedtendedtohave

highannualpublicationrates,rangingfromthreetotenpapers.Almostwithoutexception

those papers are multi‐authored. Publication in Chemistry appears to be moving quite

quickly, with the chemists stating many journals have material out within two to six

months.

138

The sociologists reported publishing in both journal articles and books. In general a

publicationrateofbetweentwoandfivepapersperyearisaverage.Theperiodbetween

undertaking the work and publication can be considerable, with the interviewees

reporting delays of a year to 18 months between submission and publication. The

disciplineisalsohighlyvaried,meaningthateachindividualwouldsendtheirmaterialto

awiderangeofjournalsanditwouldnotbeuncommonfortworesearchersinthesame

departmenttohaveacompletelydifferentlistofjournalsinwhichtheyhavepublished.

ThefieldofComputerScience,whichissplitintomanysub‐disciplines,isveryfastmoving.

Partly because of this, conferences are themain fora for disseminating ideas andwork.

Theconferencesarewellorganisedandoccuratcertain timesof theyearwhichdictate

thepublishingpatternsofmostofthepeopleinterviewed.TheConferencesarestaggered,

so if a paper is not accepted at a top tier conference, the author is notified in time to

submit to a lower tier conference. The computer scientists explained theywill consider

publishing in a journal if they have a larger amount of material (sometimes several

conference papers) they want to put together. Journals can take two years to publish

submitted papers, and for this reason most interviewees stated journals are not the

primaryformofpublicationinComputerScience.

While some interviewees in Chemistry and Computer Science indicated theywill write

theirworkforaparticularjournalorconference,mostindicatedthedecisionismadeonce

the research is complete, and in some cases after the paper iswritten. The sociologists

whowerewritingarticlestendtochoosethejournaloncethepaperiswritten.Inallthree

casesthepublicationoutletchosenisabalancebetweentheappropriatefitforthework

andtheimpactfactorofthejournal(forthosewhoareawareofthis).

Onefactor inthepublishingprocessrelatingtothehighsubscriptionspublisherscharge

thatemergedinmanyinterviewswasthelayoutrequirementplacedontheresearchersby

the publishers. This takes time to comply and irritates people, particularly in Sociology

andChemistry.Therewassomescepticismamongstthechemistswhoconcludedthatthe

reasonwhypublicationhasspeduprecentlyisbecausethejournalsnowrequireauthors

to do a large amount of the formatting. Several chemists described limiting their

publishingoutletstojournalswheretheyhadworkedouttheformatting.Manycomputer

scientists said they often have to provide a camera‐ready copy of their work for

publication.

139

Copyright

Theissueofcopyrightiscentraltomanyoftheargumentsforopenaccess(asdiscussedin

Chapter 2 and Chapter 3. The questions about copyright asked in this research were

intended to establish the awareness of copyright status of the interviewees’ published

work:

• Whatisyourunderstandingofthecopyrightstatusofyouracademicwork?

• Iscopyrightan issueyouconsider?Does thecopyrightstatusaffordedbya journal

affectyourchoiceofpublication?

Asisshownhere,theanswerstothequestionsgaveanindicationofwhetherresearchers

considercopyright tobean issuethatneedsremedy.This is important intermsofopen

accessadvocacy,asthelevelofsatisfactionorotherwisewiththesystemwouldinformthe

levelofemphasisanyopenaccessadvocatewouldplaceonthisissue.

Copyright and Chemistry

Manyofthechemistsspokentowerenotconcernedabouttheircopyrightarrangements

withpublishers.Asonesaid:“theytakeontheriskofpublishing.Idon’tpayacenttohave

myworkpublished”.Thiswasnotanisolatedsentiment,withanotherchemiststating:“I

am happy for publisher to have copyright, they have to earn a living”. In addition, this

intervieweesuggestedthatsigningcopyrightovertothepublishers“helpspeoplenotto

publishthesamethingtwice.…Alotofchemistryisbeingrecycled,especiallyifthefirst

journalisanobscureone”.

Only one person described copyright as protecting the author, not protecting the

publisher:

With copyright – the published work is the property of the journal, an

individualresearcherisnotsupposedtomakeacopybuteveryonedoes.Ifyou

haveSciFinder,accessthenyouhaveaccessthroughthelibrarysubscription.If

youmadeacopyyouwouldbebreaking laws.No itdoesn’taffectme.All the

stuffIdownloadIhavetherighttoprintit.[Copyright]hasnotgotinmyway.

The chemists generally had a clear understanding of copyrightwith several specifically

stating that they sign copyright over to the journals. According to one person this

arrangement means they are “allowed to use my material for private use”. They also

understoodthiscontractmeansrestrictionssuchas:“Idon’thaveapaperupanywhereon

theweb.Itdoesn’tworrymeinpractice.Ineverdisputeit”.

140

Themainissuewithcopyrightexpressedbythechemistsistherequirementthattheyask

forpermission to re‐use theirownwork.While someappearednot to find thisonerous

withonesaying,“Ihavehadtoaskpermission,theyneverhaveaproblem”,andanother

saying, “I haven’t hadanyproblems. Ifwant touse something Iwrite thema letter and

theysayitsfine”,otherswerenotsosanguine:

It’sannoying towrite toa journal touseyourownpicture.The journalowns

the way to write down and the figures, it doesn’t own the idea. If [you are]

writing a review article so you need to include your own figures, you must

write for permission. Usually the publishers are pretty good. One journal

chargesyou–ScienceorRNAS,it’s$20.

It is re‐useof figureswhich cameupmostoften in thediscussionswith chemists about

copyright.Another intervieweeexpressed irritationathaving toapproach thepublisher

for approval, and stated: “Most of the time I ignore it. If I’mwriting a book and quote

othersIdotherightthing.Idon’tthinkit’smuchofanissueforscientificpublishers,they

areprettyrelaxed. It ismoreserious if it’sabook”.Onewayofavoiding thepermission

request is torelabelorcrop images tomake themdifferentenough fromtheoriginalso

copyrightisnotbreached.Oneintervieweesaid:“Mostjournalsaskyoutosignyourrights

away. Idon’t take itveryseriously…I tendtocrop[figures]andmakethemdifferent. I

have asked permission on a few occasions. It is a tedious drag”. Another said they

employedasimilartactic:

Ifitcomesdowntoit,youneedtogetcopyrightpermission.Ihaveneverdone

it,IgotarounditthecoupleoftimesIneededit.Youcanreproducethedatain

anotherform,soavoidingcopyrightbutconveyingtheinformation.

Whilethesecopyrightrulesareobviouslynottooproblematicforsomechemistswithone

stating: “the copyright situation doesn’t affectmy choice of journal”, anothermade the

distinction between for‐profit and society publishers: “Indifferent is the best way of

describingmyattitude[tocopyright].Idon’tmindwithsocieties,butcommercialjournals

–weprovideeverything, the refereeingand content and they chargeus for it”.Another

mentionedtheprimaryroleofjournalsshouldbedistributingwork:

Mostjournalsretaincopyright,wehavetosignastatement.Someallowmeto

distributepdfs– if theyare freeonline Idon’thave toobviously. Idon’t care

[aboutbreakingcopyrightrules]–whatmatters iswhetherthearticle isread

andcited.

141

There was only one example in this group of interviewees of a chemist placing their

articlesontoawebsiteindefianceofcopyrightlaws:

Onmypersonalwebsite,when I submitapaper I signacopyrightstatement.

Here I am making papers available. That may well be in violation of that

copyright. I haven’t ever been called to task… I doubt the journalsmind the

papersbeingdistributedinthisway…Idon’twanttounderminethejournals.

Thenumberofcopiestaken[fromthewebsite]arequitesmall. Icanmonitor

this–itisinthe10’s.Myfeelingisitisnotlikelytoupsetanyone.IfIfound(my

paperswerebeing)downloadedinhugenumbersIwouldfeeldifferenttothe

journal.

Copyright and Sociology

The sociologists interviewed were generally unaware of or not interested in copyright

rules.A fewdescribed theirunderstandingasvariously, “prettyvague”, ”verypoor”and

“I’m ignorant of it”. At least one interviewee expressed a similar sentiment as the

computer scientists: “If I want to reprint I suppose it’s OK. If I didn’t officially have

permission,I’ddoitanyway.Sofarithasn’tstoppedanything”.

Therewasasenseofhelplessnessinatleastoneanswer:“Isignedcopyrightreleaseform.

I can’t say no to this, they won’t publish”. This concern about publishers refusing to

publishiftheauthortriestoobjecttothecopyrightarrangementsisonethatissharedin

thisacademiccommunity.Somerespondentsappearedtoberesignedtopublishercontrol

ofcopyright,withonesaying“authorshaveverylittlecontrolwhetherworkisdistributed

orpublished”.

Howeveroneoftherespondentsreferredtocopyrightfromtheperspectiveofsomething

that protects them, rather than the publisher: “The system protects me from people

exploitingme andpeoplephotocopying excessively. I don’t understand thenitty gritty”.

Another described their lack of concern about the copyright situation because the

publisher is “good enough to publish something. They are taking the risk”. This person

then stated: “I have no problems whatsoever. Some people complain but they are

commercial businesses out there … There are lots of interesting things happening in

copyright”.

In contrast, at least one person expressed disgruntlement at the copyright situation: “I

have absolutely no control over it, financial or other interest in it, that is signed away

when we publish. I don’t like it, it is very exploitative”. They then stated they were

142

considering “tryingother journalsandothersmay feel the samewayas Ido…The fact

thatneitherInortheuniversitynorthetaxpayerseeareturnontheinvestmentgrates”.

Sociologydiffersfromtheothertwodisciplinesexaminedinthisresearchbecausemany

oftheintervieweeshavepublishedbooksratherthan(oraswellas)journalarticles.The

copyrightrulesforbooksareverydifferenttothoseforarticles.Onepersoninterviewed

whohadwrittenseveralbookshadtakenituponthemselvestofindoutaboutcopyright

byjoiningtheAustralianSocietyofAuthorswhichhelpedthemnegotiate“acontractwith

CambridgeUniversityPress…Thesocietyinsistedoncopyright–andsinceIhaveasked

everytime”.

Another described a lack of concern about the situation: “The copyright varies from

publishertopublisher.Thebookpublisher,theyretaincopyright.Igetroyalties.Itisnota

problem, all it means is I can’t reuse material for commercial purposes without their

permission”.Authorsoftenreusetheirownworkfrompaperstoputintobooks,butthis

isnotaproblemfromacopyrightperspectivebecause,asoneexplained:“Most journals

takeovercopyrightbutwillreleaseitbacktoyouifitisforyoutoputsomewhereelsein

yourotherwork”.Theyarepreparedtodothis,theresearchermaintains,because:“They

are very happy for you to reuse your work in the context of helping it further, with

acknowledgement”.

Copyright and Computer Science

Some of the Computer Science individuals interviewed had a good understanding of

copyright laws, with one describing the situation: “[for] many conferences you sign a

copyrightformandfaxitoff.Someallowpersonalcopyonyourhomepage”.Anothersaid:

“Icandistributeitfornon‐commercialpurposes[apreprint].ButIshouldputalinktothe

publisher’swebsite.Forjournalpapers–somejournalsmaketheircopyrightavailablefor

public access. So far they have been open access journals”. One interviewee had

specificallycheckedwhethers/hewasallowedtoputtheirworkup:

Youaregenerallyaskedtosignarelease.Fromthentheyhavecopyrightofthat

publication.Dependingontheconferenceyoumayhavetheabilitytoputupa

versiononyourwebsite.Usuallynotthefinalversion.Ispecificallywenttolook

atcopyrightformwhichsaidyoucandothis[putthingsuponline].

Somecomputerscientistsfeltthatitwastheirrighttoputtheirworkupregardlessofthe

laws. As one said: “I believe the copyright is with me unless it is signed over to the

conference…itisnotaconcern”.However,severalcomputerscientistsinterviewedtook

143

greatcarenottocontravenetheircopyrightagreementswhenplacingworkontopersonal

webpages.Thereappearedtobeaclearunderstandingofthedifferencebetweenthefinal

peerreviewedauthor’sversionandthepublisher’sversion:

“IfIampublishedIhavetosignthecopyrighttopublisher…Theyletyouput

preprintsonthewebpagebutnotthefinalpublishedarticle…Onmypersonal

siteit’stheversionsenttopublisherpastrefereedandnotfinaledited.

Anotherresearcherdescribed‘publicationrights’thatliewiththepublishers,butthatitis

inthe“interestsofthecommunitythatpapersareavailableelectronically”.S/hesaidthat

iftheyhadsubmittedafinalversionpdftheyputthatupontheirsite,“butifyouhandin

yourworktoahighleveljournal–theeditorresets,typesetting,layoutthenreproduction

rightsliewithpublisher,Idon’tpublishthispdffile”.

Thatsaid,manyofthecomputerscientistsinterviewedsimplyplacethepublisher’spdfup

on their sites in flagrant disregard for the copyright agreements they have with their

publishers.Someintervieweesweresimplyunconcernedaboutthecopyrightissue,witha

typical statementbeing, “I don’tworry about copyrightpolicies”.Anotherdescribed the

situationthus:“Otherpeoplecannotmakeacopyforcommercialbutcanforprivateuse.I

don’tconsideritmuch–alltheplaceswepublishintheyowncopyright”.

Thephilosophicalattitudeappearstobethatifenoughpeopledoitthepublisherswon’t

chase everyone,withoneexplaining: “I havediscussed thiswith colleagues, the general

feeling is it’s so unlikely publishers will chase you up. The advantages to community

outweighthisconsideration.It’sacalculatedrisk.Idon’tthinkthepublisherswanttolook

silly”.Thisbehaviourisquitedeliberate,asanotherstated:

If the lawyers come aftermewith a nasty letter I will say I’m sorry. [It has

neverhappened]andthat’sthepoint.Manyacademicsareparanoidaboutthat.

Yes,technicallyI’mbreakingcopyright.ButthenrealisticallyisSpringergoing

tocomeaftermeandtheguynextdoorandtheguynextdooretc.Whatthey

will do is they will go after aggregators who do in a systematic fashion …

Sometimes[onmysiteit]isthepublisherversion,Imeanthatisthenaughtiest

thingyoucandobutagainiftheyeverwritetomeandsaybadboyIcantake

thatdown. Inothercases itwillbe the typesetversionthatwassubmittedas

thefinalcopytothejournal.Imeantheformattingandthepagenumberingis

kind of irrelevant usually because you can always refer to a section or

something. I mean the only advantage of the journal version is accuracy of

referencing.

144

A variation on this perspective is that while the publisher refrains from contacting

researchers about putting papers up on their site, this serves as tacit approval by the

publisher as one interviewee explained: “The pdf I use is sometimes home grown and

sometimesthepublisher’sversion…Ihaven’taskedpermission[toputpdfsonmysite]

but I have had no problems”. Another said: “I guess most publishers of work retain

copyright overmaterial. All the stuff on the web probably contravenes the lettering of

copyright…Publishersaren’tbotheredaboutyouputtinguppapersonwebsiteaslongas

that’sall”.Itseemsthatthisareaisa‘greyarea’,asonesaid:

If you are published you have to sign the copyright to the publisher. For

conference/journal articles I don’t care much, partly because publishers are

verylaxbecausetheyletusdothings.Theyletusputpreprintsonthewebpage

butnotthefinalpublishedarticle.Manythingsaregreyaslongasyoudon’tdo

anythingthatcutsintotheprofit.

A couple of people indicated that they addressed the problem by acknowledging the

publisherwiththeirpaper,forexample:“WhenthepaperisavailableonlineIputalinkto

publisher’s copyright thing. I don’t know what it [the copyright status of work] is, it’s

neverbeenan issue”.This arrangement appears tobeendorsedbyat least someof the

publishersaccordingtooneperson:

I’m hopeless on this front. But my professional organisation, the ACM

(AssociationforComputingMachinery)has,thisismyunderstandingofit,they

areverygoodonthisfrontandtheyallowustomakeourworkavailableonour

webpagewithanappropriatedisclaimerandIhavethatdisclaimeronmyweb

page in fine print at the top. I forget exactly what the words are but it’s a

paragraph or two of legal disclaimer, then I can make my work available

immediately and that’s what all my colleagues do. So we make our work

immediatelyavailable.

Thereweresomecomputerscientistswhowereawareofthecopyrightsituationandwere

annoyed by it, after all as one stated: “What’s science for if you don’t have things

available?”. Therewas some irritation that theywere forced to use publishers and sign

overtheircopyright:“Whenyoupublishanarticle,yousigncopyrighttopublisher.Iwill

stillsendmaterialtothem–becausetheyarenonprofit…Iknowit’snottherightwayto

do things”.Onerespondentcommented thatopenaccess journalsdon’t retaincopyright

butmostjournalsdo:“Ifinditratheroutrageous–Ican’tsendpaperstootherpeople(not

thatitreallystopsthishappening)Ican’tputpapersonthewebtodownload”.Bookspose

adifferentproblem:“Ifpublishers[ofbooks]don’tallowcopyrighttobepickedupunder

145

openlicenceitisawasteofresources.Withbigpublishersandwithbooksitisacase‐by‐

casebasis”.

Oneintervieweewastheeditorofanopenaccessjournal,whoobviouslyhadaveryclear

andpreciseunderstandingofthecopyrightlaws,describingtheirjournalas:

… innovative becausewedon’t take copyright fromauthors.…Wewere told

therewouldbeproblemsbutthereisnoissue.Weaskforapermanentlicense

topublish.Otherwiseauthorretainsownership.Authorscanpublishelsewhere

iftheyleaveanotethatit ispublishedelsewhere.Thesystemisworkingfine.

Theextentoftheproductisquitedefined.Itisclearwhatauthorsareallowed

todo.Sowehaveaoneparagraphagreementtheauthorsendsin.[Thereis]no

Copyrighttransfer.

Summary of copyright responses

Overallcopyrightdoesnotappeartobeamajorconcernforthepeopleinterviewed.The

reasonswhy,howeverdifferconsiderablybetweendisciplines.Thechemistsgenerallyhad

aclearunderstandingofcopyrightwithseveralspecificallystatingthattheysigncopyright

over to the journals. Many of the chemists spoken to were not concerned about their

copyright arrangements with publishers. The one copyright issue that emerged in the

interviewswithchemistswastheneedtoaskpermissiontore‐usefiguresinsubsequent

publications, but even then the respondents were either not concerned about this, or

alteredthefiguresotheydidnothavetomaketherequest.Thesociologistsinterviewed

weregenerallyunawareofornotinterestedincopyrightrules,withacouplestatingthat

copyrightprotectsthemfromplagarism.Afewexpressedaconcernthatapublishermay

refusetopublishiftheauthortriestoobjecttothecopyrightarrangements.

Thecomputerscientistsinterviewedgenerallyknowwhattheircopyrightobligationsare.

However many are choosing to ignore them. Computer scientists have a cultural

expectation to maintain a personal website that at the least lists, and usually links to,

copiesoftheirpublications.Dependingonthepublisher,theremaybenocontraventionof

copyrightiftheversionofthepapertheymakeavailableistheirownfinal,corrected,peer

reviewedone(sometimesreferredtoasapost‐print).However,iftheacademicplacesthe

publisher’spdfuponthesitethisiscontraveningcopyrightlaws.Publishersprovidepdfs

toauthorsasamodernversionofreprints,theyareintendedfordistributiontocolleagues

whorequestthemandthereisoftenarestrictionofabout25distributions.Thepdfisnot

provided to the author for general publication on awebsite. Despite this,many of the

computer scientists interviewed simply place the publisher’s pdf up on their sites in

flagrant disregard for the copyright agreements they have with their publishers. The

146

philosophical attitude appears to be that if enough people do it the publisherswill not

chaseeveryone.

Grey literature

Generally grey literature refers to the supplementary data and background information

thatsurroundsaresearchproject.Thismaterialisnotincludedinthefinaljournalarticle

orconferencepaper,usuallyduetospaceconsiderations.

Theanswersdescribedhereareinresponsetothequestions:

• Doesyourresearchgenerateanysupportingdata?

• Whatdoyoudowithsupportingdataforyourresearch?Howdoyoustoreit?

• Have you orwould you consider placing it into your institutional repository? If so

wouldyouputopenaccessstatusontoit?

• Have you ever received requests for supporting data? If so how often has this

occurredandhaveyouprovidedthedata?

Amongstthoseinterviewed,thechemistsandcomputerscientistsseemedtobeinclinedto

providedatabutthiswasnotthecaseamongstthesociologists.

Chemistry and supplementary data

There are distinct disciplinary differences in the amount and type of grey literature

created, made available and used. Chemistry produces several types of supplementary

data,andmostsupportingdatathatisalreadyinelectronicformisalreadysubmittedwith

thejournalarticleexplainedonechemist:“Thepaperistwopagesbuttheremightbe40

pagesofsupplementarydatawithdetailedexperimentaldata.Mostpeopleneverlookatit.

Itissentinwiththepaperandthejournaltagsitassupplementary”.

Inthisinstance,greyliteratureconsistsofsupportinginformationanddatawhichmaybe

attached to the relevant paper. Chemistry journals have protocols about supporting

information which sits behind the article on the journal website. One example is the

European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry: “A manuscript may include electronic

SupportingInformationwhichwillbeaccessibleonlyontheWWW.Authorsmustkeepa

copy to make available to readers who do not have access to the internet” (Wiley

Publishing,2008).

Achemistwhoworkswiththreedimensionalstudiessaid:“Mostjournalsrequireyouto

submit the 3D co‐ordinates for a 3D structure. … anyone with internet access can

147

downloadthestructureforfree.Fromabstracttheyfindco‐ordinatesandtheycanaccess

thedata”.Thisprovisionofbackgroundinformationhasnowbecomecentrallyimportant

to the field as another explained: “We write a paper about structure but also submit

coordinates–asimportantasthepaper.Youneedtoseethemtogetafullappreciation.

Manymeta studiesbasedon thatdata– large scaleanalysisofproteindatabank.…The

quality of structures has improved as data is forced to be available – people takemore

careoverit”.

Thelimitationsofthejournalarticlelengthrequirementsmeantheexperimentaldetailsin

thejournalareabbreviated,butasonechemistexplained“thefullexperimentalisgiven,it

getsrefereedandit’savailableontheweb.Soifyoureadthejournal,afteryoucangoto

thewebandaccessit”.

An alternative is to publish that information separately. Many chemists publish short

‘communications’,andsomearguethat:“thatthepackageof thecommunicationandthe

supporting information is in one sense a bit like a full paper”. In the cases where the

supporting information is not required by the journal explained one person: “wemight

publishtherefirstandthenfollowupwithafullpaperwhichexpandsuponthematerialin

theoriginalcommunication,towhichwehaveaddedalltheexperimentaldetail”.Despite

allofthispotentialtohavealltheinformationavailable,thesystemdoesnotalwayswork

said one chemist: “Some articles are poorly written, I have on occasion contacted the

authorsdirectly.Theyhavebeenhelpfulbutnotalwaysabletoprovidetheinformation”.

OECDprinciplesabouttheopennessofdatadonotrefertobackgroundinformationsuch

as laboratory notebooks, preliminary analyses, and drafts of scientific papers, plans for

future research, peer reviews, or personal communications with colleagues or physical

objects(e.g.laboratorysamples,strainsofbacteriaandtestanimalssuchasmice)(OECD,

2004). Interestingly, several chemists referred to this sort of datawhen I asked about

greyliterature,withonesaying:“Wehavegottokeepprimarydataforsevenyears.Iam

veryrarelyaskedforit”.

Anotherpersonexplainedthat,“peoplewriteandsaytheywantaspectrasoyoucandigit

out of a file”. This type of supporting data in Chemistry is often kept in boxes in the

researcher’s office. In many cases the interviewee opened a box and showed me the

material(whichwasonebenefitofconductingtheinterviewsintheirofficeratherthanin

aneutralplacesuchasameetingroom).Thiswasafairlytypicalexplanationbyachemist

atthispointintheinterview:

148

Ithinkwhatyouaretalkingaboutisthehardlabnotesandspectra.Canyousee

allthoseplasticboxes?IaccumulatedallofthatwhenwemovedbecauseIhad

a much bigger office and some of this in labs as well and we have a much

smaller lab space. So thenameson them indicatewhose files of spectra they

are. I’ve thrownawaya lot of stuff published a long timeago. I thinkweare

supposedtokeepitfor5yearsafterwehavepublished.

Grey literature and Sociology

Ofthethreegroupsthesociologistshadthe leastamountofgrey literature.Manyof the

peopleinterviewedwereundertakingtext‐basedwork,whichmeanttheywerenotdoing

empirical research that generated data. Of those that are, there are specific protocols

about keeping data, as one explained: “I have an office full of boxes of questionnaires.

EthicssaidoriginallyImustdestroythemafterfiveyears,nowtheymustbekeptunder

lockandkeyforsevenyears”.InadditiontherearespecificdataarchivesinAustraliathat

dealwithsocialsciencedatasets,suchastheAustraliaSocialScienceDataArchivexl,but

possibly due to the nature of the information being collected, there appears to be

somethingofareluctanceindepositingdataintothisarchive:

Withgrey literatureIdon’tdoanything…Icouldmakemydatasetspublicly

available…Dataisnotfree–evenANUdataarchivesyouaskwhogetsaccess

todataandwhy–peoplearewillingtomakemoneyoutofit.…Iusetheirdata

butIdon’tputmineup.

Systems for retaining data in Computer Science

Of the threegroups interviewed for thisproject, thecomputerscientistsappeared tobe

themost cognizantwith data storage systems, even if they chose not to use them. For

example:

My work doesn’t usually have supplementary data. My papers are reporting

developingsoftware.Itissometimesnormaltomakeitavailableinsomeway,

putitinthepublicdomain…[thedata]sitsonitsownserver,thereisalinkin

thepaper.Wearesupposedtokeepdatatoreproduceresultsweclaim.Itisnot

always trivial either if the results arevery experimental software.Wehavea

system,Idon’talwaysuseit.

ThesupplementarydataorgreyliteratureinComputerSciencetendstobesoftware,and

oftenthisiswrittenasopensourcesoftware,soisinthepublicdomainanyway.Computer

scientists use several techniques for ensuring the supplementary data ends up in the

publicdomain.Inthesamewaychemistspublishfullpapersinsteadofcommunicationsto

‘flesh’outresults,computerscientistswillpublishlongerjournalarticlesafterconference

149

proceedingstopublishthefulldetailoftheirwork.Thesejournalarticlescontainthegrey

literatureexplainedoneperson:

Inevergetrequestsforgreyliterature,andhaveneveraskedothersforit.One

ofthereasonsisyoupublishinaconferencetomakeworkknownandyoulater

extenditandputitinajournalpapersomostgreyliteratureisinthat.Iwould

go to the author’s home page to look extended journal paper. I try to find

informationonthenet.

Thegeneralphilosophyofcomputerscientistsmakingmaterialavailableontheirwebsites

extendstothesupplementaryinformationandsoftwarebehindtheirworksaidanother:

“Somejournalsofferspacewhereyoucanputsupplementarymaterial,otherwiseyouput

it on yourwebsite.Most bioinformatics journals expect you tomake software available

andwon’tpublishunlessthereisalinktothesoftware”.

Acoupleof intervieweesmentionedopenaccess journalswhich “requiresoftware tobe

opensource”.Onepersonexplainedoneopenaccessartificial intelligencejournalallows

“supplementary material – software or experimental data – [to] be archived on their

journalsite”.TheComputerSciencecommunityhasfoundalternativewaysofmakingthe

materialavailable,suchasTechnicalPapersrelatingtotheresearch.Asonepersonsaid,

“Ifitisimportantwewillputitout”.

When describing their own stewardship of this material, one interviewee specifically

articulatedtheirconcernovertheuniversity’sabilitytocopewithdata:

IshouldsayIdon’tjustmakemysoftwareopen,butinmanycasesImakemy

data open as well, and to some extent they wouldn’t knowwhat to do with

some of that data. So its more a practical concern about these institutional

repositoriesactuallybeingabletobekeptuptodateandgettingintoaformat

theyarehappywithwhenIcanjustdothatmyselfandifIcollectanewdataset,

itwilltaketheinstitutionalrepository6monthstoupdateitwhereasaperson

visitingmywebsite cansee it. So it ismorean issueofpractical controlover

conceptual objection. But just having dealt with libraries in the past it is

sometimeseasiertojustmanageityourself.

There were problems with data control even at the departmental level. One person

expressedtheirfrustrationasfollows:“ThisistheComputerScienceSchoolandnothingis

automated.Iamtryingtogetasystemtomanagedatafortheschool”.Atleastoneofthe

intervieweesrecognisedthat therecouldbeapossibleuse forarepositoryasaplace to

150

depositgreymaterials:“Whenyousubmittoaconference–itisnotallthedetail,youput

extendedpapersonyourwebsite.Thisisanotherreasonwhyrepositoriesareuseful,you

couldputallyourgreymaterialsintherepository”.

UNSWhasintroducedasetofprotocolsaboutresearchdataafteroneofitsresearchstaff,

Professor Bruce Hall, was revealed as fabricating data by the Australian national

broadcaster(ABCRadioNational,2002;ABCTV,2003).Theseprotocolsweredescribed

by several UNSW interviewees,with one saying: “UNSWhas special policies about data

andarchiving‐aftertheDrHallincidentitmustbeburntontoDVDorCDRom”.Generally

speaking,accordingtotheseprotocols,datamustbeheldwithintheschoolthatgenerates

it,foraminimumoffiveyears(UNSWAcademicBoard,2004).Thereisnomentioninthe

policyoftheuseofacentralrepository,oron‐campusdataservices.

Summary of questions about grey literature

The long termpreservation of grey literaturewas not amajor consideration for any of

thesethreegroups.Thequestionsongreyliteraturewereoriginallyaskedinthisresearch

projectbecausegreyliteratureisoneaspectofpublishingforwhichrepositoriesmaybe

abletoprovideasolution.However,overall, theresponsestothisquestionwerepatchy,

andnotveryilluminating.

InChemistryoftensupplementarymaterial is supplied to journalswithanarticleand is

availableonthejournal’swebsite.Thechemistsalsokeepspectra(therawdatafromtheir

labwork)intheirofficesforseveralyears.Ofthesociologistsinterviewed,manydidnot

havedata,becausetheydidnotundertakeempiricalwork.Thosewhodocreatedatasaid

theyweredisinclined toshare itbecauseofprivacy issues.Thecomputerscientistssaid

they tend to produce open source softwarewhich is in the public domain anyway, but

possibly because of their culture of sharing, many recognised the possible benefits of

puttingTechnicalPapersintoarepositoryratherthanontotheirownwebsites.

Peer review

Thissectiondescribestheanswerstothefollowingquestionsaboutpeerreview:

• Haveyoueverreviewedapaper?

• Ifsohowmanypaperswouldyoureviewinayear?Andhowmuchtimewouldthis

take?

• Areyouonaneditorialboardofanyjournals?Howmuchtimedoesthistakeup?

• Isthissomethingyousoughtorthatyouwereaskedtodo?

• Haveyoubeencompensatedinanywayforthatwork?

151

• Howdoyoufeelaboutreviewing(isitapositiveoranegativetaskforyouandwhy?)

Inconductingtheseinterviews,ithasbecomeobviousthatdisciplinarydifferencesextend

farbeyondsimplythepublishingchannelsused,encompassing;apublishingframework,

attitudes to the ‘training’ of new researchers, the type of contribution expected by the

community,rightdowntothe languageusedwithinthediscipline.Thesedifferencesare

alsoevidentinthepeerreviewpracticesofeachdiscipline.

The time researchers spend reviewing

Chemists publish a large number of papers and because of this, there is a resultant

expectationtoreviewalargenumberofpapers.Oneexplained:“Youshouldrefereeattwo

timesyourpublicationrate”.Thetimeallocatedtorefereeingvariesconsiderablybetween

individuals, but somepeople spend largeblocksof timeon refereeing. Forexampleone

said: “Ipeerreviewedabout70papers lastyear,andknockedbackasimilarnumberof

requests”.Others,bycomparisonaredoingmuchless,forexample:“Iwouldreviewthree

orfourpapersayear,andoneortwograntsperyear.Grantsprobablytakelonger.Papers

takeacoupleofhourseach”.

A couple of chemists mentioned being overloaded with reviewing requests, with

commentslike“IthinkI’vebeenreviewingtoomuch”and“Iamrefereeingtoomuch”not

uncommon. This load means that many people are rejecting requests to referee. One

examplewas: “I have normal volume ‐ every two to three days I get a request. I don’t

acceptthemall”.Thetaskofrefereeingaltersdependingonthequalityofthejournal,as

onepersonexplained:“Theeffortfortoprankedjournalsisgreater.Abouthalfaday–[I

have]neverquantified it– it takesanenormousamountof time”.Thetypeofpapercan

alsoaffectthetimespentonthetasksaidanother:“Inormallyspendanevening,readingit

andwritingareport.Ifthereisadispute,it’shalfadayatleast.Refereeingreviewarticles

cantakedays”.Oneofthechemistssaid:

Theonesthattakethelongestaretheonesthatareclosesttoborderline.Ican

see quickly if they are complete rubbish or with others I can see they are

superb. It only takes one hour. The difficult ones that are borderline is good

stuff badly presented ‐ and they can take multiple hours. About one day a

monthIspend[reviewing].

Theroleofrefereeingcanoftenbewiderthansimplyreviewingindividualpapers.Several

chemistsmentioned being in other roles,which adds their normal refereeing load. One

examplewas:“I’mchairoftheeditorialadvisorycommitteeof[ajournal].Iamcalledonto

152

doadjudicativedecisions.Ihavetoweighupjudgementoftwoormorereferees.Oncea

monthIhavetoreviewthereviewers.”

InSociology thepublicationoutput isamixtureofbooksand journalarticles.Obviously

bookstakeconsiderablylongertoreview,explainedoneperson:

Sometimes I spendacoupleofdaysreviewing. I trynot torushbecause they

are usually large projects and I don’t want to be assessing someone’s work

quickly. On other occasions I spend asmuch as threeweeks (on and off). It

takesabitoftime.Ireviewacoupleofbooksayear,andfourtofivepapersa

year.

As there are fewer books than journal articles published, some people don’t have to

reviewbooksat all.That said, the journal articles inSociologyaremorecomprehensive

than a Chemistry communication, for example one person said: “I review three to four

papersayear.Theyareabout5,000–7000words.Ittakesaboutthreequartersofonetoa

fulldayforthewholething”.OtherestimationsofthetimetoreviewSociologyarticlesare

considerablyhigher:

With journal articles I’mpretty fast at it now, usually twodays unless it is a

verycomplexarticleorunlessit’sanarticlethatIthinkshouldbepublishedbut

itneedsa lotofworkdone to it and then itmight takenearer to four to five

days

InComputerSciencemostreviewingisofconferencepapers,whichtendtocomeinone

groupwithashortandspecificdeadline.Thiscancauseagreatdealofstressduringthat

period,asonepersonexplained:“Iamontwoprogramcommitteesayearwhichrequire

about20paperseach.Eachpapertakesthreesolidworkhours”.Thisresearchersaidthat

s/he dedicates aweek to the task of reviewing the papers, butwhen the time taken to

traveltocommitteemeetingsintheUSistakenintoaccount,“Altogetherit’sthreetofour

weeks a year.” Those people who head up panels are responsible for organising the

reviewingofmanypapers,forexample:

BecauseIamonapanel,Igetabout200papersperyeartoreview.Thereare

15peopleinthelab.Ipersonallyreviewabout40butglanceovertheothers…

SometimesIworkverylonghourswhenrefereeingcomesaround.

The amountof timean individual computer scientist spendsoneachpaper varies,with

answersincluding,“halfadaytoadayreviewingapaper”,or“ifitisareallyfamiliartopic

153

ittakes15minorupto2hoursforalongone”andanotherpersonsaying“ittakesfourto

fivehoursbutvaries,itcantaketwohoursor30hoursiftheydeservemorethanaday”.

The average appears to be about five hours per paper. The number of papers can vary

considerably too, from “four to five papers a year”, to “about one perweek”, or “three

papersperweek–onaverage”.

Computer scientists split their refereeing timebetween reviewingablockof conference

papersataspecifictimeandjournalarticles,forexample,“Igetalotofconferencepapers

and agree to two to three journals papers per year”. Journal articles, while spread

throughouttheyear,takeconsiderablylongertoreviewsaidone:“[Refereeing]takesone

to three hours per conference paper, and one to three days per journal paper. People

expectyoutobethoroughandthearticleislonger.Thepapersarecominginallthetime”.

Thisdisparityintheamountoftimerequiredtodotherefereeingwascommentedonby

several computer scientists: “Journalpapers takemuch longer ‐10hours to read, check

proofs,writearesponse”.Anotherdescribedtakingevenlonger:

For journalpapers, I spendaweekdoingreviews, they tendtobe longerand

more technicaldetail.The standardsarehigher thanconferencepapers [they

are]meticulous.Itisnotlikeyouarecontinuouslyreadingthepaper.Ispendan

hourortworeading.WhenitsmaterialI’mnotfamiliarwithhavetolookupthe

literature and read the citations – that’swhat takes time to get a feel for the

importanceofthework.

Peer review as a community expectation

Despiteconsiderablediscrepanciesintheamountoftimeindividualsdevotedtothetask,

acrossthethreedisciplines,mostresearchersfeltthattheywerecontributingtotheirfield

byundertakingpeerreview,itwasexpected.

Forexample,oneofthechemistssaid:“It’saservicetoChemistry,itcutsbothways‐ifyou

sendsomethinginyouareexpectingotherstoreferee.I’mbasicallyagoodcitizen”,anda

sociologistremarked:“Theuniversitypaysmetoworkfulltime.Ifthatincludesreviewing,

markinganhonoursthesisforascholar,orwritingajobreferenceforsomeone,itispart

ofthejob”.Acomputerscientistexplainedthat:“Communityserviceispartofthejob.You

appreciatewhenyougetgoodreviewsbackwiththoroughcriticalassessment.Itrytodo

thesame”.

Peer review even offers some benefits to the reviewer. Positive comments about

undertakingpeerreviewincludedtheabilitytohaveearlyaccesstopapersthatwere in

thereviewer’s field. Inseveralcases, researchersuse thepaperssent to themaspartof

154

theirattempts to stay in touch.Forexample,a chemist remarked that: “I like refereeing

becauseIgettokeepupwiththeliteratureandgettoseewhatthejournalsthinkisgood

stuff”,oneofthesociologistscommentedthat:“Abenefit[ofreviewing]isitisonewayof

keeping up with the literature” and a computer scientist said: “I regard it as simply

anotherformofresearch.ItisanopportunitytoreadsomethingIamreadinganyway”.

Somewhatsurprisingly,anadvantageofrefereeingisitsflexibility.Muchofthereviewing

workdonebyresearchersisdoneoutsideofworktime.Chemistsinparticular,whocanbe

tiedtotheir laboratoriesandcomputerswhenatwork,seemtoappreciatebeingableto

dothisaspectoftheirworkinaplaceoftheirownchoosing.Oneexplainedthat:“Iread

thepaperonthewayhomeandwriteituponthewayin,Iquiteenjoydoingit”.Another

said:“Therearebenefitsto it…IcandoitawayfromtheofficebecausewithChemistry

youareeitherinthelabornexttothelab”.

Sociologists described doing refereeing in their own time, with one saying: “I referee

articlesandbookmanuscripts.Theytakealotoftime.Awholebooktakesthreeweeksof

work outside the office”. These perceived benefits are, however, comparatively small

giventhe timespentundertakingreviewing,asachemistexpressedclearly: “Whenthey

arrivemyheartsinks. Ihavealwaysgototherthingstodo”.Anotherproblemexpressed

byasociologististhisis‘invisiblework’:“Peopletrynottodoitasit’salotofwork.Itis

timeconsumingandthereisnowayforittoberecognised”.

Computerscientistsalsodothisworkoutofofficetime.Onedescribeditthus:

Ireadthepapertwice,oncetomarktyposandcomments,thenIgothroughit

againandwriteupareport.Sometimesittakesuptoaday,betweenfourtwo

eighthours.Oftentheyaredoneovertheweekend. It isdefinitelyextrawork

overwhatyoudo.

ThedifficultywithComputerScience is thepapersaretimedtocometogetherand“If [I

have] a batch [of papers] where I’m the expert it’s onerous – it easily takes a day per

paper.With12papers,halfthemonthisgone”.

While there is some research benefit to reading early versions of papers, the task is

essentially an administrative one that is not recognised as such by their academic

institutions.Asociologistpointedout that: “I think Idoa lot [ofrefereeing].There isno

recognition…Youcan’tput it inannual reviews tocount forperformance”.Acomputer

scientistmentionedthat,“itgivesyoustatuswithinyourcommunity,whichmaynothelp

yourjob.It’salotofeffortfornotalotofreward”.Oneoftheircolleaguessuggested:

155

Ifeelit’saworthwhilecontributionanditwouldbeniceifsomeconsideration

wasgivenbythedepartment.Theargumenthasn’tbeenfoughtbutitwillcome

up because of teaching. Some things count as a service to the profession,

[reviewing]shouldbecounted.

This lack of recognition has implications when considering the issue of increased

reportingrequirementsfromtheuniversity(whichwillbeexploredingreaterdetailinthe

Managing the Academic Career section of the next chapter). One of the sociologists

summedthesituationup:

It’satrickyonebecauseasanacademicwethinkwebelongtoaprofessional

community.Wedothingsfornofinancialreward…Themoretheunisqueezes

usandasksustojustifyourtime,Iamlessinclinedtoundertakereviewing.I

stilldoitasanobligationtothecommunity.

Payment for peer review

Some individuals were aware enough of the politics behind publishing to express

irritationatcommercialpublishersmaking largeprofitsbasedon ‘free labour’.Thiswas

most strongly expressed by the computer scientists with one stating: “The attitude is,

‘what dowe get out of publishers?’ They organise people in the community to referee

withinthecommunity. Ifmembers in thecommunitycoordinated it thentherewouldn’t

bemuchofcost”.

Intheseinterviewstherewasnotasingleinstanceofanacademicbeingremuneratedfor

their time spent reviewing journal or conference papers. In the past, some later career

researchershadbeenofferedbookvouchersinexchangefortheirefforts,buttaxchanges

in Australia stopped this practice some time ago. There was, however one Chemistry

intervieweewhohadbeenoffereda‘recognition’forreviewing:“Iwasonceoffereda20%

discount(onpagecharges)onpublishinginajournal,ifIdecidedtosendapapertothem.

Iwroteareviewforajournalandwasgivenafreesubscriptiontothejournal”.

Sociologistsoftendobookreviewingwhichdoesincursomecompensation–usuallyinthe

formofbooks,forexample:“IfIamgivena[book]manuscripttheymaygivemesixbooks

of choice from a publisher, but that’s a surprise or a bonus”. Another sociologist

mentionedthat:

Iprobablydoaboutthreebooksayear(eachtakesaboutthreedays),andthree

journal articles (usually takes an afternoon). They usually give me £200

156

[worth] of books from their catalogue. I get nothing for journal articles, for

reviewingbooksIalwaysgetpaidinkind.

MostresearchershadbeenofferedapaymentforgrantproposalsandformarkingPhDs

andMasterstheses.Itappearstheamountisarbitraryasonesociologistexplained:“Ihave

compensationonlywhenreviewingaPhDorMasters.Ireceivedabout$170forreviewing

itandatwohourteleconference”.Anothercomputerscientistsaid:“WhenIexaminePhD

thesesfromAustraliaandoverseas,theyoffermoney‐$150‐$200,itsnotworthit.Idon’t

reply about themoney”.Notonlydoes the amountnot reflect the timespent, but some

researcherslikethischemistfeelitisinsulting:

BeingareaderforARCtakesaboutamonthperyear,thereareabout25grant

applicationstoassess.TheARCgivesus$30foragrantapplicationwhichtakes

atleasthalfaday.It’satokenamount–insulting.MostyearsIhaven’tbothered

toclaimit.

The difficulties of finding reviewers

Not surprisingly, given the amount of time the interviewees are spending reviewing

papers (and there is nothing to indicate this is not representative of all researchers),

finding reviewers forpaperswas raised as an issueby the interviewees.OneComputer

Scienceintervieweewhowastheeditorofajournalmentionedthisproblem:

Every year it is harder to find people. More people are not doing any

[reviewing].OftenIhaveapaperwhereitisverydifficulttofindsomeone.We

needtofindmorepeople.Atsomepointinthefuturesomethinghastochange

intheprocess.Thewholesystemofrefereeinghastochange.

Oneofthereasons(otherthanthetimecommitment)thatpeopleareunwillingtoreview

is that for some people, reviewing is a challenging task. One computer scientist said:

“Sometimes I detest it, standing in judgement over others work. You see some papers

obviouslywrittentogetablackdotonascoresheetattheendoftheyear”.

Several sociologists alsomentioned the increasing difficulty in finding people to review

papers,withcommentssuchas“Journalsarehavingincreasingproblemslocatingpeople

toreviewyourarticles”,and“Editorsarehavingtroublegettingrefereesthesedays”.One

sociologist offered the reason as: “It is difficult to get academics to do anything that

doesn’tcounttowardstheirCVs”.

157

Anotheroutcomeofthedifficultyoffindingrefereestranslatesintoanevenlongerperiod

beforeanauthorcanfindoutifapaperhasbeenaccepted.Thismaypossiblyexplainsome

ofthedelaysinpublicationinSociology:“Theyhadtroublefindingreadersforacoupleof

[my]papers.Ittook6‐8monthstofindoutyesorno”.

Thisproblemoffindingpeoplehastranslatedintoagamewherepeoplewhoarealready

doingasubstantialamountofrefereeingarebeingcarefulnottobecometooattractiveto

journaleditors,asonechemistexplained:

Theylookforpeoplewhoarepromptbutlikepeoplethatreject.Itmeansthey

haveareputationforbeingmorethorough…Mosteditorswillhaveadatabase

ofreferees.Theywillgiveyouadeadline,Ionlysenditjustbeforedeadline,or

theywillsendyoumore.

Itappearsthatrequestsforrefereeingcomefrom‘beingknown’withinthediscipline.For

example in one chemist said: “Last year my reviewing grew. On average I did 10‐15

papers,bytheendIwasdoingtwoamonth.InpreviousyearsIdidmuchless.OnceIhit

theirdatabasesIgotmore”.ThesamesituationhappensinSociologyasoneinterviewee

explained: “Themore I go to international conferences and know journal editors – the

moreobligedIamtodo it [refereeing]”.Anothersociologistsaid:“Asyouare inanarea

longeryougettoknowmorepeopleandtheyknowyouandyourwork.Morerefereeing

comes to you from a variety of sources”. Computer Science also experiences the same

phenomenon:

Idoalittlebitofreviewing.Ireviewedtwopapersawhileago.Thewordwill

starttospreadnowI’vefinishedmyPhD.Thelastlotcamefromaprofessorin

thefacultywhoistheeditorofthejournal.

OneChemistryintervieweeimpliedthereare‘games’beingplayedbytheeditorstoo,such

ashand‐pickingreviewerstogainaparticularoutcome:

Ihaveafeelingthatwhentheeditorialstafflookatsomethingifitismarginal

theygiveittoareviewerwhoislikelytoreject.Ithinkinasensesomejournals

try and manipulate outcomes. I know they keep a profile – they send out a

profiletoyouattheendoftheyear.

Thisideathattheeditorsofjournalsmaynotbepreparedtomakeadecisionwaspicked

upbyaSociologyinterviewee:“Ifyouhavetworeviewsandoneisbadone,theeditorwill

saymeettherequirementofthebadone.Editorsareclerksnow,noteditors.No‐onehas

158

thecourage[tosaywhattheythink]”.TherewasatleastoneinstancewhereaSociology

academichadbeenaskedtoreviewcompletelyoutofhis/herfieldbecauseofaparticular

skilltheyhad:“IsometimesgetaskedtorevieweducationaljobsbecauseIamcompetent

instatisticalanalysisandIhavetofigureoutwhattheyaresaying”.

Problems with peer review

Oneoftherequirementsofreviewingistoestablishoriginalityofthework–ataskmade

substantiallyeasiernowwithelectronicdatabasesasnechemistexplained:

SciFinderisindispensableforsavingtime.Ifirstcheckittoseeiftheworkhas

beendonebefore–peopledocheat.Idoaquickscanofliteraturetoseehow

noveltheworkis.ButifIdidn’thavethebenefitofdatabases,thatwouldtakea

day, so before wewould not do that. Refereeing is more rigorous nowwith

databases.

But even now with electronic searches, it is not infallible, and the originality issue is

particularlyacuteforresearchersworkingoutsideAmerica.USauthorsaremorelikelyto

befavourablyreviewedthannon‐USauthorsbyallreviewers,butwhenlookingatonlyUS

reviewers, there is a significantpreference forUSpapers (Link,1998).The internalUS‐

focus phenomenon is so marked that, particularly in Chemistry, there are instances of

researchundertaken in theUSbeingpublishedasoriginalwhen the same researchhad

beenpreviouslycompletedandpublishedinAustraliaasoneexplained:

[Americans]won’treadotherstufflikeintheAustralianJournalofChemistry–

six years after we published something, the same work was re done and

publishedinanAmericanjournal.Nothinghappened.Itshouldn’thappenbutit

doeshappenbecausetherefereesdon’tknowaboutitandtheydon’thavetime

tocheck.ThiswaswhenIrealisedAmericansdon’treadother’sliterature.They

areincrediblyinsularbuttheydofantasticchemistry.

Itappears thatpeerreview isnotalways fulfilling the functions it issupposedto.When

asked if there had been any instances of peer review not working, the answers the

intervieweesgavewerevaried.Someoftheexamplesgivenwerefromtheperspectiveof

theintervieweeasanauthor,andthesehavebeendetailedintheRejectionRatessection

ofthisChapter.Severalpeopleindicatedthatasfarastheyknewthesystemwasworking,

butafewchemistsgaveexampleswhereasreviewersofotherpeople’swork,thingshad

not gone as planned: “in themost extreme cases I have recommended the rejection of

papersthatIhaveseeninprintlater”.Anothersaidthishadalsohappenedtothem:“What

IsometimesseeisIrecommendrejectionanditgetsin.Ithinkit[thepaper]ismarginal,I

159

am surprised it surfaced. But the other reviewers have said yes”. In addition to this

‘publishanyway’situation,iswheretheChemistryjournalhasmis‐understoodtheroleof

a reviewer explained one: “I have been asked to take a word file and put suggested

changesintotheworldfile.Iwrotetothemaineditortosayit’sabadidea”.

Oneof thesociologistsalsodescribed thisexperienceofbeingexpected tocontribute to

thepaper:“Somepeoplesubmitandaresimplyfishingforreviewerscomments.Thatcan

be disconcerting. [You are] expected to become unacknowledged co‐author on another

person’swork”.Acoupleofsociologistsexpresseddisillusionmentinthereviewprocess:

“The corruptionaround thatwhole field ispretty rampant.People take shortcuts, that’s

why there is a lot of pathetic work out there”. When discussing their own refereeing

decisions, a couple of sociologists indicated that they would like to reject many of the

papers sent to them: “If Iwas going to be honestwith reviewing, Iwouldn’t say yes to

manythings.Ihavetotempermycriticism.Theprocessisacompromisedone”.

Oneofthedifficultiesfacedbypeerreviewersisnottodowiththequalityoftheresearch,

butthewayitisexpressed.ThisissomethingthatcameupwithacoupleoftheChemistry

interviews:

The ones I find difficulty with are Indian, Chinese or Japanese because the

grammarissoawful.Idon’thavethetimetorewriteit.Isthecontentthere?I

tendto let it throughas longasthecontent is there…You justhavetoaccept

that if they are not a native speaker their English is not great. You make

allowances.

While it appears that the feedback from reviews is usually of a reasonable quality, in

ComputerScienceatleast,therehavecertainlybeeninstanceswhenithasbeenlessthan

ideal.Onepersonexplainedthatwith:“somereviewsyoucantelltheyhavebeendonein

15 minutes – even for really good conferences”. This is partially because of the short

timeframesinvolvedwithconferencereviewing:“WhenIamthechairofaconferenceand

wearerightondeadlineandstillmissingreviews,Iamdoingtheminabout20minutes”.

ReceivingpoorqualityreviewsinComputerScienceisnotanisolatedincidentaccording

tooneinterviewee:

Ihada[conference]paperrejected.IwassodisappointedthatthecommentsI

gotweresopoor–I’mnotsuretheyreaditproperly.Itwasonesentence.One

score had no comments.… There has to be some justification [for rejection].

Thatonehadnothing.Ithenresubmittedcoupleofmonthslatertoajournal.

160

Blinded peer review

Judgingfromthecommentsintheinterviews,thereappeartobefewsecretsintheworld

of academe. As discussed in the Researching section of this Chapter, sub‐discipline

communities are very small, so finite that the academic being reviewed can, and often

does,makeaneducatedguessatthereviewer’sidentity:

There isonly fivetosixat thetop[ofSociology inAustralia] toput itbluntly.

Andwewouldberefereeingeachother’sworkendlessly.Youcantellwhohas

comein.Youknowtheirareasyourknowtheirstyle,youknowtheirwriting.

Certainlymany of the interviewees indicated that guessing the reviewer’s identity was

easy.Oneobviousclueiswhenthereviewerinsiststhepaperhasmissedkeyreferences

thattheyhaveauthored,asasociologistdescribed:

[The reviewer] had a number of objections, I mainly hadn’t mentioned one

particularpersonandtheysentmesomereferences.Imanagedtofindoneof

the referencesanddecided that thepersonmustbehimself. I could tell from

thestyleofwriting.

Another difficultywith having such small communities is that researchers are likely to

come across people who have personal disagreements with their research, as one

sociologist described: “There is awhole politics of journal publishing. Sometimes it is a

questionofpotlucksoaquestionofwhoinyourpeergroupwillreviewapaperandhow

sensitive they are about their position”. This alsomeans resending a paper to another

journaldoesnotmeanyouwillhaveafreshreviewerasonecomputerscientistexplained:

InthelastyearIhadtoresubmitapaper,therewasanissuewiththereview.A

paper went to the same reviewer twice and it argued against what she was

saying.Thestyleofcommentsmeansitwaseasytopickup[whothereviewer

was].Itwenttodifferentjournalsbutendedupwiththesamereviewer.

This‘smallpond’ofpeoplewhoareabletoreviewworkmeansthatthereviewersarein

competitionwithoneanother,whichopensupotherpotentialproblemswithpeerreview,

suchasstealingworkasacomputerscientistsaid:

Onceitispublisheditshardtostealsomething.Whatismorecriticalishowdo

youpreventlossandfraudsituationsinthereviewsituationitself.If[apaper]

goes across thedeskof colleagues –who stops them fromstealing ideas and

sayingitisunpublishable?

161

Adifficultywithentrustingthebodyofknowledgetopeerreviewisthatpeerreviewisnot

always objective.A couple of intervieweesmentioned thedifficulties theyhadhadwith

putting ideas that were slightly left field into the peer review process. One computer

scientistsaid:

OK this is going to be slightly controversial. Within any community, cliques

formaroundparticularapproachesorideas.Andifyourideadoesn’tfitintoan

existingclique, thenyoudon’thavepeoplewhowilladvocateyourpaperand

goreallyhardandsay this is reallygood,because there isnothing in that for

themitsofcoursetheirpointofvieworispartoftheirclique.Soifsomething’s

a bit out of left field anddoesn’t comenaturally, fit naturally in any of these

cliques,youwon’thaveanyadvocatesforyourworkandsopeoplewouldkind

ofbe abit iffy aboutyourworkbecause theywouldgo, I don’t knowhow to

approach,Idon’tknowhowthisonefitsin.

Training the next generation

Whilepeerreviewremainscentral tothescholarlycommunicationsystem,there isvery

little formal trainingofwhat is expectedof reviewers.Onlyone intervieweewhowas a

sociologistmentioned the issueof trainingstudents to review(andwhat itmeans tobe

reviewed).S/hehadorganisedaconferenceaspartofthestudents’postgraduatetraining.

Priortotheconference,thestudentswereinformedofthestylerequiredforthepapers,

such as the fonts and layout. Then, “I organised two training meetings for potential

reviewersandwewentthroughthetemplate–doestitlematchcontent,doesarticlehave

an abstract and a conclusion, and does this follow from the results”. The students then

anonymouslyreviewedeachotherandhadtorewritepapers.Thisprocessextendedover

severalmonths,andwasrun intwoconsecutiveyears.Between20and40paperscame

outinthebookletsfromeachconference.

A couple of the Computer Science interviewees explained how they introduced their

studentsintotheprocessofrefereeing.Theconferencesystemgivesscopeforthisidea,as

thesenioracademiconaprogramcommitteewilloftenbegivenmanypapersinoneblock

toreviewwithinagiventimeframe.Oneintervieweedescribedaskingtheirstudentstodo

a ‘pretend review’ of papers, another gives reviews to students to give theman idea of

what level of publication is expected at what level. While one interviewee said the

studentsdowellatthisprocessbecause“theycanimaginehowpainfulitistogetnegative

feedback. Many reviewers don’t remember how painful it is”, another commented that

“invariablystudentshaveatougherattitudethanIdo.Theyhavehighstandards”.

162

Summary of peer review responses

Generally the interviewees appear to review in proportion to the amount they are

publishing.Someofthechemistsinterviewedwereprolificpublishers.Chemistrypapers,

whichareoftenshort,anddependingonthespecialty,basedaroundanimage,areoften

reviewedbythreepeople.Sociologypapersareusuallyreviewedbytwopeople,andthe

turn‐aroundtimecanbeveryprotracted.Inthecaseofbooksandbookchapters,itcanbe

severalyearsbetweenthewritingoftheworkanditssubsequentpublication.Computer

Sciencetendstouseconferencesasaprimarypublishingmedium.Thereviewsystemfor

ComputerScienceconferences iscomprehensiveand inclusive,withpapers inhigh‐level

conferencesoftenreviewedbythreepeopleandthendiscussedatameetingpriortobeing

accepted.Theturn‐aroundforthesereviewsiswithintwomonths.

Mostpeopleindicatedthatrefereeingisaprofessionalexpectation,anddidnotappearto

begrudgetheamountoftimetheyspendonit,despitethistimebeingsubstantialinsome

cases.Many indicated that refereeing offers a way of keeping upwith the latest in the

literature.

Whiletherearedifferencesbetweendisciplinesonthistopictherearealsobigdifferences

betweenindividualswhomaybelongtosub‐disciplinarygroups.Inaddition,peoplewho

are later career researcherswill oftenundertakeahigherproportionof refereeing than

thosestartingout.Regardlessofthereasons,therearesometimesstartlingdifferencesin

the amount of refereeing being done by individuals within a discipline. For example,

computer scientists split their refereeing timebetween reviewing a blockof conference

papersataspecifictimeandreviewingjournalarticlesthroughouttheyear.

Intheseinterviewstherewasnotasingleinstanceofanacademicbeingremuneratedfor

theirtimespentreviewingjournalorconferencepapers.Theonlypaymentmentionedby

theintervieweeswassociologistsbeingofferedbooksfromthepublisher’sbooklistifthey

reviewed a book, and one chemist said s/he receives a free subscription to the paper

journal s/he reviewed for.While it appears that there is anacceptanceonbehalf of the

interviewees that refereeing work is unpaid, several people made the suggestion that

someformofprofessionalrecognitionbytheirinstitutionsofthisworkwouldhelp.11

11Whileitisnotthepracticeateitheroftheinstitutionsfromwhichintervieweeswererecruited,

there are instances, both within a few Australian institutions and with some research councils

world‐wide,ofaformof‘point’systemallocatedtoon‐timereviewersthatcanbeaccumulatedwith

163

In addition, there is a great deal of cynicism about the validity of peer reviewing for

conferencepapersinChemistryandSociology.Severalresearchersmentionedtheconflict

of interest between making a profit with (or even simply covering the costs of) the

conference,andrejectingpotentialattendeestotheconference.

Peer reviewevenoffers somebenefits to the reviewer. Positive comments givenby the

intervieweesaboutundertakingpeer review included theability tohaveearlyaccess to

papersthatwereinthereviewer’sfield.Inseveralcases,researchersdescribedusingthe

papers sent to them as part of their attempts to keep upwith the literature. However,

oftenthereisnoinstitutionalrecognitionoftheworkundertaken.Thisispartlyduetothe

wayrefereeingisusuallyundertaken,wherethereviewer’snameiskeptfromtheauthor

of the work. This prevents professional or institutional recognition of the work being

done. This is an issue because, as will be discussed, the only currency in academia is

publication.Teachingisnothighlyvaluedinpromotionapplications,butat leastthereis

evidenceithasoccurred.Peerreview,ontheotherhand,isinvisiblework.

Those requesting the review – publishers, granting bodies and other institutions ‐ are

expecting the work to be done for little or no compensation, which may explain why

journaleditorsarefindingitincreasinglydifficulttofindpeopletoundertakepeerreview.

Inaddition,theintervieweesindicatedpeerreviewisnotnecessarilyworkingthewayitis

intended to despite the time investment in the process. Despite these problems, the

general consensus amongst the intervieweeswas that peer review is worthwhile, even

though there are concerns about the time it takes and there aremany examples of the

systemnotworking.

Summary

Thischapterbeganwithadiscussionoftheinterviewquestionsthatrelatedtosearching

for information. The three disciplines showedmarked differences in the way they find

what theyneed to conduct their research. It appears that researchersaremanaging the

scholarly publication system, as it stands, well. The frustrations expressed by the

interviewees tended to be within their community norms rather than towards the

scholarlypublicationsystemitself. Overalltheanswerstothequestionsaboutcopyright

a monetary reward to the department concerned (UK Parliamentary Office of Science and

Technology,2002).

164

indicate that researchersaregenerallyunconcernedby thecopyright issue.Researchers

spendaconsiderableamountoftimeintherefereeingprocess.Thisisanacceptedpartof

thescholarlyprocessandunderstoodtobeacontributiontotheircommunities.However,

the task is onerous for many people and there are limited ways to have that time

recognisedbytheinstitutionforwhichanacademicworks.

The next chapter will describe the responses to questions about how the researchers

manage their careers and about the awareness and use of open access dissemination

options.

165

Chapter6–Careerresults

Introduction

The previous chapter detailed the responses to the questions about the publishing,

researchingandpeerreviewactivitiesof therespondents.Thischapter looksat the two

issues ofmanaging an academic career, and the respondent’s attitudes and behaviours

towardsopenaccess.

Thissectionexplores thewayresearchersmanage theirprofessional life in termsof the

time they spend at work and the reward processes. Here, the examples given and the

discussion generally does not distinguish between disciplines as the issues cross the

boundaries. Where there are differences between the disciplines they are articulated.

Beginningwithbackgroundcareerinformation,thechapterdescribestheanswerstothe

questions:

• Firstly, please give me an indication of the split of your time between teaching,

researchandadministration.

• Pleasebrieflydescribetheresearchyouarecurrentlyundertaking–whatformdoes

thatresearchtake(interviews,observation,experiments,computerwork).

Organisation of researchers’ time

Thestandardacademicposition inAustralia involvessome teaching, someresearchand

some administration with the time split described by the interviewees as variously

“roughlyathirdeach”ora“40/40/20split”.However,this isnotalwaysthepractice,as

onecomputerscientistexplained:“Itdependsonmyteaching load…Ihavea40/40/20

break‐upoftime.Inormallyspendmorethan40%teachingand20%admin”.

Some people described the teaching aspect of their role as onerous, for example one

computer scientisthas “a fairlyheavy teaching load… I runa large thirdyearclassand

year‐long projects – projects with industry. It is time consuming”, a colleague said, “I

spend70%[ofmytime]teaching,30%research,Iwouldliketogetitto50/50”.Another

intervieweefromthesamedepartmentsaid:

InmycaseIteachalotanddolotsofresearch…AtapeakIhadmorethannine

PhDandmorethan12honoursstudents. I teachtwocourses–onehasmore

than250students,theothermorethan400students…Ihelpwithmarking.

166

Taking on other roles also affects their research time. For example another computer

scientist said: “I amAssociateDeanofResearch – I doa lot of admin for the faculty”.A

sociologist said: “Before IbecameHeadofSchool in2005 I splitmy time50%research,

50%teachingovertheyear”.

One Computer Science interviewee summed up the range of responsibilities of a

teaching/researchingacademicsuccinctly:

Ikeepuptodateinareas,Ireadpapers,talktocolleaguesandsupervisePhD

students…Whenwehaveresearchoutcomeswepublishandwriteitup…Itis

very time consuming. Services to community – administration, like school

meetings,advisorymeetingsandformsIhavetosign.ThereareconferencesI

needtohelporganise.Plus journaleditingandreviewpapers forconferences

and journal. Research is my greatest use of time – 50% [of time] 40% is

teachingand10%administration.

Thereisadefinitesplitbetweensessionandnon‐sessiontimesintermsoftheallocation

of work and this is because the demands of teaching and administration are very

immediate.Acomputerscientistexplained:“WhenitissessionIdonoresearch…Mysplit

of work is 60% admin, 40% research. During term it is 70% administration, 40%

teaching”.Anothercomputerscientistsaid,“outsidesemesterIspendmostofmytimeon

research – organising thoughts, catching up on reading”. One chemist said: “During

summer[for]daysorweeks, themajorityof timeI’mthinkingaboutresearchorgrants,

thinking/doing research, and administration”. Another chemist stated that all of their

‘outcomes’,meaningbookchaptersandpapers,wereachievedoutofsessiontime.

Severalpeopleexpressedafeelingoffrustrationabouttheamountoftimetheyspenton

teaching, for exampleone computer scientist said: “I trynot to spend toomuch time in

teaching.Mytimemanagementskillsneedwork.Youneedtodoitrightnow,soIspend

time on it”. A sociologist said: “I would love to have the time to do more [research].

Teachingtakesupsomuchtime.TimethatIdon’tfeelbadaboutandenjoybutitprevents

me from doingmy research”. Another sociologist in their fourth year at the institution

explaineduniversitypoliciesweremakingthesituationworse:

…my teaching and admin loads became too heavy to do any research on

entirely new projects… In universities a lot of people retire here and aren’t

replaced so we all pull a heavier cart. … [The department] used to have 12

people,wenowhavesix.Studentshaveincreased.

167

Even being in an ostensibly research‐only position appears not to relieve an academic

fromteachingandadministrativeresponsibilities.Onecomputerscientistwhohadstarted

an Australian Research Council (ARC) fellowship said: “I am 100% research. I still of

coursehavesomeadmintasksandofcourse,PhDsupervisionandalittlebitofvoluntary

teaching. But notionally 100% research”. Another computer science in the Research

School said that theirposition “used tobe ‘researchonly’but itdoesn’tmeanyoudon’t

teach.Iamprimarilyemployedtodoresearchandheadaresearchgroup…Recentlyalot

of the jobhasbeenasa researchmanager rather thandoingresearch.My time is spent

managing”.Achemistdescribedasimilarsituation:

Until2002Iwasresearch‐only,aseniorresearchfellowwiththeARC.ButIalso

taughtfirstyearandthirdyear,a25%loadingofteaching.InadditionItookon

anadministrativeloadonacommittee,soIspent10‐20%ofmytimeteaching

and10‐20%onadministration/committees.…Therestwasonresearch.

Several people described a load that added up to more than 100% of their time. One

sociologistdescribedhavingcompletedaBureauofStatisticsworkdiaryoversixmonths,

“theyreckonedIwasworking65hoursperweek”.Becauseofthispressureoftime,many

peopleworkonweekendsandoutofuniversityhours.Acomputerscientistdescribedthis

as ‘thinking time’: “Some ofmywork is thinking in the shower, some is in front of the

computer–gettinggoing”,butanothercomputerscientistexplaineditwasagreatertime

commitment: “I end up doing research at home or on the weekend”. Not surprisingly,

many people mentioned that this heavy workload was an issue. A computer scientist

explained: “One problem with academic life, there is too much to do – you have to

prioritise”.

For researchers with commitments at home, the situation is even more acute. One

sociologistsaid:“Iamworkingaroundhome[responsibilities]whenIcanorlateatnight,I

do a lot of work until 2am, or if my partner has a day that is not heavy”. A computer

scientist stated: “I setup times so I can see students.My schedule ispacked. Imakean

appointment to seemyown children inmy calendar12”.Another sociologist describeda

periodofparticularlyintensework:

Andat that stage Ihad threebooksback toback. Iwaswritingone,proofing

oneanddoingsomethingwiththethird.Thatwasjustanightmare.Ifyoulook

back at that period that was every night of the week and every weekend

12Thispersonwasapologeticbutseriouswhenmakingthiscomment.

168

workingonpublications.…I’dcomebackheretoworkat9pmwhenthekids

wereasleepandworkthroughuntilabout2aminthatperiod.Whereasatthe

minute life’s a lot quieter … the pressure is not as bad. But that would still

involvemostweekendswritingortryingtowrite.

AnexceptiontothisproblemappearedtobethefewpeopleIspoketowhoareworking

forindustryratherthanpurelyinacademia.ThisispurelyanimpressionIreceived,andI

didnotpushtheissuebutnonetheless,thiscouldbeanareaoffurtherwork.Oneperson

explained:“Iinteractwithindustrymorethanmostsociologists.Iamseekingtoinfluence

industry.Writingmoreforpractitionersthanacademics.Iamseekingpeoplewhodirectly

wanttoapplytheideas”.

Thereare implicationsofhavinga largeworkloadon theway research is conducted. In

Chemistry thedemandsof administrationand teachingmean that senior chemistsdon’t

actuallyperformtheexperimentalwork,thisisoutsourcedtostudents.Oneexpalined:“I

haven’t been in the lab full time for 20 years. I depend on co‐workers to carry out

experimentalwork.PhDandpostdocsandtheoddhonoursstudents”.Generallythesenior

chemistsintervieweddidnotdolaboratorywork,withacoupleofexceptions:“Inmycase

Istartinthelabandmigratetothedesk.Istilltrytogetintothelabanddoexperiments.

Most colleaguesdon’t get a chance todo that through thedemandsof bureaucracy and

administration”.Oneseniorchemistdescribedhowtheirworkwasnowmainlydocument

based:

WellIdon’tdoanyexperimentalworkmyself,eventhoughtheareaofworkI

aminisexperimentallybased.Soalloftheworkthatisdonethatispublished

isdonethroughthehandsofpostdocs,PhDstudentsandhonoursstudentstoa

lesser extent…we talk about the research andplan the research together…

and those students or postdocs will go back into the lab and try to modify

experiments…But I am intimately involved in interpreting the data that the

studentsandpostdocsaregeneratinginthecourseoftheirlaboratoryactivity

and Iwrite grant proposals, Iwrite up themanuscripts and look at drafts of

PhD theses and make fairly detailed comments on those as the students

develop their theses. So those are the sorts of activities I’m involved in. I

sometimes jokingly call myself a Microsoft Word chemist because I guess I

spendasmuchtimemanipulatingdraftproposalsandmanuscriptsasanything

else.

169

Collaborators

Asdiscussed in theResearching sectionof theprevious chapter, academic communities

areverysmall,withthenumbersofpeopleworkinginanimmediatefieldrunningintothe

tensratherthanhundreds.Researchersoftenworkwithgroupsofpeople,andthesecan

be in the same department, or overseas. One computer scientist described their

collaborators as: “further away. My interests are unique in [this university]. I have

MelbourneandSydneyandoverseascollaborations–USA,Canada,Belgium,Germany,UK,

Japan”.SeveralcomputerscientistsdescribedtheirPhDstudentsascollaborators:“Ihave

twoPhDstudents.AsidefromthemallmycollaboratorsareintheUS.IhaveoneintheUK.

OccasionallyIworkwithpeopleinothercountriesaswell.Mostly,almostexclusivelymy

collaboratorsareintheUS”.

Chemistsalsodescribedcollaboratingwithpeopleoutsidetheirdiscipline,andsometimes

forreasonsotherthanresearch:“Ioftengoawaytodostuff.Igotodifferentuniversities–

Belfast,Melbourne,Canberra.DoingthismeansIamnearpeoplewithdifferentskillsets,

andgetsawayfromthedistractions–administrationtakestime”.Anotherexamplefroma

UniversityofNewSouthWales(UNSW)chemistwas:

IcollaboratewithotherUNSWstaffandpeopleinotherplacesinAustraliaand

overseas.Myroleisthinkingaboutthebackgroundbehindtheexperimentand

doingtheinterpreting…EarlierthisyearaSwedishblokeworkinginthelabs

madesomecompoundsandtookthemback.HissupervisorandIwillkeepthe

collaboration going. Usually communication is by email and telephone. We

meetoccasionallyatconferencesandhaveabeer.

Amongst these interviewees the exceptionwas two computer scientistswhomentioned

workingmainlywith local collaborators.Onesaid: “Allmypublicationsareauthoredby

twotothreepeople,Iammostlyworkingwithpeoplecloseby”.Bothofthesepeoplewere

involved in ‘real‐world’ applications of their research: “I am collaboratingwith a CSIRO

PhD studentwho is co‐supervised. I amhoping for collaborationwithCSIROand in the

longertermwiththeDepartmentofDefence”.

Reward processes

The chapter will now look at grants and promotions, and detail the answers to the

questions:

• Whydoyoupublish?

170

• Whatisyourunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweenyourpublicationoutputand

funding?

• Do you have an opinion about any changes to reporting requirements by your

university/thegovernment?

The grant issue

Obtaininggrantswasrepeatedlygiven inanswerto thequestion: ‘Whydoyoupublish?’

particularlyamongstthechemists,andsomeofthecomputerscientists.Typicalanswers

from chemists included, “What drivesme to publish is requirements for getting grants”

and, “of course if you don’t publish you perish in the granting system, so that’s rather

critical”, and another comment: “[publication] is certainly a major consideration in the

first part of a career. It is related to raising grants”. Other people also mentioned the

importance of a high rate of publishing to obtain grants. One estimated: “You need a

minimumof30papersinthelastfiveyears”,withanothersaid,“Iamguessingthatmost

successful grant receivers average about six papers a year”. As another chemist said,

“Everything stems fromARC grants – they expect you to publish in the best forumyou

can”. In addition, one computer scientist pointed out, “All promotion is tied to the

publicationsyouhave”.

Certainlytheconceptof‘publishorperish’isstillveryrelevant.Asonecomputerscientist

expressedit:“Thereisstillpressuretopublishtogetahead”.Withoutpublication,others

said,you loseanychancesofhavingasuccessfulcareer:“ifyoudon’t [publish]youdie”.

Onesociologistarguedthatpublicationkeepspeople“geographicallyandsociallymobile”

which is important because: “… we live in perilous times in academic life and if your

publication is not up to date you are in trouble… So if youwant a chair in Sydney or

Melbourneyouhavegottohaveit”.

Somepeoplesaidthesepressuresmeanpeoplepublishfora“trackrecordtogetgrants”,

andmore than they would ordinarily choose to. One computer scientist said: “I would

publishlessifitwasnotthecaseorwouldwaittopublishinabiggerpaper…Promotion

istiedtoyourtrackrecord.Grantsuccessistiedtoit”.Achemistsaid:

We tend to salami slice our publications because of the assessment problem.

Wearetendingtopublishthinnerpapersthanwewouldifwepublishedatour

leisure…Iwouldstillpublish,butinawaythatwouldbemorebeneficialtothe

community,onlyonepaperwitheverything.

171

Asenseoffrustrationwiththeprocessofobtaininggrants,andfulfillingtherequirements

of thesegrantswasacommontheme in the interviews.Asociologiststated: “Grantsare

aboutgettinganother totallyuselesspublicationout”.Oneof thechemistshada similar

perspective: “I’m not a person for publishing everything. I think there is too much

emphasiswithgrantsneedingpublishingandwithoutgrantsyoucan’tdo theresearch”.

Anothersociologistwasdescribinghowchallengingthegrantprocessworkwasfortheir

typeofwork: “Myresearch is textual–not interviews,but Iwillbe interviewingpeople

becauseof thedemandsof [theARCgrant].Howcanyou fit amodel alien to theactual

needsofyourresearch?”

The time required to apply for grants is causing some frustration in the Chemistry

community interviewedbecause it takesprecious timeaway fromresearch.Oneargued

that thiswasnotaproductiveuseof their time: “Increasingly I amstuck in frontof the

computerwritingpapers,grants,grants,grants…Topaybills,Ispendthreemonthsayear

towritegrantstopaypeopletodothework”.Anotherchemistcommentedthatpublishing

isameanstoanendratherthanawaytofurtherknowledge:

… with grants you need publishing and without grants you can’t do the

research.Thereistoomuchemphasisonhowmanypapersandtheydon’tlook

atthequalityorifthingsfurtheredtheareaofresearch.Publicationoutputand

fundinghaveadirectcorrelation.Withoutpublicationthereisnofunding.

The researchers interviewed did not object to publishing their work, indeed most

indicatedthatunlessitwaspublished,iteffectivelyhadnotoccurred,buttheydidsaythey

arebeingforcedtopublishinwaysthatarenotnaturaltotheworktheyaredoing,norto

the communication system they have established with their peers. For example one

sociologistsaid:“I’mmuchmoreinterestedinwritingbooks…Ihavetowritearticlestoo

–it’sthewayyougetahead.Tomeit’sawasteoftime.Theaveragearticleisreadbyvery

fewpeople”.Anothersociologistsaidtheypublish“toavoidperishing”andsaidtherewas

a need to publish in international journals because their bookswere all Australian: “in

order to demonstrate you are internationally known an academic needs to publish in

international publications. I am doing it for my academic career, I don’t find much

internationalpayoff”.Theydescribedthisasa“culturalcringe”.

As discussed in the Publishing section of the previous Chapter, there is an added time

managementchallengeforcomputerscientistsbecausetheconferenceseasonoverseasis

atasettimewhichmeansthatresearcherswhowishtopreparepapersforsubmissionto

the conferences are in a period of writing up papers and reviewing papers in the

172

beginning of theAustralian first semester. Thedeadline forARC grant applications also

fallsatthesametime.

Promotions committees

In Australia researchers seeking promotion must apply to an institutional promotions

committeewithevidenceoftheiracademicoutput.Thiswasanotherverycommonreason

people interviewedgave for theirwork,witha computer scientist stating, “Ipublish for

career”,andasociologistsaying,“thereispressureifyoudon’tpublish…youareexpected

topublish”.Severalcomputerscientistscommentedonthetopicofpublishing.Onesaidit

“is important career wise when promotion committees look at you”. Another said

publishing“isrequired…Itismainlytoretainmyjob,wearemainlypromotedbasedon

communication”, and another said: “I try to publish because it is important to have as

manypapersaspossible foryourcareer”.Publishingalone isnotenough, therearestill

loopstogothroughforthereportingofthesepublications,asoneChemistexplained:“The

reporting requirement is tedious – every paper you go through loops to prove you

publishedit,withaletterfromtheeditortosayitisrefereed.It’sunnecessary,ifit’sinthe

journal,thatshowsit’srefereed”.

Thispressuretopublishcanbeproblematical,explainedsomeofthesociologistsandearly

career researchers in Computer Science, particularly women, because the demands of

theirteachingloadmeansresearchisnotbeingundertakenatall.Thishasimplicationsfor

their future career promotion advancements because publication output is a prevalent

methodofassessmentasonecomputerscientistexplained:“Alltheevaluationofresearch,

peers and employer is looking at publications. It is themeasure used to judge research

work”. A chemist expressed the lack of faith in the promotions system: “I don’t believe

impactfactorisareflectionofthequalityofthejournal…Manylowimpactjournalshave

highquality science. [But] becauseof thewayperformance is assessedwehave toplay

games”.

AnotherdifficultywiththepromotionssysteminAustraliaisthepromotionscommittees

whichconsistofamixtureofdisciplines,usually,“apanelwithnomorethanonescientist

inyourarea”, explaineda chemist. Someof the interviewees inalldisciplinesexplained

that the difficulty with having a promotion committee consisting of people who are

outside of the discipline of the person being assessed is generally there is little

understandingwithinacademiccommunitiesofhowotherdisciplineswork.Evenwithina

discipline such as Computer Science, there are disparities in expected behaviours. One

interviewee who described their work as being in the “Mathematics end of Computer

173

Science”noted that: “InmostComputer Sciencedisciplines, publishing in conferences is

thekeywaytogetinformationout.InMathsyougotoconferencesasmuchbutyoudon’t

publish work in conferences, the priority is to send work first to journals”. Another

computerscientistsaid:“EngineeringSchoolpromotionscommitteeshavenoideaabout

the quality of journals”. This Computer Science/Engineering dividewas highlighted by

anothercomputerscientist:

Theproblemisthepromotioncommitteemaynotbefrommyfield…Typically

there is one Computer Science person on the promotion committee. Then

anotherfromEngineering.Thedifficultyiswhenbothcompare–theyhaveto

takecomputerscientist’swordforit.Theyhavetoconvincetheotherpeople.

The situation is more acute when a committee member is from a completely different

field.Thiscreates thepotential that theywill impose theirowndisciplinaryexperiences

when judging other people’s work. For example, an interviewee who had worked in

Philosophyhadpreviouslyonly“publishedinjournalsandhadgiventalksatconferences”,

but when s/he changed to working in artificial intelligence noted, “the publication

patternsareverydifferent”.Afewchemistsinterviewedappearednottounderstandthat

conferencesinsomedisciplinesarehighlycompetitive.OneChemistryintervieweeargued

thatthepeopledoingtherefereeingforaconferencemaybethepeoplewhoorganisedit,

andsotheyhaveaneedtoputinpapersthatmaynotbeuptostandard.Whilethismaybe

thecase inChemistry,andwasasituationdescribedbyacoupleofsociologists in these

interviews, it isnothowComputerScience conferencesareorganised.Anotherexample

wasanintervieweewhohadmovedtoComputerSciencefromChemistrymid‐career,and

hadbeenconfrontedwiththesedifferences:

It’sdifferent, inChemistry it isheavilyorientedtowardsformalpublication…

InComputerSciencethemajorityofpublicationsareconferenceproceedings.I

came to that community somewhat sceptical of conferencepublications.Now

I’mnotquitesosceptical.

When a researcher’swork straddles twodisciplines it canbecomevery complicated, as

onecomputerscientistwhodoesworkonbiologicalsystemsexplained:

In Biology we have the need to publish in journals, in more experimental

workshops. Conferences have higher prestige but you have to publish in

journals still. You must find the mixture which gives the response from the

publishingcommunityandopportunitiestotherightpeople.

174

To give an example of this lack of understanding between disciplines, one Sociology

intervieweementionedthatallofthestaffmembersinthedepartmenthadbeenaskedby

theirDeputyViceChancellor(whohasaChemistrybackground) to identify the top four

journals in their field, which the interviewee described as ‘a nonsense’ in the area of

Sociologyandthat:“Internallywithinthedepartmentwearedoingdealswitheachother.

Therewillbenocongruence, theyprobablywon’t findanyrepeats”.Anothersociologist

expresseddespair:

I am so frustrated with the situation at the moment. The bureaucrats don’t

listen. The department people simply micromanage the requests [for

publication]. It’s like Britain, they have to change [the Research Assessment

Exercise]becauseeveryonehasworkedaroundit.Thereisaninabilitytolisten

totheirbetterscholars.HowdoIsurvivethis?

Many people complained about promotions committees. One problem the interviewees

hadwas the emphasis on the number of publications over any quality assessment. One

sociologist said: “Promotionscommitteesshouldn’tweighpublications, theyshould look

forarticlesthataregenuinelynew”.Thiscommentabout‘weighing’referredtotheideaof

puttingaperson’spublicationsonascaleandawardingpromotionstothepersonwhose

pilewastheheaviest.Achemistconferred,sayingtherewas“noappreciationofcontent,

they just look at the numbers. I am cynical, with a 20% success rate they must cull

applications somehow”. The promotions system means that “altogether too much is

published” said another sociologist who described a situation where “every field is

swamped–alot[ofpublication]isuselessexceptforfurtheringcareers…Itwillhaveto

getawholelotworsebeforethesystemcollapsesbecauseitwill”.

It isnot just internalpromotionscommitteeswhopushtheresearchers topublishmore

and more, it seems. One sociologist who was interviewed for a chair at a different

institutionwasconfrontedwithveryhighexpectations:

notwithstanding the seven books and 40 articles and chapters and Christ

knows howmany seminars and conferences the first questionwas “why has

yourarticleproductionsloweddown?”AndIsaid,lookIhavejustwrittenthree

booksandhesaid “yesweunderstand thatbutyour internationalprofilehas

gottobestronger,youhavegotto”…farout!Howmuchworkcanyoudo?

The person interviewing came from a Psychology background, which to an outside

observer,shouldbereasonablysimilarintermsofpublicationsandcommunitynormsto

Sociology.However,thisisfarfromthetruth,asmyintervieweeexplained:

175

ThereisagreatdealofprofessionalboundarystampingaroundPsychologyand

Sociology … he would be a behaviourist and he would be a positivist so he

would only think that things that were data driven and internationally

publishedcount.

While this situation may seem extreme, the impression that emerges from these

interviews is that this counterproductivemethod of judgingwork is the cause of great

frustrationanddisquietintheacademiccommunity.

Promotions committees and Computer Science

BecauseofthewaypromotionsareassessedinComputerScience,intervieweessaidthey

publish in journalsaswellas conferencepapersbutmore forarchivalpurposes than to

communicate findings. The difficulty is that within the community the standards are

differentexplainedonecomputerscientist:“It’sthewayyourworkisperceived.Ifyouare

published at conferences it carries a lot more weight”. This is different from other

disciplines,saidanother:“IntheChemistryfieldyouaredriventopublishinjournals.You

won’t get grants unless you have a raft of publications … There is a balance between

getting published in the literature and publishing your work in higher quality

conferences”.TheadministratorsattheinstitutionswhereIconductedmyinterviewsare

requestingtheresearcherstoincreasetheirjournalpublication,whichiscausingdisquiet

intheComputerSciencecommunity.Forexampleonesaid:“Igettheimpressiontheuni

wants to push academics to publish in journals … The computer scientists use

conferences”.

This creates a conflict between how the researchers wish to interact with their

internationalcommunity,andtheirneedtofulfiltheirworkobligations.Onedescribedthe

problemwith conferences: “We typicallydon’t go fornational conferences… forquality

reasons, we want to be internationally known. We get criticised for not supporting

nationalconferences”.Thisrequirement tosupportnationalconferenceswasmentioned

byanotherinterviewee:

To retain international reputation you need to be seen to publish in top

conferences. That is not necessarily what youwant for promotion purposes.

Non‐Go8 publications are purely national conferences. The game is to get as

manyaspossible.Ithinkit iscommoneverywhere…Itdoesn’taffectwhereI

publish. The international reputation is more important than the local

reputation.

176

Thissituationofhavingtopublishinplacesagainstcommunitynormswasinresponseto

direct statements by promotion committee members. One interviewee explained: “My

promotioncommittee feedback isyoushould trymore journalpublication”.Thisperson

wasanothercross‐disciplinaryresearcher:

[Theysaid] try tohavemoreofamixwith journalpapers–broaderrangeof

papers.LastyearIpublishedmainlyinconferencesthatwerelocal.Inthelast

three years I have published mainly in Australian conferences – they

commentedIshouldtrytopinternationalconferencesaswellasjournalstoget

moreofamix…Theywantmetoputmoreincorecomputersciencejournals.

I’m not sure howhighly regardedBioMed Science journals are. They are not

computersciencejournalssoit’snotashighlyregarded.

One computer scientistmentioned there aredifferencesbetweenpublishers in termsof

the time it takes to have a paper published, but: “it’s a political play. If you are playing

careerorientedaspossible,youmustgotothemostregardedpublication,whichmeans

out of date publications”. Some researchers play the ‘game’ at different times in their

career:

There has been a shift inmy attitude. I am now at the stagewhere the next

promotionistoprofessor.IammorediscerningaboutwhereIpublishbecause

of the promotion process. I need to do groundwork to convince a broad

committee.

Acoupleofintervieweesdescribedtentativeindicationsthatthepromotionscommittees

and the ARC were finally beginning to understand this conflict in Computer Science:

“Duringmy renewal last year for the ARC, they asked if conference papers weremore

importantthanjournals.Theyhaveworkedoutthedifference”.Anattempttoaddressthis

situationhasbeenanAustralian rankingof conferences (CORERankingsSubcommittee,

2007),anditwouldseemthatthiswillhelpthesituation.Asoneintervieweesaid:

InComputerScience… there is lessofadistinctionbetweenconferencesand

the journals. There is a distinction between refereed conferences and non‐

refereed…Therehaveonlyjustbeenrecenteffortstorank[conferences].That

willhaveanimpact.

Inevitably, therewas some disquiet about the ranking decisions. One personwho is in

softwareengineeringcommented:

Wehavejustbeenhitwithleaguetableofconferencesandjournals.Ifyoulook

attier1–softwareengineeringisintier2and3.ThiswilldistorttheworkIam

goingtodo–Tier1isallartificialintelligencestuff.

177

Summary of reward process responses

The researchers interviewedaregenerallyverybusy,withmost indicating theyworked

greater than a full time load. Almost without exception the bulk of their research and

publicationoccursoutof teachingperiods.Aconsiderabledrainonacademictimeis the

necessitytoapplyforgrantsandtheneedtohaveahighpublicationratetobesuccessful

ingrantapplications.

Thelargestissuewithintherewardsystemhowever,istheneedtopublishinformsthat

satisfypromotionscommitteeswhichoftenconsistofresearchersoutsidetheirfield.This

means there is a need to meet the publishing expectations of other disciplines, by

publishing in international journals and some researchers are being forced to publish

againsttheirdisciplinarynorms.Thiswasnotasmuchofanissueforthechemists,butthe

sociologistsindicatedtherewaslittle‘value’giventobookpublicationdespitethehigher

proportional amount of work it takes to author and publish a book. The computer

scientistsaremostaffectedbythissituation,beingexpectedtopublishinjournalsdespite

thisnotbeingthewaytheycommunicate.

The master/apprentice system in academia

Thechapternowexplores themaster/apprentice systemof training researchers. In this

sectionthefindingsaresplitintodisciplines.Theareawasexploredwiththequestions:

• Pleasedescribeany formal instructionyouweregivenaboutthepublishing

process. (If there was none, please describe how you found out what you

know)

• Areyouinvolvedinanyformalorinformalmentoringortrainingprocessfor

youngresearchersto‘showthemthepublishingropes’?

Itshouldbenotedthatofalltheresponsesinthisresearch,theexperiencesdescribedhere

oftheinterviewee’stimeasastudenthavetheleastinferencefortheirhomeinstitution.

Theintervieweesrangedfromearlytoverylatecareerresearchers,sotheseexperiences

occurred all over theworld, in aperiod ranging from the1960s to as recently as a few

yearsago.

AgeneralobservationabouttheresponsesreceivedonthistopicisthatAustraliaappears

tobeworseatthemaster/apprenticesystemthantheUS.Onecomputerscientistsaid:

…intheUS,becauseofthewaythetenureprocessworksparticularly,thereis

enormouspressure topublishandpublishatqualityvenues.There isamuch

stronger sense of quality venues are and where impact lies and people are

178

muchmoredriven towardsgetting thosepublicationsout thedoor. It is very

intense,muchmoresothanhere.Sopeopleplaythegameverythoughtfully.

AsociologistdescribedthedifferentcultureintheUS:“Icomparemyselftocolleaguesin

USuniversitieswheretheyaretypicallyrewardedwitheverypublication,eachoneisan

increase in salary”. This relationship between publication and money was noted by

anothercomputerscientist:

The reward process in Australia is not as straightforward or proportional as

theUSsystem.Here ifyouhave lotsofpublicationsyoucanapply formoney

fromthegovernment.Theamountyougetisnotenoughtogotoconferences.

Youneedtoproducea lot togetasmallamountofmoney,notenoughtoget

throughput. You need to collaborate to sustain publication. Now I seldom

publish alone –we teamup funding – this affects thedirectionof research. I

don’tneedanyothercollaboration,Ineedmoneytogotoconferences.With12‐

13publications[inayear]Icangotohalftotwothirdsofthem.

Formal training offered by universities

The Computer Science department at UNSW offers a formal training course13 to PhD

studentsinresearchtechniqueswhichincludeswritingpapers.Whilethisappearstobea

step in the right direction, one interviewee had attended the course and not found it

helpful:

Itteachesstudentshowtopresent,writeandread.IdidthecoursemyselfbutI

didn’t find it useful. They would give pages from a book about writing

academically.Itwasn’tpracticalenough.WhenIdidittherewere20students

andoneteacher.Therewasnothingaboutimpactfactorandcitation.

One interviewee suggested a problemwith the coursemight bewhen it is given to the

students: “the Research Methods course is done too early, they aren’t into their topic

enoughyettobenefitfromit”.

TheAustralianNationalUniversity(ANU)alsorunsshortcoursesaboutacademicwriting

andpublishing through itsAcademicSkillsandLearningCentrexli.Notoneof thepeople

interviewedatANU(inanydiscipline)mentionedthisservice,whichcouldmeanthatthey

areeitherunawareofit,don’tconsiderittobeofvalue,ordidnotconnectthatwhatwe

were discussing is the sort of training the Centre offers. One Computer Science

13Course9910:ManagementandCommunicationSkillsforResearchinCSE

179

interviewee suggests Centre for Academic Development and Educational Methods

(CEDAM)xliicoursestostudents.CEDAMofferscoursestosupervisors,butnotcoursesto

studentsabouttheirresearchprocess.

Learning the ropes, Chemistry

AsdiscussedinChapter4,ofthethreedisciplinesexploredinthiswork,Chemistryisthe

disciplinethatbestfitsthedescriptionofa‘hardscience’,andtheapprenticeshipsystemis

stillentrenchedinthisdiscipline:

Idon’tseetheyarefullyfledgeduntiltheyhavefinishedtheremainderoftheir

apprenticeship.Evenwhentheygettothepointofamoreseniorfellowshipin

my game you need quite a few pairs of hands. A straightforward ideamight

take six months to test and bring to some form of success. They need to

establishasmallgrouptodoanything.

One resultof this system is the intervieweesdidnotnecessarily receiveany instruction

abouthow topublishbecause their supervisorshaddoneall thework for them.Asone

Chemistdescribed:“WhenIwasaPhDstudentmysupervisorwouldwritethepapers,let

mehavealookatthemandwewouldarguethetossaboutvariousthingsbuthedidallthe

writing”.Thiswasnotuncommonasanotherexplained:“MyPhDsupervisorwaspossibly

themostprolificpublisher intheworld.Heusedtowritethemallhimself. Iwrotemost

papersaftermyPhDwas finished.Mypostdoc supervisor Iworkedmostwith”.Others

had had more help from their post‐doc supervisors, with one saying: “the postdoc is

driven by supervisors. I think you learn on the job, I wrote early papers, with my

supervisordoingitjointly.Somesupervisorswanttobethefirstauthor”.Anothersaid:

…whenIwasaPhDmysupervisorhadapolicyofwritingpapers.Writingfrom

scratchasapostdoctoral fellow,Icopiedmysupervisor’sstyle.Notrainingin

writing.Ithasneverbeenaproblem.Iknowwhatrefereesexpect.It’snothard

toworkout.Overallmyrejectionratehasn’tchanged…MyexperiencewasI’ll

producearoughdraftandmysupervisorgavemeafinisheddraft.

One chemist described informal training, where their ‘superb’ PhD and post‐doc

supervisorshadexplained“thewaytheywerethinkingofhowtomakeapaperexciting

andhowtochooseajournal”.Thisresearcherwould,“givethemthemanuscriptandthey

would come back with more red than black. It taught me by the seat of my pants of

learning how to write a good paper”. Another researcher said they had experienced:

“much discussionwhere the articlewas going andwhy. At the time Iwas not sure if I

understood,butitwasthere.”Includingthechemistrystudentindiscussionsaboutwhere

180

a paperwould be sentwas another effectiveway of instructing students in the system

describedbyinterviewees.

Other interviewees indicated that they had not had any specific discussion about the

relativeworthof journals,butthechemistsappearedtobefar lessconcernedaboutthis

than the computer scientists. One said: “With journals affecting career I was given no

information about it. People in Chemistrymight obtain information subliminally. I can’t

recallatimewhenIdidn’tknowjournals’relativeworth”.Anotherexplained:“Iwasnot

taught[wheretosendapaper]inparticular,youlearnhowworkisvalued”.Yetanother

alsoindicatedalackofconcern:

Idon’tthinkanyonehasevertoldmeaboutpublishing.ThewayIlearntmost

about publishing is reading other’s papers – by osmosis. It is obviouswhat’s

involvedwhenwriting,youget infoforauthors– firstor last issueonhowto

writepapereg:howmanypagesit’sgotetc.

Guiding others, Chemistry

OneresultoftheapprenticesysteminChemistryisthatoftenthestudentsdonotactually

write papers. As one chemist explained: “On one three year project it is normal not to

write anypapers till theendor close to theend.Very few [students]havebeenable to

writeacoherentpaper.Fourorfiveproducedaprettygooddraft”.Itmaybemanyyears

andstudentsmayhaveseveralpapersonwhichtheyarelistedasanauthorbeforethey

actuallyundertakethewritingofapaper.

WhilePhDsmightwritesomeofthepaper,sometimesthesupervisorfindsiteasierifthey

dothework,“thequitetrickypartofpaper–journalsarequitepickyabout.Itspeedsup

theprocessifwegetitrightatstart[soIdoit]”.AnotherintervieweesaidofPhDstudents:

“TheywritethethesisIwritethepaper…Inpostdoctheyarewritingundersupervision,

theystilldraft”.Onedescribedthattheywere,“writingupstudent’sworkandpublishing

it”.Thisgives thestudents, “standingandresearch funding…Therealbarrier isgetting

studentstowriteapaper.Buttheyneedtodoitandneedtobewritingathesisattheend.

Italktothemaboutitallthetime”.

Thereappearstobeasplit intheattitudeof thechemistsaboutwhethertheirrole is to

teach students towriteornot. Some interviewees spend time instructing their students

includingthetechniqueofbringingpaperstomeetingsfordiscussions:

Myinstructiontoothersmirrorsmyownexperience–exceptno‐oneIworked

withhadastrict regimeofbringingpapers to researchmeetings. Ihope they

181

learnhowtowritepapersaswell. I amabitmorestructuredabout it.When

theywrite a paper, I sit downwith them “this is how I approach it”. Advise

them how to do it. Figure first, structure of the introduction. I give them a

structuretoworkfrom.

Many lecturers and supervisors are helping students by redrafting their work. One

explained: “Ifmystudentsproduceadraft I’ll cover it in red ink. Iexpect themtowrite

theirownpapers.Wegothroughaseriesofrevisions…Ithinkmystudentsshouldlearnto

write”.Anothersaidtheyasktheirstudentstodraftpapersthattheyrework:“Thedifficult

partofpaperforstudentsistheintroductionandtheconclusion.Igothroughwithared

pencil–Ilimitthatwhenitbecomesbettertoredraft.Igiveitbackforcomments”.

Otherintervieweessaidtheyusedthewritingofpaperswiththeirstudentsasateaching

methodthathelpedorganisethoughtsandprovidedfodderforthestudent’sthesis:“The

wayIsuperviseisItrytogetstudentstowritepapers.Theyshouldhave3‐4papers…itis

whatthePhDisabout”.ThepapersproducedinthisprocesscanbeusedinthePhD:

Isaytomystudentsthereisarealrigourthatcomeswithwritingarticlesfor

journalsandifwedothatwritingaheadoftheproductionoftheirthesis,that

essentiallythearticlecouldbecomethebackbonesofaparticularchapterinthe

thesis. Italso forcesbothofus,myselfand thestudent, to thinkdeeplyabout

theresearch…Ifinditaveryimportantprocessforallsortsofreasons.

SomeChemistryintervieweesdidnotspendanytimeinstructingtheirstudentsonhowto

write,preferringtowritethepapersthemselves.Oneexplained:“Theefficientwayisfor

the CI [chief investigator] to do it. It is a sort of osmosis for students, they seewhat is

involved”.Anotherchemistsaidthatthestudentsdothebenchworkforprojectstheyhad

designed and obtained funding for. The chemist then takes: “prime responsibility for

communicating results ofwork… Iwrite the introduction, discussion and conclusion. I

submitanddealwith thereferee’scomments”.Takingall responsibility forpublications,

even those generated from the PhD student’s research, was described as a matter of

conveniencebyseveralChemistryinterviewees:“Onthewholeitiseasierformetowrite

paperfromscratch”.

Whendescribinghelpingstudentslearnthecraftofpublication,theissueofdetermining

wheretosendpaperswasnotdiscussedasmuch,onlyafewchemistsmentionedit.One

wasveryvague,saying:“Wehaveprobablytalkedaboutwhereitneedstobesent”.This

could possibly be because unlike some other disciplines, the journals in Chemistry are

182

verywelldefined.Onechemistsaid:“Ifstudentsarewritingapaperwediscusspossible

placesforpublication.Insomecaseswedomakedecisionsinadvanceofwriting–where

we’dliketoaimfor”.

Learning the ropes, Sociology

The Sociology interviewees indicated there had been very little mentoring from their

supervisors.Onesaid:“NoIdidn’tgetalegupfrommyPhDsupervisor,itwasprettymuch

thisisthebird‐bath,nowyoulearntoswim”.Anothersaid:“Idon’tthinkmysupervisors

ever assisted. They probably said youneed to turn it into articles but they didn’t show

me”.Thislackofmentoringhasresultedinatleastsomesociologistshavingaslowstartto

theircareers,asonesaid:

Ittookmeyearstofindouttheconferencepapersdidn’tcount.Iwasproducing

about 10 papers a year, initially to groups like Aborigines. Professor [name]

wroteabook–citedmeasanunpublishedpaper.Ineverhadanymentoring…

Ionlyjustrealisedinthelastweekthateditingdoesn’tcountforDEST14.

This person sought assistance to find out about the publishing process (a decade after

embarkingontheircareer),whichwasclearandunequivocaloncerequested.

Oneearlycareerintervieweewasstillunclearabouttheissueofmakingstrategicchoices

aboutpublications:“Impactfactors–Ihavenotheardofthem.Iknowtherearescorings

ofaccessofjournals.Anotherrecentbitofadvicewastogettheadministratortogiveyou

aratingofsocialsciencejournals”.Despitethelackofdirectinstruction,somesociologists

had had encouragement from supervisors. One said: “With thesis publication therewas

encouragement in the school. I sent off proposals to publishers. The first publisher I

approachedwasOxford–theyendedupdroppingitbuttheeditorialadvicewasgood”.

In the absence of instruction from their supervisors, many interviewees had looked

elsewhere for advice. Some people described friends helping them. For example: “I got

involvedwith [name]whowasmore intopublishing…Heand Ipublisheda few things

together…Butittookawhile”.Anothersaidtheyhadspoken;“toafriendaboutapaper.

Shesaidsenditsomewhereworthwhile.Shegavemeadviceaboutwhethertosendtoa

reputable journal and risk being knocked back or less reputable and get published”.

Sometimestheirfriendstooktheroleofmentor,forexample:

WhenIwasstartingoutIhadafriendacoupleofyearsaheadofme,whowas

doinghisPhD.HeusedtokeeponhisdeskacopyofUlrich’s.AndUlrich’sisthe

14TheDepartmentofScienceEducationandTraining.

183

international classificationof journals by subject and title. And [name]was a

spectacular publisher. Spectacular. Andwhat he did, everything hewrote he

wentthroughUlrich’suntilhefoundsomeonewhowouldpublishit.

In other cases, the reviewprocess from the journal or publisher provided the feedback

needed towritemore effectively. Indeed, for one interviewee, “My first publicationwas

encouragedbytheeditorofajournal”.Othershavereliedonthecommentsinthereviews:

My first reviewhadsomesuggestions towhat [Iwas] saying I sowroteback

asking him to be a co‐author. We incorporated stuff and put him in as

secondaryauthor.…Itwasagoodexperience,hewasaverygenerousman.It

musthavetakentime.…Itdoesn’thappenanymore‐peopledon’thavetimeto

begenerous.

Thevalueofbeingrejectedwasdescribedbyacoupleofintervieweesasawaytofindout

whatwasandwasnotacceptableforpublication.Oneintervieweedescribedbeing:“very

lucky,my first three or four articles were accepted immediately. Then I got rejections.

That’swhenIstartedtothinkmorestrategically.Italkedtocolleagues”.

Onesociologistwhohadhadnoinstructionfor“thejumpfromPhDtopublishablepaper”

saidthey:“learntbysendingstuffoff.Paperswereacceptedwithreallymajorchangesand

Iworkeditout.Probablyonebigmistakewassillydecisionsaboutwheretosendthings”.

Theywerenottheonlyintervieweewhodescribedbeingover‐ambitiousaboutwhereto

sendthings,withanothersaying:

IwentforScienceandSocialMedicinewhichisthebiggestinternational,andgot

roundly beaten up, very roundly beaten up.Which teaches you an awful lot

aboutwhatyoucangetawaywithsayingandnotsayingatthatlevel.

Onlyonesociologistdescribedbeinggivenspecificadvice:

The advice I was given when I was a young scholar was publish anywhere,

anytimeand start leaving it off theCV as you getmoremature andhighlight

only the good internationals. And I think that is probably generically true. I

don’tknowhowmanypeoplestartleavingthingsoffbutIcertainlydo.Ihave

thingspublishedthatwererunoffonRomeropressesthatyouwouldn’twant

toownuptoanymore.

184

Guiding others, Sociology

Encouraging publication in Sociology is complicated by the emphasis on publishing

monographsaswellaspapers.Partofthedifficultyisthenatureoftheresearch:

Inthesocialsciencesitmakesitdifficulttohiveoffpartoftheworkandgetit

published.Itiseasiertodointhephysicalsciencesandbeco‐authorsonpaper.

Itisanissuethatshouldbeaddressed.

That said, the people interviewed seemed to be encouraging their own students. One

explained:“IfIthink[astudent’s]workispublishableIputinalotofenergy.Italktothem

aboutwhichpartispublishable…whatthereaderwouldbeinterestedin.Iadvisewhere

topublish”.AcoupleofindividualsIspoketoinSociologyhadundertakentoteachtheir

students ‘the ropes’. For example a peer review training programwas described in the

section on PeerReview in the last chapter. Another Sociology intervieweementioned a

coursetheyhaddeveloped:“Iencourageotherstopublish,Icanhelppeopletopublish.I

ranapublicationsseriesforstudentsonceuntilIranoutofmoney”.

Thesociologyintervieweesrecognisedthatpublishinghelpsthestudent’scareer:

I like to seemyPhD students get two journal articles out of the thesiswhile

theygo.Becauseonceit’sintheacknowledgementsinthefrontofthethesisit

givesthethesisaphenomenallegitimacyintheeyesofexaminer…Soyougive

themalotofmoralsupportbutyoucan’tactuallymakethemwriteit.Andyou

tellthemstrategicallythisisagoodthingtodo.

However,writingpapers takesabackseat insomecases: “Iwould like togivemyPhDs

instruction, but typically themain concern for all of us in Sociology is getting the PhD

done”.

Learning the ropes, Computer Science

Manyofthecomputerscienceintervieweesdescribedhavingtoworkouthowtowritea

paperandwheretosenditontheirown.Onecomputerscientistwasgivennoexplanation

of the publishing process, s/he: “worked it out on the go. I read papers andwrotemy

papers in similar format … [I became aware of the] impact factor through going to

conferences. Some journalshave tradebooths toadvertise their impact factor”.Another

computerscientistdescribeda trialanderrormethod,havingspent “five tosixyears to

workouthowtogetintoahighlevelconference,thewayexperimentsweredoneandthe

waytowritethem”.AnotherdescribedalackofassistanceevenwiththeirPhDwriting:“A

PhD,whatwasexpectedofthesethings?Iwasnotsure ifwhatIhadinfrontofmewas

PhD.Ihavefirmedupmyviewsnow–formedmyownopinionsofwherethevalueis”.At

185

least one person did not appear to find the lack of instruction problematic: “I had no

instruction…Ilearnedfromco‐authorsandpeers,itwasevidentwhatthestructureofa

decentpaperis,andpresentinganargument”.

Thoseintervieweeswhoweretrainedoverseasgenerallyhadhadlittleinstructiononhow

towritepapers.Onewhostudied inGermany, said therewas “nearlynoguidance”, and

theyhadhad tosolve theseproblemson theirown,but “thiswas fairlycommonthere”.

AnotherGermanspeakerdidtheirPhDinSwitzerlandand“hadtowriteinEnglishwitha

Germanspeaker’sbackground.Therewasnosupportonwheretosubmitpapers”.

Therewere some examples of good, systematic training, or at the least encouragement.

Somedescribedinstanceswhentheywereastudent,theywereaskedtowriteadraftthat

wasthencorrectedbytheirsupervisor.Forexample:“Ihadnoformalinstructiononhow

towriteapaper.Mysupervisorrecommendedthetimetowriteup.Iwoulddraftandhe

woulddemolishit”.Anotherdescribedtheone‐on‐onetrainingwiththeirPhDsupervisor:

“Theyputemphasisonwriting,theseareimportantskillsasaresearcher.MyfirstpaperI

had25versionsofsamestuff.Itwasgoodbecauseonceit’sdoneitgetseasier”.Another

describedasimilarexperience:

IlearntthroughthePhDstudyprocess…youhavetobewelltrained.Itismore

likeamentoringprocess.Iwasaskedtoreadalot,askedtoreviewandcriticise,

asked then to draft one – try andmimic and seewhat happens. The printed

copywasreturnedfullofredink,learnfromthem.Itwasapainfulprocessto

learnbuteventuallygood.

Thispersonalsohadasupervisorwhoencouragedthemtosubmitwork:

Thedecisionaboutwheretosendworkwasmostlyaffectedbymysupervisor.

If they encourage you to submit to high quality conferences by the time you

graduate, youhavepublished inhighquality conferences…Whichuniversity

youattenddetermineshowgoodyourtrainingis.

InoneinstanceinComputerScience,thementoringprocessforwritinghascontinuedwell

intotheresearcher’scareer.Thementorwhoworkedontheinterviewee’swritingwhen

theywereanhonoursstudent,isstilldoingso:“Iwroteapaperandgaveittomymentor,

hetotallyrewrotethepaper.Toalesserextentthathappenstoday,thesamementor”.

Anothermethodoftrainingwasforthesupervisortowritethemorecomplexpartofthe

papersforthestudent:“EarlystagePhDscontributetothetechnicalpart,thesupervisor

186

writes the background and introduction”. This person described they were mentored

aboutwheretosendmaterial:“usuallymyadvisorwouldsuggestaconferencetosubmit

to…Igottoknowthekeypeopleandkeyscientists”.

Somepeopledescribed a situationwhere they ‘pickedup’ the information theyneeded.

One said they had done this by: “being in a research group with other students” who

“alwayshadthe luxuryofsupervisor’sreadingourwork”.For thisperson, therewasno

confusion about where to send work: “It is obvious ‐ it is clear what are the top

conferences and journals. At the time we were all aiming at these conferences. Our

supervisorencouragedustoaimhigh”.Anotherpersondescribedtheirearlyexperiences

as “informal discussions with my supervisor … I never received any formal training, I

wouldn’t knowwhere to go for it. A lot of people know [about publishing] but it’s not

writtendown”.

In some instances there was a distinction between the mentoring of the writing, and

instruction about impact factors and other issues,where the individual had been given

helpwiththeirwritingbutnotwiththeimportanceofwheretosendyourwork.Thatsaid,

someintervieweeshadbeengivendirectassistance:“Iwastakenasidebyaprofessorof

logicwhoadvisedmethatthisisthewayacademiaworks.Sometimesit’sthenumberthat

counts”. One interviewee who as a post‐doc had been told about how the publishing

systemworkssaid:

WhenIwaswritingmyCVforgrantapplicationsIwastold‘youhadbettertell

them how many times you are cited’. Publication record is extremely

important. Ihadanemail fromtheAssociateDeanofFacultyonthe ‘do’sand

don’ts ingrantapplication’. Itwasmyfirstadviceontrackrecordandahuge

factoringettingagrant.

One intervieweehadaPhDadvisorwhotheysaid“wasn’t in thegame”.Thisresearcher

foundouthowthesystemworkedduringtheirpost‐docatanotheruniversity:

after my post‐doc or during my post doc I started getting invited onto

[conferencecommittees]andI’mnowactuallyonalotofthosecommitteesand

thatgivesmeaninsightintohowalotofthosedecisionsaremade,soitmakes

ita loteasiertogetmypitchright.SoI thinkthat isreallycrucial, thethingI

totally lacked in the first five years ofmy career and I was totally shooting,

stabbinginthedark.

187

Inothersituationsitwasmoreofatrialanderrorscenario.Oneintervieweewhohadhad

no mentoring at their post‐doc university in the UK, “found out the hard way”. They

described thebiggest challenge “was to changemy attitudes towardspublishing froma

very pure attitude. I only wanted to publish in the best journals or not at all. Slowly I

changedtoitwasOKtopublishinlesserjournals”.

Guiding others, Computer Science

Formanyoftheinterviewees,theirownintroductiontothepublicationprocesswaspoor

enoughtoencouragethemtobemoreproactivewiththeirownstudents.Onedescribed

theirown‘learnonthego’experienceasbeingeffectivebuttakingtoomuchtimebecause:

“ThegovernmentnowexpectsstudentstodoPhDsinlesstime”.Anothersaid:“Ihopethe

nextgenerationwilldobetter.Halfofthework[writingpapers]isdonebythestudents,I

trytohelpandmentorthemasco‐author”.Inatleastonecase,thelecturerdidnotknowif

itwas their role to bementoring: “Withmy own students – I tend to be similar tomy

supervisor.I’mnotsureifit’smyresponsibilitytotrainthemtowrite.Icommentonthe

correctstyleofwriting”.Anotherintervieweemetaphoricallythrewtheirhandsintheair:

“AmIinstructingstudentsinpublishing?–probablynotenough.Itissomethingtheyhave

difficulty with. Students and postdocs have trouble writing papers and structuring

papers”.

Thetypeofassistancetheintervieweesareofferingstudentsincludeshelpingthemwith

earlydraftsofpapersandchoosingconferences.Oneapproachistochooseaconference

and work towards a publication in that. Several computer scientists described this

method,withoneexplaining: “Weplan towriteupwork fora journaloraconference. I

will give advice about which conference or journal will be likely. I suggest they try

something out locally first”. Another said: “Wediscuss conferences coming up and plan

ahead with internal deadlines – draft – discuss lots of proof readings – point to

deficiencies.Iencouragethemtoreadlotsofpapers”.Onedescribedaniterativeprocess:

Ioftenchooseaconferenceinafewmonthstime,sostudentscansetatarget.

Thestudentswillwrite the firstdraft. If theyareat thebeginning then Igive

themadviceandchangethingsbutbytheendtheycanchangeitthemselves.

Another technique is to work through drafts prepared by the students to help their

writing:“Ispendquiteabitoftimereadingthroughstudent’sdraftscommentingonthe

languageanddiscussingwheretosend it. Iencouragethemtopublish…Wedocitation

counts together”.Another tries towritea jointpaperwithstudents in their firstyear: “I

correct [their draft] and they fix it. I act as a reviewer.Whenever Imake a correction I

188

make a note of why. I can usually convince a student why it is a particular way”. One

specificallymentioned:“theapprenticeshipmodel,[PhDstudents]needtolearnthecraft

whichincludeswriting,soalthoughitisneverasefficientasdoingityourself,thestudent

hastodoitall,bringstuffback,getcorrectedanditgoesroundandroundincircles”.

One computer science interviewee described giving ‘explicit instruction’ about how to

structurethepaper.Anothersaid:“Igivestudentsinstruction.Bythetimetheyfinishthey

canwriteapaperthatwouldgetintoatopconference.Thisisdoneonetoone–editing

andchopping”.Onedescribedthetechniquetohelpstudentsofgivingthemsomerelevant

reading material, such as Phillips and Pugh’s (2005) book, How to get a PhD, and

encouragingthemtostartwritingpapers:“Thebroadideaoftryingtogetpapers,astring

of papersdoneduring the first two thirds of thePhDas the foundationof thewriteup

stageIhavefoundIencouragemystudentstodo,withmixedsuccess”.

Summary of master/apprentice

There are two possible areas of instruction for publication, how to write a paper and

wheretosubmitthework.Theexperiencesoftheintervieweesofhowtheylearnedthese

processes were vastly different and the quality of this instruction appear to depend

heavily on the supervisor an individual has. There are also disciplinary differences. In

Chemistry,forexample,itiscommonforastudenttohaveseveralpapersonwhichtheir

name appears as an author but not to have contributed anything to the writing of the

paper. The opposite can occur in Sociology, where the supervisor will not co‐author

paperswithstudentstoavoidtheriskofinfluencingtheirwork.

Many interviewees described having no instruction, and having to ‘work it out’ for

themselvesbysubmittingtojournalsandreceivingscathingreviews.Generallyinallthree

disciplineswhen there actually is somementoring on this issue, themethodof training

involvesthestudentwritingadraftwhichiscritiquedbythesupervisor,andthesedrafts

arerefineduntilthepaperisreadyforsubmission.

Awareness of, attitudes to and engagement with open access

This research project is asking: “How are the communication practices between

researchersaffectingtheuptakeofopenaccessscholarlydissemination inAustralia?” In

the interviews undertaken for this research, the questions about open access and

repositorieswerekeptuntil theendof theconversation.Partof thereason for thiswas

concernthatawarenessofopenaccessisnotwidespreadintheacademiccommunityand

189

the interviewees might be ‘put off’ by the question. This section describes the

interviewee’sresponsestothefollowingquestionsaboutopenaccess:

• Areyoufamiliarwiththeterm‘openaccesspublishing’?

• Ifso,couldyoudescribeopenaccessasyouunderstandit?

• Areyoufamiliarwiththe‘authorpays’or‘payonsubmission’model?

• How would you feel about this becoming the standard publishing model for all

journals?

Support for open access

There is a distinction between an individual’s attitude towards an idea and their

behaviour towards it, and open access as a concept is an example of this. Those

interviewedgenerallyshowedsupport fortheprinciplesofopenaccess, forexamplethe

ideaofsharingresults.Onecomputerscientistsaid:“Researchisprettymeaninglessifyou

can’tcommunicateit.Thewholepurposeofresearchrestsondisseminatingtheresearch”,

andanotherstated: “What’sscience for ifyoudon’thave thingsavailable?”Asociologist

concurred: “Open Access? I think it’s a good idea in principle. I don’t think knowledge

shouldbeowned.Oncepublished it’sout there, ithasa lifeof itsown, it shouldn’thave

stringsattached”.

A couple of people felt that the ‘taxpayer’ had a right to be able to see the results of

research,withacomputerscientiststating:“IfigureIhavebeenfundedbygovernmentso

thatmeans thepublichassomeentitlement to thework I’vedone”.Oneof thechemists

echoed these sentiments: “I believework should be published.We are financed by the

taxpayer,itshouldbeinthepublicdomain”.

One tenet of open access, that commercial publishers are becoming too expensive,was

reflectedinresponsesgivenbyachemistwhosaid:“Itrytofavoursocietyjournalsover

commercialjournals.Becausetheyputsomethingback.Butifthepaperisgoodenoughfor

Nature I will ditch the good feelings”. A computer scientist also commented on this

situation:

A lot of thepublications aremoving towards open formatwhere allmaterial

under openor free publication licenses. In the long run that’s theway to go.

With books if publishers don’t allow copyright to be picked up under open

licence–itisawasteofresources.Withbigpublishers,withbooksit’sacase‐

by‐casebasis.

190

While the researchers interviewedgenerallyappear tobelieve in thephilosophybehind

openaccess,manydidn’tseemtounderstandthemechanicsofhowtodoit.Asdiscussed

in the previous chapter, possibly because they are all housed in well‐funded higher

educationinstitutions,theintervieweeshaveanacceptablelevelofaccesstotheliterature

(except for theUNSWSociologygroup).Theproblemofnothavingaccesstoresearch is

not one they experience first hand, and even requests for theirwork from thirdworld

countrieshavediminishedsincetheintroductionoftheinternet.Thereisnotnecessarily

anobviousimmediateneedforopenaccessdisseminationamongstthiscohort.

Attitudes towards open access in Chemistry

Whileoverallthechemistsinterviewedhadheardofopenaccess,theunderstandingofthe

details of open access options was less clear amongst this group than the computer

scientists. Theirmisconceptions about open access seemed tomean the chemists were

less inclined to support open access. Generally in Chemistry, the focus of open access

seems to be open access journals rather than using repositories, and given the main

publication output of chemists is in journals, this is hardly surprising. Therewas some

confusion amongst the chemists interviewed about whether open access articles have

beenpeerreviewed.Onesaid:“Ihaveavagueunderstanding[ofwhatopenaccessis]–a

website or electronic resource people can submit papers to. I don’t know if it is peer

reviewedorjustfree”.Anotherexplainedtheirattitudes:

Openaccess, Ihaveheardof the term… Iamagainst. Iwouldn’tpublish that

way. Formyownwork, I haveworkpeer refereed. Journals have immediacy

marksthatgetchecked.Iwouldn’twanttopublishwhereIcan’tgetanimpact

factor.IfIpublishinnormaljournalsIwillgettheimpactfactor.

There was also some confusion about what ‘open access’ meant. For example, one

interviewee understoodwhat open accesswas: “open access is freely available and not

havingtopay”,butnothowitworked:“It’sonlyopenaccessiftheuniversitylibraryhasa

subscription.Lotsofopenaccessmaterialisnotjournals”.Anotherthoughtitmeantthat:

“Anyoneoutsideapersonalsubscriptiononlyhasaccessforafee.It’sanonlinearchiveof

information. I have published in one recently”. Another point of confusion for chemists

waswhetheropenaccessmaterial‘counted’foranythinginthescholarlycommunication

rewardsystem:

Open access I understand as being ‘everything online’ – a repository of

essentiallyeverything.ThereareacoupleofChemistryjournalsthatareopen

access but there is nothing of importance in them. I don’t think we get any

creditforit.

191

In a couple of caseswhere the intervieweeshad anunderstanding ofwhat open access

wasandsupportedtheprincipleofopenaccess,thiswasnotenoughtopublishinanopen

access journal at the risk of impact factors. For example one said: “Iwould in principle

publish in a open access journal, I don’t have anything against online journals, have e‐

versions only of publication. It is bound to becomemore common. I would still go on

impactfactor”.Anothersaidtheyhadbeen“askedtobeontheeditorialboardofanopen

accessjournal.FrommemoryIsaidyes–butIhadnointentionofsubmittinganythingto

it. I am on six editorial boards, some are more important than others. I have no

philosophicalissueswithitonewayortheother”.

However,a fewof thechemistshadaclearunderstandingthatopenaccessmeans,with

oneexplanationbeing:“everyonecanaccessit.NucleicAcidResearchdoesthat.Somehave

workisavailableafteraperiodoftime,someonlyforacertainperiodoftime.PLoSisan

openaccessjournal.”Anotherknewthat“youpayacertainamountofmoneyandyoucan

makeyourworkavailable”.Andacouplehadpublishedinopenaccessjournals,“YesI’m

familiarwith it. One journal I have published in isARKiVOK [an open access Chemistry

journal]Ihaveputaboutfourpapersintothere”.

One interviewee understood that therewas a distinction between open access journals

andopenpeerreview:

WellIthinktherearetwovariantsofitaren’tthere,oneisthatitisajournal,a

normal journalwith refereeing associatedwith it but there isno charge, it is

put on the web, there is not normally a hard copy form. So it’s a reviewed

journalthat is freetoair.Andinanothervariant,andIamnoexpertonopen

access publishing, and another variant it is both free to air and there is not

reallythatmuchvettingofit.Itpeoplecanjustputontobulletinboardsalmost

electronicversionsofpapers.

Itispossiblewiththesecond‘variant’describedhere,theintervieweewaseitherreferring

toputtingpre‐printsintoarepositoryortoPLoSOnexliiiwhichwillacceptpapersinmost

scientificareasafteraquicktechnicalreviewbytheeditorialboard,thecommunitypeer

reviewthenoccursonlineafterpublication.

Therewas, rather surprisingly given how recent the phenomenon is, a fewpeoplewho

understoodtheprinciplesofhybridpublishingoptions(discussedinChapter3).Onesaid:

Ilikeit[openaccess].Iliketobeabletoobtainjournalarticles–liketohavemy

work available to a wider audience as possible. There are hybrids that will

192

makeyourpaperavailable. Idon’tdo that. Iwould like tobutcan’tafford to.

Would lovetohaveresearchavailabletothewidestpossibleaudienceforthe

benefitofscience. Icanbarelycovercosts fordoingtheresearch itself…It is

anotherwayresearchisavailableforfree.

Howeverthecostappearstobeaprohibitivefactorforseveralpeople.Forexample,one

said, “I wouldn’t want ARC funding to go to open access”, and another said the $750

chargedbyPNAS(ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofScience)was“toomuchmoney…

IntheUStheNSF[NationalScienceFoundation]typicallyprovidesmoneyforpublication

costsoutofthegrant”.

Even those intervieweeswhodidn’tknowwhatopenaccesswas indicated that someof

the issues raised by the open access community such as the cost to the author of

publishingwereafactorintheirdecisionmaking:

ThereisacertainrangeofjournalsIconsider.Manydon’tchargelikewounded

bulls –oneof the issues.Theuniversitydoesn’t likeus topublish in journals

thatlevypagecharges.Onearticlecancost$1000US.Manyjournalschargefor

thenumberofpagesthatyoutakeupinthejournal.Theywillchargeforcolour

plates. Even online only journals do it to cover editorial costs … [I have a]

preference for journals thatmake itavailable freely.Someare free topublish

butyouneedasubscription.Itdependsonoverallcosts.Pagechargesareone

ofthebiggestconsiderations.It’samajorconcernactually.Iamalwayslooking

topublishinjournalsthatdonotchargeanarmandalegtopublishthere.

Attitudes towards open access in Sociology

Thesociologistsinterviewedshowedsomeawarenessofopenaccess,andphilosophically

theconceptseemedtoappealtothem.Onesociologistsaid:“Ihaveheardofit.Iassumeit

means anyone can get hold of the downloads. In principle it’s quite anarchistic”. An

exampleoftheunderstandingofopenaccessamongstthesociologygroupinterviewedis:

“Ihaveheardof[openaccess]butIdon’tunderstandmuchaboutit.Assoonas[thearticle

is]peerrevieweditisonlineinsomejournal”.

Copyrightwasmentionedbyoneinterviewee:“Ihavenoproblemswithitaslongasthere

isanacceptancethatit’smywork.It’sacopyrightissue…Theideaofanupfrontpayment

– fills me with indifference. I doesn’t worry me greatly”. There are some open access

Sociologyjournals.OnesociologistwhoIlaterestablishedhadpublishedinanopenaccess

journalsaid:

193

Idon’tknowifoneofmypiecesisopenaccess…Philosophicallyandpolitically

Iliketheidea–mymajorpriorityistryingtochoosemajorjournals.Iassume

newerpracticesandjournalsmightnotbeasrecognisedasaresult.

The question of open access books (which do exist) was not raised in the interviews,

despitebooksandmonographsbeingoneofthepublishingoutletsforthisgroup.Unlike

the other two disciplines, a couple of the sociologists recognised that there are access

issuesforpeoplewhoarenotbasedinaninstitution.Anexamplewas:“Therealproblem

ispeoplewholeavetheuni.Atthetimetheyareusedtohavingaccesstodatabasesand

journals.Theyareapplying for jobsand trying towriteuparticlesbut theycan’taccess

them [journals]”. This is partly because with a move to electronic‐only versions of

journals,aperson‘offthestreet’cannotsimplywalkintoalibraryandlookupajournal

paper. Another sociologist pointed out: “At the library now you have to have a student

numberandpassword,youusedtobeabletojustlogin[tothecatalogue]”.

Overalltherewasarangeofunderstandingandsupportofopenaccessinthecommunities

inthisstudy.

Attitudes towards open access in Computer Science

Ofthethreegroupsinterviewed,thecomputerscientistsseemedtobethemostawareof

openaccess,withanswerslike:“Openaccess–Ihaveheardaboutit”.Asagrouptheyhad

theclearestideaofwhatopenaccesswas,withthemostdefinitiveanswersbeing:“Open

accessisanonlinenon‐copyrightsystemeveryonecanuse”,“Openaccessmeanseveryone

can get access to research information, the Australian theses are on web”. A couple of

computer scientists had some idea of the open access premise, but their descriptions

showed an incomplete understanding of the concept such as: “Open access publishing ‐

QUThas one”, and “Itmeanspublishedwork is available to public use in anyway they

like”.

Computer scientists, perhaps not surprisingly, given their work practice of making

materialavailableontheirpersonalwebsites,alsoseemedtounderstandreasonsbehind

open access, for example one said: “if it is not an open access journal then you are

preventinglotsofreadersbeingabletoseetheworkyouwrote”.Anothersaid:

IliketheOAmodelfortworeasons,oneisforthegoodofthecommunitybut

thereisalsoaself‐interestpart.Ifyougoandpublishinaplacewhereno‐one

canreaditunlesstheyareinaninstitutionthatcanpaythe$3000subscription,

wellthenguesswhat,no‐oneisgoingtoreadyourstuff.

194

This awarenessmay result from a level of frustrationwith the amount the academic is

asked to do to prepare journal papers for publication: “Many academics are suspicious

towards publishers who charge a huge amount. It is the result of publishers wanting

camera‐ready copy–what is the journaldoing forme?”Another interviewee said: “You

knowitskindofdafttheseclosedaccessjournals–Wewritethecontent,wetypesetthe

content, we referee the content and theymake themoney. It’s awell‐worn argument”.

Thisincreaseinformattingrequirementsappearstohaveoccurredinthelastfewyears:

Before I went into industry there were less hoops to jump through, [papers

were]refereedbyhandwedidn’tsubmitpublicationreadyproofs.Theywould

review the text and the figures as separate things – and they formatted the

document.Now [I’mback in academia] it’s electronic submission as the final

formofthepaper.

This frustrationwas not limited to journal publishers, conference organisers appear to

have also increased their expectations. One computer scientist said: “Almost all

conferenceshaveswitchedtopdf[submission].WhatIgenerateiswhatIuse.Itusedtobe

thatwe submitted raw files in LateX and theywouldmodify”. Possibly because of this:

“Severalofthemostimportantjournalsaremanagedbythecommunityitself.Everyonein

thefieldfeelsthewayIdo”.

It appears that the open access debate in the Computer Science community has been

occurring since the 1990s, and several interviewees described a few high profile

challengestothepublisher’sposition:

Itisnotafactornowbut10yearsagoabitterbattlewasbeingfought.Acouple

of publishers were very expensive. The Head of Department went to the

publisher and said unless you agree to reduce chargeswewill go elsewhere.

Theycalledthebluffsowedidmove.Thepowerratiochanged.ThatwasJohn

Lloyd – Journal of Logic Programming. In the mid 1990’s there was a lot in

electronic journals– Ididthesamething,camerareadycopyturnaroundone

month,twomonthsatmost.Thesejournalswereoftenstartedbypeopleclose

tomyarea–reviewsweremuchbetter,closetomyfield.Nowthepowerhas

shifted.

I’llgiveyoualittleanecdote,about10yearsagoIwenttothemajorconference

ofdatabasesandtheyhadahugepaneldiscussion–thesearethetoppeoplein

databases, and themainpersonwhowasadvocating itwas JimGray.Hewas

arguing that his professional association should make all the documents

195

availablehistoricallyandinthefutureforfreeonthebasisofacademicliberty

andparticularlyonthebasisofavailability forunderprivilegedpeopleandso

forth.Andhemadeapassionateargument.Andtheydid.Ithashappened,this

was theACMSIGMOD15 fordatabasesand ithassubsequentlyhappenedwith

othergroupstoo,buttheywerethefirsttodoit.

Actually inmyfield therewasa journalcalledMachineLearning itusedtobe

published by Kluver, its now taken over by Springer, but several years ago

therewasaminorcausecelebreaboutopenaccess.Becauseanewjournalwas

formed,theJournalofMachineLearningResearchwhichisacommunityonline

onlyopenaccessjournalanditstartedin2001andwithinayearorayearand

ahalf,maybewithintwoyearsithadthehighestimpactfactorofanyComputer

Science journal in theworldand thereasonwasclear,wasbecauseeveryone

couldgetaccesstoit,peoplereadthepapersmore.

According to the interviewees, there are now a considerable number of journals in the

Computer Science field that arepublishedasopenaccess journals.One said: “I thinkAI

[Artificial Intelligence] journals make papers available, before the publication in hard

copy. I have published in that way”. Another interviewee also mentioned an artificial

intelligence journal. In addition, another said “logic journals are going for open access”.

However,simplyhavingthingsavailabledidnotnecessarilymeantheywouldembraceit,

withoneintervieweestating:

Iwouldn’t consider [publishing in] open access journals becausemywork is

alreadyfreelyavailable.ACMandIEEEareputtingmaterialupfreelyavailable.

Noteverything,somestuffisonlyavailabletomembersandsomethroughthe

library.Olderstuffisfree.

Thecostofauthor‐pays fees inopenaccess to theresearcher fromtheirresearch funds,

however, is still a factor: “Ideologically, Ibelieve inopenaccessexcept theycharge,and

because there is no grant it is not easy”. Several computer scientists discussed their

attitudetorecentmovestowardsopenaccess,withonesaying:“Withopenaccessjournals

theyarethenewkidsontheblocktheymustdemonstratetheyarenew,differentbutstill

good.Theymustcompetewiththebigguys”.Anothersaid:

A lot of the publications are moving towards open format where all the

material is underopenor freepublication licenses. In the long run that’s the

15ACM’sSpecialInterestGrouponManagementofData

196

waytogo.Somepeoplehavebeentryingtosetupnewjournals.Sofar inmy

area in computing it hasn’t been successful yet, there hasn’t been sufficient

effortintoit.Itrequiredalotofwork.

Oneofthepeopleinterviewedwasafoundingeditorofanopenaccessjournal:

Wepublishpapersimmediatelytheyarefinal,around100papersanissueand

steadily increasing.We don’t restrict the numbers…Nowwe publish nearly

two times any other journals in field. We receive a paper a day and accept

around 1/3, 38% last year. Once a year a company takes our copy and

publishesonpaper–printingstarted10yearsagobecausesomepeopleonthe

editorialboardwereconcernedaboutthepermanenceoftheelectroniccopy…

[thejournal]isopenaccess.Noregistration.Noincome,allvolunteersdoit.

There did appear to be some small confusion amongst some computer science

interviewees, who thought open access meant no peer review, or open peer review.

Typical remarkswere: “Open accessmeanswithout peer review”, and “I have heard of

[open access].My understanding… It is open for review bywhomever comes along. A

publicreviewprocess”.Anotherpersonsaid:

Iagreewithit[openaccess]–theproblemispeerreviewstatus–whenIam

goingtoreadapaper,thefactapaperappearsinajournalorconferencemeans

its been peer reviewed. At least I know papers in good journals have been

reviewed.

Depositing in repositories

The problem of low participation rates is one faced by institutional repositories

worldwide. The generally accepted statistic is that approximately 15% of all academic

outputiscapturedinopenaccessforminrepositories.Oneobviousreasonforthisisthe

lackofawarenessintheacademiccommunityoftheexistenceofanavailablerepository.

Thisfinalresultssectionisdiscussingtheresponsestothefollowingquestions:

• Whatisyourunderstandingoftheterm‘institutionalrepository’?

• Haveyoueverdepositedanyscholarlymaterials,includingpreorpostprintsintoan

institutionalrepository?

• Ifnot,whataboutonpersonalordepartmentalwebsite?

• Ifnotwhynot?Wouldyouconsiderdoingso?Whatwouldpreventyou fromdoing

this?Whatwouldencourageyoutodothis?

197

Generally, theanswersgiven to thequestions in this researchshowed little institutional

differences.Howeverinthecaseofthequestionsabouttheinstitutionalrepository,there

is a difference between the institutions. TheANU researchers have had an institutional

repository available to themsince2001.Thiswas an ePrints repository setupbyColin

SteelewhenhewasUniversityLibrarianin2001.In2005,ePrintswasabsorbedintothe

new DSpace‐based repository called Demetrius, which has experienced fluctuating

supportduetochangingadministrationpracticessince.

At the time of interview theUNSWresearchers did not have an institutional repository

theycoulddeposit into. In theory this shouldmean that theANUrespondentswouldbe

morecognizantwiththeideaofinstitutionalrepositoriesandbemorelikelytobeactively

usingone.Indeferencetothisdifference,inthisnextsectionIstatetheinstitutionwhere

thequoteoriginated.

Chemistry and repositories

Few of the chemists interviewedwere aware that repositories were available to them.

Whethertheyhadheardofthemornot(inwhichcaseIprovidedanexplanationofwhat

theywere), the ANU chemists showed little enthusiasm for the concept, indicating that

theydidnotexpectthatmaterialintherepositorywouldbevisible.Onepersonwhohad

notheardabouttherepositorysaid;“Myviewisit[materialintherepository]wouldjust

getburied,peoplewouldn’t lookfor it.”Anotherpersonwhowasnotawareof itsaid,“I

don’tsupposeIthinkofitashavingahighpriority”.Thisideaofitbeingunimportantin

thiscommunitysurfacedagainwithanotherinterviewee:

I think I vaguely knew about that. I think all of those things are not taken

seriously – not by colleagues overseas. It will never be an alternative, not a

replacement.Whetherthejournalwouldletyougetawaywithit–havingwork

depositedanywhereelse.

EvenanANUchemistwhofelttheydidknowabouttherepositorywasalittlevagueonthe

detail:

Ihaveheard[institutionalrepositories]discussed…Iamawaretherewasone

atoneoftheuniversitiesinQueensland.Ithinktheyweretrailblazingweren’t

theyandwefollowedsuittosomeextent.SomyanswertothatwasyesIwas

awareofthathere.

TheUNSWchemistsweremoreconcernedaboutrestrictionsontheirchoiceofpublishing

outlets,sayingtheywouldbepreparedtousetheUNSWrepository“ifdoesn’tprohibitme

198

frompublishinginacceptedjournal”.Thislimitationonpublicationoutletswasraisedby

anotherrespondent:“Ihavenoproblemwithit.It’sfineaslongasitdoesn’tlimitwhere

peopleshouldpublish.Thatshouldn’tbeforced.Effectivelyanythingthat’spublishedisin

arepositorywithaccess”.Anotherintervieweebroughtupthe‘taxpayer’asabeneficiary

ofputtingworkintoarepository:“Iamhappytoputthingsinaninstitutionalrepository.

Itisthetaxpayer’smoneysoitshouldbeavailable.Iamnotinclinedtoprotect[mywork],

alotofpeopleareparanoid”.

The question of whether a repository would help the status quo was raised, and the

chemists, when asked about whether they would place material in a repository, made

comments that indicated they did not have a strong understanding of how repositories

work.OneUNSWchemistsaid:

Iliketheideaofbeingabletoaccesseverythinginarepository.Idon’tseeany

harmindepositinginaIR,butIdon’tseeanyuseiniteither.Don’tthinkitis

goingtobemuchuse.Iasauserwouldlikesomethingthat’ssearchablenotjust

foraninstitutionbutacrossallinstitutions.

SomeChemistryintervieweesattheANUexpresseddoubtastowhetherhavingmaterial

in a repositorywould be of any benefit to themdistributing theirwork as researchers,

given their communities, stating: “I thinkall of these things [repositories] arenot taken

seriously–notbycolleaguesoverseas.Itwillneverbeanalternative”.

Another ANU chemistmade the point that therewas not awidemarket for theirwork

outsidethecommunityinwhichtheywerealreadyinteracting:

No,[Iwouldn’tputthingsintoanIR]foranyparticularreason,itisjustanother

step that I don’t see as being of significance to the way I interact with the

outsideChemistryworld.Itwouldn’tgivemeanadvantagebeyondanythingI

might acquire through the conventional publishing process. Because all my

colleaguesthatworkinthesamefieldasIdohaveaccesstothesamesearching

toolsandaccess toabroad libraryof theirowninstitutions,so Idon’t thinkI

would gain an advantage in terms of increased exposure tomy colleagues. I

wouldn’tprojectanyfurtherthanIdonowthroughthetoolsthatareavailable

tomostofmycolleagues.AtleastIdon’tthinkthatIwould.

Unlike their Computer Science counterparts, theANU chemists showed little interest in

theirwebpageontheuniversitywebsite,whichismaintainedbytheschool.Forexample,

one said: “The school website – I don’t know who maintains it, I think the school

199

administrator”. Given this, it is unlikely that providing the chemists with an updated

webpage generated by the repository will be much incentive to them for use the

repository:

Whenannual reports come ineachschoolhas towritea report. [The] school

secretary puts together the publications in previous years. It is always a

problemkeeping up to date, you are doing it all the time – and you can’t do

research.ItismandatoryDESTreporting.Apersonintheschoolkeepstabs.

Severalchemistsalsomadetheobservationthatadisciplinary‐basedrepositorywouldbe

moreuseforthemthananinstitutionalone,withonesaying:

Ithinkitisprobablyawasteoftimeformyfield.Ifpeoplearelookingformy

researchtheywillprobablyfinditthroughanonlinejournal.Theyareunlikely

to lookand see ifmyuniversitywouldhave it.Mostlypeople inmy fielduse

PubMedand ISI. [A repository]wouldbemore attractive if it’s a disciplinary

basedone.

The reason for this, they explained, is researchers are working in an international

community:

Myresearchcommunityismoreindependentoftheinstitutioninthatsense.I

haveworkedinthreeinstitutionsin10years–soifIhadapaperhereorthere

[in institutional repositories] I would be all over the place. This is not a

continuingposition…Idon’tseetheneedforauniversityrepository.

Sociology and repositories

Of the three groups interviewed, the sociologists expressed the least awareness of

repositories,withone fromtheANUsaying“Ihaveno ideawhatyouare talkingabout”,

and another saying “it does ring a bell, I haven’t assimilated yet”.However this did not

mean that respondents were not keen on the concept, with one saying: “I would put

materialintoit–partlyoutofmisplacedobligationandvanity.…Can’tseemyselfusingit.

…itwouldprobablygetoneenquiryayear”.

Again there was little awareness of the repository amongst the ANU sociologists

interviewed,withonesaying: “Ihavenotheardof the institutionalrepository. It sounds

interesting…Idoliketheideaoftheaccessibilityofit”.Acoupleofpeopleexpressedsome

doubt about their usefulness. One said: “Who accesses it? I guess people who know it

exists … I can’t think of anything against it. Well it certainly makes sense”. Another

expressed similar sentiments: “I have not thought about it much. I just assumed

200

researchersandstudentshaveaccess–theybelongtotheuniversitywhosubscribes.Who

elsewouldwantaccess?I’mnotsurewhatadvantagethereis”.

There were a few people at the ANU who had at least some idea that there was a

repositoryofsortsavailable,forexamplesaying:“ePrintsIhaveheardof”.Asnotedabove,

theANUrepositoryhasnotbeencalledePrintssince2004,butthisappearstobethename

itisstillknownby,asanotherpersonsaid:

The ePrints this university has seems to be a step in the right direction. The

issueistheperceivedqualityofoutput…ePrints–Iprintedoffsomematerial

aboutit.ImetColinSteele16alongtimeago.AtthisstageIhaveonlyreadabout

it…IsupposeIhaveneverbeenaroundwhentherewasageneralintroduction

towhatitisandhowImightuseit.

These two researchers both expressed reluctance to use the repository, with one

confusingarepositorywithsocialnetworkingsuchasblogging:“WouldIconsiderusing

it? I probably would if I was in a comfortable situation of having the time to write

regardlessofreportingbutIdon’t findthetime”.Theotherstated:“SometimesI’mabit

reluctant – in part because if made a dumbmistake in something I put up I would be

embarrassedbutitisbetterpointedoutinpersonthaninprint”.

In thediscussionsabout institutional repositorieswith the sociologists, one interviewee

saidtheyhadaconcernaboutplagiarism.Concernsaboutcopyrightwasalsoarecurring

theme. An ANU sociologist said: “Iwouldn’t knowwhat the copyrightwould be for big

international journals. But Iwould imagine therewouldbe a bit of a problem there.”A

sociologistfromUNSWsaid:“[Thereare]allsortsofcopyrightrestrictions.USpublishers

ask you to sign a contract for solepublication rights… [A repositoryoffers] short term

gain”.

Somethingthatrepositoriescanofferthatmightappealtosociologistsistheopportunity

tobringpapers thatwerepublished in journals andbypublishers that areno longer in

existencebackintocirculation,asoneANUresearcherpointedout:

Certainly the earlier work in smaller journals [could go into a repository].

Explorationsceasedtoexistyearsgo.Soyoucouldtakethatmaterialandpopit

intherejusttobringitbacktolife.Thatwouldmakealotofsense.

16ColinSteelewastheANUuniversity librarianwho implementedtheANUePrintsservice.He is

alsoanadvisortothisthesis.

201

Computer Science and repositories

Researchers working in some Computer Science sub‐disciplines have an awareness of

repositories generally. In some cases it is standardpractice for journals to request that

when submitting papers to the journal, the author first deposits the paper into a

repositorythensendsthe linktothe journal(Advances inTheoreticalandMathematical

Physics, 2007). One person explainedwhy they thought repository usewas low: “Most

peopledon’tputthingsinrepositoriesbecausetheyarevaguelyconcernedthepublishers

willgetbotheredaboutit…but[puttingapaperinarepository]ispartoftheprocessof

submittingapapertoanywhere”.AnotherANUcomputerscientistsaid:

[Thereisarepositorycalled]CoRR–ComputerResearchRepositories‐hosted

byaUSuniversity.Withsomejournalsthesubmissionconditionsareyouhave

toputyourpaperinthisrepository.Thenyousendthemanemailandsayyou

havesubmittedtoCoRR…Itlinksstraighttothepaper.

However this general awareness of repositories did not necessarily translate to an

awarenessof(orinterestin)theinstitutionalrepository.Forexampleonesaid:“TheANU

repository–Iamawareof itbutIhaveneverusedit”. Anotherpersonsimplystated,“I

wasnotawarethatANUhasarepository”,andanotherhadavagueidea,“Irememberthe

nameePrintsbutIhaveneverinvestigatedit”.

Therewereotherreasonsnottousearepository,asoneUNSWresearcherexplained:“I

don’t put stuff online because Journal of Electronic Publishingxliv is open access. Iwould

onlyseeaneedifitdidn’tpublishelectronically”.Thisavailabilityofworkelsewherewas

alsogivenasareasonbyanANUintervieweenottousearepository:

I haven’t heard that term [institutional repositories but a lot of my PhD

student’shonoursthesesareonANUePrints…Iwouldneverhaveconsidered

putting my published work there, work that is published in other venues, I

wouldneverhaveconsideredthatbecauseit’ssoeasilyaccessiblealready.And

Iwouldhaveno ideawhat the legal issues are associatedwith that, so I just

wouldn’thaveentertainedthatidea.Iamnotopposedtoitatallbutthat’swhy

Iwouldn’thaveconsideredit,becauseofthefactthatitisalreadyvisible.

Even an intervieweewhohadbeen an activeuserof a repository at another institution

wasunawareof therepositoryat theANU,saying:“Ihaveonlybeenat theANUfortwo

years,beforethatIwasattheUniversityof[name].IdidputsomestuffinattheUniversity

of [name]. Ihadn’theardabout it [the repository]here”.This lackofawarenessdidnot

precludeawillingnessamongstsomeofthecomputerscientistsinterviewedtousetheir

institution’s repository in the future, with one person stating: “I hope [the ANU has a

202

repository]itwouldbeapowerfulsystem”.IndeedahandfulofrespondentsatANUhad

alreadyusedtheePrintsrepository.Onesaid:“Itneedn’tbeallthatexclusive–IguessI’d

behappy enough todevelop thehabit of submitting to theuniversity andhave itmade

availablethatway”.Anothersaidtheyhadheardoftherepositorybutdidnotuseit.They

then stated: “I definitely would support this kind of repository … In the past we had

TechnicalReports –have to complywith certain format restrictions. Itwouldbenice if

everything could be done online – submit online”. A third computer scientist said they

thoughttheANUwassettingarepositoryup:

Myunderstanding is youput researchoutput into anopen repository so you

canaccess it …TechnicalReportsaregoingontoEprints, Ihavedoneoneof

them.It’sagreatidea.Someoneelsesubmitted[mypaper]toEprints.Ihaven’t

checked.NormallyIdon’tdoitwithpapers.

These responses are interesting because there appears to be no awareness of the new

ANUDSpacerepositoryinthecommunityspokentointhisresearchproject.

TheUNSWcomputerscientistsexpressedinterestintheconcept,sayingcommentslike,“I

would put work online if [the repository was] available”. Others expressed a desire to

make thingseasier toaccess.Onesaid: “Institutional repositoriessoundverysensible…

GenerallyIthinktheyaretherightwaytogo”.Anotheragreed:

Imayputthingsin–provideditcanbesearched.Mymaindrivingforceisthat

peoplecangettoinformationfromtheweb.Youcurrentlyhavetogotolotsof

databases.IfyougotoGoogleitseasier.Thereisanissueofcopyrightthere.

Despite repositories being referred to by one UNSW computer scientist as not: “the

preferred way for high quality publication”, they said the community already “publish

Technical Reports for research that deserves more audience than those who attend

conferences”. This could be a way to introduce repositories to the computer science

community.Oneoftheircolleaguesexplained:

We already have a Technical Report series because stuff is on the web …

Puttingitinarchiveisn’tgoingtodelayittoomuch.[it’susefulnessis]whether

itgivesyoueaseofaccesstomaterial‐Doesthishelpmegetaccesstomaterial

I’minterestedin?Peoplearegoodatputtingstuffonweb.Itisn’tgoingtoturn

aroundpeoplewhoarecrapatputtingthingsonweb.

At the timeof interview theAustralianResearchCouncil (ARC)and theNationalHealth

and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) rules for funding in 2008 had been recently

203

released.Theseincludedforthefirsttimearequirementthatresearchersmaketheirwork

available in a repository (Australian Research Council, 2007a) (National Health and

MedicalResearchCouncil,2007).OnlyacoupleofpeopleattheANUappearedtobeaware

ofthis.Onesaid:“IamfamiliarwiththenewrequirementfromtheARC–Ihaven’tthought

aboutit.IftheARClimitschoicesthenIwilltellthemtogetstuffed.Itdoesn’tmeanithas

tobeexclusive”.Anothersaid:

IhaveheardaboutARC’srequestthroughthegrapevine.Iamintheprocessof

finalising the paperwork from the ARC. That is why I have hedgedmy bets,

becauseoftheARC.Iwouldconsiderthat.IwouldneedassurancethattheANU

wasnotgettingintotrouble.ProvidedthatElsevierandWileyhavenoproblem

withit.Iwouldactivelysupportit.

Severalintervieweesnotedproblemswithrepositoriesbasedinaninstitution.Oneissue

forthecomputerscientistswasnottheconceptofrepositoriesthemselves,ratherthefact

that it was an institutional repository. Because of theway computer scientists look for

information,theintervieweesfeltthatmaterialininstitutionalrepositorieswouldnotbe

foundbyotherresearchers.OneANUresearchersaidtheywerehesitanttocontributeto

“institute oriented databases” because, “there is a complete reorganisation of the

Department or College every 1.5 years so the name of the school, environment etc

changes.Itisimpossibletofindmyworkinahierarchicalhomepage”.Anothersaid:“Iam

not sure if individual institutions should have repositories. It complicates the task of

finding things … An institutional repository would be useful if it is universal – all

publicationsarethereratherthanaselectfew”.

Theissue,saidonecomputerscientist,waswhetherpeoplewouldlookforinformationin

arepository:

Firsttheywilllookformachinelearningsitesthatmightaggregatethesethings.

Second theywill look forme individually, thenmaybe third if theyevereven

thinkaboutittheymightthinkheisatthisinstitution,letsseeiftheinstitution

hasgotit.Andinfactinrealitytheyaregoingtotypemynameandthetitlein

GoogleScholarandclickthroughtoalloftheversions.Becauseyouknowthere

is multiple versions, because with some of my papers there is 37 versions

around on the intranet. … So it is not obvious to me what the value is of a

central repository that an institution like the ANU would set up, given that

peoplecanhavetheirownwebpages.

204

Generally it appeared that a subject‐based repository would be better received by this

community. One person said: “Repositories that are managed by individuals or small

groupshavemorelongevity…MypublicationsarepickedupbyGoogleScholaranyway”.

Anothermentionedsubjectrepositoriesalreadyinuse:“TherearethingslikearXiv–for

Maths or Physics so lots of people will stick stuff there. That is useful for claiming

precedencebecausetheystickatimestamponit.”Again,theissueiswhetherpeoplewill

searchformaterialintherepository.Asonecomputerscientistsaid

ThereisoneissuethatIwouldwantthemtoconsider,andthatisthatifthereis

a tradition in our field of making stuff publicly available then people expect

stufftobeonourwebpageorontheACM17,theyarenotgoingtogolookingfor

theANUePrintsplace.

Thegeneralfeelingamongstthecomputerscientistsappearstobethatmaterialisalready

availableon individualresearcher’swebpages,andmuchof theconferenceproceedings

areopenaccess,sothereisnoneedtoduplicatethisbyputtingmaterialintoarepository

aswell.Inaddition,afewcomputerscientistsindicatedtheirconcernthattheuniversity

administrationwouldbeunable toprovideasystemthatwouldwork: “Iwillput things

intotheANUrepositorybutitdependsonhowwelltheydothejob…Typicallywebsites

designedfornovicesareverypainfulforme.Iwanttouseasophisticatedinterface”.

Thenatureof thedisciplineofComputerSciencemeansthatresearchers inthe fieldare

using and developing high‐level software.Many people in the field are using electronic

versioningsystemstocollaborateinternationallyviatheinternet.Thereisnoconceptual

barrier tousingadigital repository for completedwork.Asdiscussedearlier, there is a

cultureofmakingpublications available toother researchersbymaintaining apersonal

websiteandbywritingpubliclyaccessibleTechnicalReports.

The lack of awareness of institutional repositories

Thelackofawarenessofinstitutionalrepositoriesseemedtorunacrossalldisciplinesat

both universities. There was some wry amusement at the question: “What would the

repositoryneedtodoforyoutodepositinone?”withonetypicalanswerbeing,“Iwould

have to know about it”. Other comments made by ANU computer scientists included:

“Theyhave topromote this repository. Simplify theprocedure to submit”, and “Iwould

needtobeaware[thereisarepository],anditneedstobeeasytodo”.Anothersuggestion

17AustralianComputationalMachinery

205

forensuringuptakeanduseoftherepositorywasthattheuploadingprocessbeasimple

one:

I am not sure with copyright forms if publishers allow open access in a

university.BecauseIputeverythingonmywebpageanyway,itisextrawork.If

it is a simpleweb pagewhere upload pdf, and that is all I have to do as an

academic Iwouldbehappy. If it ismorecomplex[todeposit] it’sduplication.

Mostpeoplewouldprefertohavetheirownwebpagethanhavetheirworkina

repository.

It shouldbenoted that at the timeof interviews (and the situationhadnot changed18

months later) theprocessofdepositing apaper into theANU repositorywas extremely

complex. The repository sitewas only accessible from amenu off the library page, and

depositingrequiredinitialregistrationonthesite,andthenaseven‐stepprocess.Another

suggestion formakingtherepositoryhelpfulorrelevant toresearcherswastying it into

thereportingprocess.ForexampleachemistatUNSWsaid:“Itwouldbegoodtotieinto

thereporting.Speedisanotherissue–Iamworriedanotherisabouttoproducethesame

work. It could be a registration of work”. An ANU chemist had a similar idea: “We are

routinely supplying a copy of our published work for money related to publication

outputs.Submittingtoaninstitutionalrepositorywouldn’tbeanydifferenttoour[current

reporting]”.AcomputerscientistattheANUagreed:

…[tyingtherepositorytotheresearchoffice]wouldappealtome.Theadhoc

reportingofresearchpublicationsisanadmindrag.Iftherewassomestandard

way of doing it, you know I have to go and update my webpage with my

publications, if I could justdo it thatoncesomehowand itwasautomatically

knownandmadeavailabletoeveryonethatwouldbegreat.

Certainlythe impressionfromthe intervieweeswasthatthecurrentreportingsystemis

onerous and frustrating, indicating that any system which alleviates this would be

welcomed.AchemistatUNSWsaid: “Idon’tknowwhatbenefit it [therepository] is for

me,itsoundslikemoreworktodoit.WealreadyfillinaDESTformeverytimewewritea

paper … I wonder what incentive there is apart from counting articles”. A computer

scientist from UNSW saw the repository as a potentially helpful tool: “I would like a

repository I think – all stuff should go up there by default. Should be obliged to go up

there.DESThavetroublegettingdata–itistiedintoconferencetravelmoney”.Finally,a

computer scientist from the ANU thought depositing would be a comparatively simple

process: “I don’t have any problem with submitting a preprint. I can see it would be

206

beneficial. Itwouldbemucheasier thanwhatwedo [for reporting]– theadministrator

sendsanemailaround”.

Summary of engagement with open access

The chemists,with a few exceptions,were somewhat confused aboutwhat open access

meansandarecertainlywaryof it.Severalraisedconcernstheremayberestrictionson

wheretheycanpublishandthatthereforeopenaccesswouldaffecttheimpactfactorsof

theirwork. Inthecoupleofcaseswherethe intervieweeshadanunderstandingofwhat

open access was and supported the principle of open access, this was not enough to

publish inanopenaccess journalat the riskofhaving lower impact factors.Thosewho

had published one or two papers in an open access journal had not done so out of a

principled stand for open access, but simply because itwas the appropriate journal for

whattheywerepublishing.

Thesociologistsinterviewedshowedsomeawarenessofopenaccess,andphilosophically

theconceptseemedtoappeal to them.Whilemanyof thesociologistswerehazyon the

details of open access they responded positively to the idea when it was explained to

them. The main concerns in the Sociology group about depositing material into a

repositorywerearoundplagiarismandcopyright.

Ofthethreegroupsinterviewed,thecomputerscientistsseemedtobethemostawareof

open access. Most of the computer scientists interviewed are practising it by various

means, such as their work practice of making material available on their personal

websites.ThereareopenaccessdisseminationoptionsinComputerSciencebecause,asa

fewintervieweesexplained,theopenaccessdiscussionoccurredinthedisciplineadecade

ago.Computerscientists,perhapsnotsurprisingly,seemedtounderstandreasonsbehind

the open access concept. Some computer scientists are already using repositories but

showapreferenceforsubjectbasedrepositoriesoverinstitutionalones,andthisappears

tobeforreasonsotherthanbeingunawareofanavailablerepositoryattheirinstitution.

Overall the awareness of the availability of an institutional repository was very low

amongst the interviewees andonly ahandful of peoplehadactuallydeposited anything

intoarepository,institutionalorotherwise.Therewasverylittledistinctionbetweenthe

institutionswhenitcametoawarenessoftheavailabilityoftheirinstitutionalrepository,

despite the ANU repository being technically operational for six years at the time of

interview. This reflects theuneven administrative support the repositoryhas hadover

that period. The issue of ‘branding’ the repository is an interesting one. Amongst the

207

wholepopulationofANUinterviewees,anyreferencetotheANUrepositorybynamewas

toePrintswhichceasedasanentityin2004.TherewasnotasinglementionofDemetrius.

Summary

As the interviews progressed, it became clear that there are no obvious differences

emergingbetweentheuniversities.Whiletheindividualsshowedgreatdiversityintheir

workandattitudes,themoststrikingobservationwasthatindividualswithinadiscipline

were highly convergent. As would be expected, their work practices ‐ in terms of

publication output, amount of time spent refereeing, and information seeking ‐ were

similar, but this similarity flowed into other areas. Knowledge of and attitudes towards

copyright issues for example, while convergent within, were clearly divided between

disciplines.Attitudestohavingtheirownresearchmaterialfreelyavailableinopenaccess

formwasalsodividedalongdisciplinarylines.

TheinterviewsundertakenatQUTsupportedmanyofthefindingsdescribedinthisand

thepreviouschapter,andadiscussionofthatworkisinthenextchapter.

209

Chapter7Implementingrepositories

Introduction

AsdiscussedinChapter4,theQueenslandUniversityofTechnology(QUT)waschosenas

acasestudytotriangulatethisresearchbecauseatthetimeitwastheonlyuniversityin

Australiawithamandaterequiringacademicstaffattheuniversitytodeposittheirwork

into the institutional repository, QUT ePrintsxlv. Interviews with the Deputy Vice

Chancellor (Technology Information and Learning Support) and the eResearch Access

Coordinator from QUT were conducted, with emphasis on the planning and

implementationofQUTePrints.OfparticularinterestwerethechallengesQUThasfaced

andtheprocessesithasdevelopedtoovercomebarrierstotheadoptionoftherepository.

In 2008, despite having a mandate in place, and having undertaken several years of

advocacywithin the academic community, the repository is still not collecting all of the

university’sresearchoutputasopenaccessitems.

TheinterviewsatQUTwereconductedafteralltheinterviewswiththeresearchsampleat

theAustralianNationalUniversity(ANU)andtheUniversityofNewSouthWales(UNSW)

werecompleted.Preliminaryanalysesofthoseresultswereindicatingthatthethemesof

‘information‐seeking behaviour’ and ‘disciplinary differences’ would be central to

answering the research question “How are the communication practices between

researchersaffectingtheuptakeofopenaccessscholarlydisseminationinAustralia?”.The

interviewsatQUTstrengthenedthisperspectiveandthesethemesarediscussedindepth

inChapter8,withreferencetotheQUTfindingswhererelevant.However,carefulanalysis

of the interviewsatQUTuncovereda third theme thathad strongbearingon this area,

thatofthe‘diffusionofinnovations’,whichwillbediscussedinthischapter.

Institutionalrepositoriesclearlyrepresentanewinnovation,definedbyEverettMRogers

inhisbook,DiffusionofInnovations(2003)as“anidea,practice,orobjectthatisperceived

asnewbyanindividual”(p.12).Thediffusionprocessisconcernedwithcommunication

ofanewideatomembersofasocialsystem,describedas: “asetof interrelatedunits…

engaged in joint problem solving to accomplish a common goal” (p. 23). The

implementation of repositories into the academic community fits neatly into these

definitions. This chapterwill beginwith a description of the processQUTundertook to

introducetherepositoryintotheacademiccommunity,beforediscussingthebarriersthe

210

administrationfacedwiththisprocess.Thischapterwillthenuseaframeworkofdiffusion

of innovations theory to discuss the introduction of repositories to the academic

landscapeintermsofQUT,andthewiderAustralian,situation.AsRogers(2003)said:“the

diffusion paradigm allows scholars to repackage their empirical findings in the form of

higher‐levelgeneralizationsofamoretheoreticalnature”(p.105).

The diffusion of QUT ePrints

It ishelpful tobeginwithasummaryoftheprocessQUTundertooktoencourageuseof

the QUT ePrints repository. This summary is compiled from a combination of the

interviews conducted at QUT for this thesis and two published accounts of the

implementationoftheQUTmandate(Callan,2006b;Cochrane&Callan,2007).

Prior to the launch of QUT ePrints therewas an effort to collect somematerial so that

there were items in the repository for the launch. Paula Callan, who later became the

eResearchAccess Coordinator, approached several key researchers and requested their

permission toplace someworkingpapersandconferencepapers into the repository. In

this instanceshedeposited the itemson theirbehalf.QUT first launchedQUTePrints in

November2003withapproximately50papersinit,andtheQUTePrintdepositpolicywas

endorsedinJanuary2004.QUTspentseveralyearsonawarenessprogramsandadvocacy

beforetheir2004mandatewaswidelyunderstood(Cochrane&Callan,2007).

The initial awareness campaign run by QUT was comprehensive. There was a formal

launchevent invitingalldepartmentHeadsandDirectorsofResearch. Inadditionpress

releasesappearedintheuniversitynewspaper,brochuresandposterswereproducedand

therewasafeatureadvertisementonthelibrarywebpage(Callan,2006b).Themessage

thatQUTwasgivingtheresearcherswasaboutthebenefitsofopenaccessforthesection

of the research community that did not have access to research journals. Despite this

multi‐prongedapproach,self‐depositingremainedverylow.

Next,authorswithahighpublicationratewereapproachedandremindedofthepolicyto

deposit. The Heads of Schools were contacted to remind them of the university policy,

group‐specificworkshopswere held to demonstrate depositing. In some cases research

assistantswereemployedtoassistwith thedepositingprocess.Despite theencouraging

number of items in the repository after a year, the rate of self‐deposit (as opposed to

university‐assisted deposit) remained a low percentage of the total items deposited

(Cochrane&Callan,2007).

211

Barriers to repository uptake experienced at QUT

Callanreturnedtothoseresearcherswhohadagreedbeforetherollouttohavetheirwork

includedintherepositorytoaskwhytheywerenotputtingtheirotherarticlesin,when

theyhadagreedthattherepositorywasagoodidea.Thesediscussionsunveiledseveral

barrierstotheuptakeoftheQUTrepository.

One simple issuewas that of language. In discussionwith researchers, Callan had been

using the term ‘post‐print’, which is an expression used widely in circles of repository

managers and open access advocates. It is not a commonly used term amongst

researchers. She discovered that the expression ‘final corrected post peer review draft

version’was generally understood. Therewere three other barriers. One unanticipated

barrierwaslocatingthepost‐print,andasecondbarrierwasthelackoftimeavailableto

deposit work. The most problematic barrier was the difficulty of preparing items for

deposit.

When they began the awareness campaign, QUT found about one third of their

researchershadnotkeptpost‐printsoftheirwork.Manyofthosewhohadkepttheirpost‐

printswereunabletolocatethem.Callanexplainedintheinterviewthatthissituationhas

nowchanged:

Themessagetotheresearcherssincetheestablishmentoftherepositoryisthat

the finalcorrecteddraftversion isprecious, it is likegold.That is theversion

we can most likely make open access so please keep it handy and make it

availablefordepositassoonasithasbeenacceptedforpublication.

Therewasnotagreatdeal theadministrationcoulddoabout the timerestraintson the

researchers,althoughCallandidpointoutthatoneofthemostprolificauthorsatQUTis

alsooneofthehighestdepositorstotherepository.Itwasthethird,problematic,barrier

ofpreparingitemsfordepositthatQUThasaddressed.

Withthe initial launch, theresearcherswereaskedto locatetheir finaldraft(theirpost‐

print),convertittoapdfanddepositit.Theywerealsoaskedtocheckthecopyrightpolicy

ofthepublisherofthatpaperontheSHERPA/RoMEOwebsitexlvitoensuretheywereable

todeposit theirwork.WhenCallanspoketotheresearchersshediscoveredthatbothof

theserequestswereanissue,assheexplainedintheinterview:

Outside the Faculty of Information very few people knew how to convert a

Worddocumenttoapdf.SothefirstthingIdidwassaiditdoesn’thavetobein

pdf,allwewantisyourfinalcorrecteddraftversionitcanbeinanyformatand

212

wewillconvertthem.Itwasverysimpleforustodotheconversion.Thatwasa

barrierthatneededremoving.

An even larger barrier was the concern about copyright. The researchers were very

concernedabout inadvertently infringing the copyrightof thepublisherorundermining

the agreement theyhad signed.Often theyhadn’t kept a copyof the agreement so they

couldn’t recall what they had signed or couldn’t remember the exact terms. Callan

explained to me that it was too great an ask to expect the researchers to check the

copyrightstatusoftheirworkthemselves:

Thesewerethethingsthatneededtobeaddressed.Sowesaiddepositthefinal

corrected draft version. They could check or we would undertake to check

standard policy of that publisher and enable a level of access that was

consistentwiththatpolicy.

Undertakingthesetwostepsmadethedepositprocessmuchsimplerfortheresearchers.

In addition, QUT minimised the amount of metadata they required the researcher to

provide,notaskingforanythingthelibrarycouldlocatethemselvesfromthework(such

astheauthor,titleandjournal).Inadditionthelibraryhasbegunadatabaseofpublishers

fromwhomtheyhaveobtainedspecificpermission,preventingreplicationofpermission

requests in the academic community. Once the library took responsibility for checking

copyrightandconvertingfilestopdf,thedepositlevelsrosedramatically.

The barriers to the uptake of the QUT institutional repository have been a lack of

awarenessinthefirstinstance,thenissuesrelatedtotheperceptionthatdepositingwasa

complicatedprocess.Therewasalsoconcernaboutdamagingtherelationshipresearchers

had with their publishers. The QUT library was able to address these barriers by

developing amandatory policy, which has beenwidely disseminated by variousmeans

through the community over several years, and by altering the deposit process so the

librarytakesresponsibilityforthemorecomplextasks.Thischapterwillnowlookatthe

diffusionofrepositoriesintotheAustralianacademiclandscapeinthecontextofdiffusion

ofinnovationstheory.

Diffusing repositories into the Australian academic environment

The introduction of institutional repositories to the academic environment has had, in

effect, two ‘diffusions’. The first step in the process is for an institution to develop a

213

repository.Thisrequiresrecognitionbytheinstitutionthatarepositoryisrequired,and

commitmentintheformoffundsandstafftocreateone.Thesecondstepistoencourage

academicmembersof the institutiontodeposit theirwork intotherepository,eitherby

providing staff to do it for them or by simplifying the process enough to allow self‐

depositing.Thesetwodiscretestepscanindividuallybedescribedintermsofthediffusion

ofinnovationstheory,andthenexttwosectionswilldescribeeachinturn.

The first diffusion: developing repositories

Broadly, diffusion in this context is the process where an innovation is communicated

throughcertainchannelsovertimeamongthemembersofasocialsystem. Inthe initial

diffusion of repositories into Australia, the ‘social system’ in this example refers to

institutions.Duetothefocusonacademicoutputinthisthesis,thisanalysisisrestrictedto

universities and does not include the several other types of institutions (for example:

national and state libraries, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, CSIRO)

whicharecurrentlyusingordevelopingrepositories.Italsodoesnotincluderepositories

thatservicetheAustralasianDigitalThesesxlviiproject.

The acceptance and building of repositories in institutions in Australia fits with the s‐

shape curve of adoption of innovation. There are 39 universities inAustralia, and as of

September2008,32hadarepository(Kennan&Kingsley,2009).TheANUwasthe first

institutioninAustraliatobuildarepositorywhenitlauncheditsePrintsservicein2001.

ThisclassifiestheANUasan‘earlyadopter’indiffusiontheory18.Between2002and2005,

10 further repositorieswere launched inAustralianuniversities, representing the ‘early

majority’.Inthepastthreeyears21repositorieshavelaunched,thesecanbeclassifiedas

‘latemajority’.Those institutions thatdonotdeveloparepositoryatall comeunder the

‘laggard’classificationindiffusiontheory(Rogers,1983).

Indiffusiontheory,innovationsaremorelikelytobeadoptedquicklyiftheyhavehigher

perceived levels of: relative advantage, compatibility, trialability and observability and

with lesscomplexity.Eachof thesewillnowbediscussed in termsof the ‘perception’of

repositoriesbytheinstitution.

Considering the first issue of advantage, repositories represent a high level of relative

advantage to institutions in economic terms, social prestige factors and convenience, as18Technically,asthefirsttoadoptthetechnology,theANUcouldbeclassifiedasan‘innovator’but

giventhedescriptionofinnovatorsinRoger’sbook,itisprobablyclosertothespiritofthetheory

tomovethemdownarankto‘earlyadopter’.

214

theypotentiallyprovideasimplifiedreportingsystemthatisquantifiableandsearchable.

Indeed, as discussed in Chapter 2, having academic outputs available in an open access

formattendstoincreasecitations.Thisalonecouldprovideenoughofanadvantagetoan

institution,giventherecentfocusonuniversityrankingtables,discussedinChapter3.

Turning to the second issue of compatibility, Australian institutions already collate

statistics about the academic outputs of their staff for Higher Education Research Data

Collection(HERDC)xlviii reportingeveryyearwhich isusedbytheAustralianGovernment

toallocatefundingtouniversities.Repositoriespotentiallyprovideastreamlinedsystem

for achieving the same goal, so repositories have a high level of compatibility with

“existing values, past experiences, andneedsof thepotential adopter” (Rogers, 1983, p.

15),whichinthiscaseistheinstitutionadministration.

The third issue of trialiability, the degree towhich an innovationmaybe experimented

withonalimitedbasis,andthefourthofobservability,thedegreetowhichtheresultsof

aninnovationarevisibletoothers,arelinkedinthecaseofrepositoriesbythesoftware

behind the repositories. Repositories are built on a platform of either open source or

proprietarysoftware.InAustraliathemostfrequentlyusedrepositoryplatformisFedora

(which is open source) in combination with proprietary software system Vital. The

remainingrepositories inAustralianuniversitiesareusingEprintsorDSpacewitha few

exceptions (Kennan & Kingsley, 2009). This means any institution wishing to create a

repository has a choice of five different software platforms, and by consulting other

institution’s repositories, is able to observe how these function, how easy they are to

navigateandhowmuchcomputingandpeople‐powerisneededtorunthem.

It is likely the fifth issue of the perceived complexity of building the repository has the

highestinfluenceintermsofadoption.ThisissueexplainsthelagtimebetweentheANU’s

2001ePrintsdebut,andtherecentflurryofrepositoriesinAustralianrepositories.Again,

as more institutions develop their repositories, there is greater opportunity to see

functional repositories. In addition, the development of an Australian community of

repository managers to turn to for assistance and advice, such as the Online Research

CollectionsAustralia SupportNetwork xlix, and theRepositoryTechnical Support Servicel

reducesthisperceptionofcomplexity.

In Australia, the government has been attempting to introduce an Accessibility

Framework, which is intended to improve access to research information, outputs and

infrastructure (Australian Government Department of Education Science and Training,

215

2007).UndertheAccessibilityFramework, thegovernment is intendingtoexplore“how

toencourageinstitutions,researchorganizationsorindividualsthatreceivepublicmoney

to make the results of their research publicly available as soon as possible” (Harvey,

2008). This includes a requirement for universities to develop repositories to support

openaccess,andtherearealso:"OpportunitiestochangeHERDCspecificationstorequire

submittedpublicationstobeopenaccessorpotentiallyjustthemetadata"(Cooke,2008).

Currently theAustralianResearchCouncil (2007a),andtheNationalHealthandMedical

Research Council (2007) require researchers to consider placing any publications from

theirresearchintoanappropriatesubjectand/orinstitutionalrepository.

Thistop‐downgovernmentalapproachtotheintroductionofrepositoriescanbedefined

asa ‘centraliseddiffusion’ofan innovation,wheretheoverallcontrolof thedecisions is

made “by national government administrators and technical subject‐matter experts”

(Rogers, 2003, p. 396). It can be argued that theAustralianGovernment has effectively

mandatedthatinstitutionscreatearepository.Certainly,outofatotalof32repositoriesin

Australia inSeptember2008,21wereestablishedafterthereleaseofTheRecommended

RQFreportin2006(Kennan&Kingsley,2009).

AnotherfactordemonstratingtheintroductionofrepositoriesintoAustralianuniversities

as an example of centralised diffusion is the lines of communication about the process.

During the preparation for the now defunct Research Quality Framework (RQF), the

universityadministration–usuallythelibraryortheresearchofficeoracombinationof

thetwo–wasincommunicationwiththeDepartmentofEducation,ScienceandTraining

and responded to their requirements. DEST chose to communicate directly with an

individualRQFliaisonofficerateachuniversity,andthislistofpeoplewasnotreleasedto

thegeneralpublic.Byexpectingtheliaisonofficertocommunicateinformationaboutthe

expecteduseof these repositorieswith theirownuniversitypopulations, theAustralian

governmentabdicatedanyresponsibilityforinformingtheacademicpopulation.

Asthischapterisexploring,itispossibletoanalysetheprocessofintroducingrepositories

totheAustralianacademicpopulationintermsofdiffusiontheory.Itwouldseem,atleast

intheAustralianscenario,thatacentralisedapproachtothediffusionofrepositoriesinto

universities has been successful. The next section will analyse the steps taken by an

institution to ensure the success or not of their repository in the context of diffusion

theory,withreferencestotheQUTePrintsrepository.

216

The second diffusion: filling repositories

Early inthedebateabout institutionalrepositories, thegeneralassumptionwasthat the

difficult issues were technical ones and once these had been addressed and the

repositories were functioning, then researchers would willingly place their work into

them.Thisisthetechnologicaldeterministapproach,thatarguesthat“onceamachinehas

been invented, its ability fundamentally to transformsocial relations isonlyamatterof

time”(Walsh&Bayma,1996,p.662).Thisscenariodidnothappenanditbecameobvious

thatthe‘builditandtheywillcome’approachwasflawed.

Inretrospectitiseasytobecriticalofthisearlyattitude,butitisnotuncommon:

Many technologists think that advantageous innovationswill sell themselves,

that the obvious benefits of a new idea will be widely realized by potential

adopters,andthat the innovationwill thereforediffuserapidly.Unfortunately

thisisveryseldomthecase.Mostinnovations,infact,diffuseatasurprisingly

slowrate(Rogers,1983,p.7).

Institutional repositories have not ‘caught on’ with researchers, as their benefit to the

individual isnot immediatelyobvious.Thishasbeenborneoutbythisresearchbutwas

alsoanobservationoftheworkmyresearchdrewupon:“whiletheirbenefitsseemtobe

verypersuasivetoinstitutions,IRsfailtoappearcompellingandusefultotheauthorsand

ownersofthecontent”(Foster&Gibbons,2005).Thisobservationiscrucialtotheissueof

thediffusionofinstitutionalrepositoriesinAustralia.

Paramount foranyrepository is todevelopapolicy framework todefine theroleof the

repository service (Henty, 2007), and any policy introducedmust be recognised at the

highestlevelintheuniversity:“High‐levelmanagementsupportcannotbeunderestimated

... this [is] crucial toestablishingpolicies thatcancontribute torepositorydevelopment,

take‐up and population” (Proudman, 2008). The QUT mandate requiring all academic

researchers to place a copy of the final version of their peer reviewed and corrected

papers intoQUTePrints couldbeperceived to be a centralised approach.However, the

policyhasneverbeen enforced in that there is nopunishment fornon‐compliance.The

universityhaschosennottouse“themandateasabluntinstrument,butinsteadfindinga

waytosupporttheprocess”(Cochrane&Callan,2007).

A depositmandate has several uses. Not only does it indicate the institution’s position

abouttherepositoryandensureafasteruptakeoftherepository,butcanalsoprovidea

negotiating toolwhen indiscussionwithpublishersaboutcopyright.Whenapaperwas

depositedthathadbeenpublishedinajournalwherethepublisherpolicywasunknown,

217

theQUT librarywouldsendapermissionrequest to thepublisherexplainingwhat they

weredoingandwhy,andaskingforpermissionforallpapersfromQUTauthorspublished

intheirjournaltobeabletobeplacedintherepository.Callanexplainedintheinterview

whythepolicywashelpful:

… in that email Iwould send to the publishers, Iwas able to put that at this

university it is a policy that all academics are required to put a post‐print

versionintheopenaccessrepository,thereforeIamaskingforpermissionto

dothis.Wehadanincrediblyhighsuccessrate–partlybecauseoftheimpactof

thepolicy.Soifthepublishersrealisetheseauthorshavegottodothisthereis

not point in them turning around and saying no.We had very few negative

responsestotheseemails.

These permissionswere recorded, andwhile this processwas initially time consuming

thisdatabasehasbecamearesourceforthelibrary.

It has been repeatedly shown (Callan, 2006a; Cavanagh, 2006;Weaver, 2006) that the

most successful repositories inAustralia have achieved results byusing a decentralised

diffusionsystem,where“horizontalnetworksamongtheclientsarethemainmechanism

throughwhichinnovationsspread”(Rogers,1983,p.7).Consideringthatinnovationsare

more likely to be adopted quickly if they have higher perceived levels of: relative

advantage, compatibility, trialability and observability and with less complexity,

institutionalrepositoriesfacedifficultiesonallthesecountstovaryingextents.

TheinitiallackofenthusiasmintheQUTacademiccommunitytohaveanactiveroleinthe

repository has been experienced by other institutions attempting to introduce a

repository:

while staff may be sympathetic many of them do not have the time or the

inclinationtocontribute.Theywerehappytogiveuspermissiontodothework

ontheirbehalf,butcouldnotcommittodoingtheworkthemselves.Clearlythe

advantagesofinstitutionalrepositorieswerenotyetsufficientlyconvincingto

academics to persuade them to play an active part in the process (Mackie,

2004).

Havingamandatealonedoesnotguaranteeinstantawarenessandcompletecompliance

as the QUT experience has shown. At the time of interview, nearly four years after the

implementationofthemandate,therepositorywasfinallycapturingthemajoritybutnot

the complete output of the university.One approach that had increaseddeposits to the

repository was providing direct benefits to the researchers. For example creating

218

individualpagesforresearchers,whichcanactastheir‘workoutput’webpage,providesa

major benefit for users of the repository because researchers can use the url for their

personalpageintheiremailsignature.Thisfulfilstherelativeadvantagerequirementthat

“theadopterperceivestheinnovationtobemoreadvantageousthantheideaorprocessit

supersedes”(Rogers,2003,p.15).Otherrelatedincentivescanbebeneficial.Forexample

theUniversityofMinho,intheyearafterimplementingamandatepolicycombinedwitha

financial incentive, experienced a 390% increase in repository use (Ferreira, Baptista,

Rodrigues,&Saraiva,2008).

Repositoriesaremorelikelytobeadoptediftheyarecompatible,“consistentwithexisting

values, past experiences andneedsof the adopter”(Rogers, 2003,p.15). It ispossible to

maintain that implementing an institutional repository is fundamentally a matter of

marketingtheideatotheacademiccommunity.Withthisinmind,disciplinarydifferences

mustbetakenintoconsiderationwhendecidinghowto‘pitch’theideaoftherepositoryto

differentgroups.

OneofthereasonsthatQUThashadrelativesuccesswiththerolloutoftheirrepository

couldbethecohortofresearchersattheiruniversity.Houghtonetal.(2006)notethatone

ofthebenefitsofenhancedaccessisthepotentialformuchwideraccessforsectorsofthe

economy such as practitioners. These include nurses, doctors, medical and scientific

lawyers, teachersandaccountantswhoworkinfieldsthatbenefit fromresearchbutare

oftennot inaworkplacethatsubscribestotherelevant journals.Fieldresearchers– for

privateorganisationsandforgovernmentdepartments–arealsosimilarlydisadvantaged.

Thesearethebenefactorsofhavingmaterialavailableasopenaccess.Itfollows,then,that

institutionswiththesecohortssuchasQUTmightbeatanadvantagewhenimplementing

theirrepository.

Certainly, QUT experienced a higher level of acceptancewith certain disciplines, Callan

explainedintheinterview:

I found that any discipline with a large practitioner base who could use the

articlescouldseethebenefits,forexamplenurseswhoareouttherenolonger

studying so they can’t keep up with the literature if they don’t have open

access.Thiswaytheycanfindthemostrecentarticlesondiabetesorwhatever.

It’sthesameforteachers:iftheyarenotstudyinghowareyougoingtogetthe

education literature out to them?And (sic) Business – how are you going to

reach small business people, the accountants etc? That argument was more

persuasive for those disciplines than it was for say high‐energy Physics or

Chemistrywheretherearenotmanypeoplenotassociatedwithaninstitution.

219

Itisperhapssurprisingthen,thattheauthorwhoconsistentlyheadsthe‘Top50Authors’li

list in QUT ePrints is researching and publishing in Chemistry. With over 108,000

downloadsofhispapersinthe12monthstoSeptember2008,apossibleexplanationfor

thisextraordinaryinterestissomeofhisworkisinthefieldofenvironmentalChemistry–

anotherareawheretherearemanyfieldpractitionersnottiedtoinstitutions.

However, regardless of these benefits provided by the repository, if the discipline in

question has social norms that are in conflict with those required to participate in

repositoryuse, then it isunlikely therewillbeanembracingof the technologybymany

more than the innovators in that group. A good case study demonstrating this is an

exampleofeconomistsdetailedinChapter8.

The perceived complexity issue was discussed above. There are several aspects to

depositing work in a repository that appear complex to a first‐time user, where the

repositoryis“perceivedtobedifficulttounderstandanduse”(Rogers,2003,p.16).These

include locating the author’s post‐print, converting this to a pdf and checking the

copyright status of the work. QUT addressed these issues by providing administrative

supportfortheacademic.Thesechangesweremadeatthebeginningof2005andtherate

ofdeposit“wentupdramatically”asaresult.

The finaldiffusionchallengesoftrialabilityandobservability,whetherarepository“may

beexperimentedwithonalimitedbasis”andiftheresultsoftherepositoryare“visibleto

others”(Rogers,2003,p.16),isbeingmetatQUTwiththeprovisionofdownloadstatistics

to the academic community. The front page of theQUT ePrints site links to theTop50

authors statisticalpage.This ‘evidence’ thatpeopleareaccessing thepapersheld in the

repository has been a powerful argument to persuade the scientists at QUT to become

involved.QUT found thatprovidingdownloadstatisticshelped ‘sell’ the repository idea.

Thisunderliestheperspectivethatthemosteffectivemethodofdiffusingtherepository

ideaisusingpeertopeernetworks.

Peer to peer networks

When considering the diffusion of an innovation using a peer to peer process, it is

importanttolookatthewayinformationaboutworkpracticesisdisseminatedwithinthe

community. In the academic environment, this is traditionally the ‘master/apprentice’

system,partlybasedonthetraditionofhardsciences.Theresearchersinterviewedinthe

empiricalpartofthisresearchdescribedvaryingexperiencesintheirintroductiontoboth

220

thecraftofwriting,andtheimplicationsofpublicationchoice.Thisdiscussionisbasedon

thequestionsaboutanyinstructiontheintervieweesreceived,andareprovidingtotheir

ownstudents,about thepublishingprocess.Somewhatsurprisingly, thisquestionwasa

‘sleeper’question.Itwasinitiallydevisedtotryandestablishhowmuchofanawareness

researchershadaboutboththelogisticsofpublishingandtheimplicationsofpublishing.

What emerged however was very different. The responses gave clues as to how the

publishing‘system’ismeanttowork,andindicationsthatitisnotworking.

AsdiscussedinChapter4,ofthethreedisciplinesexploredinthiswork,Chemistryisthe

disciplinethatbestfitsthedescriptionofahardscience,andtheapprenticeshipsystemis

still entrenched in this discipline. Itmaybemany years and studentsmayhave several

papersonwhichtheyarelistedasanauthorbeforetheyactuallyundertakethewritingof

a paper. Under the apprentice system in Chemistry, it is common practice for a

postgraduate student to undertake experiments devised by and supervised by the

academic.Theacademic thenwritesup thepaper,acknowledging thosewhoworkedon

the experiment in the author list.While students in the later stageof theirPhDmaybe

permitted to write drafts of papers, these will be revised by the academic before

submission. It is not until a chemist becomes an academic in their own right – given a

lectureshipforexample–thattheybegintowritetheirownpapers.Obviouslyindividual

chemists will exert different levels of control over their work, with some of the

interviewees indicating that they actively encourage their students to write drafts as

‘practice’ where others did not seem to find this necessary. Many of the Chemistry

interviewees said they had not received any instruction about how to publish because

theirsupervisorshaddonealltheworkforthem.SomeChemistryintervieweesinturndid

not spend any time instructing their students on how to write, preferring to write the

papers themselves, even those generated from the PhD student’s research. This was

describedasamatterofconvenience.

Somewhatunexpectedly,giventheemphasisonwritinginSociology(asasocialscience),

and conversely the formula and code‐based text inherent to Chemistry and Computer

Science, itwas thesociologistswhodescribeda ratherhaphazardmentoringsystem for

learningtowritearticles.TheSociologyintervieweesindicatedtherehadbeenverylittle

mentoring from their supervisors. In the absenceof this instruction,many interviewees

had lookedelsewhere for advice, suchas asking friendsor seekingoutmentors later in

theircareers.

221

ManyoftheComputerScienceintervieweesdescribedhavingtoworkouthowtowritea

paper andwhere to send it on their own.However therewere someexamples of good,

systematic training, or at least encouragement, suchas the supervisorwriting themore

complexpartofearlypapersforthestudent.Sometimesstudentsareaskedtowritedraft

paperswhichthengothroughaseriesofiterationsandcorrectionsbythesupervisor.

Peer to peer and repositories

Despiteuniversitieshavingavestedinterestinincreasingtheirpublicationoutput(thisis

primarilywherethepublishorperishinsistenceisgenerated),theuniversitiesthatwere

the subject of this research appear to do very little at an institutional level by way of

assistingstudents to learnthe tradeofwritingarticles, letaloneexplaining the ‘system’,

thatsomejournalsorconferencesarevaluedmorehighly,forexample.Teachingtheartof

succeeding in a given discipline is left to the individualswithin the discipline, and this

appearstobeundertakenwithdifferentlevelsofenthusiasmandstructuredependingon

thecommunicationnormsandtheindividualsinthatdiscipline.

Currentlyacademiareliesonthemaster/apprenticesystematdisciplinaryleveltopasson

informationabout thepublishingprocess–aprocess that isembedded inalldisciplines

andacceptedacrossallresearchareasasnecessaryforsuccessintheworldofacademia.

This researchhas shown that the system ishaphazardatbest.Therefore relyingon the

samepeer‐to‐peernetworksforsomethingthatisnotseentobeessentialtotheacademic

endeavour,suchasusingarepositoryislikelytoencounterproblems.

It isnot sufficientmerely to informpeopleof the existenceof a repository, ashasbeen

demonstrated. Because institutional repositories are perceived as highly complex, it is

importanttoalsoprovide‘how‐toknowledge’which:“consistsofinformationnecessaryto

usean innovationproperly… in the caseof innovations thatare relatively complex, the

amount of how‐to knowledge needed ismuch greater than in the case of less complex

ideas”(Rogers,2003,p.173).Usingthepeertopeer informationstructurescurrently in

place by relying on individuals within a discipline to disseminate information and

enthusiasmaboutaninstitutionalrepositorycouldbeabarriertoanyinstitutionwishing

torollouttheirrepository.Thismethodwillhavevaryinglevelsofsuccessdependingon

thenormsinplaceinthatdisciplinealready.

Summary

The interviewsatQUThaveproven tobeapertinent choice for the triangulationof the

empiricalaspectsofthisresearch.ThecasestudyoftheintroductionofQUTePrintstothe

222

academic community is a good example of the diffusion of innovation theory, and has

implications for other institutions in Australia facing the challenge of introducing a

repository to the academic community. These findings arehighly relevant to answering

the question: “How are the communication practices between researchers affecting the

uptakeofopenaccessscholarlydisseminationinAustralia?”.Thenextchapterwillconsist

ofadiscussionoftheresults,whichwillincorporateotheraspectsoftheQUTcasestudy

notincludedintheanalysisinthischapter.

223

Chapter8–Implicationsoffindings

Introduction

This thesis began with the premise that that there are challenges facing the scholarly

communication system as it stands, partly because it is not taking advantage of the

technologies now available to provide amore appropriate system for today’s academic

landscape. In addressing the question “How are the communication practices between

researchersaffectingtheuptakeofopenaccessscholarlydisseminationinAustralia?”,this

researchhas focusedonthe individualscholaras thekeytoanychangeto thescholarly

communication system, because they engage with the system on a daily basis. The

empirical aspect of this thesis was a series of interviews with researchers from three

disciplinesattwoAustralianuniversities.

Thischapterbeginswithanoverviewofresearchers’understandingofopenaccessbefore

looking at the findings concerning the ‘researcher as author’. These are related to the

issuesidentifiedwiththescholarlycommunicationsystemwhichwereoutlinedinChapter

2. These issues are the Reward, Certification, and Awareness function of journals. This

section also explores whether concerns about copyright are shared by research

communities.The chapter thendiscusses the ‘researcher as reader’ findings in termsof

informationseekingbehavioursofthethreedisciplinesinterviewed.

Thefinalsectionaddressesaspectsofhowtheindividualresearchercommunicateswith

all members of his or her working community within the framework of disciplinary

differences.

Researcher understanding of open access

Theinterviewquestionsaboutopenaccessaskedrespondentsabouttheirawarenessof,

attitudes to, and engagement with open access. These revealed an interesting range of

opinionsaboutthemeritsofopenaccess.Oneofthepremisesofthisresearchwasthatthe

generallackofawarenessisonlyasmallfactorinthereasonforthelowengagementwith

openaccess.Certainlytheintervieweesshowedalowlevelofawarenessofopenaccess,a

similarfindingtotheRowlands(2004b)report.

224

By asking interviewees to use their own words to describe the term open access,

misconceptions about what open access means were revealed. Onemisconception was

thatopenaccessmeansa‘freeforall’ontheweb,whereanyonecanputupanything.This

is a powerful disincentive to use open access dissemination options for those people

underthisimpression.Generallytherespondents’awarenessofinstitutionalrepositories

waslow,althoughmanypeopleindicatedthattheconceptofarepositorywasappealing

oncetheyunderstoodwhatitwas.ThismirroredthefindingsofSwan&Brown(Swan&

Brown,2005)whichlookedatabroadacademicpopulationandAllen(J.Allen,2005)who

studiedresearchersinthehumanities.

Therewasanelementof“ignoranceandinertia”describedbySwanandBrown(2004b,p.

69), but the reason for the low uptake is considerably more complex. As would be

expected, direct answers to the research question do not leap from the interviewees’

answers. However analysis of the responses has revealed that the reasonswhy people

supportopenaccessandwhytheyuseinstitutionalrepositoriesareasvariedandcomplex

asthereasonswhytheydonot.

Thisworkhasfoundthatconsiderabledifferenceswereobservableatthedisciplinelevel

intermsofawarenessof,andattitudesto,repositoriesandopenaccess,andthesearepart

of the reasons why the positive attitudes and expressions of intent about open access

found in earlier studies are not translating into action. The chemists, with a few

exceptions,weresomewhatconfusedaboutwhatopenaccessmeanswithseveralraising

concerns about restrictions on where they can publish. Even those who had an

understanding ofwhat open accesswas and supported the principle did not publish in

those journals. The issue for chemists was the perception of lower impact factors. The

sociologistsinterviewedshowedsomeawarenessofopenaccess,andphilosophicallythe

concept seemed to appeal to them. The main concerns in the Sociology group about

depositing material into a repository were around plagiarism and copyright. The

computer scientists, on theotherhandwereveryawareofopenaccess, andmostwere

practising it by making material available on their personal websites. Some computer

scientists are already using repositories but show a preference for subject based

repositoriesover institutionalones,and thisappears tobe for reasonsother thanbeing

unawareofanavailablerepositoryattheirinstitution.

Scholarly communication – researcher as author

Thisresearchtakesaholisticviewof theresearcherascommunicator. It isnotsimplya

discipline’scultureofcommunicatinginformationthroughformaljournalpublicationthat

225

needstobeconsideredinthiscontext.Thebroaderaspectsofcommunication,suchasthe

socialsystemsandrewardvaluesofadiscipline,therefereeingexpectations,thevalueof

informal communication, and other aspects of the researcher’s daily interaction with

colleagues within their institution and within their international network, play heavily

intothedebate.

Chapter2discussedhowissueswiththetraditionalscholarlypublishingsystem,suchas

the high cost of subscriptions and delays in publication, pose barriers to the efficient

disseminationofknowledge.Theliteraturedemonstratedthatdespitetheseissuesbeing

identified anddiscussedby the library community andopen access advocates formany

years, there isnotagreatenoughrecognitionof the issueswithin thebroaderscholarly

community tocreateagroundswellofaction.Thiswasborneoutby therespondents in

this research. Overall, the researchers interviewed did not express concern about the

scholarly communication system. The interviewees generally gave two answers to the

question: ‘Why do you publish?’. One related to communication, the other was about

reward. Respondents in all the disciplines said they primarily publish to encourage

dialoguewiththeirpeersandbecauseitisarequirementoftheirfundingbythetaxpayer,

tyingintotheAwarenessandRewardfunctionsofthejournal.

Awareness

Chapter2identifiedtworeasonswhythefunctionofAwarenessisbeingcompromisedin

the traditional scholarly publishing system. One is that high subscription costs pose a

barrier to the widespread dissemination of published work. As this is primarily an

information seeking issue it is discussed inmore depth in the next section. The second

issue, that delays in the publication process create a barrier to the use of journals as a

communicationtool,isdiscussedbelowinlightoftheresearchfindings.

Almostwithoutexceptiontheintervieweessaidtheirprimaryreasonforpublishingisto

communicatetheirfindingswithcolleagues.Therecertainlywasrecognitionamongstthe

interviewees that the long lead times to publishing in journals are problematic when

wanting to communicate results. There are different norms about how long it takes to

publish articles in each of the three disciplines. Each of the disciplines hasmanaged to

workoutwaysof ‘gettingaround’ the long lead timesof journalpublishing through the

useofinformalcommunicationmethods.Thisispossiblebecausethegroupofpeoplewith

whomtheywishtocommunicatedirectlyisquitesmall.Inparticular,computerscientists

appear to be in favour of widely disseminating their work and have managed a way

aroundthedelays in journalpublicationbyplacingemphasisonconferenceproceedings

226

instead.Mostof thecomputerscientists tendtoput links to theirownworkupontheir

websites.Theyhavefoundadiscipline‐runsolutionawayfromjournalpublishers.

As discussed earlier, Awareness can be improved through open access (the increased

visibility argument), however this argument is only effective if individuals within a

disciplinearelookingforinformationinwaysthatarelikelytolocateitemsinopenaccess

outlets.Thereforetheinformation‐seekingbehavioursofanygroupofpeoplewillhavea

directimpactontheirlikelyuptakeofopenaccess.Informationseekingisdiscussedlater

inthischapter.

Reward

All the interviews indicated very strongly that research reporting is an example of an

incompatible administrative structure being imposed onto academic endeavour. This is

partlybecause,asthisresearchdemonstrates,researchershaveastrongerloyaltytotheir

research colleagues than they do to their institution. When an institution imposes

publication practices upon researchers at odds with the practices that are considered

acceptablebytheirowncommunity,thereisevidentlyconflict.

Theresultshavedemonstratedthatacentralissueinansweringtheresearchquestionis

the scholarly communication practice of managing an academic career through

publicationrecord.Mostof theresearchers interviewedindicatedthatunlesstheirwork

was published, it effectively had not occurred.Howevermany interviewees described a

situationwheretheyareforcedtopublish inwaysthatarenotnaturaltotheworkthey

are doing, nor to the communication system they have established with their peers.

Despite the earlier observation that, “external status tends to be more important than

immediateemploymentstatusformanyscientistsand,indeed,oftendeterminesitinthe

public sciences" (Wiley, 1984), practitioners are having to adjust the way they would

naturallycommunicate to fit theadministrativerequirementsof the institution inwhich

theyarebased.

Researchersareverybusy,havingmanyaspectstotheirstandardworkload.Theprocess

the intervieweesmust follow to apply for grants is considered lengthy and tedious and

mostpeopleexpressedsomeleveloffrustrationwiththesystem.Promotionscommittees

also cause problems for many researchers who find they must change their preferred

publication methods to fit with the expectation of the committee for their career

advancement.Itappearsthatthereportingsystemhasinherentdifficulties,andthisstems

fromthesystembeingdevelopedbyuniversityandgovernmentadministrators.Aswillbe

227

describedbelow,researchersthemselveshavelittleawarenessofdisciplinarydifferences,

soitisnotsurprisingthatuniversityadministratorsappeartobecompletelyunawareof

them.Withinthethreedisciplinesinterviewedforthisresearch,eachacademicpopulation

has established systems that address problems in communication, but they experience

difficulties when it comes to complying with requirements handed down by the

administrationatboththegovernmentandinstitutionlevels.

While there are arguments that the days of the scholarly journal are limited (Kingsley,

2007), the scholarly publication system is currently deeply embedded in the reward

systemusedinacademia(Steeleetal.,2006),anduntilthischangesthejournalislikelyto

remain. This research has shown that researchers face divided loyalties – both to their

employinginstitution(moresoiftheirworkinvolvestheuseofexpensiveequipment)and

to their internationalnetworkof colleagues.Publishingbehavioursare toa largeextent

determined by the reward and reporting requirements of the institution, funding body

and/orgovernment forwhomtheacademicworks.Oneof thepremisesof thisresearch

wasthattherewardfunctionofscholarlyjournalsisoneofthemainbarrierstoachange

inscholarlypublishingbehaviourandthefindingsbearthisout.

While the findings unveiled the central role Reward plays in communication decisions,

they also demonstrated the arbitrary importance of Certification and copyright on

publishingdecisions.

Certification

The delays experienced in publishing are substantially due to the Reward function

increasing the need to publish more which in turn affects the amount submitted for

publication and therefore the amount of Certification required. One of the questions

arising from the interviews is whether peer review is a productive use of researchers’

time.Thisrelatestothe‘ResearcherasReviewer’.Anobviousstartingpointinanswering

thatquestionishowmuchtimeresearchersareactuallyspendingreviewing.Thecurrent

scholarly publication system relies on peer review – of papers, of theses, of promotion

applications. While the researchers interviewed spend a considerable amount of time

refereeingpapers,theyindicatedthisisanacceptedpartofthescholarlyprocessandthey

understandit tobeacontributiontotheirscholarlycommunities.Peerreviewworkson

thegiftrelationshipprinciple(Akerlof,1982), intheeyesofthe interviewees it isa ‘gift’

researchersbestowupontheirfellowresearchers.Thegiftisnottothepublisher,ortothe

institutionsendingthePhDthesisortothegrantbody.Theyreviewbecausetheyexpect

otherstoreviewtheirwork.Manyofthechemistsandcomputerscientistsquantifiedtheir

228

reviewingintermsoftheirownoutput–forthesystemtowork,eachpersonmustreview

inproportiontotheamounttheypublish.

Theargumentthatnewpublishingmodels, includingopenaccess,potentiallyoffermore

efficient ways to administer peer review does not appear to be compelling for the

academic group studied. While many of the researchers interviewed expressed

dissatisfactionwith the amount of peer review theywere required to do, none of them

arguedtherewasaneedtochangethesystem,otherthanallowingforsomeprofessional

recognition of the work. Problems with the peer review system are not a catalyst for

change.

Copyright

Itwouldappearthatdespitethehighlevelofdiscussionandanalysisofcopyrightamongst

open access advocates, and the undeniable need for copyright issues to be resolved for

openaccesstobesuccessful, therewaslittleconcernaboutcopyrightamongstthethree

groups interviewed. This was either because they were unaware of it or because they

ignore copyright restrictions. Copyright therefore is not a burning issue for many

researchers. It is a barrier towidespread open access on a logistic level, but it is not a

barrierattheindividual’sphilosophicallevel.

Because giving away copyright to publishers in exchange for publication is not amajor

issuefortheresearchersinterviewed,theydonotnecessarilyseeanyneedforchange.Of

thethreegroupsinterviewed,thecomputerscientistsexpressedthegreatestawarenessof

the copyright situation, and many of the computer scientists interviewed are blatantly

flouting their copyright agreements by placing their work onto their websites. In fact,

ratherthancopyrightissuesbeingacatalystforchange,theinterviewsshowedcopyright

was likely to be a factor in the resistance to moving to open access scholarly

communication. In discussion about the option of placing copies of their work into a

repository,manyofthechemistsandsociologistsexpressedconcernaboutcontravening

copyright.ThisfindingsupportstheworkofPinfield(Pinfield,2001).Theirconcernwas

exacerbated by the lack of understanding ofmany respondents regarding the copyright

agreementstheyhadsignedwiththeirpublishers.

As recommended in Chapter 3, in order to understandwhy open access dissemination

options arenotbeing embraced, abroader,moreholistic viewneeds tobe takenof the

communication practices of researchers, and this is the focus of the remainder of this

chapter. The next section discusses the importance of information seeking behaviours,

229

before takinga lookatdisciplinarydifferences andhow thesearekey to answering the

researchquestion.

Scholarly communication – researcher as reader

Oneof the reasons theAwareness functionof journals isbecoming compromised in the

current scholarly communication system is the high subscription costs of journals.

However the findings indicate that these do not register with the research community

interviewed. These researchers are based in institutions in first world countries and

alreadyhaveaccess tomostof the journalarticles theyrequirebecausetheir institution

subscribes to them. Inaddition, almostall intervieweesdescribedsystems forobtaining

anymaterialthatisnotavailableintheirinstitutionallibraries.Sometimesthesearequite

elaborate, such as the sociologist who stores up all the missing references until s/he

travelsoverseastoanotherinstitution.Manyoftheintervieweesalsousethelibrariesat

nearby institutions. The ‘close enough’ method of finding similar papers was another

popularalternative.

This means that access to the literature is not necessarily an issue for this group, and

unlikelytobeapressingenoughconcerntoencourageachangeofpublishingbehaviour.

ThiswasalsotheexperienceatQUTwhentheyinitiallytriedtoencourageuptakeoftheir

QUTePrintsrepository:“Messagesaboutthealtruismofopenaccessortherisingjournals

pricesseemtomakelittleimpact”(Callan,2006b).QUThasfoundthatdemonstratinghow

search engines will find a particular academic’s papers is a more effective way of

encouragingpeopletodepositintotherepository.

The findingsof this research support the ideas articulated inChapter2, that traditional

arguments used to encourage open access are ineffective. Researchers are not a

homogenous group, and broad criticisms of the scholarly publication system are not

resonating with them. They do not see a reason for change. It is possible this

demonstrated lack of interest accompanied by attempts to find alternative ways of

communicating research, is an issue of perspective rather than resistance. Researchers

withastandardresearchingandteachingloadareoftentoobusytoconsiderthescholarly

publishing system as a whole. Many interviewees in all three disciplines described

workloads thatweremore than full time, and itwasnot at alluncommon forpeople to

mention working at home in the evenings and on weekends. Even the researchers

interviewed who were ostensibly in research‐only positions described considerable

teaching and administrative responsibilities. To achieve a successful uptake of a

repositorytheseculturalissuesmustbetakenintoconsideration.

230

Like Lynch (2003) andPinfield (2001), this researchhas found that researchers donot

havethetime,resourcesortechnicalexpertisetoensurethepreservationof theirwork.

ProvidingadministrativesupportassuggestedbyChan(2004)andimplementedbyCallan

(2006b)encouragesmoredeposits into institutionalrepositories,butthis isonlypartof

theproblemoflowengagementwithrepositories.Myresearchhasfoundthatdisciplinary

differences in information‐seeking behaviour are important factors of a researcher’s

willingness to embrace open access scholarly communication. To date, the existing

research into information seeking behaviours across all disciplines has not been

specificallyappliedtothequestionofresearcherengagementwithopenaccess19.

Researchers in all three disciplines described looking at a specific topic, either because

they are reviewing a paper and wish to ensure that the topic has not been covered

elsewhere,orbecausetheyarewritingapaperonthetopicandneedtoensurethatthey

haveseen,orareawareof,allotherworkinthearea.Thistypeofinformationseekingis

describedasdirectedsearchingforspecificinformationintheliterature.Thesecondtype

ofinformationseekingisundirectedsearchinginawiderfieldwhichcanunearthresults

whichlinkintootherfields(Back,1962;Menzel,1962).Whiletheterm‘keepingupwith

theliterature’mightbeconsideredquaintinsomedisciplinesandirrelevantinothers,itis

stillapracticeundertakenbytheintervieweesinChemistry.Itisdirectedsearchingthatis

of most relevance to the uptake of repositories. By looking at the specific tools the

different groups of researchers use to find information, clues can be found as to the

usefulnessornotofarepositorytothatgroup.

Information-seeking behaviour of the chemists

The chemists described regular engagement with the literature, withmost using email

notification, although some still readprinted versions of journals. This generalmove to

electronicjournaluseisduetotheproliferationofelectronicallyavailableinformationand

representsashiftfromattitudesin1995whenchemistswereonedisciplinesurveyedas

part of an Honours Thesis at UNSW. At that time, the chemists as a group expressed

suspicion about the validity of electronic journals (Kingsley, 1995). The interviewees in

2006 and 2007 indicated that they use a series of tools to find information online

includingWebofScienceandChemicalSocietyAbstracts.However, thesearchtoolused19Addressingtheinformation–seekingliteraturecanbeproblematic,becausetheterminologyused

varies considerably, with terms such as information seeking behaviour, information channel

studies, communications research, knowledge‐based information, or diffusion of knowledge

studies,allappearingtomeanthesamething(Detlefsen,1998).

231

byalmost every chemist interviewedwasSciFinder,whichdoesnot search institutional

(oranyother)repositories.Itisa“singlesourceforscientificinformationinjournalsand

patentliteraturefromaroundtheworld”accordingtothehomepagelii.Thechemistsinthe

sample interviewed for this researchwere far less likely than the other twodisciplines

interviewedtouseGoogle.

This finding indicates that Chemistry is unusual, given that a study of over 1000

researchers (Swan& Brown, 2005) found that 72% of the respondents used Google as

their first‐choice tool for finding information on a topic. This apparent contradiction of

resultsisoneexampleofwhyitisimportanttoconsiderdisciplinesinisolationfromone

another.My research found that 100% of the computer scientists used Google as their

searchtool.

Thechemistsinthisgroupweregenerallyunawareofinstitutionalrepositoriesandmany

couldnot see thepointofusing them.Theyalsoexpressedconcern that if theywere to

place informationinarepository,no‐onewouldknowto lookfor it there.Ofcourse, the

idea of the repository is that the searcher does not need to go to the institutionalweb

page, theycanuseasearchenginesuchasGoogleorOAIsterandfindthepaper,almost

without knowing they have found their goal through a repository. A few chemists

misunderstoodthenatureofrepositories,stating that theythoughtplacingmaterial ina

repositorywasasubstituteforpublishinginjournals,andindicatingthiswouldnotbean

option because itwould not ‘count’ for Reward systems. This concern that open access

disseminationdoesnotcarryweightwithintheacademiccommunityreflectsthefinding

bySwanandBrown(2004b).

However, consideringchemists’ information‐seeking (rather thanpublishing)behaviour,

thismis‐perception,thatitemsinarepositorywouldnotbefoundbyotherpeople,reflects

the way chemists currently search for information. They go to the database where

information is housed rather than conduct general searches. The non‐use of general

searchenginesbythechemistsmeansthattheargumentthatplacingpreorpostprintsin

a repository will increase the visibility of chemists’ work is problematic. The research

communitywithwhomtheywishtocommunicateissearchingfortheirworkelsewhere.

Information-seeking behaviour of the sociologists

Thesociologistsinthesamplerelyonacombinationofjournalarticlesandbooksfortheir

information,anddescribeddoing‘serendipitous’research,suchasfollowingcitationleads

andworkingthroughbibliographies.Thismethodoflookingforinformationissometimes

232

called ‘snowballing’. These responses reflect the long‐standing observation that the

growthof the literature in thehumanities isunstructured, and that “newdevelopments

arebasedupona‘randomraidingoftheentirearchiveoftheliterature’”(Pricequotedin

(Crane,1972),p.94).

Thesociologists,liketheothertwogroups,generallyhaveaccesstothearticlestheyneed.

However a large source of literature for them is books. Many of the sociologists

interviewed said they bought their own books. One of the reasons this is necessary is

becausethesoaringcostsofjournalsubscriptions,combinedwiththebundlingsystemsof

publisherssince1990,meansthereislittlelibrarybudgetavailableforbooks.In2002the

ANU Library acquisition budget was “roughly 83:17 serials to books” (Steele, 2008).

Despitethis,thecostofjournalsubscriptionsdidnotfeatureatallintheinterviewswith

sociologists.

Thefindingthatsociologistsarebuyingtheirownresearchmaterialgoesagainstgeneral

non‐discipline‐specific researchwhich indicates that, overall, individuals arepaying less

often for personal literature: “the number of personal subscriptions per scientist has

decreased steadily from about 5.8 in 1977 to 2.2 subscriptions per scientist currently”

(Tenopiretal.,2003).WhiletheTenopirworkwas lookingat journalsubscriptions,and

the sociologists are buying their own books, this finding is another example of why

researchinthisfieldneedstobedisciplinespecific.

Information-seeking behaviour of the computer scientists

In Computer Science, farmore so than the other disciplines interviewed, it is common

practiceforanacademictohaveapersonalwebsitewithalltheirpublishedpaperslisted

onthatsite.Puttingthelegalcopyrightimplicationsofthispracticetooneside,thisisan

interestingconundrumforanadvocateofarepository.Thoseresearcherswhoputtheir

papersintopersonalwebsitesarealreadypractisingopenaccess.Nearlyallthematerial

theyuseisavailablefreelyonlineviaaGooglesearch.Usingpersonalwebsitesmightnot

addresssomeofthesustainabilityissuesthatrepositorydevelopersaretryingtoresolve,

but in a fast‐moving discipline,mostmaterial is out of date very quickly so this is not

necessarily a priority. There are evidently serious copyright issueswith this practice in

somecases that shouldprobablybeaddressed for the researchers,but if the repository

manager’s focus is on achieving open access, then energywould be better spent, in the

caseofComputerScienceatleast,addressingthecopyrightproblemratherthantryingto

encouragethoseresearcherstoaltertheirbehaviourandusearepository.

233

Summary of scholarly communication findings

These results show that despite many flaws with the scholarly communication system

relating to Awareness, Certification and Reward, the researchers interviewed generally

did not express a great deal of concern about the publishing, reviewing or researching

aspectsofremainingengagedwiththe literature.The issueofRewardhoweverremains

centraltotheirpublicationchoices.Inaddition,thesefindingsindicatethatthearguments

usedbyadvocatesofopenaccess,inrelationtoauthorlossofcopyrightandhighjournal

subscriptions are not important enough to the research community for individuals to

changetheirpublicationbehaviour.

Howeverthefindingsalsoshowthattherearecleardisciplinarydifferencesinrelationto

publishing and information‐seeking behaviour of researchers. These are central to the

reasons why different disciplines are embracing open access with different levels of

enthusiasm. Differences between disciplines extend beyond researchers’ publishing

behaviour into every facet of their formal and informal communication practices. They

explainwhysubject‐based repositoriesaremore successful than institutionalones,why

there is an inherent conflict between institutional and disciplinary communication

requirementsandwhycentralisedapproachestodiffusingrepositoriesareencounteringa

higher level of resistance than anticipated. The next section looks at researcher

engagementwithrepositories,andhowdisciplinarydifferencesareacriticalfactor.

Researcher engagement with repositories

In a discussion about researcher engagement with repositories it is important to

distinguishbetweendifferent typesofrepositories.Thiswillbeaddressedfirst,beforea

discussion of the willingness of each of the three disciplines to use their institutional

repository.

Thefindingsrelatingtoinformation‐seekingbehaviourindicatethatadisciplinarygroup

will be more receptive to the concept of using a digital repository (subject‐based or

institutional)ifthemembersofthegroupsearchforinformationinawaythatwillresult

in finding repository items. This conclusionwas supported in the triangulation data, as

CallanobservedoftheQUTresearchersinherinterview:

Somegroupsweremorereceptivethanothers. I foundthatthepeoplewitha

strong connection to a subject vocabulary like MESH, these people are less

likely to accept that argument [of increased visibility of work] because they

don’tuseGoogle.AnydisciplinesthatdouseGoogleithelps.Thiswillactually

facilitateaccess.Itisalsotheargumentweuseforacceptingbooksbecausethe

234

ePrints will act as a ‘billboard for the work’.We put their contact details in

thereiftheywantmoreinformation.

Subject-based versus institutional repositories

Whileinstitutionalrepositoriesbenefittheinstitution,thisdoesnotnecessarilyservethe

needs of the researchers. Rogers (2003) makes the point that “the name given to an

innovationoftenaffectsitsperceivedcompatibilityandthereforeitsrateofadoption”(p.

250).AsdiscoveredbyFosterandGibbons(2005),thenomenclaturehasindicatedtothe

academiccommunitythattheinstitutionalrepositoryisdesignedtosupportandhighlight

the achievements of the institution rather than provide any benefit to the individual

academic.Afewrespondentsinmyresearchsaidtheycouldnotseehowtheinstitutional

repository would help them, commenting that it would however be useful to the

universityadministration.Myresearchshows,however,thatthereasonsforlowuptakeof

institutionalrepositoriesaremorecomplexthanamatterofterminology.Rather,thelack

ofengagementisbecauseofcomplexdisciplinarydifferencesinscholarlycommunication

practice,includinginformation‐seekingbehaviour.

InChapter3,therelativesuccessofsubject‐basedrepositoriescomparedtoinstitutional

repositories,wasdescribed.Cluestowhythisisthecaselieintheresultsofthisresearch,

whichindicatesthatthereasonforthisisthesocialnormsalreadyestablishedindifferent

disciplines. For example, arXiv is successful because physics is “a small community of

peoplewhowork inharmonywith eachother andwhoknoweachother’s reputations”

(Taubes, 1993). ArXiv has become intricately linked with the information‐seeking

behavioursoftheresearcherswhouseit,andthisispredominatelybecauseitisasubject‐

basedrepositoryratherthananinstitutionalone.

If disciplinary socialnormsare central to theuptakeof repositories, then theargument

that diffusions are more successful if managed as a decentralised system, grounded in

diffusion of innovations theory, becomes clearly relevant to this discussion. In a

decentralisedsystem,theparticipantscanmakedecisionsaboutthediffusionprocessand

createandshareinformationwithoneanothertoreachamutualunderstanding(Rogers,

2003). Decentralised systems are likely to fit more closely with the user’s need and

problems. Institutional repositories are not decentralised systems, but subject‐based

repositoriesare,whichinpartexplainthedifferentlevelsofuptakebetweenthem.

Anexampleofhowadoptinganinstitutionalrepositorytoincorporatedisciplinarynorms

canbeachievedemergedintheQUTcasestudy.TheEconomicsdisciplineprovidesagood

exampleofhowthe information‐seekingbehaviourandrewardstructure inaparticular

235

disciplineaffectstherelativeadvantageaspectofthediffusionofaninnovationintothat

discipline.

The case of the economists

Generally, economists worldwide use a subject‐based archive called RePEcliii (Research

Papers in Economics) as a system for sharing papers. Participants can depositmaterial

throughtheirowninstitutionalrepository,ordirectlytotheRePEcrepository.Economists

evidently already have a culture of sharing working papers online, which means they

shouldbeagroupthatembracesinstitutionalrepositories.However,thereisaproblem.In

the Economics discipline, metadata is collected by a related service called IDEASliv

(Internet Documents in Economics Access Service), which provides information about

workingpapersandpublishedresearchtotheEconomicsprofession.Thissystemcollects

downloadstatisticsfromRePEcandsendsoutamonthlymailingtoregisteredindividuals

about the popularity of their works, their ranking and new citations found. These

downloadstatisticsareimportant‘currency’foreconomists.Anyeconomistwhoplacesan

openaccessversionoftheirwork(asopposedtoametadatapage)intotheirinstitutional

repositoryaswellasRePEc,risksadilutionofthestatisticsabouttheirworkcollatedby

IDEAS.Thisisbecauseanydownloadthatcomesfromtheinstitutionalrepositoryrather

thanRePEc isnot ‘counted’by IDEAS.Obviously this is adisincentive for economists to

deposititemsintotheirinstitutionalrepository.

QUThasapproachedthepersonwhowrotethesoftwareforRePEcaboutthepossibility

ofhavingQUTeconomistsdeposittheirworkingpapersintoQUTePrintsandhaveRePEc

harvestthemetadatatocreateaRePEcrecord.TheePrintrecordwouldpointvisitorsto

RePEcsothatdownloadswouldallbeinitiated(andcounted)viaRePEc.Callanexplained

in interview that this: “isanexampleofadisciplinarydifference.Youhavegot to finda

way to work with that group – you are not going to persuade them to change their

practice”(Callan,2007).

Considering diffusion theory in this case, exposure to RePEc has demonstrated to the

economics community that archives can provide benefit, and are not complex. It has

allowedeconomiststotrialusinganarchive.Intheorythismeanstheyshouldbewilling

to embrace the technology. However, there is a clear relative disadvantage in using an

alternative repository unless that repository becomes compatible with the “existing

values,pastexperiences,andneedsof[the]potentialadopters”(Rogers,1983,p.15).This

oneexampledemonstratesthatdespiteoutwardappearancesof‘innovative’behaviourby

236

agrouptowardsanewsystem,aninternalsocialrewardsystemmayworkcountertothat

groupembracinganewtechnology.

The case of the economists illustrates one of themajor barriers to the uptake of open

access scholarly communication in Australia. Any alternative dissemination of research

outputstotraditionalpublishingmustnotonlybeeasytouse,andprovideobviousbenefit

totheadopter,itmustalsonotthreatenanyestablishedsocialorrewardnormswithinthe

communityofwhichtheadopterisamember.Evidently,tryingtoprovidea‘one‐size‐fits‐

all’solutiontothechallengeofopeningupaccessibilitytoresearchoutputsisnotgoingto

besuccessful.

The Computer Science challenge for repository uptake

Thenatureof thedisciplineofComputerSciencemeansthatresearchers inthe fieldare

using and developing high‐level software.Many people in the field are using electronic

versioningsystemstocollaborateinternationallyviatheInternet.Thereisnoconceptual

barriertousingadigitalrepositoryforcompletedwork.Inaddition,thereisacultureof

makingpublicationsavailabletootherresearchersbymaintainingapersonalwebsiteand

by writing publicly accessible Technical Reports. In some Computer Science sub‐

disciplines it isstandardpracticefor journalstorequestthatwhensubmittingpapersto

thejournal,theauthorfirstdepositsthepaperintoarepositorythensendsthelinktothe

journal. Thismeans that researchers working in those sub‐disciplines at the very least

haveanawarenessofrepositoriesgenerally.

Whilemuchworkisbeingdoneontheinteroperabilityofrepositoriessotheyareableto

ingest items between software platforms, a lack of standardisation of what type of

materialisacceptedintodifferentrepositoriesandthewaythemetadataiscollectedcan

causedifficulties toauser trying to locate items.Severalcomputerscientistsmentioned

issueswith standardisation, including the difficulty of being in an institutionwhere the

organisationalstructurechangeseverytenyears,andtheproblemsofkeywordsmeaning

differentthingsindifferentcountriesevenwithinadiscipline.

Anotherissuewasnottheconceptofrepositoriesthemselves,ratherthefactthatitwasan

institutionalrepository.Becauseofthewaycomputerscientists lookforinformation,the

interviewees felt that other researchers would not find their material in institutional

repositories.Generallyitappearedthatthiscommunitywouldbemorepreparedtoaccept

a subject‐based repository. The general feeling amongst the computer scientists

interviewedwas thatmaterial isalreadyavailableon individualresearcher’swebpages,

237

andmuchoftheconferenceproceedingsareopenaccess,sothereisnoneedtoduplicate

thisbyputtingmaterialintoarepositoryaswell.

A summary of researcher engagement and disciplinary differences

Overall, the awareness of the availability of an institutional repository was very low

amongst the interviewees andonly ahandful of peoplehadactuallydeposited anything

intoarepository,institutionalorotherwise.Clearlyaconsiderablebarriertotheuseofthe

ANU and UNSW institutional repositories is the lack of an awareness and advocacy

program at both institutions. The biggest factor in answering the research question

howeverisdisciplinarydifferencesinscholarlycommunicationpractices.

Disciplinary differences in scholarly communication

When considering the researchers’ responses to questions about scholarly

communication, fromboth the researching and the authoringperspective,whatbecame

apparentinthisresearchwasthemarkeddifferencesbetweenthedisciplinesintheway

theyinteractwiththeliterature.Tosaythatdisciplinesdifferfromoneanotherisatruism,

however, the extent to which they differ, not only between disciplines but also within

them,clearlyemergedasanimportantfactorinthisresearch.Disciplinarydifferencesare

established during the training researchers receive as students and postgraduates. The

academic world is built on a master/apprentice system that, as Chapter 7 discussed,

enjoysvaryinglevelsofsuccess.

Disciplinary differences and research

Particularlyinthesciences,researchbuildsuponitself,asresearchersreportsmallsteps

inthemovementtowardsananswertoalargeproblemthatmanypeoplemaybeworking

on. Newton’s famous quote, ‘if I have seen further it is by standing of the shoulders of

giants’,isalyricaldescriptionofthisphenomenon.Inorderforthisprogressiontooccur,

itisessentialforresearcherstocommunicatetheirfindingstooneanother.

In this discussion it is therefore necessary to distinguish between scholarly

communication and scholarly publication. Scholarly publication is the formal process of

having discrete articles published in peer reviewed journals and conferences, and of

publishing books. Scholarly communication incorporates scholarly publishing, but also

encompasses informal communication. Academic endeavour is in many ways a social

activityandsocial factorswithinaresearchareaaffect thedisseminationof information

(Crane,1972).

238

Thedifferencesinpublishingoutputbetweendisciplinesresultsfromthegeneral‘speed’

oftheendeavourinquestion.Fastmovingresearchwithmanypeopleworkingonsimilar

topicsisdescribedasurban(usingtheanalogyofurbanlife)(Becher&Trowler,2001).Of

thethreedisciplinesinterviewedforthisresearch,ComputerScienceisthefastestmoving,

with researchoftenoutofdatewithinayear. Sociology,by contrast fits squarely in the

categoryof‘rural’research,whereanindividualresearchermaybetheonlypersonworld‐

wideworkingonagiventopic(Becher&Trowler,2001).Booksareanappropriateformat

for publication in this context. Many of the people interviewed in Sociology described

delays in journal article publication of two years. Chemistry falls between the two

disciplines, with the researchers in different sub‐disciplines reporting a range of

publication times from as short as two weeks, although the outside expected time to

publicationwasaroundfourtosixmonths.

The findings from this researchhavedemonstrated that communication (as opposed to

publishing) between individual researchers and within small academic research areas

often bypasses the formal system. Members of each of the disciplines described

communication techniques that suit their own needs, which are determined by their

discipline.Specifically,theintroductionoftheInternet(which,asdescribedinChapter1,

representsaseismicshiftincommunicationintheorderofthatoftheprintingpress)has

allowed for new types of communication previously unimagined. These ‘Web 2.0’

techniques,suchasblogs,wikis,Skype(tomentionafew)arebeingadoptedbydifferent

disciplines at different rates, enthusiastically embraced by the computer scientists and

barelymentionedbythechemists,forexample.

Ashasbeenexplained,thisresearchindicatesthatamajorbarriertotheuptakeofopen

accessscholarlypublication isthedifferentformsofpublishingoutletswithinindividual

disciplines. However, simply identifying differences between disciplines may not be

enough to determine successful ways of implementing repository use, as disciplines

themselvesencompassaseriesofsub‐specialisms.

Disciplinary differences and research reporting

Manyof the interviewees inall threedisciplinesexpressed frustrationat thepromotion

andgrantfundingprocessestowhichtheyaresubject.Membersofpromotioncommittees

are, by necessity, comprised of researchers from different disciplines, whomay have a

limitedunderstandingoftheworkbeingassessed.Thisclearlyemergedasanissuewith

intervieweesthemselveswhohadlittleawarenessofhowotherdisciplinesfunction.This

wasmostclearlyevidencedintheresponsesof intervieweeswhohadmoveddisciplines

239

and had been forced to embrace a new publishing regime, in particular thosewho had

moved into Computer Science from other areas such as Philosophy, Biology and

Chemistry.Manyofthemmentionedhowdifferentitwas,orthattheyhadpreviouslyheld

disparagingideasabouttheComputerSciencepublishingprocessbutnowrealiseditwas

highlyrigorous.

The literatureondisciplinarydifferencesprovidesmany insights into thisphenomenon.

Forexamplepreviousresearchlookingintocrossdisciplinaryawarenesshasshownthat

“academicsseemtobesurprisinglyhazyincharacterisingotherpeople’ssubjectsofstudy,

andtheirstereotypesofbothsubjectsandpractitionersareingeneralneitherparticularly

perceptivenorparticularlyilluminating“(Becher,1981,p.110).CPSnow(1965)described

theproblemof‘twocultures’ofliteraryintellectualsandscientistsandbetweenthem,“a

gulfofmutualincomprehension–sometimes…hostilityanddislike,butmostofalllackof

understanding”(p.36).Thisgulfofunderstandingyawnsnotjustbetweenscienceandthe

arts,itcanalsobeseenbetweendisciplinesthatbroadlyconstitute‘science’.Oneexample

isthelackofunderstandingwithindisciplinesofthevalueofotherdisciplines’publication

outputs (Kling&McKim,1999),whichwasdemonstratedagain inmyresults.Evidently

publicationismerelyonemanifestationofanentiresubcultureofadiscipline.

Theresearchdescribed in this thesishasuncovereda serious implicationof this lackof

understandingofotherdisciplines.The findings indicate thatuniversity administrations

arehinderedintheirunderstandingofthemyriadofworkpracticesandsocialnormsin

different disciplines. A clear example of this lack of understanding is the reporting

requirementsimposeduponresearchersbyuniversityadministrationandfundingbodies.

This findingsupports thepremisemadeearly intheresearch, that therewardsystemis

central to the ultimate success or otherwise of any change to scholarly publishing. It

extends it, however, to include the statement that disciplinary differences must be

consideredinanydiscussionthatinvolvesalteringpublicationbehaviour,suchasmaking

workavailableinanopenaccessformat.

Disciplinary differences and amending publication practice

Theinterviewees’concernsincludedtheamountoftimethatwasspentinpreparationfor

grant and promotion applications, however the main difficulty experienced was the

necessity to publish in particular journals to gain recognition. A recent University of

California study supported this finding, stating “that the current tenure and promotion

systemdrives[academics]tofocusonconventionalpublishingactivitiesthatareaccorded

240

the most weight toward their professional advancement” (The University of California

OfficeofScholarlyCommunication,2007).

The interviewees described using a variety of methods to increase their publication

output, such as ‘salami slicing’ their research into smaller papers than they would

normally choose to, and only sending their work to Thomson Reuters‐ranked journals.

Therewasawiderecognitionofhavingto‘playthegame’tostayahead.Thismodification

ofpublishingbehaviourtosatisfyadministrativerequirementsisnotuniquetothegroups

interviewed. As discussed in Chapter 2, the behaviour of researchers changing their

publication to suit assessment has been observed before. However, the findings

demonstrate that the implications of this are far wider than simply an administrative

burdenonresearchers,butthatthisphenomenonisoneaspectofwhatIhavedubbedthe

‘institutional/disciplinarydivide’,which isoneof thebiggestbarriers to thewidespread

uptakeofopenaccessdissemination,particularlyinstitutionalrepositories.

The institutional/disciplinary divide

Ashas become clear through this research, there is a conflict between theneeds of the

individualsinagivendisciplineandthoseoftheinstitutioninwhichtheywork,whichhas

implicationsforthesuccessorotherwiseofoneoftheopenaccessdisseminationoptions,

institutionalrepositories.Iamdescribingthisastheinstitutional/disciplinarydivide.

The literature on disciplinary differences can illuminate this phenomenon also. For

example, the concept that science itself is a commodity that can be controlled and

manipulatedforpoliticalgoalsisnotanewidea,Whitley(1984)pointedoutthat,

'SciencePolicy'hasbecomebothanareaofresearchandasetofadministrative

practicesas themodernscienceshavedeveloped intoamajor,andexpensive

social institution which requires 'steering' and monitoring by state agencies

whoareassistedbyavarietyofresearchgroupsandunits”(p.2).

Inmodernacademiclife,certainlyinAustralia,directivesoriginateingovernment,andare

carried out by university administrators. Thismirrors a processWhitely also observed:

"Goals are set by the administrative hierarchy in much industrial research but work

processesare,usually,decidedbyscientistsonthebasisoftheirtraining"(1984,p.18).

As discussed earlier in this chapter, the researchers whowere interviewed function in

smallgroups,andthesegroupsregularlyconsistofcolleaguesotherthanthosewithinthe

university. Often they are an international group of like‐minded colleagues. The

disciplinary differences literature indicates this trend is reflected in research groups

241

world‐wide: “disciplinary cultures, in virtually all fields, transcend the institutional

boundaries within any given system,” (Becher, 1994). Because of the requirements of

teaching undergraduate programs, subject groups must have team members between

themthatcanteachacrossthediscipline,and“thisgenerallymeansthatappointmentsare

made to fill gaps in specialisms, rather than to reinforce existing research expertise: so

colleagueswho teach together areunlikely tobe readily able to combine their research

interests”(Becher,1981,p.118).

The interviewees in this research described networks of between one and 20 people,

reflecting‘researchnetworks’,describedasarelativelyintensiveconcentrationofinterest

ties,withnodefinedboundary(Woolgar,1976).Thisfindingsupportsearlierdisciplinary

differenceresearchthatshowssub‐specialitiesareverysmall,anditisnotuncommonfor

scientists to be working in a number of different specialties (Hagstrom, 1970). Becher

(2001) found that generally academic circles will have an immediate group of

approximately 5‐20 people. A larger group of interested researchers might encompass

about200,butthatistheextentofpeoplewhowouldhaveadirectresearchinterestinan

individual’swork.

Thesesocialandresearchnetworks,sometimesreferredtoas‘invisiblecolleges’,arevery

small, comprising not the discipline, but the sub‐speciality that makes up a particular

individual’sinnercircle.Itistheintimacyofthesegroupsthatconflictswithinstitutional

goals. It is not surprising that many researchers find their research colleagues outside

their own institution. This research has demonstrated that the researchers interviewed

oftenhaveagreaterloyaltytotheirresearchcommunitythantheydototheirinstitution,a

finding which supports the observation in the disciplinary differences literature that:

“externalstatustendstobemoreimportantthanimmediateemploymentstatusformany

scientistsand,indeed,oftendeterminesitinthepublicsciences”(Whitely,1984,p.16).

Howeverwhiletheirownresearchcommunitymaybetheaudienceofchoice,researchers

inAustraliaareconstrainedbyreportingrequirementsonseverallevelsthatconflictwith

this community. Academics must report to their institution for promotion, to the

AustralianGovernmentviatheirinstitutionforuniversityoperationalmoneyanddirectly

to granting bodies such as the Australian Research Council and National Health and

Medical Research Council for external research grants. This schizophrenic situation is

causing headaches for many researchers and is a highly inefficient use of researcher’s

time. Obtaining grants was repeatedly given in answer to the question: “Why do you

publish?”.

242

Institutionalrepositoriesexisttoservetheinstitutionandfundingbodies,ratherthanthe

individual.Thisdisconnectbetweentheneedsoftheinstitutionandthoseofresearchers’

invisible collegesmeans that “by forcing academics to report in a fashion at oddswith

their natural flow of work and community, the potential for widespread uptake of

repositoriesasamethodofachievingopenaccessisunlikelytosucceed.”20.

Therehasbeenlittlereferenceintheopenaccessliteraturetothephenomenonofconflict

between institutions and disciplines, with the exception of a small Cornell University

study,whichconcluded that “Eachdisciplinehasanormativeculture, largelydefinedby

theirrewardsystemandtraditions.…institutionalrepositorieswillneedtoaddressthis

cultural diversity” (Davis & Connolly, 2007), and a recent South African policy paper

whichreferredtoa ‘largelyuncharteredclash’betweenresearchandinnovationpolicies

ontheonehandandthetraditionally‐acceptedmodelofacademicpublishingontheother.

This paper argued that performance measures effectively inhibit the effective

disseminationofresearch(Gray,2007).

Disciplinary differences and repository diffusion

Institutionalrepositorieshavethepotentialtoprovideanefficientsolutiontomanyofthe

administrative requirements of Australian universities, and have been developed by a

large number of Australian universities for several reasons. These include reporting

requirements for the Australian Government, as is explained in Chapter 7, internal

promotion purposes, and grant applications. One of the reasons there has been low

voluntaryuptakeofrepositoriesinAustraliaisthattheyappeartohavebeendevelopedas

auniformadministrativesolutionforinstitutions.ManyAustralianuniversityrepositories

have a stated purpose which is often in the spirit of ‘making research output more

accessible’ (Kennan & Kingsley, 2009). However, it seems that little energy has been

directed intomaking these repositories fit the highly variable and specific needs of the

disciplineswithin their institutions.This tendencyofuniversityadministrators tocreate

uniformadministrativesolutionswhichcanbeinappropriateforthedifferentdisciplinary

cultureshousedintheinstitution,hasbeennotedinthedisciplinarydifferencesliterature

(Becher,1994).However,todate,thisobservationhasremainedlargelyabsentfromopen

accessdiscussions.20ThisisaquotefromthepapermentionedinChapter4,which,becauseofcircumstancesbeyondmycontrol,hasnotyetbeenpublished.However, thepreprintof thepaperhasbeen in theANU

repositorysinceMay2007(http://dspace.anu.edu.au/manakin/handle/1885/45158?show=full).

243

Itwouldbeinstructivetoconsiderdisciplinarydifferencesincontextofdiffusiontheoryin

anyrepositoryrollout.Disciplinarydifferenceswillaffectthewillingnessofagivengroup

toembraceanewworkpractice,suchasdepositingitemsintoarepository.Asdiscussed

in Chapter 7, diffusion theory argues that innovations are more likely to be adopted

quickly if,withinthegroupadoptingthem,theyhavehigherperceivedlevelsof:relative

advantage, compatibility, trialabilityandobservabilityandwith lesscomplexity (Rogers,

1983). Note the issue is ‘perceptions’ not absolutes, and given the differences between

disciplines, these perceptions will differ accordingly. The interviews conducted for this

researchdemonstratedthisphenomenonclearly.

Based on the interviews for this research, many, if not the majority, of researchers at

UNSWandANUatthetimeofinterview(theend2006andbeginningof2007)wereyetto

reach the first, ‘knowledge’, stage of what Rogers (2003`) described as the five‐stage

innovation‐decision process (p. 169). While the interviewees were not statistically

sampled to provide numerical analyses, the overwhelming lack of awareness of

institutionalrepositories,letalonetheexistenceoftherepositoryattheirowninstitution

amongst the interviewees, cannot be ignored. Considering also that the interviewees

volunteeredthemselvesforinterview,andmightthereforebeassumedtobeinterestedin

theissue,thelackofawarenessisevenmoresurprising.

QUT,havingundertakentoapproachtheroll‐outoftheirrepositoryusingamixtureofa

centralisedapproach(themandate)combinedwiththepeertopeerapproach,andeven

withaconcertedeffortandresourcesallocatedtotheproject,tookseveralyearstobuild

momentum. This would indicate that at least in the case of those universities where

researcherswere interviewed,andcertainly inuniversitieswherearepositoryhasbeen

recently implemented, the need to address the five steps in the innovation‐decision

process, knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and conformation, is one of

priority.

Global frameworks

There have been several studies released after the research for this thesis was

undertaken,andthissectionbrieflyplacesthemwithintheframeworkofthisthesis.Some

of these studies have continued the tradition of online quantitative studies in the open

access field, forexample,one internationalonlinesurveyconductedwhich included688

scientists from49 countrieswhich showed the general attitude toward theopen access

principleisextremelypositive(T.Hess,Wigand,Mann,&Walter,2007).Thisstudyfaces

244

the same limitations of other surveys described in Chapter 3, in that it is a large

internationalsurveyandanattitudinal study,andwhileadds to thebodyof this typeof

information, does not delve into the wider question of why researchers hold these

attitudesorwhytheirbehaviourdoesnotreflect theseattitudes.Theworkshowedthat

althoughthereisrecognitionoftheopenaccessadvantagesofincreasedspeed,reachand

potentially higher citation rates, the barriers seem to be insufficient impact factors, the

lackoflong‐termavailabilityandtheinferiorabilitytoreachthespecifictargetaudience

oftheimmediatecircleofscientistsintheirownfield.

In addition, there have been several recent articles looking at particular aspects of the

challenge of encouraging uptake of institutional repositories, including a case study of

faculty adoption of the University of Minho’s repository (Ferreira et al., 2008), and an

articledescribingOregonStateUniversity’sattempttoengagetheacademiccommunityin

issues of scholarly communication (Boock, 2007). These studies havemade suggestions

such as developing value‐added services that can enhance existing communication

practicesandusingpeoplewithin thediscipline tohelpexplainand ‘sell’ thebenefitsof

using open access options. The reason why these techniques would work lie in the

findingsofthisthesis,thatonlybyrecognisingandreflectingdisciplinarycommunication

norms and using peer to peer networks to communicate information will institutional

repositoriesbemoreappealingtoresearchers.

Several studies have been published which support the argument that peer to peer

networksareessentialtotheeffectivediffusionoftherepositoryidea.Astudyofthe123

membersoftheAssociationofResearchLibrariesaskedaboutlibrary‐initiatededucation

activities (Newman,Blecic,&Armstrong,2007).Thisstudyassessed theeffectivenessof

differentadvocacytechniques,findingthemosteffectivetobeone‐on‐onemeetings.This

finding simply underlines the argument put forward in this thesis that the individual

scholariscentraltothesuccessorotherwiseofanyopenaccessinitiatives.Advocacywas

the focus of another recent publication, which compared the approaches of CERN, the

University of Minho and Southampton University to populate their repositories

(Proudman,2008),andadvocatedestablishingamandatefortherepositorybecausethis

is“aclearsignalthataninstitutionalrepositoryisapriorityforinstitutionalmanagement”

(p. 60). I agree that mandates indicate institutional commitment, but argue that the

institutional focusof repositoriesareaconsiderablepartof thereasonwhyresearchers

arenotusingtheserepositoriesvoluntarily.

245

TheUniversityofCaliforniaconductedasurveyofitsfacultyinlate2006,receiving1,100

responses to questions about attitudes and behaviour towards issues in scholarly

publishingandscholarlycommunication(TheUniversityofCaliforniaOfficeofScholarly

Communication,2007).Asmentionedearlier,thisworkfoundthatfacultywerehavingto

focus on conventional publishing activities that support their professional advancement

and tenure applications. This supports my argument of the institutional/disciplinary

divide,howeverthisstudywasprimarilyquantitative,andanalysedresultsaccordingto

academicstandingratherthandisciplines.

Two small qualitative studies have confirmed aspects of this research. The study

undertakenatCornellUniversitymentionedabove (Davis&Connolly,2007)specifically

sought to identify the reasons behind the low uptake of its repository. The study was

based on interviews with eleven faculty members in the sciences, social sciences and

humanities, at the one institution. One of the conclusions was that faculty were more

inclinedtousesubject‐basedrepositoriesoverinstitutionalones.Thesecondstudylooked

at21researchersatCranfieldUniversity.Itsupportedpreviousresearchinfindingthere

wasaperception in someof theacademiccommunity thatopenaccess journalsarenot

counted for impact factors. This study came to the conclusion that therewas a need to

attempttoembedtherepositoryintotheresearchprocess(S.Watson,2007).

Therehavebeensomerecent indications inthe literaturethatan in‐depthstudyofhow

disciplinary publishing differences have an impact on the uptake of new publishing

optionswouldbetimely.Anelectronicsurveyof900PhDstudentsandfacultyacrossall

Finnishuniversitiesin2004lookingatejournalusepatternsfoundthat“research‐culture

aspects ‐ especially groupmembership and across‐fields scattering ‐ have a significant

influence on ejournal use patterns” (Talja, Vakkari, Fry, &Wouters, 2007, p1683). This

study used the theory of the social and intellectual organization of academic fields to

analyse their findings and concluded “that no single variable, such as availability or

discipline,orasinglesetofvariables,suchascollaborativecultureinterdisciplinarity,and

concentrationofcommunicationchannels,explainsalldifferences”.Thisfindingsupports

the argumentmade in this thesis that the question of howpublishing behaviours differ

betweendisciplinesisacomplexissueinneedoffurtherinvestigation.

An Australian study, that was published as this research was being written up, was

conductedbytheOAKLawProject,whichhasanemphasisoncopyrightandother legal

issues (Austin, Heffernan, & David, 2008). While the survey asked about publishing

behaviour and attitudes, the focus of this study was to develop model publishing

246

agreementsandpractical trainingmaterials foracademicauthorsandpublishers. Itwas

notfocusedonthereasonswhytherehasbeenalowuptakeofopenaccessdissemination

options.Thisonline studywas limitedbya lowresponse rate, and theonlydisciplinary

comparisons made were between the ‘arts and social sciences’ and ‘science and

technology’. This is another studywhich demonstrates the disconnect between support

for open access and the actual uptake of it. In the study, 61% of respondents ‘strongly

agree’ and 29% ‘somewhat agree’ that open access increases accessibility to research

outputs, this is inkeepingwithother international studies.However, the study showed,

onceagain, that there is little translationof thisenthusiasm foropenaccess intoaction.

Only29%of respondents said they considerwhethera journal isopenaccess is ‘fairly’,

‘very’or ‘extremely’ importantwhendecidingwheretopublish,andthefigurewas31%

forwhetherajournalsupportsdeposittoaninstitutionalrepository.Whiletherearesome

small overlapswithmy research in findings about awarenessof copyright, this study is

effectively another that emphasises the need to obtain a deeper understanding of why

thereisthelowresearcherengagementwithopenaccess.

Two other PhD research projects looking into open access issues are underway in

Australiaintandemwiththiswork.Todate,thepublishedinformationaboutthesestudies

is limited. The early findings of one research project described in a publication are

referredtobytheauthorasa“bluntinstrument,designedtogiveanoverallpicturethat

cannot be obtained in other ways, and to identify particular areas of interest to be

investigated in more detail at a later stage” (Kennan, 2007, p. 140). The empirical

componentoftheotherconsistsofanonlinesurveyattemptingto“developunderstanding

of the current publication patterns of Australian academics”(Mercieca, 2008, p. 1). This

studyfoundthatofthe245respondents,58%indicatedtheywereunsureofwhetherthey

could submit a paper they had authored to a repository, which supports the general

findingsfromtheinterviewsconductedforthisthesis,thatresearchersareunclearabout

their copyright arrangements and that providing administration assistance would

increase repository uptake. Like most of the other research in this field, Mercieca’s

research does not appear to be exploring the ‘why’, instead focusing on the ‘what’ of

academicpublishingbehaviour.Whilethere isboundtobeasmallamountofoverlapof

findingsbetweenthesetworesearchprojectsandmine,togethertheyarelikelytobeable

toofferaricherdescriptionoftheAustralianopenaccesslandscape.

Finally,onerecentstudyrecognisesthatthekeytouptakeofinstitutionalrepositoriesisa

sociocultural one, and bases its findings on ethnographic observations and interviews

with25scholarsatCornellUniversityabouttheirscholarlypracticesandinterdisciplinary

247

collaboration patterns (Rieger, 2008). This research draws similar conclusions to the

researchinthisthesis,inrelationtothecriticalimportanceofculturalnormsbutthestudy

ismorelimitedinscope.Reigerconcludesthat:

Throughanalysisofsocioculturalfactorsbasedonsocialtheories,wecanattain

abetterunderstandingofhow informationandcommunications technologies

should be designed and implemented, and improve promotional activities to

encourage their appropriation. As shown in the case of IR implementation,

changeisanoutcomeofsocialevolutionaswellastechnicalinnovation.

Thisargumentconcurswithmine,andtheresearchdescribedinthisthesisgoessomeway

toachievingthat‘betterunderstanding’.

Summary

In answering the question “How are the communication practices between researchers

affecting the uptake of open access scholarly dissemination inAustralia?”, this research

hasuncoveredseveralanswers:therewardstructure,theinstitutional/disciplinarydivide

and disciplinary differences, particularly in their information seeking behaviour. The

findingsshowthattraditionalargumentsforopenaccessareineffectiveandinformation‐

seeking behaviour demonstrates how disciplinary differences affect researcher’s

interactionwithtechnology.Thisthesisaddsconsiderableweighttothebodyofevidence

thatthecurrentrewardsystemforpromotionandfundingrequiresresearcherstopublish

in certain ways, inextricably linked to the traditional publishing system which was

established in the pre‐digital era. Any large‐scale move towards open access

disseminationoptions requires a seismic shift in thewayacademicoutput ismeasured.

Whilehavingworkopenlyaccessibleincreasesanacademic’sexposure,unlessalternative

internet‐based forms of metrics are adopted, the open access option will not directly

appealtoresearchers.

Thisresearchhasintroducedthesecondissue,thatoftheinstitutional/disciplinarydivide

whichiscrucialtoawidespreadembraceofnewpublishingandcommunicationoptions,

yet has not had much focus in the open access debate. To date, governments, funding

bodiesandinstitutionshaveembracedtheconceptsofopenaccess,writtenmandatesand

statementsanddevelopedtoolstotryandencourageopenaccess,buthavenotconsidered

thedifferentneedsoftheultimateuser,theacademicpopulation.Untilgovernments,and

particularlyuniversityadministrations,recognisetheneedtoconsiderthedisciplineand

the need to consider the individual and respond to these needs in theway thatQUT is

tryingtowiththeeconomists,anduntilthereisarealisationthatdifferentdisciplinesmay

require radically different approaches, there will not be a large‐scale adoption by

248

individual researchers of the current open access tools. This leads us to the last issue,

disciplinarydifferencesinscholarlycommunicationpractices.Itistheissueofdisciplinary

differences which is crucial to any widespread uptake of open access dissemination

options. Disciplinary scholarly communication practices are deeply embedded in

researchers’worklivesandanychangetothemsuchasintroducingopenaccesswillneed

toconsiderandincorporatethesepractices.

Thisdiscussionhasfocusedonrepositoriesbecausethisisaroutetoopenaccesswhichis

available to most researchers without compromising their choice of publication outlet.

Thediscussion is focused furtheron institutional repositoriesbecausevery fewsubject‐

basedrepositorieshavebeendevelopedbyoraremanagedbyorganisationsinAustralia

and Australia is unusual in having a large percentage of institutions with repositories.

Howeverunless there is a disciplinaryhabit of sharing information in thismanner, this

method of achieving open access offers little incentive to the individual academic. In

particular institutional repositories do not obviously assist the academic in their daily

work.Either institutional repositoriesneed to adaptdramatically toofferworkpractice

benefitsorthebroaderacademicpopulationwillonlyusethemunderduress,whichisnot

thesituationenvisagedbyopenaccessadvocates.Indeed,itwasrecentlymootedthatthe

fact institutions must mandate researchers to deposit into repositories indicates that

institutionalrepositoriesfailtomeettheneedsoftheacademicpopulation(Powell,2008).

The alternative is for communities to develop their own subject‐based repositories, a

development that again is likely to be highly dependent on communication norms in

differentdisciplines.

Considering this situation, it couldbeconstrued that thebarriers toopenaccessuptake

areinsurmountable,andanypushtowardsopenaccessisdestinedtofail,butthisisnot

necessarily the case. Government and funding bodies worldwide are implementing

mandates toensure thatresearchoutputwillbeplaced inrepositories,andrepositories

are likelyto functionastheyare fora fewyearstocome.However,parallel tothis,user

generated media will continue to develop, as will online trust mechanisms. In some

disciplinessuchasComputerSciencethesemayreplacetheinstitutionalrepositoriesasan

openaccessoutlet.Futureonline‘holdings’ofresearchoutputmayconsistofamixtureof

tools,andopenaccessmaybeasideeffectratherthanthefocusofthem.

249

Chapter9–Conclusion

The question this thesis has asked is, “How are the communication practices between

researchers affecting theuptake of open access scholarly dissemination inAustralia?”. I

haveexaminedtheinconsistencybetweensupportforopenaccessatthegovernmentand

institutional levelcombinedwiththeproclaimedsupportdemonstratedbyresearchinto

theacademicpopulation,andtherealityof the lowuptakeofopenaccessdissemination

options. Determining the answer has required an analysis of the broader issues of

scholarlypublishinganditsroleinscholarlycommunicationasanymovetoopenaccess

representsa fundamental change to thisprocess, on conceptual,practical andeconomic

levels.

This research has focussed on the individual academic as the key to any widespread

changetoscholarlypublishing.Byspeakingtoindividualsfromdifferentdisciplines,itwas

possibletoseparate‘attitudes’from‘behaviours’.Thisisimportantasmanystudieshave

shown self‐professed attitudes frequently do not translate into behaviours supporting

those attitudes. Like respondents in other studies, the academic population in this

research generally supported the concept of open access to scholarly output, however,

theirwillingnesstoactuponthisandengagewiththepublishingoptionsrequiredtomake

theirownworkavailablewasoftenlimited.

This work began with the premise that a general lack of awareness of open access

amongsttheacademiccommunityisasmallfactorinthepopulation’slackofengagement

with open access dissemination options, and thatwhile open access potentially offers a

modernandeffectivewaytomanageknowledge, theconceptofopenaccess itself isnot

thereasonwhyscholarsarenotengagingwithit.Rather,itisthewayresearchersengage

with the broader scholarly publication system that is preventing widespread change

amongst this population. Certainly the empirical work demonstrated a general lack of

awarenessofopenaccessasa conceptamongst the interviewees. Inaddition therewas

little awareness of the availability of an institutional repository not just amongst the

UNSW academic population whose repository was still to be implemented, but also

amongst the ANU population who had had a repository available to them for

approximately six years. However this lack of awareness is only a small part of the

problem.

250

Thesupplementaryquestionsthisthesishasaddressedincluded:‘whyareresearchersnot

engaging with open access?’ and ‘why are researchers choosing to support traditional

publishing systems when technology offers an efficient and more immediate way of

achievingthefunctionsofthesystem?’.Theanswertobothquestionsistiedintothemain

research question, and is inextricably linked to the reward system in academia. The

challenges the scholarly communication system is currently facing are partly because it

wasdevelopedinanerabeforetheadventofmoderntechnologies.Issuessuchasdelays

to publication and increased refereeing loads, while acknowledged by the academic

population,arenotcompellingenoughtochangeresearcherbehaviour.Theargumentsby

open access advocates that open access increases dissemination of research making

researchmoreequitable(thepublicgoodargument),andthatcopyrightremainswiththe

researcherunder theopenaccessmodelare largely fallingondeafears in theacademic

community. If institutions were to introduce any changes to copyright rules, such as

introducing licencesthatcanbeattachedtopublisheragreementstoallowarticlestobe

placed in repositories, such as those developed by MIT (2007) then a comprehensive

educationprogramwillneedtoaccompanysuchamove.

Surprisingly, even the argument that making research openly accessible increases the

impactofthework(theincreasedvisibilityargument)isnotresonatingwiththeacademic

population.Thefindingsdemonstratethatacentralreasonforthisistherewardsystemin

academia,whichisinextricablylinkedtothetraditionalpublishingsystem,supportingthe

secondofthethreepremiseswithwhichtheresearchbegan.

The thirdpremise at thebeginningof this researchwas thatan important element in the uptake of open access is the individual researcher. The research confirmed this perspective, and

also showed that part of the reason that there has been a slowuptake of open access is

becausethepublishingoptionsthatareavailableasopenaccessdonotnecessarilymeet

theneedsoftheacademicpopulation.Inanunexpectedwaythishasprovedtobethekey

toansweringtheresearchquestion.Theintroductionstatedthatthisresearchintendedto

reveal whether the lack of engagement with open access has a common element to it

across different academic groups, within particular academic groups, or if it is an

individual decision. What the findings showed was that there are strong ties within

disciplines and that the differences between disciplines is a pivotal factor in the

engagement or otherwise with open access options. This has not previously been

identifiedintheopenaccessliterature.

251

This research has shown that the most important factor in the researchers’ lack of

engagement with open access is disciplinary differences in scholarly communication

practices. These differences underlie the institutional/disciplinary divide, where an

individual researcher is caughtbetweenononehand the reporting requirementsof the

various institutions towhichhe/she is aligned, such as fundingbodies, the government

andtheuniversityatwhichtheyarehoused,andontheotherhandthesocialnormsofthe

discipline to which the researcher belongs. When there is a difference in these

requirements, the individual often chooses to publish within their disciplinary

requirements forcommunication,andsimplycomplieswithreportingrequirementsasa

matterofnecessity.Thisaffectsmovestoopenaccesswhentheonlyopenaccessoptions

available to an individual are those provided by the institution,whichmay not comply

withanydisciplinaryrequirements.

Theresearchasked, inbroadterms,“Whatarethebarrierstotheuptakeofopenaccess

scholarly communication in Australia?” The answer is that, counter‐intuitively, it is the

casethatdespitestatedintentionsandevenlegislationandrulestoattempttoencourage

openaccesspublication,governments, fundingbodiesandinstitutionsare inmanyways

hindering the move to open access. This is because traditional publishing systems are

being supported by institutionalised reward structures. Increasingly universities,

governments, funding bodies and university ranking systems are relying on metrics

countsasanobjectivemeasurementofthequalityofresearch.

The wider audience for scholarly articles offered by open access does not necessarily

translateintoquantifiable‘points’fortheresearcherintheformofcitations.Itisclearthat

open access dissemination options will only tie back into reform of the scholarly

communicationsituationiftheyreflecttherewardsystem.Ifthereisachangetotheway

‘success’or‘impact’ismeasured(suchasacountofdownloadsofmaterial,forexample),

then the arguments for making material open access will become considerably more

compellingfortheresearcher.AsdiscussedinChapter2,therehavebeenmanycriticisms

oftheuseoftheimpactfactorsasameasurementtool(Monastersky,2005;Seglen,1997;

Steeleetal.,2006).Despitethesecriticisms,thereappearstobelittleincentiveonbehalf

ofadministratorstomoveawayfromtheuseofimpactfactorsasameasurementtool,and

thisiscausingtheresearcherstopublishinwaysthattheywouldnototherwisechoose.

Despite some institutions mandating engagement with open access, the vast majority

structure their promotion systems and funding streams around the current publishing

paradigm.Thereareincreasingmovestowardsmetric‐basedsystemsofrewards,witness

252

thechangeintheUKfromtheResearchAssessmentExercisetotheResearchExcellence

Framework and the new Excellence in Research Assessment system in Australia. In

addition,theShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityrankinglvmovedtheThomsonReuters’Journal

CitationReports’ (JCR) impact factor to the chief quantitativemeasure of the quality of

research,andtheTimesHigherEducationWorldUniversityRankingslviisusingElsevier’s

Scopus to determine their list. These trends simply serve to cement the role of the

traditional journal publication in the academic career trajectory. The result is an

homogenisationoftherequiredacademicoutputforassessment.

This increased homogenisation runs in a polar direction to widening disciplinary

differences. Disciplines have their own practice, communication and social norms and

these differences are increasing depending on the uptake of technology within the

discipline. Administrative homogenisation is stifling change to the scholarly

communicationsystem,includinganymovestowardsopenaccess.Thereisnoallowance

for differences such as journal publications suiting some disciplinary communication

betterthanothers,orthattherearecountlessother,moreefficientwaystocommunicate

within the discipline, or that themost appropriate journal publications for a particular

disciplinemightnotappearon theThomsonReuter’s ‘core journals’ list.This isanother

exampleoftheinstitutional/disciplinarydivide.Whileinstitutionsareforcingresearchers

into accounting for themselves in this way, the current formal scholarly publication

systemwillremainfundamentallyunchanged.

This research focussed on repositories rather than open access journals because

repositories are an option available to most researchers in Australia, and paid special

attention to institutional repositories. It began with the concept that scholarly

communication is in a period of transition, that the changes currently being seen are

merelystepsonthepathtoacompleteoverhaulofthescholarlycommunicationsystem.

Oneoftheconduitsofchangehasbeenthedevelopmentandproliferationofrepositories

aroundtheworld.

DiffusionofInnovationsliteratureholdsmanycluestowhyinstitutionalrepositoryuptake

hasbeen limitedtodate. InstitutionalrepositoriesarewhatRogers(2003`)describesas

‘centralised’systems,wherethedecisionsabouttheinnovationitselfandthediffusionof

theinnovationareimposedfromanexternalsource–theuniversityadministration.Ina

studythat lookedathowdifferentdisciplineswereusingthe(then)newtechnologiesof

computer networks, Walsh and Bayma (1996) concluded that the “form of technology

introduced is highly dependent on the context into which the new technology is

253

embedded”(p.693).Whenthereisinputfromadiscipline,thefinalformofaninnovation

willemergefromaninteractionbetweenstructuralandinstitutionalfactors.Butinorder

forthisinteractiontooccur,theinstitutionneedstoobserveandincorporatethestructure

of the disciplines. Institutional repositories are predominantly built on open source

software. This ability to develop repositories ‘out of the box’ has provided universities

withthebasicfunctionsfordepositingandretrievingarticles,butbecausethe‘form’ofthe

technologyhasbeenpredetermined,itdoesnotnecessarilysuitalldisciplines.

Dorepositoriesofferananswertotheproblemsinherentinthescholarlycommunication

systemtoday?Fundingbodieshaverecognisedthatthereisbetter‘valueformoney’ifthe

work is publicly available, and some have seized upon this open access option by

mandating that research output goes into repositories. Institutional repositories often

serve two functions for institutions,one is tohavea ‘showcase’ofacademicoutput,and

they can also serve as an efficient reporting tool for funding. This emphasis on

institutionalpurpose is oneof the reasonswhy repositories as they currently standare

notmeetingresearchers’needs.

Ultimately the key to open access uptake is the individual academic. Disciplinary, or

subject‐based,repositorieshaveenjoyedsuccess,not leastbecausetheyweredeveloped

bymembersofthedisciplineusingthemsotheyhavefeatureswhichsuitthatgroup,but

also because their use is part of the behavioural norm within the discipline. These

repositoriesmay not have open access as a goal in thewider sense because the target

audience isstillotherresearchers in theirsmall field,butopenaccesshasoccurredasa

side effect. This situation is reflected in the behaviour of computer scientists who are

effectivelypractisingopenaccessbymakingtheirworkavailableontheirownwebsites.

Thisisnotforthebenefitofthegeneralpublic,ortheirinstitution,itissimplysotheycan

communicatemoreeffectively.

Themoresuccessfulexamplesofwidespreadopenaccesshaveevolvedorganicallyoutof

therequirementsofspecificdisciplines.Itisquitepossiblethatsomedisciplineswillnever

seetheneedforachangetothecurrentscholarlysystem.Certainlysome(generallyolder)

researchers who did not have a digital undergraduate experience are less likely to

consideraneedforchange.Asyoungerpeoplemoveintothesedisciplinesandbringwith

them their online social behaviours, there may be a move towards new ways of

interacting. As suggested at the beginning of this research, the speed of information

productionandreticulationwithinadisciplineisanimportantfactorintheperceptionof

thenecessityandurgencyforchangeamongsttheparticipantsasthisreflectsthelevelof

254

‘urbanisation’ofthatdiscipline,thespeedatwhichthedisciplinemovesdependingonthe

numberofpeopleworkingonagivenproblematthesametime.

It ispossiblethatrepositoriesarenotthe long‐termsolutiontoaddressproblemsinthe

scholarlycommunicationsystemforseveralreasons.Oneistheydonotaddressthewider

problemof thepublisher’sstrangleholdonthescholarlycommunicationsystem. Instead

they work alongside it, a compromise that satisfies calls by open access supporters

withoutthreateningtheincomestreamofpublishers.Secondly,manyrepositoriesworld‐

widedonothaveongoing funding, rather theyare relyingonstart‐upor special library

funding.Repositorysustainability,andnotjustthedigitalsustainabilityofwhatisinthem,

isaseriousissue.

Insummary,theanswerstothequestion“Howarethecommunicationpracticesbetween

researchersaffectingtheuptakeofopenaccessscholarlydisseminationinAustralia?”are

partially, a lack of understanding of open access, and the reward system requiring an

adherence to traditional publishing outlets. Critically, however, the

institutional/disciplinarydivide is causingseriousproblems formanyresearchersbeing

forcedtopublishincertainwaystofulfilreportingrequirementsthatruncountertotheir

disciplinary communication preferences, and the vehicles currently available for open

access dissemination are not necessarily ideal for the way researchers work and

communicate. The way these are being introduced into the academic community is

ineffectiveatbest.

Implications

The findings of this thesis imply that attempts to engage researcherswith open access

using institutional repositories are unlikely to be broadly successful. Disciplinary

differences offer a clue to the future of open access. Some academic disciplines have

alreadytackledopenaccessheadon,andcomeupwiththeirownsolutionsthatfittheir

disciplinaryinteractionrequirements.Othershavenotyetdeterminedwhetherthereisa

problemwiththeirscholarlycommunicationsystemsandforsomedisciplinestherewill

notbe.Alikelyscenarioisthatopenaccesswillbeasideeffectemergingfromthechanges

that different disciplines introduce into their own communication processes. These

changeswillnotbehomogenousacrossallofacademia.

Changes to scholarly communication might not happen in the way publishers, or

institutionswouldlike,theymaynothappenasfastassomeopenaccessadvocateswould

like, and theymight not take the formmany people have advocated.Nonetheless given

255

societal and governmental trends, changes to the scholarly communication system are

underwaybuttobewidelyembracedtheywillhavetoorganicallyincorporatethereward

systemsandtheworkandcommunicationpracticesoftheindividualresearcher.

Recommendations

Institutionalrepositoriesarenotimmediatelyappealingtoresearchers.Somerespondents

described the availability of subject‐based repositories, or alternatives such as personal

websites, as a reason for not using their institutional repository. Other respondents

described not using an institution‐based repository because of career mobility. In

Australia, many researchers are employed in contract positions rather than tenure

positions, and early career researchers in particular tend to move institutions. The

intervieweesindicatedthereappearstobelittlerecognitionofthissituationonbehalfof

theadministratorsandpolicymakers.Ifinstitutionsdonotconsiderhowscholarlyfields

adopt and shape technology, the risk is that time and energy will be focused on

institutionalprojectsthatultimatelyfail.

If repositories are to be the solution forwidespread open access theymustmirror the

information‐seeking behaviour of the communities they serve. However, while

institutional repositories may currently work counter to the information management

needs of the individual academic, they have the potential to provide tools to make

communicationeasier,assistinformation‐seekingandsharinginformationmoreefficient.

Anadaptationof a repository to fulfil someorall of these requirements,wouldmake it

moreattractivetotheacademicend‐user.Applyingdiffusiontheorytoaconsiderationof

differentdisciplinaryscholarlycommunicationpracticeswhendevelopinganinstitutional

repository advocacy program would markedly increase the chance of the program’s

success.

Oneway to address the barriers to the uptake of open access scholarly communication

could be amove away from single institutional repositories,which have, by default, an

emphasis on the institutional output, to a subject‐focused system. It was this approach

thatTomCochranefromQUToriginallytook,heexplainedininterview:“Iwasconvinced

theonlywaytherewouldbeprogresswouldbethedisciplineswouldhavetofollowthe

example of the high energy physics people at Los Alamos. And they didn’t” (Cochrane,

2007).Intheabsenceofasubject‐basedrepositoryofaparticulardiscipline,itwouldbe

ideal for the institutional repository to adopt some of the processes already in place in

differentdisciplinestoensureabeneficialsituationforbothparties–theinstitutionand

theindividual.

256

Because this research has, by necessity, looked at a certain period of change in the

scholarlycommunicationlandscape,it isappropriatetodescribepossiblefutureareasof

researchthathavearisenfromthiswork.Theincreasinguptakeofuser‐generatedmedia

systemssuchaswikisandblogsrepresentsanewandsomewhatunexpectedengagement

with the Internet by researchers in certaindisciplines. It is likely that thesenewmedia

systems will offer publishing alternatives that have yet to be developed. Scholarly

publishing,while slower to adopt new technologies because of the formality associated

withrewardandreporting,willneverthelessreflectchangesinscholarlycommunication.

Followingtechnologyanddisciplinarydifferencetrendstodeterminehowthesenewuses

of media are changing scholarly communication would be an interesting avenue of

research.

Scholarlycommunicationischanging,andnewtechnologiesareallowingthesechangesto

become increasingly discipline specific. Academia is not homogenous, so open access

dissemination options cannot afford to be either. It will be essential to incorporate

considerationofdisciplinarydifferencesinanydesignandimplementationofopenaccess

disseminationoutletsforthemtobewidelyembracedbythescholarlycommunity.

257

Bibliography

ABCRadioNational.(2002,13April).TheScienceShow‐Scientific&financialmisconduct.Retrieved 24 February, 2008, fromhttp://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2002/531406.htm

ABC TV. (2003, 6 October). Four Corners: The Trial of Professor Hall. Retrieved 24February, 2008, fromhttp://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2003/20031006_trials_hall/default.htm

Adams,C.(2008,May).Berkeleystepsforwardwithboldinitiativetopayauthors’open‐access charges. Retrieved 21 November, 2008, fromhttp://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/articles/memberprofile‐berkeley.shtml

Advances in Theoretical andMathematical Physics. (2007). Guidelines for submissions.Retrieved 13 January, 2008, from http://www.intlpress.com/ATMP/ATMP‐Submissions.php

Akerlof, G. A. (1982). Labour Contracts and Partial Gift Exchange. Quarterly Journal ofEconomics,97(4),543‐569.

Allen, J. (2005). Interdisciplinarydifferences inattitudestowardsdeposit in institutionalrepositories Retrieved 20 January, 2006, fromhttp://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00005180/

Allen,W.E.(1922).Repositoriesforscientificpublications.Science,56,197‐198.

ALPSP.(2008,14October).ScholarlyPublishingPractice3:Academicjournalpublishers'policiesandpractices inonlinepublishing,3rdEdition. Retrieved30Oct,2008,fromhttp://www.alpsp.org/ngen_public/article.asp?aid=24781

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2002). Seizing the moment:Scientists'AuthorshipRightsintheDigitalAgeAAAS

AmericanChemicalSociety. (2004).ACS JournalEditor'sPolicyonpreprints. Retrieved11September2007,fromhttp://pubs.acs.org/cen/preprint.html

AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.(2002,1June).APAJournals‐Postingarticlesontheinternet. Retrieved 24 December, 2007, fromhttp://www.apa.org/journals/authors/posting.html

Amin, M., & Mabe, M. (2007). Impact factors: use and abuse [Electronic Version].Perspectives in Publishing. Retrieved 2 November 2008, fromhttp://www.elsevier.com/framework_editors/pdfs/Perspectives1.pdf

258

Andrew,T.(2003).Trends inSelf‐PostingofResearchMaterialOnlinebyAcademicStaff[Electronic Version]. Ariadne. Retrieved 09 February 2008, fromhttp://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue37/andrew/intro.html

Antelman,K.(2006).Self‐archivingpracticeandtheinfluenceofpublisherpoliciesinthesocialsciences.LearnedPublishing,19(2),85‐95.

Armbruster, C. (2007).Moving out ofOldenbourg's long shadow:what is the future forsocietypublishing?LearnedPublishing,20(4),259‐266.

Association of Computing Machinery. (2002). ACM Copyright Policy, Version 4 Revised11/01/02. Retrieved 24 December, 2007, fromhttp://www.acm.org/pubs/copyright_policy/#Works

AssociationofResearchLibraries.(2008,15February).NIHPublicAccessPolicy:AGuidefor Research Universities. Retrieved 19 February, 2008, fromhttp://www.arl.org/sc/models/models‐resources/nih‐pa/nih‐guide/index.shtml

Austin,A.,Heffernan,M.,&David,N.(2008).Academicauthorship,publishingagreementsandopenaccess:SurveyResults:QueenslandUniversityofTechnology

Australian Government Department of Education Science and Training. (2007).Accessibility Framework. Retrieved 20 April, fromhttp://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/policies_issues_reviews/key_issues/accessibility_framework/

AustralianGovernmentProductivityCommission. (2007).Public Support for ScienceandInnovation:AustralianGovernmentProductivityCommission

Australian Research Council. (2007a).ARC Discovery Projects Funding Rules for FundingCommencingin2008

AustralianResearchCouncil.(2007b,26September).DiscoveryProjectsSelectionReportfor funding Commencing in 2008. Retrieved 28 February, 2008, fromhttp://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/dp/DP08_SelRpt.htm#summary

Back,K.W.(1962).Thebehaviourofscientists:CommunicationandcreativitySociologicalInquiry,32,82‐87.

Bacon,J.(2006).TheParallelBang(Firsted.).Houston:NormandyHousePublishers.

Baldwin,C.(2004,April).Whatdosocietiesdowiththeirpublishingsurpluses?ALPSPandBlackwell Survey. Retrieved 2 November, 2008, fromhttp://www.alpsp.org/ngen_public/article.asp?id=200&did=47&aid=277&st=&oaid=‐1

Banks, M. (2005). Towards a continuum of scholarship the eventual collapse of thedistinction between grey and non‐grey literature. Paper presented at theProceedings GL7: Seventh International Conference on Grey Literature, Nancy(France).

259

Banks, P. (2004). Open access: a medical association perspective. Learned Publishing,17(2),135‐142.

Bar‐Ilan, J. (2008). Which h‐index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar.Scientometrics,74(2),257‐271.

Barnes,I.(2006a,2February).IntegratingtheRepositorywithAcademicWorkflow.PaperpresentedattheOpenRepositories2006,SydneyUniversity.

Barnes, I. (2006b, July). Preservation of Word‐Processing Documents. Retrieved 30September, 2006, fromhttp://www.apsr.edu.au/publications/preservation_of_word_processing_documents.html

Bauer,K.,&Bakkalbasi,N.(2005).AnexaminationofCitationCountsinaNewScholarlyCommunicationEnvironment [ElectronicVersion].DLibMagazine, 11.Retrieved09 February 2008, fromhttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html

Becher, T. (1981). Towards a Definition of Disciplinary Cultures. Studies in HigherEducation,6(2),109‐122.

Becher,T.(1994).TheSignificanceofDisciplinaryDifferences.StudiesinHigherEducation,19(2),151‐161.

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories (Second ed.): TheSocietyforResearchintoHigherEducation&OpenUniversityPress.

Beckett, C., & Inger, S. (2006). SelfArchiving and Journal Subscriptions: Coexistence orCompetition?AnInternationalSurveyofLibrarians'Preferences.London:PublishingResearchConsortium

Benkler,Y.(2001).TheBattleovertheInstitutionalEcosystemintheDigitalEnvironment.CommunicationsoftheACM,44(2),84‐90.

bepress. (2005). The Scholarly Communication Crisis. Retrieved June, 2005, fromhttp://www.bepress.com.crisis.html

Bergstrom, C., & Bergstrom, T. (2001). The economics of scholarly journal publishing.Retrieved 8 February, 2007, fromhttp://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/publishing/

Bergstrom, T. (2001). Free Labor for Costly Journals? Journal of Economic Perspectives,15(4),183‐198.

Bergstrom, T.,& Lavaty, R. (2007, 28 February).Howoften do economists self‐archive?Retrieved 24 April, 2007, fromhttp://repositories.cdlib.org/ucsbecon/bergstrom/2007a

260

Bethesda Statement. (2003, 20 June). Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing.Retrieved 21 November, 2008, fromhttp://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm

Biello,D.(2007,26January).Openaccesstoscienceunderattack.ScientificAmerican.

Bingham,W. V. D., &Moore, B. V. (1959).How to Interview (Fourth ed.). NY: Harper &Brothers.

BioMed Central. (2008). Frequently asked questions about BioMed Central's article‐processing charges. Retrieved 21 November, 2008, fromhttp://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/apcfaq#waivers

Bjork,B.‐C. (2004).Openaccess toscientificpublications ‐ananalysisof thebarriers tochange? [Electronic Version]. Information Research: an international electronicjournal, 9. Retrieved January 2004, from http://informationr.net/ir/9‐2/paper170.html

Bjork, B.‐C., Roosr, A., & Lauri, M. (2008). Gloabal annual volume of peer reviewedscholarlyarticlesandtheshareavailableviadifferentopenaccessoptions.Paperpresented at the ELPUB 2008 Conference on Electronic Publishing. fromhttp://elpub.scix.net/cgi‐bin/works/Show?_id=178_elpub2008&sort=D...52

Bollen, J., Sompel,H. V. d., Smith, J. A.,& Luce, R. (2005). Toward alternativemetrics ofjournalimpact:Acomparisonofdownloadandcitationdata[ElectronicVersion].Preprint submitted to Elsevier Science. Retrieved 3 March 2008, fromhttp://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0503007

Boock, M. (2007). A Faculty Led Response to the Crisis in Scholarly Communication[Electronic Version].Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 3.Retrieved 28 October 2008, fromhttp://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v08n03/boock_m01.html

Brent, D. (1995). Stevan Harnad's "Subversive Proposal" Kick‐Starting ElectronicScholarship.ASummaryandAnalysis [ElectronicVersion].EJournal,5.Retrieved25 March 2006, fromhttp://www.ucalgary.ca/ejournal/archive/rachel/v5n1/article.html

Brody,T.,Stamerjohanns,H.,Harnad,S.,Gringas,Y.,Vallieres,F.,&Oppenheim,C.(2004).The effect of Open Access on Citation Impact. Paper presented at the NationalPolicies on Open Access (OA) Provision for University research Output: anInternational Meeting. Retrieved 26 March 2006, fromhttp://opcit.eprints.org/feb19prog.html

Brown, J.,&Canter,D. (1985).TheUsesofExplanation in theResearch Interview. InM.Brenner,J.Brown&D.Canter(Eds.),TheResearchInterview:UsesandApproaches(pp.217‐245).London:AcademicPress.

Brown,L.,Griffiths,R.,&Rascoff,M.(2007).UniversityPublishingInADigitalAge.Ithaka

261

Butler,D.(2004,13September).accesstotheliterature:thedebatecontinues.Retrieved13January,2008,fromhttp://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/

Butler, L. (2003). Academic reactions: modifying publication practices in response tofundingformulas.ResearchEvaluation,12(1),39‐46.

Callan, P. (2006a, 29 June). Keys to Success: Repository Policies and CopyrightManagement. Paper presented at the The Successful Repository, Brisbane,Australia.

Callan, P. (2006b, 20 January). Re: Learning from the successful OA IRs. Retrieved 25March, 2007, fromhttp://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5082.html

Callan,P.(2007).InterviewatQUT.InD.Kingsley(Ed.)(pp.Interview).Brisbane.

Cameron, B. D. (2005). Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses, andimplications.Portal:Libraries&theAcademy,5(1),105‐125.

Cameron, R. (1997). A universal citation database as a catalyst for reform in scholarlycommunication[ElectronicVersion].FirstMonday,2.Retrieved09February2008,fromhttp://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue2_4/cameron/index.html

Carr, L., & Harnad, S. (2005, 15 March). Keystroke Economy: A Study of the Time andEffort Involved in Self‐Archiving. Retrieved 20 March, 2005, fromhttp://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10688/

Carr,S.K.(2008,26February).NewERAforResearchQuality.Retrieved17April,2008,fromhttp://minister.industry.gov.au/SenatortheHonKimCarr/Pages/NEWERAFORRESEARCHQUALITY.aspx

Cartwright, V., &McGhee, C. (2005). Opthalmology and vision science research. part 1:Understanding and using journal impact factors and citation indicies. Journal ofCataractandRefractiveSurgery,31(10),1999‐2007.

Cavanagh,K.(2006,29June).AlternativeOwnershipModels:AFaculty‐BasedRepository.PaperpresentedattheTheSuccessfulRepository,Brisbane,Australia.

Cawkell,T.,&Garfield,E.(2001).InstituteforScientificInformation.InE.H.Fredriksson(Ed.), A Century of Science Publishing: A Collection of Essays (pp. 149‐160).Amsterdam:IOSPress.

Chan, L. (2004). Supporting and Enhancing Scholarship in the Digital Age: The Role ofOpen‐Access Institutional Repositories. Canadian Journal of Communication, 29,277‐300.

Chesler,A. (2004).OpenAccess:AReviewof anEmergingPhenomenon.SerialsReview,30(4),292‐297.

262

Clarke,R.(2004,29January).OriginsandNatureoftheInternetinAustralia. Retrieved10 April, 2008, fromhttp://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/OzI04.html#EPub

Clarke,R. (2005).Aproposal foranopencontent licence for researchpaper (Pr)ePrints[Electronic Version]. First Monday, 10. Retrieved 09 February 2008, fromhttp://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_8/clarke/index.html

Clarke, R. (2007). The cost profiles of alternative approaches to journal publishing[Electronic Version]. First Monday, 12. Retrieved 11 February 2008, fromhttp://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/EC/JP‐CP.html

Clarke, R. (2008, January). An Exploratory Study of Information Systems ResearcherImpact. Retrieved 11 February, 2008, fromhttp://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Cit‐CAIS.html

Clarke,R.,&Kingsley,D. (2008). ePublishing's Impactson Journals and JournalArticles.JournalofInternetCommerce,7(1),120‐151.

Coats, A. J. S. (2005). Top of the charts: Download versus citations in the InternationalJournalofCardiology.InternationalJournalofCardiology,105,123‐125.

Cochrane,T.(2007).InterviewatQUT.InD.Kingsley(Ed.)(pp.Interview).Brisbane.

Cochrane,T.,&Callan,P.(2007).MakingaDifference:ImplementingtheeprintsmandateatQUT.InternationalDigitalLibraryPerspectives,23(3),262‐268.

Cooke,A.(2008).ResearchInfrastructureandtheOpenAccessAgenda.Paperpresentedatthe Open Access and Research Conference 2008. fromhttp://www.oaklaw.qut.edu.au/

CORERankingsSubcommittee.(2007).2007RankingsofICTConferences. Retrieved13Sept,2007,fromhttp://www.core.edu.au/

Cozzarelli, N. R., Fulton, K. R., & Sullenberger, D. M. (2004). Results of a PNAS authorsurveyonanopenaccessoptionforpublication.PNAS,101(5),1111.

Crane, D. (1972). Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

Crawford, B. D. (2003). Open‐access publishing: where is the value? The Lancet,362(9395),1578‐1580.

Creative Commons. (2007). Creative Commons. Retrieved 14 January, 2008, fromhttp://creativecommons.org/

Crow, R. (2002). The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper.Washington:TheScholarlyPublishing&AcademicResourcesCoalition

263

Cutler,T.(2008).Venturousaustralia:buildingstrengthininnovation

Darnton, R. (2008, 12 February). The Case for Open Access. Retrieved 21 November,2208,fromhttp://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=521835

Davis,P.,&Connolly,M.J.L.(2007).InstitutionalRepositories:EvaluatingtheReasonsforNon‐useofCornellUniversity's InstallationofDSpace [ElectronicVersion].DLibMagazine, 13. Retrieved 09 February 2008, fromhttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/march07/davis/03davis.html

DeAngelis, C. D., & Musacchio, R. A. (2004). Access to JAMA. Journal of the AmericanMedicalAssociation,291(3),370‐371.

Deaton, A. (2006). American shortcomings: the highs and lows of publication. RoyalEconomicSocietyNewsletter,135,pp.5‐6.

DeLamater, J. (1982). Response‐effects of Question Content. In W. Dijkstra & J. v. d.Zouwen (Eds.),Response Behaviour in the Surveyinterview (pp. 13‐48). London:AcademicPress.

Detlefsen,E.G.(1998).Theinformationbehavioursoflifeandhealthscientistsandhealthcare providers: characteristics of the research literature.Bulletin of the MedicalLibraryAssociation,86(3),385‐390.

Editors.(2005).NewsandNotices.TheEconomicRecord,81(253),189‐190.

Egghe,L.(2006).Theoryandpractiseoftheg‐index.Scientometrics,69(1),131‐152.

Eisenstein, E. L. (1979).The printing press as an agent of change : communications andcultural transformations inearlymodernEurope (Vol. II).Cambridge[Eng.] ;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Esposito, J. J. (2004). The devil you don't know: The unexpected future of Open Accesspublishing[ElectronicVersion].FirstMonday,9.Retrieved09February2008,fromhttp://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_8/esposito/index.html

ExpertAdvisoryGroupfortheRQF.(2005,December).FinaladviceonthepreferredRQFmodel. Retrieved 17 July, 2006, fromhttp://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/policies_issues_reviews/key_issues/research_quality_framework/final_advice_on_preferred_rqf_model.htm

Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles [Electronic Version].PLoS Biology, 4, 0692‐0697. Retrieved 09 February 2008, fromhttp://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get‐document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157

Febvre,L.P.V.,&Martin,H.J.(1976).Thecomingofthebook:theimpactofprinting14501800(D.Gerard,Trans.).London:NLB.

264

Ferreira,M.,Baptista,A.A.,Rodrigues,E.,&Saraiva,R. (2008).CarrotsandSticks:SomeideasonHowtoCreateaSuccessfulInstitutionalRepository[ElectronicVersion].DLib Magazine, 14. Retrieved 09 February 2008, fromhttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/january08/ferreira/01ferreira.html

Firestone, S. (2007, 23 August). New Initiative Preserving Research Integrity to UniteScholars, Publishers. Retrieved 10 January, 2008, fromhttp://www.publishers.org/main/PressCenter/PRISMLaunch.htm

Foster,N.F.,&Gibbons,S.(2005).UnderstandingFacultytoImproveContentRecruitmentfor InstitutionalRepositories [ElectronicVersion].DLibMagazine, 11. Retrieved09 February 2008, fromhttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.html

Fry, J.(2006).Scholarlyresearchandinformationpractices:adomainanalyticapproach.InformationProcessingandManagement,42,299‐316.

Gadd,E.,Oppenheim,C.,&Probets,S. (2003).RoMEOstudies2:howacademicswant toprotect their open access research papers. Journal of Information Science, 29(5),333‐356.

Galvin, J. (2004). The Next Step in Scholarly Communication: Is the Traditional JournalDead?ElectronicJournalofAcademicandSpecialLibrarianship,5(1).

Garfield,E.(2000).UseofJournalCitationReportsandJournalPerformanceIndicatorsinmeasuring short and long term journal impact. Croatian Medical Journal, 41(4),368‐374.

Gasson, C. (2004). The Economics of Academic Publishing. Royal Economic SocietyNewsletter,125.

Gedye,R.(2004).OpenAccessisOnlyPartoftheStory.SerialsReview,30(4),271‐274.

Giles,J.(2007).PR's'pitbull'takesonopenaccess.Nature,445(7126),347.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies forQualitativeResearch(Tenthed.).NewYork:AldinePublishingCompany.

Goldwyn, R. M. (2005). Guest Editorial: Do we reject too little and publish too much?LearnedPublishing,18(4),243.

Gooden,P.,Owen,M.,Simon,S.,&Singlehurst,L.(2002).Scientificpublishing:knowledgeispower:MorganStanley&Co.InternationalLimited

Graham,B.(2006).OpenAccessJournalsPaperpresentedattheOpenPublish2006fromhttp://www.nla.gov.au/nla/staffpaper/2006/documents/Bgraham_openpub06.pdf

265

Gray, E. (2007). Achieving Research Impact for Development: A Critique of ResearchDissemination Policy in South Africa with Recommendations for Policy Reform, apolicypaperfortheOpenSocietyInstitute

Groves, T. (2007). Quality and value: How can we get the best out of peer review?Retrieved 29 May 2007, fromhttp://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04995.html

Guedon, J.‐C. (2001). In Oldenburg's Long Shadow: Librarians, Research Scientists,Publishers,andtheControlofScientificPublishing. Retrieved5February,2002,fromhttp://www.arl.org/arl/proceedings/138/guedon

Hagstrom, W. O. (1970). Factors Related to the Use of Different Modes of PublishingResearch in Four Scientific Fields. In C. E. Nelson & D. K. Pollock (Eds.),Communication Among Scientists and Engineers (pp. 85‐124). Lexington: HeathLexingtonBooks.

Hajjem,C.,Harnard, S.,&Gingras,Y. (2005).Ten‐YearCross‐DisciplinaryComparisonoftheGrowthofOpenAccessandHow it IncreasesResearchCitation Impact. IEEEDataEngineeringBulletin,28(4),39‐47.

Harley, D., Earl‐Novell, S., Arter, J., Lawrence, S., & King, c. J. (2007). The influence ofacademicvaluesonscholarlypublicationandcommunicationpractices.JournalofElectronicPublishing,10(2).

Harnad,S.(2003).ForWhomtheGateTolls?HowandWhytoFreetheRefereedResearchLiteratureOnlineThroughAuthor/InstitutionSelf‐Archiving,Now. InD.Law& J.Andrews(Eds.),DigitalLibraries:PolicyPlanningandPractice:AshgatePublishing.

Harnad, S. (2005). Fast‐Forward on the Green Road to Open Access: The Case AgainstMixingUpGreenandGold,Ariadne.

Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., et al. (2004a). TheAccess/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access. SerialsReview,30,310‐314.

Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., et al. (2004b). Thegreen and gold roads to Open Access. Retrieved 03 March 2005, fromhttp://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/21.html

Harvey,L.(2008,14February).TheFutureoftheAccessibilityFrameworkandResearchAssessment ‐ Open Access Collections. Retrieved 16 February, 2008, fromhttp://www.apsr.edu.au/open_access_collections/presentations.html

Hecht, F.,Hecht,B.K.,& Sanberg,A.A. (1998).The journal impact factor ‐ amisnamed,misleading,misusedmeasure.CancerGenetics&Cytogenetics,104(2),77‐81.

Henty, M. (2007). Ten Major Issues in Providing a Repository Service in AustralianUniversities[ElectronicVersion].DLibMagazine,13.Retrieved09February2008,fromhttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/may07/henty/05henty.html

266

Henty,M.,&Kingsley,D. (2007). Readiness andResponsibilities forManagingResearchData:The InstitutionalPerspective.Paperpresentedat theEduCauseAustralasia2007. fromhttp://www.caudit.edu.au/educauseaustralasia07/authors_papers/Henty‐226.pdf

Hess, C. (2005). A Resource Guide for Authors: Open Access, Copyright, and the DigitalCommons.TheCommonPropertyResourceDigest(72),1‐8.

Hess,T.,Wigand,R.,Mann,F.,&Walter,B. v. (2007).OpenAccess& SciencePublishing Results of a Study on Researchers’ Acceptance and Use of Open Access PublishingUniversityofArkansasatLittleRock

Higginbotham, N., Albrecht, G., & Connor, L. (2001). Health Social Science; ATransdisciplinaryandComplexityPerspective.Melbourne:OxfordUniversityPress.

HigherEducationFundingCouncil forEngland. (2008).ResearchExcellenceFramework.Retrieved20November,2008,fromhttp://www.hefce.ac.uk/Research/ref/

Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofScience,102(46),16569‐16572

Hitchcock,S.(2006).Theeffectofopenaccessanddownloads('hits')oncitationimpact:abibliography of studies. Retrieved 4 September, 2006, fromhttp://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation‐biblio.html

Holstein,J.A.,&Gubrium,J.F.(1995).TheActiveInterview(Vol.37).ThousandOaks:SAGEPublications.

Hopkins,C.(2001).Healthywarning:"Thisjournalsupportsfulltext,tariff‐freearchives".Retrieved 10 February, 2005, from http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e‐access/Articles/hopkins.html

Horton,R.(2003).21st‐centurybiomedicaljournals:failuresandfutures.TheLancet,362,1510‐1512.

Houghton, J., Steele, C., & Henty, M. (2003). Changing Research Practice in the DigitalInformation and Communication Environment: Department of Education ScienceandTraining

Houghton, J.,Steele,C.,&Sheehan,P.(2006).ResearchCommunicationCosts inAustralia:Emerging Opportunities and Benefits: Australian Government Department ofEducationScienceandTraining

Houghton,J.,&Vickery,G.(2005).OECDReportonScientificPublishing(No.JT00188746):OECD'sDirectorateforScience,TechnologyandIndustry

Howard, J. (2007, 11 September). University‐Press Leader Quit Publishers' Panel OverAnti‐Open‐AccessCampaign.TheChronicleofHigherEducation.

267

Jeon‐Slaughter, H., Herkovic, A. C., & Keller, M. A. (2005). Economics of scientific andbiomedical journals: Where do scholars stand in the debate of online journalpricing and site licenseownershipbetween libraries andpublishers? [ElectronicVersion]. First Monday, 10. Retrieved 09 February 2008, fromhttp://firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_3/jeon/index.html

Judd, C. M., Smith, E. R., & Kidder, L. H. (1991). Research Methods in Social Relations:HarcourtBraceJovanovich.

Kennan, M. A. (2007). Academic authors, scholarly publishing, and open access inAustralia.LearnedPublishing,20(2),138‐146.

Kennan,M.A.,&Kingsley,D.A.(2009).Thestateofthenation:AsnapshotofAustralianinstitutional repositories [Electronic Version]. First Monday, 14, fromhttp://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2282/2092

King,D.,&Tenopir, C. (2000). Scholarly Journal andDigitalDatabasePricing:Threat orOpportunity? Retrieved 7 April, 2005, from http://www.si.umich.edu/PEAK‐2000/program.htm

Kingsley, D. (1995). Science online? A contextual analysis of the debate on electronicjournalsinsciencecommunication.UnpublishedHonours,UniversityofNewSouthWales,Sydney.

Kingsley,D.(2007).Thejournalisdead,longlivethejournal.OntheHorizon,15(4),211‐221.

Kingsley, D. (2008a). Repositories, research and reporting: The conflict betweeninstitutionalanddisciplinaryneeds.PaperpresentedattheVALA2008:Libraries‐Changing Spaces, Virtual Places. fromhttp://www.vala.org.au/vala2008/auth2008.htm

Kingsley, D. (2008b). Those who don't look don't find: Disciplinary considerations inrepository advocacy. OCLC Systems and Services: International Digital LibraryPerspective(OSS:IDLP),24(4),204‐218.

Kling,R.,&McKim,G.(1999).ScholarlyCommunicationandtheContinuumofElectronicPublishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(10), 890‐906.

Kling,R.,&McKim,G.(2000).NotJustaMatterofTime:FieldDifferencesandtheShapingof Electronic Media in Supporting Scientific Communication. Journal of theAmericanSocietyforInformationScience,51(14),1306‐1320.

Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C., Demleitner, M., Henneken, E., et al.(2005). The effect of use and access on citations. Information Processing &Management,41(6),1395‐1402.

268

Laudel, G., & Glaser, J. (2004). Interviewing scientists [Electronic Version]. ResearchEvaluationandPolicyProjectDiscussionPaper.Retrieved27December2007,fromrepp.anu.edu.au/DP04‐1_InterviewingScientists.pdf

Law, D. (2006). Open Access: national policy initiatives as an alternative to personalcommitment. InG.Sica(Ed.),OpenAccess:OpenProblems (ElectronicEditioned.,pp.31‐42).Milano:Polimetrica.

Lawrence,P.(2003).Thepoliticsofpublication.Nature,422,259‐261.

Lawrence, S. (2001). Free Online Availability Substantially Increases a Paper's Impact.Nature,411,521.

LibraryoftheUniversityofAmsterdam.(2007).TheUvA'sOpenAccessFund.Retrieved21 November, 2008, fromhttp://www.uba.uva.nl/open_access/publish.cfm/F7B30662‐49B6‐417D‐8C873F8D8A81160F

Link,A.(1998).USandNon‐USSubmissions:AnAnalysisofReviewerBias.JAMA,280(3),246‐247.

LundUniversityLibraries.(2008).DirectoryofOpenAccessJournals. Retrieved7April,2008,fromhttp://www.doaj.org/

Lynch,C.A.(2003). InstitutionalRepositories:Essential InfrastructureforScholarshipintheDigitalAge.ARLBimonthlyReport,226.

Mabe, M. A., & Amin, M. (2002). Dr Jekyll and Dr Hyde: author‐reader asymmetries inscholarlypublishing.AslibProceedings,54(3),149‐157.

Mackie, M. (2004). Filling Institutional Repositories: Practical strategies from theDAEDALUS Project [Electronic Version]. Ariadne Retrieved 09 February 2008,fromhttp://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue39/mackie/intro.html

Mark Ware Consulting. (2006). ALPSP survey of librarians on factors in journalcancellations:ALPSP

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Defending the Value and Logic of QualitativeResearch. In Designing Qualitative Research (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks,California:SADEPublications.

Mathison,S.(1988).WhyTriangulate?EducationalResearcher,17(2),13‐17.

Max Planck Institute. (2003, 20‐22 October). Berlin Declaration on Open Access toKnowledge in theScienceandHumanities. Retrieved28November,2007, fromhttp://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess‐berlin/berlindeclaration.html

McCook,A.(2005,29April).Journalprintsrejectedpaper‐asad.TheScientist.

269

McCook,A.(2006).IsPeerReviewBroken?TheScientist,20,26.

Menzel,H. (1962).PlannedandUnplannedScientificCommunication. InB.Barber&W.Hirsch(Eds.),TheSociologyofScience(pp.417‐441).NewYork:TheFreePress.

Mercieca,P.(2008).PublicationpatternsofAustralianacademicsandtheimpactonopenaccess publishing. Paper presented at the VALA2008: 14th Biennial Conferenceand Exhibition. Retrieved 4 March 2008, fromhttp://www.valaconf.org.au/vala2008/papers2008/47_Mercieca_Final.pdf

Merton, R. K. (1973). The Normative Structure of Science. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), TheSociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (pp. 267‐278).Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Miller,J.D.(2004,20April).Quickpeerreviewfor$125.TheScientist.

MIT.(2007).MITAmendmentForm(AmendmenttoPublicationAgreement). Retrieved14 January, 2008, from http://info‐libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit‐copyright‐amendment‐form/

Moed,H.F.(2007).Theeffectof'OpenAccess'uponcitationimpact:AnanalysisofarXiv'sCondensedMatterSection.JournaloftheAmericanSocietyforInformationScienceandTechnology,58(13),2047‐2054.

Monastersky, R. (2005). The Number That's Devouring Science. Chronicle of HigherEducation,52(08).

Morris, S. (2007a).Mapping the journal publishing landscape: howmuch dowe know?LearnedPublishing,20(4),299‐310.

Morris,S.(2007b).Willtheparasitekillthehost?Areinstitutionalrepositoriesafactoflife‐anddoesitmatter?Serials,20(3),172‐179.

Morse,J.M.,&Richards,L.(2002).ReadmeFirstforaUser'sGuidetoQualitativeMethods.ThousandOaks:SagePublications.

National Health andMedical Research Council. (2007). NHMRC Project Grants FundingPolicy for Funding Commencing in 2008. Retrieved 20 April, 2007, fromhttp://www.nhmrc.gov.au/funding/_files/profundingpol.pdf

NationalInstitutesofHealth.(2005,3February).NIHPublicAccessPolicy.Retrieved12January,2008,fromhttp://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm

NationalResearchCouncil.(1994).AcademicCareersforExperimentalComputerScientistsandEngineers:NationalResearchCouncil

NaturePublishingGroup.(2008).NPGauthorlicencepolicy.Retrieved13January,2008,fromhttp://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html

270

Newman, K., Blecic, D., & Armstrong, K. (2007). Scholarly Communication EducationInitiatives(No.SPECKit299):AssociationofResearchLibraries

Nicholas, D., & Huntington, P. (2006). Electronic journals: are they really used?InterlendingandDocumentSupply,34(2),48‐50.

Nicholas,D.,Huntington, P.,& Jamali,H.R. (2007).Diversity in the Information SeekingBehaviour of the Virtual Scholar: Institutional Comparisons. The Journal ofAcademicLibrarianship,33(6),629‐638.

Nixon, W. (2003). DAEDALUS: Initial experiences with EPrints and DSpace at theUniversityofGlasgow[ElectronicVersion].Ariadne.Retrieved09February2008,fromhttp://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue37/nixon/intro.html

NucleicAcidsResearch. (2008).NAR'sOpenAccess Initiative. Retrieved21November,2008, fromhttp://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/nar/announce_openaccess.html

O'Brien, L. (2006, 7 June). Publishing Online: does it make a difference? Eprintrepositories, web pages and expertise profiles. Retrieved 24 April, 2007, fromhttp://eprints.infodiv.unimelb.edu.au/archive/00001783/

Odlyzko, A. M. (1996). Tragic Loss or Good Riddance? The Impending Demise ofTraditional Scholarly Journals. In R. P. Peek & G. B. Newby (Eds.), ScholarlyPublishing:TheElectronicFrontier.CambridgeMassachusetts:MITPress.

OECD. (2004, 29‐30 January). Declaration on Access to Research Data from PublicFunding.MeetingoftheOECDCommitteeforScientificandTechnologicalPolicyatMinisterialLevel,2930January2004FinalCommunique.

OpenSocietyInstitute.(2002,14February).BudapestOpenAccessInitiative. Retrieved18March,2008,fromhttp://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml

Over,A.,Maiworm,F.,&Schelewsky,A. (2005).PublishingStrategies inTransformation?Results of a studyonpublishinghabitsand informationacquisitionwith regard toopen access. Bonn, Germany: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft InformationManagement

Paul, K., &Matasar, A. (1993). Business and society: the field and the journal.ScholarlyPublishing,24(3),171‐182.

Peek, R. (1996). Scholarly Publishing, Facing the New Frontiers. In R. P. Peek & G. B.Newby(Eds.),ScholarlyPublishing:TheElectronicFrontier (pp.3‐15).CambridgeMassachusetts:MITPress.

Pelizzari, E. (2003). Academic staff use, perception and expectations aboutOpen‐accessarchives. A survey of Social Science Sector at Brescia University. Retrieved 24February, 2005, fromhttp://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00000737/01/Academic_staff_perception_about_Open_archives.htm

271

Perneger, T. V. (2004). Relation between online "hit counts" and subsequent citations:prospective study of research papers in the BMJ. British Medical Journal,329(7465),546‐547.

Phelps,R.H.,&Herlin, J.P.(1960).AlternativestotheScientificPeriodical:Areportandbibliography.UNESCOBulletinforLibraries,XIV(2),61‐75.

Phillips, E., & Pugh, D. (2005). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and theirsupervisors(4thed.).Berkshire:OpenUniversityPress.

Pinelli, T. E. (1991). The Information‐Seeking Habits and Practices of Engineers. In C.Steinke(Ed.),InformationSeekingandCommunicatingBehaviourofScientistsandEngineers(pp.5‐25).NewYork:HawthornPress.

Pinfield,S.(2001).HowdoPhysicistsUseanE‐PrintArchive?[ElectronicVersion].DLibMagazine, 7. Retrieved 09 February 2008, fromhttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/december01/pinfield/12pinfield.html

Pinfield,S.(2004).Whatdouniversitieswantfrompublishing?LearnedPublishing,17(4),305‐311.

Pinfield, S. (2007). Can open access repositories and peer‐reviewed journals coexist?SerialsReview,20(3),163‐171.

Piternick, A. B. (1989). Attempts to Find Alternatives to the Scientific Journal: A BriefReview.TheJournalofAcademicLibrarianship,15(5),260‐266.

Pitts, S., & Stanley, A. (2007). Understanding researchers: findings from a focus group.LearnedPublishing,20(4),245‐251.

PLoS Public Library of Science. (2008). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved 21November,2008,fromhttp://www.plos.org/about/faq.html

Powell, A. (2008).RepositoriesThrough theLookingGlass. Retrieved30March, 2008,from http://www.slideshare.net/eduservfoundation/repositories‐thru‐the‐looking‐glass

Poynder, R. (2005). Time to Walk the Talk? Retrieved 7 April, 2005, fromhttp://poynder.blogspot.com/2005/03/time‐to‐walk‐talk.html

Primary Research Group Inc. (2007). The International Survey of Institutional DigitalRepositories:ResearchandMarkets

Prosser,D.(2003).Fromheretothere:aproposedmechanismfortransformingjournalsfromclosedtoopenaccess.LearnedPublishing,16(3),163‐166.

Prosser,D.(2004).Betweenarockandahardplace:thebigsqueezeforsmallpublishers.LearnedPublishing,17(1),17‐22.

272

Proudman,V. (2008). Thepopulation of repositories. InK.Weenink, L.Waaijers&K. v.Godtsenhoven (Eds.), A DRIVER'S Guide to European Repositories. Amsterdam:AmsterdamUniversityPress.

QUT. (2004).PolicyF/1.3E‐print repository for researchoutput atQUT. Retrieved25March,fromhttp://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/F/F_01_03.jsp

Regazzi,J.,&Caliguiri,N.(2006).Publisherandauthorpartnerships:achanginglandscape.LearnedPublishing,19(3),183‐192.

Research Councils UK. (2005a, June). RCUK Position Statement on Access to ResearchOutputs.Retrieved27October,2005,fromwww.rcuk.ac.uk/access/statement.pdf

Research Councils UK. (2005b). Summary of RCUK position statement on access toresearch outputs. Retrieved 14 October, 2005, fromhttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/index.asp

Research Councils UK. (2006). Report of the Research Councils UK Efficiency andEffectivenessofPeerReviewProject.Wiltshire:ResearchCouncilsUK

Richardson,M.(2008,Winter2007/).OxfordOpenpricesadjustedforopenaccessuptake.OxfordJournalsUpdate.

Richardson, M., & Saxby, C. (2004). Experimenting with Open Access publishing.Retrieved 9 February, 2005, fromhttp://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/12.html

Rieger, O. Y. (2008). Opening Up Institutional Repositories: Social Construction ofInnovation in Scholarly Communication [Electronic Version]. The Journal ofElectronic Publishing, 11. Retrieved 30 October 2008, fromhttp://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text‐idx?c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0011.301

Rodriguez,M.,Bollen,J.,&Sompel,H.V.d.(2006).Theconvergenceofdigitallibrariesandthepeerreviewprocess.JournalofInformationScience,32(2),149‐159.

Rogers,E.M.(1983).DiffusionofInnovations(Thirded.).NewYork:TheFreePress.

Rogers,E.M.(2003).DiffusionofInnovations(Fifthed.).NewYork:TheFreePress.

Roosendaal, H. (2007, 20 August).White Paper on Scientific Publishing. Retrieved 10January2008,fromhttp://www.science‐all.de/materials/whitepaper.pdf

Roosendaal, H., & Geurts, P. (1997, 31 August ‐ 4 September). Forces and functions inscientific communication: an analysis of their interplay. Paper presented at theCooperative Research Information Systems in Physics, Oldenburg University,Germany.

Rowbotham, J. (2008,12November).Academic says thanksbutno thanksasgrant fallsshort

273

.The Australian, from http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24637089‐12332,00.html

Rowlands, I. (2002). Journal Diffusion factors: a new approach to measuring researchinfluence.AslibProceedings,54(2),77‐84.

Rowlands,I.,&Nicholas,D.(2006).Thechangingscholarlycommunicationlandscape:aninternationalsurveyofseniorresearchers.LearnedPublishing,19(1),31‐55.

Rowlands,I.,Nicholas,D.,&Huntington,P.(2004a).Scholarlycommunicationinthedigitalenvironment:whatdoauthor'swant?LearnedPublishing,17(4),261‐273.

Rowlands,I.,Nicholas,D.,&Huntington,P.(2004b).ScholarlyCommunicationintheDigitalEnvironment:WhatdoAuthorsWant?Findingsofaninternationalsurveyofauthoropinion: project report. London: Centre for Information Behaviour and theEvaluationofResearch(ciber)

RoyalSociety,T.(2005).RoyalSocietypositionstatementon'openaccess'.Retrieved29Nov,2005,fromhttp://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3882&printer=1

Rust, P. M. (2007). PRISM: Open Letter to Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 10January,2008,fromhttp://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust/?p=525

Sale,A.(2005a,14December).Re:FunctioningIRs‐today'srealrealities. Retrieved21February, 2006, fromhttp://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind05&L=american‐scientist‐open‐access‐forum&F=l&S=&P=92702

Sale, A. (2005b). The impact of mandatory policies on ETD acquisition. Retrieved 13February,2006,fromhttp://eprints.comp.utas.edu.au:81/archive/00000222/

Sale,A.(2007a,8December).Australianmandatesupdate.Retrieved28April,2007,fromhttp://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind06&L=american‐scientist‐open‐access‐forum&F=l&P=104050

Sale, A. (2007b). The Patchwork Mandate [Electronic Version]. DLib Magazine, 13.Retrieved 09 February 2008, fromhttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/january07/sale/01sale.html

Schroter,S.,Tite,L.,&Smith,R.(2005).Perceptionsofopenaccesspublishing:interviewswithjournalauthors.BritishMedicalJournal,330(7494),756‐759.

Science Commons. (2007). The Science Commons Scholar's Copyright OpenAccess‐CreativeCommons 1.0 Addendum. Retrieved 14 January, 2008, fromhttp://scholars.sciencecommons.org/

ScientificCounciloftheEuropeanResearchCouncil.(2007,17December).ERCScientificCouncil Guidelines for Open Access. Retrieved 09 February, 2008, fromhttp://erc.europa.eu/pdf/ScC_Guidelines_Open_Access_revised_Dec07_FINAL.pdf

274

Seglen,P.O.(1997).Whytheimpactfactorof journalsshouldnotbeusedforevaluatingresearch.BritishMedicalJournal,314(7079),498‐502.

Seringhaus,M.,&Gerstein,M. (2006,September).TheDeathof theScientificPaper.TheScientist,20,25.

Silverman,D. (2001). InterpretingQualitativeData:Methods forAnalysingTalk,TextandInteraction(Seconded.).London:SAGEPublications.

Snow,C.(1965).TheTwoCultures.InH.Shapley,S.Rapport&H.Wright(Eds.),TheNewTreasuryofScience(pp.35‐43).London:Collins.

SPARC. (2007, May). SPARC Author Addendum. Retrieved 14 January, 2008, fromhttp://www.arl.org/sparc/author/index.html

Sparks, S. (2005). JISC Disciplinary Differences Report. London: JISC ‐ ScholarlyCommunicationsGroup

Steele,C. (2008). ScholarlyMonographPublishing in the21st century:TheFutureMoreThan Ever Should Be an Open Book [Electronic Version]. Journal of ElectronicPublishing, 11. Retrieved 22 November 2008, fromhttp://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3336451.0011.201

Steele, C., Butler, L., & Kingsley, D. (2006). The Publishing Imperative: the pervasiveinfluenceofpublicationmetrics.LearnedPublishing,19(4),277‐290.

Stix,G.(1994,December).TheSpeedofWrite.ScientificAmerican,72‐77.

STM AAP PSP & ALPSP. (2007). Author and publisher rights for academic use: Anappropriatebalance

Strauss,A.,&Corbin,J.(1990).BasicsofQualitativeResearch:groundedtheoryproceduresandtechniques.NewburyPark:SagePublications.

Suber, P. (2002). Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature. Retrieved 21November,2008,fromhttp://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/jbiol.htm

Suber, P. (2005a).Open access, impact anddemand.BritishMedical Journal, 330(7500),1097‐1098.

Suber, P. (2005b). Reflections on OA/TA coexistence [Electronic Version]. SPARC OpenAccess Newsletter. Retrieved March 2005, fromhttp://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/03‐02‐05.htm

Suber,P.(2006).Ninequestionsforhybridjournalprograms[ElectronicVersion].SPARCOpen Access Newsletter Retrieved 2 September 2006, fromhttp://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/09‐02‐06.htm

275

Suber,P.(2007a).MoreontheOAmandatesattheARCandNHMRC[ElectronicVersion].Open Access News, 2007. Retrieved 25 January 2007, fromhttp://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007_01_21_fosblogarchive.html

Suber,P.(2007b,19June).OpenAccessOverview. Retrieved21November,2008,fromhttp://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm

Suber, P. (2007c, 23 August). Publishers launch an anti OA lobbying organisation.Retrieved 10 January, 2008, fromhttp://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007_08_19_fosblogarchive.html#365179758119288416

Suber, P., & Sutton, C. (2007). Society publishers with open access journals [ElectronicVersion]. SPARC Open Access Newsletter. Retrieved 2 November 2007, fromhttp://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/11‐02‐07.htm#list

Suddaby, R. (2006). From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not. Academy ofManagementJournal,49(4),633‐642.

Swan,A. (2007,May‐June).OpenAccessand theProgressofScience.AmericanScientist,95,198‐200.

Swan,A.,&Brown,S.(2003).Authorsandelectronicpublishing:whatauthorswantfromthenewtechnology.LearnedPublishing,16(1),22‐33.

Swan,A.,&Brown, S. (2004a). Authors and open access publishing.LearnedPublishing,17(3),219‐224.

Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2004b). JISC/OSI Journal Authors Survey (Report). Truro: KeyPerspectivesLtd

Swan,A.,&Brown,S.(2005).Openaccessselfarchiving:Anauthorstudy:KeyPerspectivesLimited

Swan, A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., Oppenheim, C., O'Brien, A., et al. (2005).Developingamodelfore‐printsandopenaccessjournalcontentinUKfurtherandhighereducation.LearnedPublishing,18,25‐40.

Talja, S., Savolainen, R., & Maula, H. (2004). Field differences in the use and perceivedusefulness of scholarly mailing lists. Information Research: an internationalelectronicjournal,10(1).

Talja,S.,Vakkari,P.,Fry,J.,&Wouters,P.(2007).ImpactofResearchCulturesontheUseofDigitalLibraryResources. Journalof theAmericanSociety for InformationScienceandTecnology,58(11),1674‐1685.

Tamber,P.S.,Godlee,F.,&Newmark,P. (2003).Openaccesstopeer‐reviewedresearch:makingithappen.TheLancet,362,1575‐1577.

276

Taubes, G. (1993). Publication by ElectronicMail Takes Physics by Storm. Science, 259,1246‐1248.

Tenopir,C.,&King,D.W.(2001).LessonsfortheFutureofJournals.NatureWebDebates:eaccess.

Tenopir,C.,King,D.W.,Boyce,P.,Grayson,M.,Zhang,Y.,&Ebuen,M.(2003).PatternsofJournalUsebyScientiststhroughThreeEvolutionaryPhases[ElectronicVersion].DLib Magazine, 9. Retrieved 09 February 2008, fromhttp://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/edoc/aw/d‐lib/dlib/may03/king/05king.html

Terry, R. (2006). Open‐Access Special [Electronic Version]. Research Information.Retrieved 30 March 2008, fromhttp://www.researchinformation.info/rijunjul06openaccess3.html

Testa,J.,&McVeigh,M.E.(2004).TheImpactofOpenAccessJournals:ACitationStudyfromThompsonISI:ISI

TheUniversityofCaliforniaOfficeofScholarlyCommunication. (2007).FacultyAttitudesand Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication: Survey Findings from theUniversityOfCalifornia:UniversityofCalifornia

Torgerson,D.J.,Adamson,J.,Cockayne,S.,Dumville,J.,&Petherick,E.(2005).Submissionto multiple journals: a method of reducing time to publication? British MedicalJournal,330(7486),305‐307.

Uhlir, P. F. (2006). The emerging role of open repositories for scientific literature as afundamentalcomponentofthepublicresearchinfrastructure.InG.Sica(Ed.),OpenAccess:OpenProblems(ElectronicEditioned.,pp.59‐103).Milano:Polimetrica.

UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. (2004a). Examination ofWitnesses (Questions 1‐19) Monday 1 March 2004. Retrieved 20 September,2004, fromhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/4030102.htm

UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. (2004b). ScientificPublications:Freeforall?TenthReportofSession200304(No.HC399‐1).London:UKHouseofCommons

UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. (2002). Peer Review (No. 182).London:UKParliamentaryOfficeofScienceandTechnology

University of California Academic Senate. (2004, 4 January). Letter to UC Faculty.Retrieved 10 January, 2008, fromhttp://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/facmemoscholcomm_010704.pdf

UniversityofNottingham.(2007,October).UsingtheUniversity'sOpenAccessPublishingFund Retrieved 21 November, 2008, fromhttp://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/UniversityOpenAccessPublicationFund.pdf

277

UNSWAcademicBoard.(2004).CodeofConductfortheResponsiblePracticeofResearch.Retrieved 25 February, 2008, fromhttp://www.secretariat.unsw.edu.au/acboard/approved_policy/approved_policy.htm

Van de Sompel, H., Payette, S., Erickson, J., Lagoze, C., &Warner, S. (2004). RethinkingScholarlyCommunication:Building the System that ScholarsDeserve [ElectronicVersion]. DLib Magazine, 10. Retrieved 09 February 2008, fromhttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/september04/vandesompel/09vandesompel.html

van Westrienen, G., & Lynch, C. A. (2005). Academic Institutional Repositories:Deploymentstatusin13nationsasofmid2005.DLibMagazine,11(9).

Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2004). Can Web Citations Be a measure of Impact? AnInvestigationof Journals intheLifeSciences.PaperpresentedattheProceedingsofthe67thASIS&TAnnualMeeting.

Velterop, J. (2003). Should scholarly societies embrace open access (or is it the kiss ofdeath)?LearnedPublishing,16(3),167‐169.

Velterop, J. (2008). Open access and publishing. Retrieved 11 February 2008, fromhttp://www.uksg.org/serials#handbook

Vries, J. d. (2001). Peer Review: The Holy Cow of Science. In E. H. Fredriksson (Ed.),ACenturyofSciencePublishing:ACollectionofEssays(pp.231‐244).Amsterdam:IOSPress.

Walsh,J.P.,&Bayma,T.(1996).ComputerNetworksandScientificWork.SocialStudiesofScience,26(3),661‐703.

Waltham, M. (2006). Learned society business models and open access: overview of arecentJIS‐fundedstudy.LearnedPublishing,19(1),15‐30.

Waltham, M. (2008). What do society and association members really want? LearnedPublishing,21(1),7‐14.

Ware,M.(2004a).Institutionalrepositoriesandscholarlypublishing.LearnedPublishing,17(2),115‐124.

Ware,M. (2004b).PathfinderResearchonWebbasedRepositories.Bristol:PublisherandLibrary/LearningSolutions(PALS)

Ware,M.(2006).Scientificpublishingintransition:anoverviewofcurrentdevelopmentsRetrieved 12 January, 2008, fromhttp://www.www.alpsp.org/ForceDownload.asp?id=127

Watson,R.(2005,April).Theacademicpublicationsystem:Atimeforredesign.Retrieved5January,2008,fromhttp://disc‐nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/speakerseries/reform3.pdf

278

Watson, S. (2007). Author's attitudes to, and awareness and use of, a universityinstitutionalrepository.Serials,20(3),225‐230.

Weaver,B.(2006,29June2006).SuccessisintheEyeoftheBeholder.PaperpresentedattheTheSuccessfulRepository,Brisbane,Australia.

WellcomeTrust.(2003).AnEconomicAnalysisofScientificResearchPublishing:WellcomeTrust

WellcomeTrust.(2004a).CostsandBusinessModelsinScientificResearchPublishing

Wellcome Trust. (2004b). Scientific Publishing: A position statement by the WellcomeTrust in support of open access publishing. Retrieved 25 March, 2005, fromhttp://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc%5Fwtd002766.html

Wellcome Trust. (2005, October). Grants E‐Newsletter. No 1. Retrieved 14 Feb, 2006,fromhttp://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX027297.html

Whitley,R.(1984).TheIntellectualandSocialOrganizationoftheSciences.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Wiley Publishing. (2008). Guidelines for Authors for the European Journal of InorganicChemistry. Retrieved 5 January, 2008, fromhttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/27721/2005_guidelines.pdf

Willinsky, J. (2003). Scholarly associations and the economic viability of open accesspublishing.JournalofDigitalInformation,4(2).

Willinsky, J. (2006). The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research andScholarship(Firsted.).Massachusetts:MITPress.

Woolgar, S. W. (1976). The Identification and Definition of Scientific Collectives. In G.Lemaine, R. MacLeod, M. Mulkay & P. Weingart (Eds.), Perspectives on theEmergenceofScientificDisciplines(pp.233‐245).Paris:Mouton&Co.

Worlock,K. (2004).Scoping theSTMpublishingmarket.LearnedPublishing, 17(4),291‐298.

Wren, J. D. (2005).Open access and openly accessible: a study of scientific publicationssharedviatheinternet.BritishMedicalJournal,330,1128‐1131.

279

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Consent form

IDNumber:

I______________________agreetobeinterviewedbyDannyKingsleyregardingpastandfuture

publicationofmyresearch.Ihavereadandunderstoodthefollowinginformation:

Thattheaims,methods,andanticipatedbenefits,andpossiblerisks/hazardsofthe

researchstudy,havebeenexplainedtome

Myinterviewwillcontributetoresearchaboutchangesinpublishingpatternsby

Australianscientists

Myparticipation isvoluntaryand Iam free towithdrawmyconsentatany time

during the study, in which event my participation in the research study will

immediatelyceaseandanyinformationobtainedfrommewillnotbeused

AggregatedresultswillbeusedforresearchpurposesandwillcontributetoaPhD

thesisandpossiblesubsequentjournalarticles

Thenamesandjobtitlesofintervieweeswillbewithheldinallpublishedwork

Allrawdatafrominterviewswillbesecurelystoredin lockedfilingcabinetsand

onapasswordprotectedcomputer,whichonlyDannyKingsleyhasaccess to, so

farasthelawallows

Furtherquestionsabouttheresearchmaybedirectedto:

DannyKingsley,CentreofPublicAwarenessofScience

PhysicsLinkBuilding38a,AustralianNationalUniversity,ACT0200

ph:[email protected]

ConcernsabouttheresearchmaybedirectedtotheHumanResearchEthicsCommittee

careof,

HumanEthicsOfficer,ResearchServicesOffice

Chancelry10B,AustralianNationalUniversity,ACT0200

ph:+61261257945

[email protected]

Signed: Date:

Phoneno: Email:

280

Appendix 2 – Processes undertaken to obtain interviews

University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sociology/Anthropology

Sociology/AnthropologyatUNSWisasmalldepartment.Itisworthnotingthatatthetime

of interviews the department was undergoing radical change and was about to be

absorbedintoanotherdepartmentatUNSW.IsentalettertotheheadoftheUNSWSchool

ofSociologyandAnthropology,DrDianaOlsberg,on29August2006,informingherofmy

intended study and offering to meet for a discussion. In preparation for the meeting I

lookedupthestafflistonthewebsiteinSeptember200621whichhad13academicstaff,

threevisitingfellowsandthreevisitingprofessors(atotalof19people).Atourmeeting

on 11 September, Dr Olsberg informed me that one person was on leave, another on

sabbatical, twowereoverseas, twowereno longerpartof thedepartment, andanother

wasabouttoleavefortheUniversityofSydney.Thisleft12staffmembers(excludingthe

headof school).Theheadof schoolagreed to sendanemailonmybehalf the following

weektothestaff.

On 28th September, I followed this up with an email inviting the 12 staff members to

participate. Three replied to say they were unable to participate, and of the four from

which I receivedno reply, twowerevisitingprofessors and theother twowere regular

staff.IntotalIinterviewedfivepeople,representing42%ofthedepartment.

UNSW Chemistry

Chemistry is the oldest continuous school at UNSW and previously at the Technical

College,startingin1879.AnobservationmadebytheChemistryheadofdepartmentwas

that all leaders at UNSW have a Chemistry background, including the current DVC.

According to sci‐byteslvii, Chemistry at UNSW has the highest impact of the Chemistry

departments inAustralia. In2000‐2004 it published829paperswith5.03 citationsper

paper, ANU comes fourth after Melbourne and Monash with 838 papers with average

citationsof4.46.

IsentalettertotheheadoftheUNSWSchoolofChemistry,ProfessorRobertLamb,on29

August2006,informinghimofmyintendedstudyandofferingtomeetforadiscussion.He

agreed tomeet on 11 September 2006. In preparation for themeeting I looked up the21 The printout I have from the web page (circa September 2006) did not have the url on the

bottom,andthewebpageappearstohavebeenupdatedsincethen.

281

UNSWChemistrystaffwebpageslviii inSeptember2006.Therewere38people listed,21

academic staff, four research staff, nine emeritus professors and four honorary visiting

fellows. During the meeting I had with the head of school he mentioned that the

departmentusedtohave50peopleandnowhad18researchers,indicatingthewebstaff

pagesmayhavebeenoutofdate.

Therewas someconfusionover the selectionofpeople to interview in thisdepartment.

When Imetwith Professor Lamb the Chemistry departmentwas about tomove into a

newlycompletedbuilding.Becauseofthis,Iagreedwithhimthatitwouldbeprudentto

allowtimeforthemovebeforeIapproachedtheChemistrystaffmembers.Unfortunately

there was a miscommunication between us. As discussed, on 12 October 2006, I sent

Professor Lamb an email that he was to distribute to his staff, with two attachments

explainingmywork, indicating that Iwould contact themwithin aweek. I didnothear

backandhadtoemailhimagainafewdayslatertoensurehehadsenttheemailsout.On

17OctoberIreceivedareplyemailsayingthathehad‘senttheinformationoutlastweek

andgavethemaweektoreply’.

TherewasadelaybecauseProfessorLambwentoverseasand the schooladministrator

changed.Ieventuallyspoketohisnewassistant,explainingthatallIneededwasthelistof

peoplehehadsent theemail to.The followingdayProfessorLambcalledmeandasked

howmanypeople Iwantedand I indicatedsixpeoplewouldbe ideal.Hisassistant then

emailedmealistofsixnameson28November,whoare‘awareyouwillbecallingthemin

regard to your study’. I sent an email to all six on the 28 November inviting them to

participate.Alldid so,but it is important tonote that this isnota randomorevenself‐

selecting sample, it is a sample chosen on my behalf by the head of school and I am

unaware of the reasoning behind his choice. However, these six people do represent a

rangeofagesandtypesofchemistryresearchsoitactsasabroadsample.Excludingthe

EmeritusandHonoraryVisitingfellows,itrepresents24%ofthedepartment.

Another issueofnote is thatwhile thiswasonlymentionedby twopeople interviewed,

everystaffmemberIspoketohashadtophysicallysortthoughalltheaccumulatedpaper

andmaterialstheyhadintheiroldofficesinpreparationformoving.Whetherthismeans

thewaytheyhaveorganisedtheirworkingpatternschangedIcannottell.

UNSW Computer Science

I sent a letter I sent a letter to the head of the UNSW School of Computer Science and

Engineeringon29August2006,informinghimofmyintendedstudyandofferingtomeet

282

foradiscussion.Inabrieftelephoneconversationheinformedmehewasinterstatewhen

IintendedtogotoUNSW.Isentasubsequentemailattemptingtomeetasecondtimeon

17Octoberandathirdon1December2006.IdiscoveredonavisittoUNSWwhenIspoke

tothedepartmentadministratorthattheheadofschoolwasonleaveandwasgiventhe

nameoftheactinghead.Isentanemailtotheactingheadon15December.Havinghasno

replyIdecidedtoapproachthestaffdirectly.

ThelistofComputerScienceacademicstaffwastakenfromtheCSEwebsitelixon2January

2007.Thetotalnumberofpeopleonthelistwas94,butsomeofthesewerenotcontacted

forinterview.Iexcludedthepreviousheadofdepartmentandactingheadofdepartment

becauseIhadcontactedthembothinitiallyandhadnoreply.Afewpeoplewereonleave

(3), others were from an external office and/or didn’t have contact details (4), some

websites stated ‘person not found’ (6). In addition, those conjoint researcherswho are

affiliated with the Australian Technology Park (8) and NICTA (16) were also excluded

fromtheinvitation.Intotal39peoplewereexcludedfrominvitation.

Thismeantthattheinvitationtoparticipatewassentto55peopleon2January2007.Five

peopleemailedtosaytheywerenotinterestedandfoursentautomaticemailssayingthey

were away. There were 36 no responses (65%). Interviews were conducted with nine

peoplebetween10Januaryand12February(16%ofthetotal).

Australian National University (ANU) Sociology

The Sociologists at ANU are part of the School of Social Sciences in the Faculty of Arts.

They are collected with History, Political Science and International Relations.

Anthropology is a large part of ANU, and there is a School of Archaeology and

Anthropology,butAnthropologistsarealsoworkingintheCentreforAboriginalEconomic

PolicyResearch,theCentreforCrossCulturalResearch,RSPAS,andGenderRelations.

TheFacultyofArtswebsitelists‘AcademicStaffintheSchoolofSocialSciences’andsplits

themintoTeachingStaffandAdjunctAppointments.Ofthe31teachingstaffand8adjunct

appointments listed on thewebsite on 29 January 2007, six sociologistswere listed as

teachingstaff,andoneAdjunctProfessor.

I sent a letter to the head of the ANU School of Social Sciences on 5 February 2007,

informinghimofmyintendedstudyandofferingtomeetforadiscussion.Herepliedon6

Februaryandweagreedtomeeton22February2007.Meanwhile,Isentinvitationstoall

sixteachingstaffon9February2007.Threepeoplerespondedagreeingtobeinterviewed

283

andtworepliedaskingthatIcontactthemagaininMarch(aftersessiononehadbegun).

Because the numbers were so small in this instance I did not interview the head of

department separately, but included him in the sample group.Hewas the third person

interviewedandhesuggestedIcontactthosewhohadnotrepliedtodatesayingthatmy

work had his endorsement. This resulted in two further interviews. Only one of the

teaching staff did not reply at all. I also sent an email to the adjunct professor on 20

February2007towhichtherewasnoreply.

Intotalsixinterviewswereconductedoutofthepossibleeight,representing75%ofthe

total.

ANU Chemistry

TheANUChemistryresearchersarehousedinboththeResearchSchoolofChemistryand

theDepartmentofChemistry.

The Research School of Chemistry

TheResearchSchoolofChemistrywebsitelxon29January2007listed22GroupLeaders

(which included the Dean, Deputy Dean and Associate Dean (Students)), 8 Visiting

Fellows,aLaboratoryManagerandanAcademicSecretary.

IwrotealettertotheDeanonthe7February2007requestinganinitialinterview.Three

followupphonecallstotheadministrativestaffindicatedthattheDeanwasnotinterested

in making a time to speak, so on 9 March, I sent out 21 emails (excluding the Dean)

invitingGroup Leaders to participate. Two staff emailed to say they hadmoved to new

institutions, another was on maternity leave. This brought the possible number of

intervieweesdownto18.Onestaffmemberemailedtodeclinetobeinterviewed.Ididnot

hearfrom11people,andinterviewedsix,representing33%ofthepossibleinterviewees.

The Department of Chemistry

The Department of Chemistry at ANU listed 10 Academic Staff on its websitelxi on 29

January2007.Therewerenoemailaddressesforthefirstyearcoordinator,anARCfellow

and a research associate so they were excluded. Seven emails were sent out to the

remainingpeopleontheliston9March2007.Anotherpersonwhoseemailbouncedback

wasalsoexcluded.Onepersonrespondedagreeingtoaninterview,representing10%of

thetotalpossibleinterviewees,and16%ofthepeopleabletobecontacted.

284

ANU Computer Science

TheANUhasbothaComputerScienceLaboratoryandaDepartmentofComputerScience

(housedintheFacultyofEngineeringandInformationTechnology).

Department of Computer Science

IsentalettertotheheadoftheDepartmentofComputerScience,ProfessorChrisJohnson,

on5Februaryandmetwithhimon15February2007.ThestafflistontheDepartmentof

ComputerSciencewebsiteasat29January2007listed27AcademicStaffand13Visiting

Fellows. Indiscussionwiththeheadofdepartment it transpiredthat fiveacademicstaff

members were industrial (non‐research) staff members, and four staff members were

either on long service leave or had left the department. One had retired and become a

visiting fellow. I also excludedone staffmemberbecause I hadworkedwithhimat the

Australian Partnership for Sustainable Repositories (APSR) on the ANU campus so not

onlyisthereapersonalrelationship,butgiventhenatureoftheworkheundertakesfor

APSR, he is not representative of the general academic population in terms of his

understandingoftheissues.Thismeantthatinvitationsweresentto15staffmemberson

the22February2007(theheadofdepartmentwasnotinvitedtoparticipate).

Bythe2March,twopeoplehadrepliedtosaytheywerenotinterested,onehadofferedto

speaktome,butgiventhatshehadnopublicationsweagreednottogoahead,andsixhad

agreedtobeinterviewed,representing40%ofthoseinvited.

Itshouldbenotedthatthe interviewswereconductedbetween1stand9thMarch2007.

On 27 February the Australian National University was badly damaged by a severe

thunderstorm and hail damage was recorded in most of the buildings on campus. The

universitywasclosedtostaffandstudentson28thFeb,andtostudentsonthe1stand2nd

March. The Computer Science building was one of the worst affected with two large

skylights collapsing causingwidespread flooding and electrical damage. Thismeantmy

interviews were conducted under unusual circumstances. One person met me in the

buildinginadarkenedroom(duetotheelectricitybeingcutoff)whichwasnototherwise

affected. Another postponed the interview, and a third came to my office to be

interviewed.

Computer Science Laboratory

The Computer Science Laboratory (CSL) webpage listed 32 entries of academic and

adjunctstaffonthe9March2007.Eliminatingthe21NICTAresearchers,theFederation

285

Fellow and the PhD student, meant invitations were sent to nine staff members on 9

March2007 (this includedoneperson towhoman invite had alreadybeen sent on the

Department of Computer Science list.) Five people replied agreeing to an interview.

Unfortunatelyonewithdrewduetoaninjurysustainedonthemorningofthescheduled

interview,sofourpeoplewereinterviewedfromtheComputerSciencesLaboratory.

286

Appendix 3 - Reasoning behind the interview questions

Background career information

Firstly,pleasegivemeanindicationofthespiltofyourtimebetweenteaching,researchand

administration.

ThisquestionasmentionedintheResearchDesignchapter,wasusedasan‘icebreaker’.

Initially I intendedtoaskquestionsabout theircareerbasedonmypre‐readingof their

CVs.This ideawasabandonedveryearlyas the informationcoming fromtheirCVswas

often patchy. Many people sent through a publication list only (which was what I had

requested)whichwasof limiteduseasaconversationstarter.Manyresearchersdidnot

haveahomepageeitheroftheirownorgeneratedbytheuniversity.Askingabouttheir

timeallocation,despitethequestion’snon‐functionalpurpose,provedtobeuseful.

Please briefly describe the research you are currently undertaking –what form does that

researchtake(interviews,observation,experiments,computerwork).

There was a risk in this question that the interviewee would suddenly launch into a

detailedcomplexdescriptionoftheirscience,andindeedsomeearlyintervieweesdiddo

this.Iwasforcedtousemyskillsasasciencejournalisttoturnthemaroundbacktothe

pointathand.Iadaptedthisquestionslightlyastimewenton,toaskspecificallyaboutthe

mechanicsoftheirwork,suchasdotheyworkinthelaboratory,orinfrontofacomputer

or spend time in discussion. The answers to this question were sometimes surprising.

More interviewees than initially suspected work on a whiteboard or with ‘paper and

pencil’astheydescribedit.Againthisisgeneralbackgroundinformation.

Researching behaviour

Howdoyoukeepupwithwhatishappeninginyourdiscipline?

Thiswasthefirstofthe‘real’questionsinmylist.Isometimesspecificallyasked‘howdo

youkeepupwiththeliterature?’.Thisquestionelicitsinformationabouttheparticipant’s

information‐seekingbehaviour.AstheinterviewsprogressedandIrealisedthatthiswas

an important aspect of the information I was receiving, I asked some supplementary

questionsifcertaininformationwasnotgiveninanswertothisbroadquestion.IfneededI

would make the distinction between searching for information for a specific article or

researchproject,andgeneralreadingtokeepupwiththeliterature.Inthelaterinterviews

Ialsoaskedfordetailaboutwhichelectronictoolstheyusedtodothissearchingif they

hadnotalreadymentionedit.

287

Howdoyoudecideifanarticleisworthreading?

Initially this question was attempting to establish what value judgements were being

madebytheresearcheraboutthejournal,theauthororothertacitassumptions.Whileit

didnotsucceedinthisendeavour,thequestiongaveinsightastotheprocessresearchers

gothroughwhenskimmingtheliterature.

Doyoueverhitbarrierswhencollectinginformation?

Thisquestionaddressesoneoftheissuesoftenputforwardbyopenaccessadvocates,that

researchisbeingstymiedbecauseresearchersareunabletohaveaccesstotheliterature.

Thisquestion is trying to establishwhether researchers themselves experiencebarriers

andwhethertheyconsiderthistobeanissue.

Areyousatisfiedwithyourcurrentaccesstotheliterature?

Thisfollowsdirectlyfromthelastquestionandwasoftenalreadyansweredbytheanswer

tothepreviousquestion.Ioftenframeditas‘Itakeitfromyouranswerthatitwouldbe

fairtosayyouaresatisfiedwithyouraccesstotheliterature?’.

Whatchangesinthepast10yearshaveyounoticedinthewayyousearchandyourabilityto

findthings?

Thisquestionwasanattempttodeterminethelevelofchangetheinternethasbroughtto

theinformation‐seekingprocess.Theanswerswereallsimilarintermsofthemechanics

ofwhathaschanged,buttheinterestingdetailwasinthewaytheintervieweediscussed

whatthismeanttothemandtheirresearch.

Doyouthinktheeaseofaccesstoapaperaffectsthechoiceofpapersyouuseforresearch?

OR:

Doesabarriermeanyouchangewhatyouarelookingfor(findinganarticlethatiseasyto

getholdofthatsaysessentiallythesamething?)

ThesetwoquestionsarecloselyrelatedandIgenerallyaskedoneortheother.Oftenthe

participanthadalreadygivenananswer to thisquestion indirectlywhenanswering the

barrier question. The question intends to elicit the level of inconvenience experienced

whenaresearcherisunabletoobtaintheliteraturetheyneed.

Howdoyougoaboutobtainingcopiesofthearticlesyouneed?

Thisquestionwasonlyaskeddirectlyiftheanswerhadnotalreadybeengiven.Initially,

whendevisingthequestions,Ihadassumedthatresearcherwouldusetechniquessuchas

approaching the authors directly, using inter‐library loans, or contacting a friend at a

288

different institution who did have access to the material. As the Results Chapter will

discuss,veryfewoftheparticipantsusedanyoftheseoptions.Thisdemonstratesclearly

one of the risks in trying to develop a written survey that anticipates the answers the

interviewees will give (discussed in the Qualitative or Quantitative? section in the

ResearchDesignchapter).

Doyousendoutcopiesofyourworktopeople?

Againthisisarelatedquestiontothepreviousone.Itwasimportanttoaskthishowever,

becauseevenifparticipantsdidnotthemselvesapproachothersforcopiesoftheirwork,

it was possible that they were being approached by other researchers. This question

revealedsomeinsightsintohowthesetypesofnegotiationshavechangedoverthepast10

years.

Whatproportionof your informationwould come frompublished literatureasopposed to

greyliterature?

Ididnotalwaysask thisquestion.Asdiscussedabove thegrey literature issuewas less

importantthanotherissues,andifwehadalreadyspentaconsiderabletimeonthisfirst

section of the interview, I jumped straight on. It became clear too, within the first few

interviewsthatthiswasadiscipline–specificquestion.Ididnotaskitinmylatersociology

interviews. Chemists, I discovered have what I would have defined as ‘grey literature’

availabletothemasattachmentstosomepapers–whichmakesthequestionsomewhat

nonsensical.Thecomputerscientists,howeverdidhavesomeinterestingthingstosayon

thistopic.

Publishing behaviour

Whydoyoupublishyourwork?

This question, discussed in Chapter 4, was very important. It is trying to establish the

academic’s motivations for publication – and which of these motivations is the most

important.AsIsuspectedbefore interviewing, issuessuchasstatuswithintheacademic

community, the necessity for promotion and personal satisfaction were often given as

reasons. But it was the way the interviewer then gave opinion on these matters that

became really valuable. This simple question oftenwentmost of theway to answering

severalofthesubsequentplannedquestions.Itwasusuallyatthispointthattheinterview

startedveeringoffcourseintowhateverareatheintervieweeflaggedasanissue.

Pleasedescribeanyformalinstructionyouweregivenaboutthepublishingprocess.(Ifthere

wasnone,pleasedescribehowyoufoundoutwhatyouknow)

289

AsdiscussedinChapter7,thisquestionwasa‘sleeper’question.Itwasinitiallydevisedto

tryandestablishhowmuchofanawarenessresearchershadaboutboththe logisticsof

publishingandtheimplicationsofpublishing.

Are you involved in any formal or informal mentoring or training process for young

researchersto‘showthemthepublishingropes’?

Thiswasanaturalfollow‐onquestionfromthepreviousone,addedafterthefirstcouple

of interviews. It attempts to establish if thewayyoung researchers arebeingmentored

has changed over the last few years/decades. It also is attempting to establish if a

researcherhadaparticularlygoodorbadexperiencewhethertheyhavechosentorepeat

thatordeliberatelyworkdifferently.

Couldyouexplainyourchoiceofthejournalsyouhavepublishedin?

This is a variant on a question that often appears inwritten surveys about publishing.

Rather thanoffera finite list, thequestion isasking the interviewee todescribe in their

ownwordstheirthinkingprocesses.Iwashopingformoreobtuseanswersthanstandard

responses such as ‘prestige of the journal’, and this approach meant that some

respondents talked about issues such as formatting or having a relationship with the

journaleditors.

Haveyoueverbeenapproachedbyajournaltopublishyourwork?

Thisquestionwasanattempttogainan insight intohowjournalsoperate.Asdiscussed

above,Ihadelectednottodirectmyresearchatpublishers,butthisdoesnotmeanthatan

understandingoftechniquesusedbypublishersisnotvitaltotheresearch.Inaskingthis

questionIwastryingtoestablishwhatlevelofmaterialsubmittedtojournalsbyauthors

is ‘cold’ rather than invited.Thiswould give a truer indicationof the rejection levels of

journals.

Onaverage,howoftenareyouacceptedbythefirstjournaltowhichyousubmit?

Thisisaquestionaboutrejectionrates,butastheterm‘rejection’ispotentiallyoffensive,

and the expression ‘rejection rates’may be unfamiliar, it ismore effective to ask about

acceptance (and therefore infer rejection). This question is also trying to ascertainhow

goodauthorsareatestimatingthequalityoftheirpapers–iftheyarealwaysaccepted,it

couldbebecausetheyareaimingtoo‘low’withtheirjournalchoice,orbecausetheyare

exceptionallygoodatjudgingtheirownwork.Thelatterismorelikelyiftheypublishina

widevarietyofjournals.

290

Haveyoueversubmittedtomorethantwojournals(andifsowhatwastheoveralltimeto

publication?)

Thiscontinuesonfromthelastquestion–ifapaperisrejectedbyajournalitiscommon

fortheauthortoresubmittoadifferentjournalandtokeepdoingsountil it isaccepted

(as I am experiencingmyself, as discussed in Chapter 4. I often asked a supplementary

questionafterthiswhichwas“sowhatisyour‘hitrate’ofjournalsubmissions?”

Onaverage,whathasbeentheperiodoftimebetweensubmissionandpublication–doyou

haveanopiniononthat?

This question touches on one of the issues in modern scholarly communication, that

journalpublicationisveryslowinatimeofinstantcommunication.Thisisputforwardby

advocates as one reason for a move to open access dissemination. By asking the

interviewee’s opinion about this, the question hopes to determinewhether researchers

themselvesperceivethedelayinpublicationasaproblemfortheirresearch.

Reward processes

What is your understanding of the relationship between your publication output and

funding?

As Chapter 2 indicated, the reward systems currently in place for publishing provide a

strong disincentive for researchers to change the publishing practices to embrace open

access.Butinorderforthisassumptiontobetrue,itisnecessaryfortheresearcherstobe

awareoftheconnectionbetweenpublicationandreward,which iswhatthisquestionis

trying to establish. Inmany cases thisquestionwas answeredby the intervieweewhen

answering ‘why do you publish’ or in discussing their introduction into the journal

publicationprocess.

Howwould you feel about the ARC allocating funds to include Open access publishing or

wouldyouratherthemoneybespentonresearchapplications?

Thiswasaverydelicatequestion,asinsomewaysitwasaleadingquestion.Ididnotask

it of peoplewho had not given any indication of an understanding of open access, as I

would have had to at this early point in the interview, drifted into the open access

discussion.Inretrospectitwasnotaparticularlyusefulquestion.

Doyouhaveanopinionaboutanychangestoreportingrequirementsbyyouruniversity/the

government?

291

Thiswasnotoneoftheinitialsetofquestions,butthefirstsetof interviewsindicateda

levelof frustrationwithreportingrequirements thatseemedtobeworthexploring.The

reasonforthequestionistofindoutwhetherresearchersconsiderreportingtobepartof

theirworkloadoranunwelcomeadditionto it. It ispossiblethat ifresearchersperceive

reportingrequirementstobeanimposition,thentheymayperceiveusinganinstitutional

repositoryinthesameway.

Again,Ionlyaskedthisquestioniftheintervieweeindicatedthattheyhadanawarenessof

thereportingrequirements thatwerealready inplace,asotherwise thequestionwould

haveneeded tobeprefacedwith informationabout the (thencurrent)ResearchQuality

Framework(RQF).InsomeinstancesIgentlyprobedandmentionedtheRQF,andifthis

wasfamiliartotheintervieweethencontinuedwiththequestion.

Copyright

Whatisyourunderstandingofthecopyrightstatusofyouracademicwork?

The issueofpublishersrequiringownershipof thecopyrightofpublishedarticles isput

forward as one of the primary reasons why scholarly communication should move

towardsopenaccess.Whilemuchdebatehasoccurredinopenaccesscirclesonthisissue

and certainly amongst law trained advocates, I wanted to know whether the average

academicwasawareofcopyright,andifso,whethertheyconsideredthestatusquotobe

acceptable.

Thisfirstquestionaboutcopyrightisagentleprobe,withoutgivinganycluesastowhatI

waswantingtoknow.Itallowedtheintervieweetobehonestabouttheirsituation,andif

thecasewasthattheydidnotknow(orcare),theywereabletosaysomoreeasilythanifI

had framed the question “are you aware ofwho owns the copyright of your published

articles?”.

Is copyright an issue you consider? Does the copyright status afforded by a journal affect

yourchoiceofpublication?

Ihadsuspectedthatcopyrightwaslessofanissueamongsttheacademicpopulationthan

advocatesofopenaccessimplyintheirdiscussions,andinmanycasesthisquestionwas

answeredbytheresponsetothepreviousquestion.Thosepeopleforwhomcopyrightis

unimportanteitherbecausetheydonotcareortheychooseto ignoreit, thisquestionis

automaticallyansweredinthenegative.

292

Areyouawareofalternativestotraditionalcopyright(suchasCreativeCommonslicence

orcopyleft)

I asked this question even of peoplewho had indicated they don’t care or know about

copyright.Assuspected,agenerallackofinterestorknowledgeinthisareaalsotranslated

tonoknowledgeofalternatives.Itwasalsointerestingtoknowwhetherpeoplewhohad

showninterestorfrustrationwithcopyrightissueswereawareofalternatives.

Peer review/editorial responsibilities

Haveyoueverreviewedapaper?

Thisisanobviouseliminationquestion.If,aswasthecasewithacoupleofinterviewees,

theyhadnotreviewedanypapers,therewasnoneedtoasktheremainderofthissetof

questions.

Ifsohowmanypaperswouldyoureviewinayear?Andhowmuchtimewouldthistake?

Thisquestionistryingtoestablishthelevelofcommitmentanindividualhastoreviewing

(andtodetermine if therearedifferencesbetweendisciplinesanddifferentstagesofan

academic’scareer).Thequestionoftimegivescluestohowlongindividualarticlestaketo

review. Although I specifically asked about papers, many interviewees included other

forms of reviewing when discussing this area (I discuss this at length in the Results

Chapter). Ididnot changemyquestioning to incorporate thisunexpectedoutcomeas it

didnothavedirectbearingonwhatIwastryingtofindout.

Areyouonaneditorialboardofanyjournals?Howmuchtimedoesthistakeup?

ThisisanareaofpeerreviewIdidconsidertoberelatedtotheresearchquestion(unlike

someof theother typesof reviewbroughtupby interviewees suchasmarking theses).

Theanswerstothisquestiontoldmethatinmanycasesthatbeingonaboardwaslargely

ceremonial. The exception of course was in Computer Science which has conference

committeesinstead,sothequestionwasadaptedwhenspeakingtocomputerscientists.I

was trying to determine if being on an editorial board implied an obligation to, or

preferential treatment when, submitting to that journal. Sometimes the question had

alreadybeenansweredwhentheparticipanthaddiscussesthechoiceofjournalorwhen

talkingabouttheirintroductiontopublishingprocess.

Isthissomethingyousoughtorthatyouwereaskedtodo?

293

Iwashoping to findout if beingonaneditorialboardwas consideredprestigious.This

wasanon‐questioninsomeways,andafterthefirstfewinterviewsIstoppedaskingthe

questionunlessitcameupintheconversationnaturally.

Haveyoubeencompensatedinanywayforthatwork?

Thisisanimportantquestionbecauseoneofthemainargumentsforopenaccessisthat

publisherscharge largeamounts for subscriptionswhenresearchersdoallof theactual

work associated with producing articles, such as peer review. There have been some

claims that publishers provide payment to their academic staff, editors and reviewers

(Groves, 2007; Miller, 2004), but I wanted to establish if this was actually happening.

Again, many respondents referred to payment for other forms of reviewing as well as

reviewingofarticles,whichwasnotwhatIwasaskingbutaninterestingaside.

Howdoyoufeelaboutreviewing(isitapositiveoranegativetaskforyouandwhy?)

I was trying to establish with this question whether peer review, which has been the

subject of some debate, was generally considered to be problematic. Many of the

intervieweeshadalready toldmewhendiscussing their information‐seeking techniques

thatreviewinggavetheminsightintonewwork,sotheythoughtitwasworthwhile.Inthis

casesIaskedasupplementaryquestion,“haveyouhadanycaseswherepeerreviewhas

not‘worked’?”whentheparticipantcoulddiscussaparticularincidentthathadoccurred

inthepast.

What are your feelings about changing peer review to an open system, in an electronic

contextforexample?

Thisquestionwastryingtoestablishthelevelofresistanceresearchersmayhavetooneof

the fundamentalchanges to thepeerreviewsystemwhichhavebeenproposedbyopen

accessadvocates.Whileitwaspartoftheinitialsetofquestions,generallyafterthefirst

fewinterviewsIstoppedaskingit,asIwashavingtoexplainthequestioninsomedepth

which led into adebate situation rather thanan interview. It appears at the endof this

section of questions because it was not central to the research question, and therefore

leavingthequestionoutwasnotagreatlosstothedatacollection.

Open access

Asdiscussedabove, thisandthenextquestionappeartowardstheendof the interview.

Because it was likely that many people were unfamiliar with the terms, I provided a

standardexplanationofthetermswhichwasthenusedasaspringboardforanyfurther

294

discussiononthetopic.Eveniftherewasnodiscussion,Iexplainedthetermsanyway,as

introducinganewtopictotheintervieweewithoutexplanationwouldberudeatbest.

Areyoufamiliarwiththeterm‘openaccesspublishing’?

ThisopeningquestionissimplytoestablishwhatlevelofquestioningIcouldattemptwith

theinterviewee.IftheysaidtheywerenotfamiliarIgavethemthefollowingdescription:

Openaccessisthepublicationofpapersontheinternetimmediatelyafterpeer

review,eitherthroughanopenaccessjournal,orbytheauthordepositingtheir

paperintoaninstitutionalrepository,toensurefreeandtimelyaccessforall.

Insomecasesoncetheyhadheardthis they indicatedthat in fact theyhadheardof the

concept,buthadforgottenorwasneverawareoftheterminology.

Ifso,couldyoudescribeopenaccessasyouunderstandit?

Itisimportanttoensurethatwhattheyconsidertobe‘openaccess’isactuallywhatIam

thinkingof,sothatanyfurtherconversationonthetopicisaboutthesamething.

Doyouhaveanopinioneitherinsupportoragainstopenaccess?

Oftenbythispointintheconversationthisareaofdiscussionhadbeencoveredinsome

way.Ifnot,andopenaccesswasanewconcepttotheparticipant,thisquestionwasasked

togivesomeindicationofhowopenaccessstoodintheiropinion.

Haveyoueverpublishedinanopenaccessjournal?

This question was really asking if they had deliberately published in an Open access

journal,thereforeifithadbeenaconsiderationwhenchoosingthejournaltosubmitto.As

willbediscussedintheResultsChapter,onceopenaccesswasdefined,ittranspiredthat

several people had in fact published in open access journals, butmore by chance than

deliberation.Itwasthedefinitionwhichpromptedtherealisationthatthishadoccurred.

Areyoufamiliarwiththe‘authorpays’or‘payonsubmission’model?

Again,thisisaneliminationquestion.Iftheywerenot,Igavethissimpledescription:

Instead of charging a subscription fee, open access journals cover costs by

chargingafeeforeachpaperaccepted.ThisfeecanrangebetweenUSD500to

USD3000 depending on the journal. There are some journals which offer

authorsanopenaccessoption(fortheirpaperonly)withpayment,andreduce

subscriptionsaccordingly.

295

Howwouldyoufeelaboutthisbecomingthestandardpublishingmodelforalljournals?

IfoundIdidnothavetoaskthisquestionmuch,asusuallythediscussionoftheprevious

questionincludedtheresponsetothisone.Likethequestionabouttheallocationofgrant

fundingforthepay‐on‐submissionmodel,thiswasnotanilluminatingquestionunlessthe

interviewee was aware of the open access debate. Otherwise this question tended to

becomeadiscussionratherthanpartoftheinterview.

Publishing in repositories

Whatisyourunderstandingoftheterm‘institutionalrepository’?

Mostof the intervieweeswhohadnotheardofopenaccess, (andmanywhohad) were

unfamiliar with this term. I suspected this and asked the question as an elimination

question.Forthosewhohadnotheardofinstitutionalrepositories,Iofferedaversionof

thefollowingexplanation:

An institutional repository is a digital resource maintained (usually by the

library) to allow researchers to store their article pre‐ and post‐ prints, and

digitalgrey literature.Somerepositoriesalsoofferdigitalpreservationwhere

non‐digitalitemscanbeconvertedandstoredelectronically

Have you ever deposited any scholarly materials, including preor post prints into an


Ididnotaskthisquestionofanyonewhowasnotawareofinstitutionalrepositories.

Ifnot,whataboutonpersonalordepartmentalwebsite?

Mypre‐interviewresearchalreadygavemetheanswertothisquestion,but Iwantedto

knowiftheresearcherconsideredwhatwaspubliclyavailabletobeasimilarconcepttoa

repository. In some cases the answer was illuminating, where the researcher had a

websiteonlineaspartofthedepartmentbuthadnohandinmaintainingit.TheComputer

ScienceresearchersIspoketohadpersonalwebsitesasamatterofcourse,andinthese

cases instead of asking this (to them) pointless question, I asked “would you consider

puttingwhatisonyourpersonalwebsiteintoarepositoryinstead?”.

Ifnotwhynot?Wouldyouconsiderdoingso?Whatwouldpreventyoufromdoingthis?What

wouldencourageyoutodothis?

This question is trying to establish the types ofmodifications that repositorymanagers

couldmaketotheirrepositoriestomakethemmoreappealingtoresearchers.Thisgroup

ofquestionswerenotaskedverbatim,butgenerallyaskedasagroupinthediscussionon

296

this topic.Asmost of the intervieweeswerehearing about institutional repositories for

thefirsttime,Iwoulddiscusswaysdifferentrepositoriesweresetupandtheinterviewee

indicatedwhichpartssoundedthemostattractivetothem.

Haveyoueversentoutacopyofapreorpostprinttocolleaguesonyourowninstigationor

onrequest?

ThisisrelatedinsomewaytothequestionaboutrequestsforpapersintheResearching

behaviour set of the questions. It is trying to establish if there is a culture of sharing

unpublishedmaterialinthediscipline,eitherbyusingarepositoryorbyothermeans.

Areyouawareofthedepositpermissionstatusofthejournalsyouhavepublishedin?

Thisquestionwas includedbecause Isuspected thatresearcherswouldnotbeawareof

their ability todepositmaterials.Generally I didnot ask thequestion. If an interviewee

had indicated that theywere completelyunawareof the copyright status of theirwork,

thentheanswertothisquestionwasalmostinevitablygoingtobeno.Also,intheinitial

discussion of repositories, those people who were aware of copyright issues usually

broughtthatupasaquestionatthatpoint.

Grey literature

Doesyourresearchgenerateanysupportingdata?

Thisinitialquestionissimplytoestablishifthereisanyneedtoasktheremainderofthe

questions.

Whatdoyoudowithsupportingdataforyourresearch?Howdoyoustoreit?

Thisquestionwastyingtoestablishifthecurrent(orolder)methodforstoragecouldbe

helpedbyusinginstitutionalrepositories.Ifso,itcouldbecomeapotential‘sellingpoint’

of repositories for the relevant disciplines. As I discovered in the case of chemistry in

particular,most supporting data that is already in electronic form is attached behind a

journalarticle.Theremainingsupportingdata is in labbooksandoftenkept inboxes in

theresearcher’soffice. Inmanycases the intervieweeopenedaboxandshowedmethe

material,whichwasonebenefitofbeingintheirofficeratherthaninaneutralplacesuch

asameetingroom.

Haveyouorwouldyouconsiderplacingitintoyourinstitutionalrepository?Ifsowouldyou

putopenaccessstatusontoit?

297

Followingfromthelastquestion,Iaskedthistoseeiftheideasoundedappealing.Insome

cases, such as the situation described above, I did not bother asking, as the supporting

dataisnot‘born‐digital’,sohavingtoconvertitbeforeplacingitintoarepositorywould

beanunrealisticexpectation.

Haveyoueverreceivedrequestsforsupportingdata?Ifsohowoftenhasthisoccurredand

haveyouprovidedthedata?

Thisquestionistryingtoestablishiftherewouldbeanybenefitinhavingthesupporting

dataavailableinarepository.Ifitisneverrequestedandneverused,theeffortassociated

withputtingitintoarepositorywouldbewasted.

Theinterviewsallfinishedwithmethankingthemfortheirtimeandofferingtokeepthem

updatedwithanymaterialIpublishedasaresultoftheworkIhaddone.Almostwithout

exception,theintervieweesaskedmetoremainintouch.

298

Appendix 4 – Full transcripts of representative interviews

Thisappendixcontainsacompletetranscriptofoneofeachtypeofinterviewthatis,one

ofeachdisciplineateachuniversity.Allidentifiershavebeenomitted.Ihavenotincluded

acompletetranscriptofthetwointerviewsatQUT,withPaulaCallanandTomCochrane,

becausetheparticipantsareidentified.

Appendix 4a - Full transcript of interview: Chemistry at university A

(7December2006)

Interviewer–BasicallythegeneralbackgroundofwhatIamtryingtoresearchischanging

research practices in Australia specifically, I’m interested in the publishing aspect of it,

bothusingpublicationsforone’sownresearchbutalsopublishingresultsofworkaswell,

sotheingestingandspewingoutofpapersistheaspect…

Thepublicationtechniquehaschangedmorethananything.

Interviewer–Yeswellyouofcourseinagoodpositiontotalkhavinghadanextremelylong

career.Soifwecouldjustbrieflyspeakinitiallyaboutthetypeofworkthatyoudo,inyour

case it has probably changed significantly over the period of time that you have been

working,butwhatisthesortofthingthatyoudo?

Well I startedworking in1965 and so that’s a longperiod and its almost entirely been

synthetic organic chemistry,working on newmethodology for synthetic transformation

and also working on the design and synthesis new types of molecules. Molecular

architecture–youdesignastructureandyouthinkitwouldbeagoodthingtomakeand

you figureouthowtomake itandseewhat thepropertiesare. It’salmostentirely that.

TherewasalsoaperiodwhereIdidsomenaturalproductschemistrywhichwasbasedon

isolatingsomecompoundsfromtheendian(?)speciesoftreesandworkingoutstructure

of those compounds and although thatwas a fairly short period around 1980, itwas a

collaborative piece of work. It actually turned out some extraordinarily interesting

chemistry,mightwellbethebestthingIhaveeverdonebutintrinsicallyIamasynthetic

chemist.

Interviewer And the work that you do, your publications are always, have always been

collaborationshaven’tthey,theytendto…

299

Oh, they are all, mostly they are me, I mean I have had relatively few real scientific

collaborations.Buttheothernamesonthepapersarethepeoplewhodothework.

Interviewer – Could you make that distinction for me? What is the difference between

someonedoingtheworkandascientificcollaboration?

IfyouhavegraduatestudentsthenIwouldsupervisethegraduatestudentstheywoulddo

the actual experiments. In fact when I started off in 1965 and I only had a couple of

graduatestudents,andIhadtimeIwouldbebackinthelabintheeveningsafterdinner

actually doing experimentswithmy own hands. But as build up a number of graduate

studentswhoneedtobedoingexperimentsandneedtobelookedafter,that’swhenyou

find you run out of time, you are doing teaching, you are looking after the graduate

students youare checking the literature and it becomesmoreefficient tohave themdo

experiments and you tell them what to do and there are times when they decide

themselvesbutyoudirecttheresearchanditsthendonebyotherpeople.Itissomeyears

sinceIwouldhaveactuallydoneanactualexperiment.

Interviewer – OK and by comparison, a scientific collaboration is when your work with

somebodyon thedesignof theexperiment? Is thatwhatyoumeanrather than justasking

someonetodoit?

YesusingthecollaborationwouldmeansayatthemomentIcollaboratewith[name]who

is interested inasimilarareasowehave ideasthatmeshandIcollaboratewith[name]

andwehaveideasthatmesh.Wecandothingsthatshecan’tdoandshecandothingsthat

Ican’tdobutIwecanseebyputtingsomethingtogethershegetssomethingnewandIget

something new. So that’s an intellectual collaboration and the students do the actual

experiments. And that’s a fairly standard scientific thing. So when it comes to writing

papersIwouldsaythatIhavewritten90%atleastof..

Interviewer–236papers,yes

Whichisnotagoodthingactually

Interviewer–Whydoyousaythat?

300

If Ihadmytimeagain, Iwouldspendmoretimepushingthegraduatestudentstowrite

the papers. That’s another issue in a way because it is an essential part of a graduate

studentstraining.That’sadifferenttopic.

Interviewer–No,nothat’spartofwhatIwanttotalkabout.Whenyoubeganwhatwasyour

introductiontopublications?Whendidyouactuallystartwritingpapers?

Iwrotemy firstpaperwhileasagraduatestudent in fact in [overseasuniversity]and I

wroteacoupleofreviewssimplybecauseoneofthe[overseasuniversity]staffhadbeen

askedtowritethesereviews

Interviewer–Thesearereviewsofotherpapers,orofabook?

Chaptersinabook,reviewsofotherpeople’swork.

Interviewer – Sorry, just to double check arewe talking peer review, or review of a book

chapterthathasbeenpublished?

Areviewofbooktopic,itwaspartofanencyclopediaoforganicchemistry.

Interviewer–butwereyouofferingpeer revieworhad itbeenpublishedalreadyandyou

weredoingareviewfor…

Wewerereviewingthepublishedmaterial.

Interviewer–it’sconfusingbecauseit’sthesameword.

Wewerebasicallysummarisingafield,soifyouwantedtoknowaboutsulphurhydroxy

acidswhichiswhatitwasabout,Rod’sDictionaryonorganiccompoundshadchapterson

allthesesortsofthings.Wedidhydroxyacidsandketoacidsandsoitsummarisedallthe

knownliteratureinasensibleandusefulway,soitwasareviewoftheChemistrywhether

itwasgoodbadorindifferent.Itwasthere,sosomeonewhowantedtoknowaboutthat

areacouldgotothatvolume.Sowhathappensoneoftheeditorsofthewholethingwas

mysupervisor,andthemainjobhehadwastogetpeopletodothewriting.Sohecame

down the corridor and saidwhy don’t you do this in your spare timewhichwas good.

Theyweremy first twopublications, Iwrotea coupleof reviewand thenextwere two

papersIdidasanacademic.

301

Interviewer–andhowdidyouatthetimeknowwheretosend,whichjournalstosendthem

toandwhatformtheyneededtobein,isthatsomethingyouworkedoutforyourself?

Well youknow, you read as a graduate student you read and figure outwhich journals

havestuffyouareinterestedin.MyfirstpublicationsoftheworkIdidat[university]–my

firstappointmentwasat[university]between1965‐1982andIcameherein1983‐these

firstpublicationswereintheAustralianJournalofChemistrybecauseIwastryingto….

Interviewer–Eventhoughyouwerein[overseasuniversity]?

No,noIhadcomeback.TheonesIdidinCambridgewentintospecialencyclopediabook

volumes,butthe firstactualresearchpublicationscameoutofMonash.SoIputthemin

theAustralianJournalofChemistry,beingagoodnationalist.Idon’tdothatanymore.

Interviewer–yeswellyouwrote99papers for themandthenthe lastonewas in1996

andyouseemtobesendingalottoTetrahedron(9.12)

IgaveupontheAustralianJournal[ofChemistry]becauseintheearlydaystheAustralian

Journal[ofChemistry]wassenttoeveryacademiclibraryintheworld,soeveryonehadit,

thenCSIROsaid they couldn’t send itout for freeand theyhad to charge subscriptions,

libraries started slashing subscriptions. So the problemwas that not everyone took the

Australian Journal of Chemistry, and if you are publishing something youwant to put it

somewhere where people will read it. The other thing was they stopped giving free

reprints so you had to pay to get reprints.Well in away this is not an issue anymore

becauseIdon’tthinkanyonewritesforreprintsbuttheystillgetthem,Imeanifyouwant

topayfor ityouget itofftheinternet.Youdon’tneedtowriteawayaskingforreprints.

But that irritatedmebecausea), itwasn’tbeingwidely readandb) theywere charging

money,whereasyouwillnoticeIhaveswitchedfairlyheavilytoTetrahedrongivesyou25

freereprintsandeverybodygetsit,everybodyreadsit,itIajournalwithahigherimpact

factorsthesedays.

Interviewer–It’ssubscriptionthough?

Yesitssubscription.Butitdoesn’tcost,unlessyousubscribe,Iactuallygetacopybecause

…[shufflingaroundondesk]it’sthisthing,becauseIdoalotofrefereeingforthe,Butit’s

302

athingthateverypersonworkinginthisareaoforganicsyntheticchemistrywouldread

thatandsowhatyoudoisclearlyvisible.

Interviewer–oneofthethings,sorry,Iwilljust.WhendidthathappenwiththeAustralian

JournalofChemistry,whentheystartedcharging,howlongagowasthat?

Itwouldbeinthe1990’s,ifyoutellmeIstoppedpublishingin1996itwouldhavebeen

aboutthen.

Interviewer – which is interesting because it is about the time that things started going

online.OK,haveyouheardoftheexpressionopenaccesspublishing?

Yes

Interviewer–whatisyourunderstandingofthatexpression

Well,freelyavailableandnothavingtopaytoreadsomething.

Interviewer – and are you aware of any journals that you have looked at that are open

access?

I think the only open access at the university library has subscription. There is a lot of

OpenAccessmaterialsbutnotspecificallyjournalsIwouldsay.

Interviewer – let’s talk about your searching for material, in terms of your doing your

researchratherthanyourpublishing.Howdoyouperusetheliterature,howdoyoufindout

what’sgoingon.

Thishaschangedenormously ifyouare interested inchangebecause inthe[university]

days thescience librarywasdownthecorridorsobasicallyeveryFridayafternoonthey

wouldchangethewhatevercameinthatweekwouldgoupinaspecialareaandtheother

stuffwouldgoawaysoIwouldgodowneveryFridayafternoonandjustgothroughwhat

came in and literally turn thepages and look at thepictures.With chemistry, this is an

interestingsituation for syntheticorganic chemistrybecause this is thesortof stuffyou

get.Soyoucansitandflickthroughandlookatpicturesandyoumightseesomethingthat

isinterestingthatyouwouldnevergetfromthetitle.It’slikereadingcomics.Youcandoit

athomeinfrontofthetelevision.Youcancertainlydoitinfrontofthecricketbecauseif

303

anything interestinghappens inthecricket theyreplay itamilliontimes.Thatbrowsing

technique you cannot do anymore.What I do now, well I browsewith that [indicating

Tetrahedron]because Iget it in themail. I stillgeta fewother thingsbutnotmany.For

years I subscribed to major journals, personally, about five of the major journals, so I

woulddoitathome,browsing.

Interviewerwasthatsomethingyoupaidfor?Whopaidforit?

Idid

Interviewer–outofyourincome,OK

That’s tax deductible. Then in recent years I have gave up because I have spent lots of

money.Andinfactrecently[identifyinginformation]Ihavethrownawayvastnumbersof

journals. No‐onewants them anymore, you can’t even give them away to Indonesia. So

thathaschangedenormously.SowhatIdonowisItrytokeepupwithahandfulofthe

majorjournalsbutIdothatverybadly.

Interviewer–andhowdoyoudothat?

Itsnowontheweb,youcangetaccess.Soyouhavetogotothejournalthroughtheweb,

scan the table of contents. I no longer go to the library and sit there and actually turn

pages.

Interviewer–butyouaredoingthesamethingthough,youarejustdoingitonline?

Well,scanningthetitlesandthatisverydifferent,sotherearethingsthatImiss.Because

youcanhave,ImeanIworkontetracyclic(?)compoundsliketendol(?)soyougothrough

and look for thosewords in the title.Theremightbeapaperonsteroidswhich I’mnot

involved in at all but if I’m turningpages Imight find in a steroidpaper that there is a

fantastic reaction that occurs to me that I might use in my area that isn’t completely

different.Andno‐oneisgoingtoputthatreactioninthetitle,soyouwouldjustneverfind

thesethingsanymore.

Interviewer–andsodoyoudosearchesratherthangoingtospecificjournals?

304

Yes.Youcan.IuseSciFinderquiteextensively.SoifIamthinkingofmakingcompoundsof

thistype,Idrawthestructureandseewhat’sinSciFinderandthatisnotbad,itsnot..

Interviewer–soinSciFinderyoucanputinanimageanditwillsearchforthatimage?

Youcandrawastructureanditwillgiveyoueveryreferencetoanythingthat lookslike

that.

Interviewer–That’sreallyinteresting.

You canput in a specific structure and itwill give you every reference that quotes that

specificcompound.

Interviewer–Thatmustbearevolution.

It’sbrilliant.Imeanitisabsolutelybrilliant.Soifyouwanttoknowifsomethingisknown,

younolongergotoChemicalAbstractsorbarstein(?)whichiswhatweusedtodointhe

olddays,althoughthesethingsarestillproduced.AllyoudoisgotoSciFinderandyoudo

itfromyourdesk.

Interviewer–Soyouhavelostinsomewaysyouhavelosttheserendipityyouhadbeforeof

beingabletoflickthroughthejournalsbutyouhavefoundadifferentonebybeingableto

pickupevenobscure.

Butit’snotasgood

Interviewer–Butyouthinkyouhavelostsomethingthere?

Yes,definitelylost.ThisisnotasgoodbecauseyoureallygetwithSciFinderwhatyoulook

for andmy other worry about SciFinder is it’s not as accurate as they like to pretend.

BecausetherearethingsthatIknowaboutthatIhavelookedforandSciFinderhasn’tgot.

And that’s aworry because if you are looking to find out if a compound has ever been

madebefore,ifitisnotinSciFinderitdoesn’texist.

Interviewer–WithSciFinder,howbroadisSciFinder’scoverage,isitmissingjournals?

305

Itdoesn’tmissjournalsthatareimportant,that’snottheproblem,it’stheabstractingfrom

thejournalsthat…

Interviewer–It’sthewaytheyhaveclassifiedthings?

Yes,butit’s,I’mperfectlyhappywiththecoverage,thecoverageishuge.Ifyoupublishin

somethingthatSciFinderdoesn’treadthenyouwouldn’texpectanyoneto….It’sjustinthe

abstractingthattheymakemistakes.

Interviewer–Andonceyoufindsomethingthere,yousay‘that’saninterestingoneI’dliketo

havealookatthat’,doyoueverencounterproblemsinactuallygettingholdofpapers?

Yes,youcangetsomeoftheminTetrahedron,theElsevieronesforinstance,youcanjust

clickonthethingandactuallygetapdfofthepaperstraightup.

Interviewer–Isthatbecausethelibrarysubscribes?

Becausethelibraryhasit.Butalsosomethelibraryhas,Synthesisforexample,youhaveto

subscribe in some funnyway and you can’t actually get the real thingwithout going to

greatlengths.Patentsareverydifficulttogetthereisatechniquewhereyouaresupposed

tobeabletogoandgetthepatentandsometimesitworksbutmostofthetimeitdoesn’t.

ButatleastyougetthereferenceandIcangoandchaseinthelibrary.

Interviewer–Whatdoyoumeanbygochaseinthelibrary.

Well thehardcopy, Imean if it isa journal the librarydoeshave,saySynthesis thatyou

can’timmediatelyaccesswithouthavingapasswordandallthatsortofstuff,atleastyou

havethereferenceandasummaryandprovidedyouhavearelativelydecentlibraryyou

canthengoandfindthat.

Interviewer–AnddoyoufindthatthematerialUNWsubscribestoissufficientforyou?Ordo

hitbarriersthere?

Itisshrinkingtheyarereducingtheirrangebutitisstillprettygood.

Interviewer – and what happens when you do want something that isn’t available in the

library?

306

Theywillgetitoninterlibraryloanfromsomeoneelse.Thewaytheycutisbasedonnot

everyonecuttingthesamethingsotheydotalktoeachotheraroundthecountry.Wegeta

lotfromtheANUbecausetheystillhave,theyhavemoremoneythaneveryoneelse.You

don’tbelievethatdoyou(laughs).

Interviewer–Justintermsofpeoplerequestingandyourequestingofothersforpapers,does

thatstillhappen?

I get requests frompeople, rather than asking for reprints, if I publish something, they

mightemailmeandaskcanyousendmea copyand I just send themapdfof the final

manuscript.

Interviewer–doesthefrequency…becauseitusedtobethatpeoplewouldsendyoualetter

oracardandyouwouldsendoutyourreprint.(21.52]

Istillhavealittlecard.Yougetthemfromstrangeplaces.Iusedtogetmillionsofthese.

[foundacardondeskandshowedme]

Interviewer–sothisiswhatpeoplerefertowhentheysaygetapostcard?

A reprint card, Iwould call that. It’s amazing. I used to gethundreds, and Iwould send

hundreds.

Interviewer–sothiswouldbeinthejournal?

YesthisisaTetrahedronone.WhatIwilldowiththisguy,he’sanIndian.Theproblemis

hedoesn’thaveanemailaddress,soIwillhavetoprintsomethingandsendit

Interviewer–Sohehasthisprintedout,becausethisishispersonalone

Yes,andthenyoutearthatoffandputitontheenvelope

Interviewer–Ohright,thankyouforshowingmethat,becauseI’veneverseenone.

Ihaven’tactuallygotaroundtodoinganythingaboutit.Poorman.Itlooksasthoughhe’s

retiredandgoneoffemail,I’mnotquitesure,butyougetrequestswhereyoucanjustsend

307

apdforyougetrequestswheresometimesfrompeoplewhodon’twantaspecificpaper

butwhoknowIworkinthefieldIaminandsaycanIsendsomerelevantstuff,andthisis

usuallyfromgraduatestudents inplaces likeIndiawhoarefeelingunloved, ‘pleasekind

professorwill you helpme’ that kind of thing. Still a lot of that happens. I would very

rarelyaskpeoplefortheirpaper.BecauseifIfindoutaboutthemIcanusuallyjustgetit

fromtheweb.

Interviewer–sohaveyounoticedthattherehasbeenadropintherequests

Ohyes,andevenincountries,like,wellIndiaisagoodexample.Theyarebetteratallthis

fancycomputertechnologythanmostofusanywaysotheycaneasilyaccessthestuff.

Interviewer–justtojumptosomethingweweretalkingaboutbeforeandtofinishoffthat

section in my mind, we talked about your experiences when you were starting out in

publishing.Nowyouareresponsibleforothers,youhavesupervisedagreatnumberofPhDs

andMasters students, what kind of training or handholding do you give your students in

terms of explaining how the publishing systemworks andwhat they need to do? Is there

anythingformal?

No and this is probablywhere I should have donemore. If you have a good student, a

reallygoodstudent,it’seasytosaytothemwewanttowriteapaperonthisandthisisthe

content,goawayandwriteadraft.Andthisiswhatyoushoulddoforeverystudent.Ihave

done it increasinglyas timehasgoneonbut Ishouldhavedonemoreearlieron. Just to

explain, themodewhichmypublishinghasgone.ThefirstpublishingcasesatMonash, I

hadwrittenthepapersbeforethepeoplehadfinishedtheirthesis.Butthatslowlychanged

toasituationwherethepaperisnotquitereadybecausethepersonhastodoabitmore

work.Andintheendyoufinishthethesis,whichwhenyouarewritingthethesisyouhave

tomake sure you fill in all the gaps and so I haveheld offwritingpaperuntil after the

thesisiswritten.Buthelpedthestudentsintermsofsomanychaptersandthischapterwe

will dealwith this and then thenextwith that and soon,with aneye to taking eachof

thoseasapaper.Soyouhaveamentalpictureofhowthepaperswilldevelop.Thenthe

paperswouldnotactuallybewrittenuntilafterthesishascomein.SowhatIwoulddois

sitdownwiththethesisandtakethesectionthat’srelevantandrehashthatintoapaper,

Itusuallymeansshorteningandmakingitmoretightandconcise.

Interviewer–Sotheywritethethesisandyouwritethepaperbasedonthat.

308

Thathasbeenwhat’shappened.Inthesecondhalfofmycareer,probably…

Interviewer – so at what point would they take the responsibility of writing a paper

themselves?Sotheywouldhave34orhowevermanypublications fromtheirthesisbutat

some point they would start talking responsibility for writing their own papers wouldn’t

they?

Butifithasbeenworktheyhavedonewithme,itwouldendupcomingoutthroughme.

Whichmeanstheywouldwritedraftsandincreasinglypeoplewritedrafts,buttheywould

onlywriteadraftaboutsomething ifwehaveagreed that’swhat it isgoing tobeabout

thentheyhavethatguidelineandtheygoawaytowriteit.Soiftheyarestillaroundafter

the thesis is finished theywill sometimeswrite the drafts. If they disappear and go to

anotherjobtheyamazinglyfindtheyhavenotimetodothisbecausetheyarebusydoing

somethingdifferentandtheyneedtodevotetheirwholetimetothat.Sothat’swhereIsay

mostofthetimeIendupwritingthepaperafterthethesis.Butsometimesifthestudentis

stillavailableandaccessibletheywillwritedraftsandwewillknockthatintoshape.

Interviewer–sowhendoesthattransitionoccurwhensomeonetakestheirwonbabysteps

without having somebody holding their hand. There must be a point in your career as a

chemist when you say I am going to write a paper, I am going to take responsibility for

writingapaper.Whendoesthatoccur?

28.31

Wellitcanoccuratthatstage.

Interviewer–atthepostdocstage?

Well even at the post doc stage they are writing under supervision in a sense but

increasingly, certainly a postdoc would write a draft and then the draft might be very

good,itmightbe99%perfectandneedverylittlecorrectionbutitwouldstillbeadraft.If

thepostdoc,forexample,doessomemoonlightinganddoessomeindependentworkthat

isnotontheprojectthattheyareworkingfortheirsupervisor,thenthereisnoreasonfor

themnottowritetheirownpaperandsenditoffandbequiteindependentaboutthat.So

thatisthefirstpointatwhichtheybecomeindependent.

Interviewer–presumablythathasoccurredinthepastwithpeopleyouareinvolvedwith

309

Yes

Interviewer–sodotheydothatcompletelyindependently,orwouldtheysayIhavedonethis

work,wheredoyouthinkIshouldsendit?Isitthatsortofadvice?

TheywouldaskaboutitandtheywouldusuallytellyouIhavethisfunnyidea,andIwould

usuallybehappytotellthemthatisfineyouarequitewelcometodothatandthenthey

wouldtalktomeabouthowshouldIdoitandwhereshouldIpublishitandsoonandI

wouldgive themthat sortofadvicebut Iwouldcount thatas theirwork.Thathappens

more,itdoesn’thappenveryoftenthesedaysatpostdoclevel.Itusedtowhenwewere

much more relaxed about the sort of work that was being done, these days with the

grantingsituationyoucanonlydosomethingifyouhavegrantmoneyandyouthenhave

todeliverwhatthegrantissupposedtodeliver.Soyouhireapostdocandyouwanthim

to do whatever it is that the grant is about themoney is there for. So it is harder for

someonetodriftoffanddotheirownthing.

Interviewer–Soistermsofthesituationlikeimpactfactorsofjournalsandthejournalsthat

aregoingtobebetterforyourcareerinthelongertermandallthosesortsofaspectsisthat

something that just comes up in general conversation or is it something that people just

glean?(31.10)

It does. And it’s important, itsmore important, its increasingly important.My personal

viewisthatit’saloadofnonsensebutifyoudon’tplaybythissortofgameyouwilllose

out. So if you are a chemist you must publish in journals with a high IF, well read

whatever,buttheirritatingthingisitisthesamepaperwhetheryouputitinajournalof

low impact or high impact. And the impact factor is sort of a fashion thing. Imean the

higherimpactjournalsinChemistry.OneisaGermanone[indistinguishable]amazingly,

theyhavebeenveryclever,verygoodeditorialpolicy,thathasaveryhighimpactfactor.

ButmostofthemareAmerican.TheJournaloftheAmericanChemicalSociety,theJournal

ofOrganicChemistrytheyhaveinventedOrganicLetterstotakeoverTetrahedronLetters

whichwas a perfectly reasonable thing, but the Americanswanted to do it themselves

becausetheymakemoneyoutofit.

Interviewer–AndwhereisTetrahedron?

There is aTetrahedron Letterswhich is similar to that [indicating journal] but it is the

shortversion.

310

Interviewer–yesbutwheredoesitcomeoutfrom?

It’sBritishAmerican,European,it’sacommercialjournal.WhereastheOrganicLettersone

isunderthebanneroftheAmericanChemicalSociety.SotheACSmakesmoneyoutofit.

But also the fundamental thing is thatAmericanswill only readAmerican literature. So

everyonecrawlsoverbrokenglasstopublishinAmericanjournalsfortheAmericanswill

read it.Which is absurd,but if you take the logicalviewandsay rats I’llput it inAust J

Chem, theAmericansoughttogoandreadthatbut theywon’t.Wehavehadstuff in the

AustralianJournalofChemistryandwassixyearslaterrepublishedbyanAmericangroup,

averyrespectablegroupwhodidn’tbothertoreadtheliterature.Isenttheguyareprint

butnothinghappened.Therefereedidn’tnotice,no‐oneelsenoticed.

Interviewer–Doyouthinkthathappensoften?

Itshouldn’thappenbutI’msureitdoeshappenquiteoftenbecauseyousendthepaperin

andtherefereedoesn’tknowaboutitandtherefereesdon’thavetimetositedownand

searchtheliteraturetocheck.

Interviewer–Isupposeifyouareanexpertinthefieldyoushouldknow.

YesbutthiswaswhenIrealisedAmericansdon’treadanyoneelse’s literature.Theyare

themost insularcountry.Buttheydofantasticchemistrysoyouhavegottobeinvolved

withthem,andifyouwanttoimpressandgeton,youhavetopublishinsomethingthey

doread.

Interviewer – Speaking of refereeing, obviously you referee for Tetrahedron, how much

refereeingdoyoudo,perannum,permonth,per…

Idoadeal, theymademeoneof theirsomethingorotherreferee forwhich Igeta free

subscription,andthedealthereisIrefereeat least10papersayearfromthat journal. I

probablydo adozen.About one amonth.TetrahedronLetters I independentlyprobably

getabout10fromthemaswell.Theyhavedifferentassociateeditorssoyoucansubmita

papertoanyoneofhalfadozenpeople.SoIgeteditorsindependentlysendingmestuffto

referee, itdoesn’tgo intoacentralofficeso theydon’tkeepcount.So theguy fromnew

Yorkwouldn’t know I have got tone fromMelbourne andhewouldn’t know I haveone

fromJapanandsoon.SoIgetabunchofthose, itwouldcertainlybehalfadozento10.

311

Nowyoudon’tgetthemallinoneclump.IgetOrganicLetters,thisfamousACSthing,Iget

about 5‐6 papers per year, Journal of Organic Chemistry – which is the other main

Americanorganicone,Igetabout5ofthoseayear,andAustralianJournalofChemistry5‐6

peryear,I’malwaysrefereeingsomething.

Interviewer–itsoundslikeyouwouldhaveaboutoneaweek.

YesIhavegotoneheretoday

InterviewerSohowmuchtimedoyouthinkthattakesyou?

Itdepends,ifit’sagoodpaperbysomeonewhoisgoodandyouknowthestuffisgoodand

youreaditanditisterrific,anditisaccepted,thenit’seasy.Whereittakestimeisifthere

is somethingnot rightwith it andyouhave to look carefully at it andyouhave to look

thingsupandyouhavegot to then justify if youare asking them to rewrite something,

thenjustifyitsomemoreifyouaresayingno,Iamrejectingit.Sotheyaretheonesthat

take time. So with some of these journals there is the issue of whether something is

urgent. Itmight be a perfectly good piece ofwork but youmight not think it is urgent

enough todisrupt thewholepaper.ARKIVOK is anotherone, Idoabout10of thoseper

year.Idoalotofrefereeing.

Interviewer–Andhowdoyoufeelaboutthetimeyouspend

InawayIdon’tmindbecauseitforcesyoutoreadthingsyoumightotherwisenotsee.I

haveneverturnedanyonedown,evenifI’mtravellingwhichIdoalotof,Iwillusuallysay

wellIcan’tgetaresponsebackuntilwheneverareyouhappywiththisandtheywillsay

yesevenifitisabitslowerthantheyinitiallyasked,butIfindIsitonaeroplanesreading

thesethings.

Interviewer–Andhastherebeenachangeintheturnovertime,bothfromyourperspective

ofsomeonewhoispublishingpapers…

Publishing is quicker than it used tobe, the turnover fromgetting themanuscript in to

gettingthepaperoutismuchquickerthanitusedtobe.

Interviewer–sowhatwasitandwhatisitnow?

312

Itusedtobe9months,nowits3‐6months.Thatwasbecausetheydidall therewriting

and printing and typesetting and all that sort of stuff. Now they do nothing. Well the

residueoftheninemonthsgoesintogettingthepapersentin.Nowyounotonlyhaveto

dotheworkandwritethepaper,youhavetoformatitaccordingtosometemplateeach

journal has. And this just drives you up the wall. It is partly why I now stick to

Tretrahedron because I have finally figured out how to use their template. And I am

reluctanttostarttorelearnhowtousesomebodyelse’swhoisdifferent.Itisjustapainin

theneck,itreallyis.

Interviewer–doyoufindthat,ordoyouthinkthatthefactthatyoudoalotof,becausethe

journalsyouhavelistedtendtobethejournalsyouhavepublishedin,doyouthinkthatthere

isacorrelationtherethatyouarelookedmorefavourablyon?

Yes,ifyoupublishinajournalthenyouarefairgamewillbeaskedtorefereeforit.

Interviewer–OKsothecausalarrowgoesthatwaybutdoesitgotheotherway,thatifyou

arerefereeingforajournalyouaremorelikelytobe…

Itdoesn’tensureyourpublication.Absolutelynot.

Interviewer–intermsofthe,obviouslyyouspendafairamountoftimedoingthisrefereeing

forafairnumberofjournalsandtetrahedronsendsyouasubscriptionthatwouldbeworth

howmuch,coupleofhundredbucks?

Yesacoupleofhundred

Interviewer–Areyougivenanyotherpaymentfromanyoneelse?

Nonothat’s it. It’saservicetoChemistry,well itcutsbothways.Ifpeopledon’treferee,

whenyousendapaperin,youaredependingonsomeonetodotherefereeingforyou,you

areaskingthemtodothat.Tomymindtheleastyoucandoisrefereesomebodyelse’s.I’m

basicallyagoodcitizen.

Interviewer–thisisquiteabroadquestionandyoucananswerithoweveryoufeel.Whydo

youpublish?

313

Becauseofthetaxpayer’smoney‐itisfundamental.Thetaxpayerispayingmysalary,my

researchgrants,allofthissortofstuff.Itisabsolutelyimperativethatyoupublishtogive

thembackwhattheypay,itisnotgoodenoughtodothechemistryunlessyoutellpeople

aboutit.Alotofpapers,peoplewillsayIdon’twanttopublishthisbecauseitisnotreally

important, I onlywant to publishmy top stuff, and that is againwrong because in the

syntheticorganicchemistrybusinesswearemakingnewcompounds.Andtherearesome

new compounds that don’t fit, they sit out on a limb, and I certainly don’t publish

everything,youjustcan’tdothatbutfromtimetotime,therearesomejournalsARKIVOK

forexamplewhichIhatebutit’safairlycrummyjournalbutittakespublicationsofnew

compounds.Peopleuseittodepositawholenumberofnewcompoundsinthere.That’s

valuablebecausetheworkisdone,ithasgottobeavailabletosomeone.Imightthinkit’sa

crummypaperandthecompoundsarenotterriblyexcitingbutsomeoneelsemightread

thatandsaygeethat’sjustthesortofcompoundIwantforsomestrangebiologicalthing

orwhatever. Theymight see something that I don’t see. And so youmust publish even

whatyouthinkismundanestuffinmyview.

Interviewer–Withopenaccess,oneofthe,thereisbasicallytwowaysofgoingaboutopen

access. One is to have a journal that is published without a subscription, so it is freely

availabletoanyone

ActuallyARKIVOKisoneofthose.

Interviewer – Oh is it? OK. And the otherway is to, placingmaterial into an institutional

repository,PubMedisagoodexampleinthemedicalfield.Oneofthewaysthatjournalsthat

don’thavesubscriptionspaytheirwayistoaskfor, itsanincorrecttermbecauseitscalled

author pays, and usually the author doesn’t pay, its part of a grant., so its really pay on

submission, and there is a suggestion, certainly this is happening overseas, that the

Australian Research Council has as part of the grant they give you,money for paying for

publicationinanopenaccessjournal.Whetherornottheygoaheadwiththisbecausethey

seem to be dithering around and now the head has gone off to the University of South

Australia, so who knowswhat is going on. But if that were to occur, howwould you feel

aboutthat,obviouslymoney–theyonlyhaveacertainamountofmoneyintheirpot,sosome

moneywouldbetakenawayfromresearchtopayforpublication.Doyouhaveanopinionon

that?

Welleithertheauthorpaystoputtheirstuffinorthepublisherpays

314

Interviewer–thelibrarypays

Am I correct in saying there are three options, the publisher could pay, to accept the

materialandmakeitfreelyavailable,orthereader,theotherlikelyoneisthereaderreads

somethingyouwouldhavetohaveasubscription.

Interviewer–yeswhichiswhatthelibrarydoes,thelibrarycurrentlypays.Therearethree

actually.Thelibrarypays,youhavesomethingliketheAustralianMedical Journalwhichis

open access and that is funded by membership to the AMA, so you just submit and

alternatively,authorpaying,nowasthecasewithsomejournals,orthereissomeallocation

inyourgrant for thepublicationpoint.Therearesome journalswhere it isnotcompletely

openaccess,youhavetheoptionofchoosingtobeopenaccessinthatjournal,andintheory,

theyaresupposedtoreducethesubscriptionpricebythenumberofopenaccessjournals.I

don’tknowifthatequationisoccurring.

Iwouldnotholdmybreath

Interviewer – but in terms of money being taken away from research effectively for

publicationdoyouhavea..

Iwouldn’twantthattohappen.IknowthisisahugeproblemandintheendIthinkopen

accesshastobethere,butyesitsdifficult,whopays?22

Interviewer–yesthatisoneofthebigproblemsbeingnuttedout

Yes but with the web nowwe should be able to work out something that is relatively

cheap

Interviewer–(laughs)that’swhyI’mwritingawholePhDthesisonit,itsverycomplicated.

Yesit’sahugeproblem

22The longexplanation Ihad togo into in this interviewaboutdifferent typesof funding forOA

journalsmademedecide that Iwould not ask the question about howpeople felt about pay on

submission costs. It represents an ‘attitude’ question rather than a ‘behaviour’ or ‘experience’

question.

315

Interviewer–wewillgetthereistheend.Whatisyourunderstandingofthecopyrightstatus

ofyourwork?

Oh,it’scopyrightedbythepublishertopublisher.

Interviewer–andhowdoyoufeelaboutthat?

Idon’tmindthat.Idon’thaveanyproblemssigningoffoncopyright.

Interviewer–andyouhaven’tencounteredanyproblemswhereyouhavewantedtouseyour

workandhaven’tbeenableto?

No,ifIwritearevieworabookandIwanttousesomethingIwritethemaletterandask

themandtheysayyes its fine. Ihaveneverhadanyproblemswiththat. Iamhappyfor

publisher tohavecopyright, theyhavetoearna living. Iamhappy for themtohavethe

copyright. It alsomeans it helps people not to publish twice. Some people publish the

samethingstwiceindifferentjournals.IfyouhavepublishedinTetrahedronandtheform

youhavesignedmeans thecopyrightbelongs to themitmight juststopyouwriting the

samestuff andsending it somewhereelse. IfTetrahedron foundoutabout it they could

sueordosomething.Youshouldn’tpublishsomethingtwiceanywaybutsomepeopledo.

Interviewer–soyouaretalkingaboutanindividualpublishingthesamematerialtwiceand

thatthejournalwouldpickuponit,andyetyourworkwaspublishedinadifferentjournal

unwittinglybysomeoneelserepeatingtheworkyouhaddone.

Ifsomeonequotedwithoutaskingpermission.

Interviewer–NoI’mtalkingabouttheAmericangroupdoingthesameworkthatyouhad

previouslypublishedbecausetheywereunawareofit,butitwasyouguys,notthejournal,is

thatrightthatnoticedthatthishadhappened.

Yes, Oh I didn’t write to the journal. And they did the same chemistry but they wrote

differentwords.Theywrote it inadifferentway. I’mnotsure if thecopyright is for the

actuallyformofwords.Ithinkitwouldbetheformofwords.WhenImentioneditwould

slowsomeonedownfromsubmittingsomethingtwice,itwouldnotstopthembecauseif

youwanttopublishthesamestufftwiceyouwouldwriteitinadifferentway.Soitisnota

directcopy.

316

Interviewer–Doyouthinkithappensmuch?

Idon’tthinkdirectcopiesgetduplicatedbutalotofchemistrygetsrecycled.

Interviewer–yesmydad’sanengineerandhehastalkedaboutinengineeringthatsortof

thinghappening.

Yes,youwriteitinadifferentway,adifferentstoryespeciallyifoneofthejournalsisan

obscureone.

Interviewer–[Identifyinginformation]Thereare38universitiesinAustraliaandabouthalf

of themnowhave institutional repositories [identifying information]. It is likearXivwhere

peoplecanputinpreorpostprintsoftheirworkwhichisfreelyavailable.Itmayormaynot

betiedintothereportingrequirementsoftheRQF,that’suptotheadministrationtodecide.

Isthatsomethingyouwouldbepreparedtoputmaterialinto?

Sure,Iwouldbehappytoputthingsin.Thisagainisthetaxpayer’smoney.Youhavegot

stuffthatshouldbeavailable.Iamnotatallinclinedtoprotect[mywork],alotofpeopleI

know are paranoid, ifwe put this out there a lot of people are going to stealmy ideas.

Life’stooshortyouhavejustgotbepreparedtolose.Occasionallyyouwillgetyourfingers

burnt.My[philosophy] is to trustpeopleuntilprovenotherwiseandacoupleof times I

wouldhavebeendoneintheeye,butmostofthetimeitsnotaproblem.

Interviewer – One last area of questioning which is quite small, is talking about what is

referred to as grey literature, supporting literature of work, so you would have your

supplementarydataandsoon.Whatdoyoudowithyoursupplementarydata,thebackup

materialofyourwork.

OhnoI’mnottalkingaboutthesamething,letssayIpublishsomethinginsayJournalof

Organic Chemistry theyhave a standard formatwhere youput awhole lot of stuffwith

themassupplementarydataitdoesn’tappearintheactualjournalandtheexperimental

in journal is abbreviated. But the full experimental is given, it gets refereed and its

availableontheweb.Soifyoureadthejournal,afteryoucangotothewebandaccessit.

That’s real supplementary data, but I think what you are talking about is the hard lab

notes and spectra. Can you see all thoseplastic boxes [inhis office and a ladder on the

floor!] Because I accumulated all of thatwhenwemoved because I had amuch bigger

317

officeandsomeofthisinlabsaswellandwehaveamuchsmallerlabspace.Sothenames

onthemindicatewhosefilesofspectratheyare.I’vethrownawayalotofstuffpublisheda

longtimeago.Ithinkwearesupposedtokeepitfor5yearsafterwehavepublished.

Interviewer–surelythat’smorethan5yearsworth?

Oh a lot of it hasn’t been published I’ve got a lot of stuff still to write. Some of it will

probably not lead to vast numbers of publications. The other little cannon boxes are

researchsamples.

Interviewer–ifsomeonewaswantingtorepeatsomeexperimentalworkthatyouhavedone,

thatyouhadpublished,wouldthesupplementarydatabesufficient,torepeat..

Yes, if someone writes to, lets say I publish in Tetrahedron and I haven’t lodged the

supplementarydataforit,I’veputfullexperimentalgoesin,theymightsayhaveyougot

thespectra.TheJournalofOrganicChemistrywillwantustolodgetheactualspectra,most

journalsdon’t,theymightwantyoutosendsomein,buttheywon’thaveitavailable,and

peoplewriteandsaytheywantaspectrasoyoucandigitoutofafile.

Interviewer–soyoudecisionsonwhattothrowoutornotwouldpartlybebasedonthelag

ItsbasedonAisitpublishedandisitsometimesinceitsbeenpublished.Ifithasjustbeen

publishedItrytokeepit.

Interviewer–soifthereisarepetitionofyourworkandpeopleareaftermoreinformation,

itsusuallyfairlysoonafterpublicationisit?

Yeswellifitislaterthenthat’stheirbadluck.ImeanIthrewawayahugeamountofstuffI

had broughtwithme from [university]. 1970’s and 80’s, no‐one hadwanted to get the

spectra,butI’vetriedtokeep,mainlythisisstuffIstillneedtowritingstuffup,andthings

I’vepublishedreasonablyrecently.

Interviewer So all the stuff you have ever done is either sitting in a journal with

supplementarymaterialattachedtoitelectronicallyornot,orinthoseboxes.

Orisearlypublication.

318

Interviewer–I’mjustthinkingaboutlongtermsustainability.

Things like NMR Spectra here would be backed up so if someone wanted something I

could probably find it even though I have thrown away the hard copy. That’s six

computers.

Interviewer–That’stheotherarea,longtermsustainabilityofelectronicresources

Absolutely

Interviewer–OK,that’sexcellent,thatiseverythingIwantedtotalkaboutandithasbeen

very useful. Now I am hoping to, I am basically interviewing chemists, sociologists and

computerscientistsatUNSWandANU,andImaygotoQUT,anddoingsomecomparatorsto

tryandworkoutinterestingthings.

Itsoundsgood.

Interviewer–soifIasanexjournalist,Itendtowrite,soI’mhopingtogetsomepublications

outwithoutmuchdelay,sowouldyoubeinterestedinmesendingyouorgivingyouanalert

ofthingsastheycameout.

YesIwould.IhavetosayIfoundyourquestionsexcellent

Interviewer–Thankyou.

ImeanIhavedoneafewofthesesortsofthingsandmostofthetimeyouarescratching

yourheadthinkingwhatdoyoureallymeanandwhatistheissuebutIthinkyouhavehit

allthepointsveryclearly

Interviewer–thisismysecondsetofinterviewssoIdideffectivelyhaveapracticerunwitha

differentgroup.

Yestomeit’sbeenaverysensiblelogicalapproach,IcanseewhatyouaredrivingatandI

thinkitsimportant.

Interviewer–yeswellIhope[endoftape]

319

Appendix 4b - Full transcript of interview: Sociology at university A

(25October2006)

Wellthisisaninterestingproject.

Interviewer–Ihopeso[laughs]Iamtryingto…thereisalotoftalkaboutopeningupaccess

toscholarlyliteraturearoundtheworld.Andthereisalotofactivityhappening,elsewhere,

not somuch inAustralia to thatend,wheregovernmentsand soonareputtingmandates

downandfundingbodiesareputtingmandatesdownandsayingscholarlypublishingmust

bemadeavailableandthereisallsortsofactivitygoingonatagovernmentlevelandoften

atalibrarylevelbuttheredoesn’tseemtobemuchdiscoursewiththeacademiccommunity.

There is one quite substantial study that was done, a very good study that was done in

Americawhere shehad the radical ideaofactually talking to someacademicsand that is

veryunusual,andsoIthoughtthatiswhatIwoulddo.

Whatdotheymeanbybeingmadeavailable?Imeanitisavailable

Interviewer – Yes it is available if you are in a university where the library pays a

subscription

Yesthat’strue

Interviewer–but ifyour librarydoesn’tpayasubscriptiontoacertain journal, it’snot.So

whattheyaretalkingaboutisdifferentpublishingmethodsthattakethesubscriptionaspect

outofit,soonceithasgonethroughthepeerreviewprocessthematerialisfreelyavailable

toanybody

Presumablyitisontheinternet

Interviewer–yes

Andinsteadofhavingtosubscribeontheinternet,itwouldjustbefreetoairasitwere.

Interviewer – yes so if you were in Africa you could get it, or you yourself personally

travellingsomewhereyoucouldgotoan internetcafésomewhereandpull itdown.That’s

320

theutopiathatisplannedbutitisalongwaybeforethatwillhappenbutthereismovement

afoot.

Somestuffisavailablebutsomeisn’t,yes.

Interviewer–wellwhydon’twe startwith that.Haveyouever encounteredanyproblems

whenyouarelookingformaterial?

Wellnotwhen I amactuallywritingaprojectbecausemostof the things that I’vedone

havedependedonwhatisinourlibraryorat[anotherlibrary],andalotofthetimeIhave

workedwithmonstrous(?)ideasandquiteoftenIhavejustusedwhateverreferencesare

available thatwererelevantandnotbotheringaboutkindof covering the field,because

myideaofbeinginterdisciplinary,thefieldiseithersobroadyoudon’tworryabouttrying

tocoverit.Ortheideaisnotsowelldefinedit’simmediatelyobviouswhatisnecessaryfor

metoknowinordertowritethisparticularpiece.

Interviewer–Soyouareinthepositionwhereifthereistwopaperswhicharesortofalong

similarlines

Andoneisavailableandtheotherisn’tIwouldusetheonethatisitdoesn’tmatter.

Interviewer–Sohaveyoueverfoundsomething ‘ohIreallydoneedthis,can’tget it,’have

youeverrequesteditfromauthor,somethinglikethat?

Ivaguelyrememberdoingsomethingabsolutelyyearsago.Notfromanauthor,itwasan

interlibraryloanandtheotherlibraryhadphotocopieditformeandthentheysentitup.

ButthatwasbeforetheinternetanywaysoIdon’tknowifthat’srelevantinconsideration

toyourprojectinanycase.

Interviewer–Ohyoucanstillgetinterlibraryloans,theyjustsenditelectronically.

YesIknow,soIwouldsayonthewholeformywhatyoucallprofessionalworkIwould

have not encountered any problems because of theway inwhich Iwork. In any case I

thinkthatmaybeformanyofthepeopleworkinginthehumanities.Itwouldbedifferent

forpeopleworking in the sciencesbecauseyoualwayshave to coveryour tracks in the

sciences. You alwayshave toworkon anewproject in termsofwhathas alreadybeen

321

doneandyouhavegot toknowwhathasalreadybeendone in thatspecificarea.We’re

actuallynotalwaysinthatpositionyouknow.

However I have encountered problems on the internet if I have just been following

something up as amatter of curiosity. Or thinking about something Imight do further

downthetrackanddoingabitofsearchandIwillcomeacrosssomethingwhereIcould

access either the whole article or the abstract but in other cases you would have to

subscribepersonally.

Thishasalsohappenedtomeparticularlyinthehealthfield.OfcourseIdon’talwaystrust

doctorsandnow Iamofa certainageyouknowhealthproblemsand I like to research

themon the internetmyself. And in that area at least 50%of the time Iwasnot able

becauseIamnotpreparedtosubscribeeverythingandforsomeofthemedical journals

havetoputdownthequalificationsanyway,soIhaven’tdoneit.

Interviewer–Oh that’s interesting, sowith somemedical journals theywon’tallowyou to

subscribeifyouarenot…

WellIdon’tknowiftheywillallowyou,butyouhavetoputdownwhoyouareandwhat

yourqualificationsareandIamjustassumingthatifIwasn’tamedicalpersonIwouldnot

getasubscription,I’mnotsure.

Interviewer–Youwouldthinktheywouldjusttakeyourmoneyandrun

ThatcouldbetrueIhavenevertriedreally.

Interviewer–Andsothesearejournalsthisuniversitydoesn’tsubscribetoandso.

TheyprobablydobutIcouldn’tbebotheredgoingtothelibraryandlookingthemup.Ido

thatathomeatmydesk,butyouknowtherearesomanyjournalsaboutnowit isquite

possiblethatthelibrarydoesn’tsubscribetothemall.ButIhavealwaysbeenabletofind

analternativesourceof information thatwason thewebthatgavememoreor less the

samething.Imeanifyouarelookingatcardio‐vascularproblemswellthereisabsolutely

billionsofreferencesontheweb.Soyouarenotstuckwithjustneedingtheone.

Interviewer–wouldyousaythatisthecasewithbothyourworkandyourprofessionallife?

322

Yes,yes

Interviewer–Wellthat’sgood.Sotheresearchthatyouundertakehereinyourprofessional

world,whatformdoesthattake,isitinterviews,isitpaper,orjournalbased?

I’vedonestuffbasedoninterviews,I’vedoneconceptualarticlesandtheconceptualstuffI

ratherdobecause it tends tobemore interestingandmorechallengingbut Ihavedone

things that depend on interviews as well. Mostly interviews, I haven’t done pure

quantitativeresearchsurveysandstufflikethat.I’vedoneacoupleofthingslikethatfor

internal reports and the student body. But Iwouldn’t call that research because itwas

writtenupwithoutanyotherreferencesandsoon.(8.40)

Interviewer –OK, sowhen you areworking and you are finding articles that you need to

workwithandsoon.Whatdoyoudo,doyougotothelibraryandlookupfromyourdesktop

andyouprintthemoutordoyouleavetheminelectronicform?

Acombinationof things really. I like to read frompaper. If I findsomethingon internet

whichmaybe of interest, I tend to print it out usually. Imore often thannot go to the

libraryandworkfromjournalmaterialsthereorborrowabookortwobecausethatismy

preferredmodeofworkingandsomethingkindofcongenialabouthavingthatstufflying

around.Formeanyway,ifI’mworkingonsomething.

Interviewer – I know that some libraries and I can’t speak for [institution] but certainly

[institution]willhaveaprintversionofeach journalsboundupto1996orsomethingand

thenthereistheelectronicversions.Areyoufindingthatthematerialisstillthereinpaper

form?

WellbyandlargeforthestuffIhavedoneithasbeen.ButI’mnotparticularlyprolificand

sootherpeoplemightfinditdifferent.

Interviewer–Sowhenyoudogotothelibraryandyoufindthejournalarticleyouwantin

theboundform,doyoureaditthereandthenordoyouphotocopyit?

Thenandthere.IfitisveryimportantandIfeelIneedtoreaditagainandthinkaboutitat

homeIwillphotocopyit.ButgenerallyonskimmingIdecide.ThatIprobablyneedonlya

paraor2tothinkaboutlateronImightjustmakeanote.IfitisacoupleofparagraphsI

mightjustphotocopyonepage.Itdepends.

323

Interviewer–andpresumablyyouhavesomesortoffilingsystemforthese.

Yesbacksofenvelopes,bitsoftoiletpaperandsooninafileusually[laughs]

Interviewer–Sowhatyoudoiswheneveryougetanideayoujustwriteitdown.Andkeep

themtogether.

Yesthat’sright.

Interviewer – and so are you somebody who has the first paper that you ever thought

interesting or do you purgematerial. Do you have an everexpanding amount of research

material.

Ohit’sallovertheplace. It iseverexpandingandevenatmyagethere isstill foldersof

stuffaboutinterestingbitsofideasthatImightfollowupthatImighthavetoliveto250

forallofthattosomegoodoneday.BecauseIamabitofageneralistinmyapproachandI

havegotanumberofinterestsandsomethingthatgetspublishedordoneintotoisoften

largelyamatterofaccident.IhavepublishedthingswithcolleaguesandIprefertodothis

becausetheykeepmegoingandtheykeepmefocusedandsoeverynowandthenIwillbe

talkingtosomeoneandtheysay‘that’sinteresting’and‘whydon’twedosomethingabout

this’ and that happens. And the other things that I do find interesting never happen

because Idon’tget focusedenoughtoget themdone.But insomerespects Idon’tmind

becauseunlikeanawfullotofpeopleIstilldoafairbitofbrowsingandreaduponstuff

thatlooksinteresting.

Interviewer–andwhenyousaybrowsing,couldyoudescribeexactlywhatyoudowhenyou

arebrowsing?

ImightgotothelibrarytolookforabookonsomethingthatIactuallyneedandthenIam

attheshelfthereandImightseesomethinginterestingandsoIwilltakethemofftheshelf

andsitdowninthecartelandhavealittlereadandsoon.AndIdobrowseontheinternet

aswellforthingsI’mnotnecessarilygoingtodo.Butforexampleoneofmypostgraduate

studentsmaybedoingandevenifIdon’tneedtoreaditinordertohelpthemIthinkthis

isabitofapuzzleImightlookthatup.Thatsortofthing.Iwasteanawfullotoftime,in

certainpointsofview.

324

Interviewer–youneverknowwhereanideaisgoingtocomefromdoyou?

Wellthat’sright(13.55)

Interviewer–soyoumentionedthatyouliketopublishwithpeoplebecausethatmakesitall

happen,Sowhatwouldyousayisyourincentiveforpublishing.Whydoyoupublish?

Goodquestions, itcertainly isn’tcareerany longeranyway. Ihavegotacoupleof things

comingout.Itisprobablyinthefirstplacethechallengeofgettingsomethingwritten.And

gettingthefeelingthatIhaveroundedthisupaswellasIcanandI ‘quite likethis’.The

otherthingisifIamtryingtofiguresomethingoutwhichIamoftendriventodo,Ican’t

fully figure itoutunless I actuallywriteanarticlebecause Ineverknowquitewhat I’m

goingtowriteuntilitcomesout.Butthenthepublicationstuffcomesafterwards.Because

asyouknowit’sadifficultprocessthesedaystheacceptance(sic)rateontheaverageis

somethinglike80‐90%inallthehumanitiesandsocialsciencejournalsforyouhavetotry

veryhardtogetstuffpublishedandIhaven’talwaysbeensuccessfulbutonehasseveral

goes. And sometimes the thing comes back and you know the editors are gutless these

daysandifyouhavethreereportsandtwoaregoodonesandoneisthebadone,theywill

satyouhavetomeettherequirementsofthebadoneinorderforthemtoactuallypublish

thebloodythingso.Youknoweditorsareactuallyclerksnow,noteditors.Theywon’tsay

weactuallylikethisandtwopeoplesayitsOKandjustbecausethethirdonedoesn’twe

stillthinkitshouldgothrough.No‐onehasthecourageorinclinationtodosomethinglike

thisanylongerSoyouknowtogetsomethingpublishedissortofthesecondstep.

Interviewer–Oksoforyoutheprimarystepiswritingthearticle?

YesIamalwaysthinking“Ithinkthis isagoodidea, if itcomesout lookingalright,with

anyluckitwillbepublishedsomewhere”

Interviewer–sowhenyouarewritingityouarenotthinking‘ImightwritethisforXjournal’

Nono

Interviewer–sothat’snotaconsideration?

No.no

325

Interviewer–Soonceyouhavewritten it is thatwhenyoumakethedecisionaboutwhich

journalmightbeappropriateforit.

Yesbyandlarge.I’mnotanetworkingpersonandIhaven’t,otherthanthecolleaguesin

myschoolandinthefacultyIactuallydon’thaveotherconnections.Colleagueswhoarein

aparticularnetworkandwhoaremorespecialisedthanIamquiteoftengetaskedtodo

particularthings,chaptersinbooksorevenparticularjournals.ButIoperateasaloner.I

writesomethingandthenIcrasharoundforapublisher.Andthat’sdoingthehardyards

[laughs]youhaven’tgotanythingpavingyourway.(17.35)

Interviewer–Sowhatarethedecisionsyoumake.Onceyouhavewrittenyourpaper,what

arethethingsthatinfluenceyourdecisiontowhichjournalyouwillsenditto?

Oftenthereferencesusedforthepaperbecausethat’ssortofthefield.Therearejustso

manyjournalsaroundthesedays.Youprobablyknowthat.ButIhaveusuallynarrowedit

downtosomethingelseIhavereadforaparticularpaper.

Interviewer–andwhatisthelongestperiodyouhavehadbetweenhavingrejections

Ohyears.ThereissomethingcomingoutthatIhavewrittenwithHeatherMcKenziefrom

Sydney Universitywho used to be a postgrad and I think itwas a conference paper in

Melbourne, possibly 2000‐2001. And it was another paper for an in school seminar

sometimebeforethat.Wefiddledaroundwithitaftertheconferenceandsubmitteditto

onejournalanditcameback,theyknockeditbackandthenIfiddledaroundwithitsome

more.Afteraboutayear Iwas thinking Ican’tbebotheredwith thisany longer,andby

thattimeIhadretiredandlostabitofmymotivationtodothiskindofthinganywaybut

HeatheristeachinganditwouldbegoodforhertohavethethingpublishedandIthought

itwasareallygoodideaIwasquiteproudofpaperandhugelypissedoffthejournaldidn’t

publish it so I had another go at it and sent it to another journal so it is coming out in

December.

Interviewer–Isthattypicalofthetimelagoristhataparticularlylongone?

Wellthatisaparticularlylongone.I’vebeenabitmoresuccessfulwithsomeotherthings.

TwothingsIhavehadpublishedinHumanNatureonpostnataldepressioninrelationto

evolutionandonbondingthosetwoacceptedstraightout.Ohno,sorry,thefirstone,the

PNDpaper,onereviewerthought itwasmarvellousandtheotherreviewerwasohthat

326

wasfunnyactually,Ihavegottotellyouaboutthis.Thispersonmadeanoofobjections

whichwereplainlysillyactuallytheywereinappropriatebutthemainpointwasIhadn’t

mentioned one particular person and the reviewer said it was totally necessary that I

should follow up this person’swork and even sent in a couple of references thatwere

actuallyquiteobscure.Soatthatpointthispersonwasn’tterriblywellknowninthefield.I

managed to find one of those obscure references and I decided that the person who

reviewedmypaperwasactuallyhimself.Becausethewritingstylewassosimilar.Imean

mostpeoplemustthinkwearesostupid,youknow[laughs].SoImentioneditinfootnote

and I wrote to the editor and explained my reasons for doing so. And the editor is

obviously and intelligent woman with a sense of humour so she published my paper.

[laughs]

Andthenthesecondpaperwaspublishedstraightout.AndofcourseIhaveafew,threeor

four,maybe five, conference papers that are published in the proceedings. Imean they

werepeerreviewed,youknowthat’skindofarequirement forpublicationsof thatsort

andInowthatsomepeoplehavestuffsentbacktothemforeditorialchangesorsoon.I

haveneverhadthathappentome,allmyconferencepapershavegonestraightthrough.

Its justpeer reviewed journalswhere there is thisdifficultybecause there is thiswhole

politicsof journalpublishing.And it issometimesaquestionofpot luckas towho from

yourpeergroup isgoing to reviewapaperandhowsensitive theyareabout theirown

positionintheacademicworld.

The paper I wrote with [name] after my book that came out in 1993, was sent to an

Australian journal and the same story, one reviewer though itwas great and theother

reviewer was really objectionable and said some very important considerations and

literaturewereleftoutandgaveusafewnameswehadforgottentoincludeandagainit

was the samestory. Imeansomebodywas terriblyannoyedbecausewedidn’tmention

them.

Interviewer–Soagainyoususpectthatoneofthosenameswasthereviewer.

Yes, I mean [name] unlike myself is very well connected and she knows practically

everyoneandsheknewstraightawaywhoitwasandworkedthatoneout.Ofcoursethey

couched it in terms like we didn’t cover the field sufficiently there were x number of

namesthatweshouldhaveincludedamongwhicharguableoneoftheimportantoneswas

soandso.Soagainweputsoandso(itwasashethistime)inafootnote.AndIwroteto

theeditorandIsaidlookthesedaysgettingtogetheranother50referencesisreallycheap

327

andeasy–bythattimetheinternetwason–andyoucangoonforever,becauseinever

fieldyoucaretomention,thenumberofpublicationsisabsolutelyenormous.Wethinkwe

presented a good argument,we don’t thinkwe need to do an internationalworldwide

survey of everybody else who has dome anything remotely relevant to what we have

written.Sothatwaspublishedtoo.Butit’sveryverypolitical.Inmanyjournalsthereare

gatekeeperswhowill either protect their own interests orwe have had this happen in

anotherinstanceorwhowillguardtheirownpoliticalpositionsbymakingsurethatstuff

thatcounterstheirpointofviewdoesn’tgetpublished.Itisn’tjustunfortunatelythecase

ofpeoplejudgingapaperforitsmeritorthequalityofthewriting,there’salotmorethat

goesintothat.

Interviewer–andhaveyouyourselfdonesomereviewing?

YesIhave,notanawfullot,becauseasIsaidI’mnotawellconnectedperson.ButIhave

always tried tobe fairand Ihaveonceor twicesentsomethingback toa journalwhich

alsoincludedapostgradthesisandIsaidlookthisisreallyverymuchnotthesortofthing

Iwilldomyself.Becauseyouknowhowitisnow,thereispostmodernismandthereare

peoplewhoarenotthatwayinclinedandforvariousotherreasonsandthisparticularone

was so postmodern that I would have been inclined to say a knee jerk reaction this is

reallycrapbutontheotherhandthatmighthavebeenunfair.SoIsentitbackandsaidit’s

notmycupoftea,Idon’tworklikethatandIdon’tthinklikethis.AndIdon’tknowthe

literaturesoIdon’tthinkIamagoodpersontoassessthis.Ithinkthat’safairthingtodo.

Interviewer–soyoudidn’treviewit.

That’sright,IsaidI’mnottherightpersontoreviewthis.

Interviewer – and in your experience with papers that you have reviewed have your

suggestionsbeentakenup?

Ithinkso,yes.

Interviewer–andyouhaveeverdoneanyeditingtypeofstuff,beeninthepositionofbeing

aneditor?

Wellinformallyforallmypostgraddissertation.Butno,Ihavenoteverbeenaskedtodo

anythinglikethat.

328

Interviewer–andhowdoyoufeelaboutthetimeyouhavespentdoingpeerreview,isthat

something…

Ithinkitisveryworthwhile.Ithinkitisanecessaryfunction.AndIthink,thatifitwere

doneproperlyitisavaluableeducationalfunction.Becauseyoudohelpwritersmakethe

verybestoftheirmaterialandquiteoftenwithyoungacademicsparticularlyyoumentor

themtowardsbetterwork. Iwill tellyouaboutmygoodexperiencewhichwasmy first

publicationin1979inwhatwasthencalledtheJournalofCommunityHealth.Ihadwritten

apaperaboutbreastcancerandevolutionfromthesocialperspective.Soforthat inthe

firstpart Ihad tohavesomehard informationabout thestatisticsonbreast cancerand

someofthebiologyasitwasknownthenofthedisease.SoIdidthebestIcouldwiththat

informationandthenIwentonwithmythesiswhichwasmoreofasociologicalbiological

takeonthefirstpartofthepaper.AndIsentitintothejournalandoneofthereviewers

saidthathe likedtheideaofthepaperverymuchandthesecondpartofthepaperwas

very logicalandquitewellwrittenandallof thatbuttherewasaproblemwiththefirst

partbecause Ididn’thavemy fingeron thepulseof that literature.And therewere two

pagesofnotjustsuggestionswhereIshouldbelookingformaterialbutactuallytellingme

whatIshouldbesayinginordertostrengthenmypaper.AndIthoughtthatwassogood

thatIwrotebacktohimandIsaidIreallywouldliketohaveyouasaco‐authorbecauseI

don’tthinkthatIshoulduseallofthismaterialthatyouhavesentmegratisasitwere.So

hewrotebackandsaidthatthiswasterrific,soI incorporatedallofhisstuff inthefirst

partofthepaperandhedidn’ttouchthesecondpartsoIwasstilltheseniorauthor,the

mainargumentwasstillmine,anditcameoutunderourjointnamesinthejournal.AndI

feltitwassuchagoodexperiencehewasaverygenerousmanheneverreallysuggested

we co‐author the paper. Hemust have spent quite some timewriting that letter tome

aboutwhatelse I shouldput into thepaper.And thissortof stuff itdoesn’thappenany

longer as you probably know people don’t have the time to be generous. It’s not how

peopleshouldoperatebutinfactitishowtheyshouldoperateforthebestpossibleresults

allaround.(31.36)

[questionandanswerwithidentifyinginformation]

Interviewer–Youareafreeagentnowaren’tyou?

Yes

329

Interviewer–Whenyouweren’t,whenyouweretrappedwithinthesystem,didyouhavean

understandingoftherelationshipbetweenyourpublicationoutputandyourpositionatthe

university?

Yes of course. I applied for AsPro‐ship twice and I was twice rejected and probably

becausethefileofmypublicationswasnotthickenough.Theydon’treadthestuff, they

justweigh it.And theother reasonwasof course Iwouldhave todoheapsbetter than

mostoverpeoplebecause[identifyinginformation].Andmostpeoplejustlookatthisand

sayohGod,howdid [sheorhe]ever last in thisplace25yearsorwhatever itwasyou

know.(33.00)

Interviewer – Now what is your understanding of the copyright status of your academic

work?

Oh,prettyvagueactually. I sortofknow the systemprotectsme frompeopleexploiting

whatever it is I have published without acknowledgement and photocopying excessive

amountsofmyworkforunlawfulnon‐educationaluses.ButIdon’tunderstandthenitty

gritty.AndfranklyIdon’tactuallycare.

Interviewer–soyouhaveneverencounteredanyproblemsintermsofusingyourownwork?

NobutIhaven’tlookedforthemeither.

Interviewer–areyoufamiliarwiththeexpressionOpenAccess?Otherthanmetalkingtoyou

aboutit?

WellbeforeyoutalkedtomeaboutitIhadsortofheardaboutit.ButIhaven’tpaidmuch

attention.

Interviewer–soIwillgiveyouabasicdescription.Openaccessisthepublicationsofpapers

on the internet immediately after peer review, either through and open access journal so

that’sajournalthatdoesn’tchargesubscriptionfeesorbytheauthordepositingapaperinto

whatiscalledaninstitutionalrepository,asortofdigital librarytoensurethatpeoplecan

accessitthereandthen.Soinprincipleisthatsomethingyouwouldfindappealingornot,

Ithinkit’sagoodideainprinciple.But,ah,yesIthinkit’sagoodideabecauseIdon’tthink

knowledge should be owned. I really don’t. Once you put something together and you

330

publishit,itsoutthereithaslifeofitsown.Andifitistodoanygoodatallyoushouldn’t

havestringsattached.Ireallydon’tthinkthat’sthecase.

The downside of this and it depends verymuch on how people use the facility is that

altogethertoomuchispublishedineveryfield.Weareabsolutelyswampedbystuffand

anawfullotofitisuselessforanyotherpurposeotherthanthecareerofthepersonwho

producedit.

Interviewer–anddoyouhaveasolutionforthat?

No, I think it isgoing togetwhole lotworsebefore thesystemcollapsesbecause itwill

becauseitisnotsustainableevennow.

Interviewer–andhowdoyouenvisionthatcollapse?

Idon’tknow. Itwillbeaftermy timeso I’mnotworryingabout it toomuch.But itwill

probablybenottoomuchofaproblemforhardsciencesbecauseitwillbeeasierforthem

to rationalise their activities. I think people will eventually come to some sort of

agreement that theoverproductionofmultiple authoredpapers fromresearch teams in

differentjournalswiththenamesoftheauthorsconfigureddifferentlyandthecontentof

thearticleveryslightlychangedforthepurposeofitbeingpublishedinanotherjournal.

I thinkthescientificcommunitywillcometosomesortofagreement, thatthis isnoton

thatthereisnotpointinthatsortofperniciousapplicationofresearchresultsandIthink

it ispossiblethatpromotionscommitteesatvariousuniversitieswill finallyagreetothe

factthattheyshouldn’tjustweighthelistofpublications,thattheyshouldlookforarticles

whicharegenuinelynewandoncethatstartstohappenthenpeoplewillnotbedrivento

over‐publishastheyfeeldrivennowtodoit.Imeanyoudoknowthathappens.Especially

large research teams in the sciences, they churn out stuff like bakers do muffins or

whatever.Theyhavethiscookiecutterwhichtheyapplytotheirresearchallthetime.And

itsnotrubbishbutitisprettywellthesamethingallthetime.

Tomethatisalmostobscene.Butitisdifferentinhumanitiesandsocialsciencesbecause

everyonewants tosaysomethingoriginal.Well there isonlyabouthalfadozenoriginal

ideasaroundineveryhundredyearsandtheygetelaboratedagainImeanmybackground

isinpsychology.Igotafirstclasshonoursdegreefrom[university]waybackinthe1950’s

andthatthattime,Imeanevennow,wewereactuallysittinganddiscussingaboutwhatis

331

ormightbethecaselikewhatactuallyhappens.Andeverynowandthenyouwouldsayso

and so theory is this and so and so’s theory is that. But the theory was always about

something.Aquestionaboutwhatgoeson.

Thenbysomesortofaccident,alongroadofaccidentsIendeduphereinSociologyasa

tutortobeginwith. Itwassostrange. IwasthinkinghowdoIgetusedtothis?WhereI

comefromwesortoftalkaboutstatesofaffairsorpossiblehypotheticalstatesofaffairs.

But in this place people constantly talk aboutwho saidwhat towhom aboutwhom in

whichparticularpublicationandwhatamIgoingtothinkaboutthis,soeverythingisnot

evensecondhandbutthirdhand.It’salwaysaboutbooks,aboutbooks,aboutbooks.And

they call that analysis you know. Imean it’s useful in some respects and it canbe very

interestingandchallengingbutitisgettingtotallyoutofhand.

Interviewer–andthat’sthenproducingmorepapers

Yes,producingpapersandmorebooks,whichasIsaidbeforenobodyreads.Doyouknow

peopledon’treadanymore,theyhaven’tgotthetimebecausetheyhavetoputinresearch

grantstogetyetanothertotallyuselesspublicationout.Sotheircareercangetahead.And

Ihaven’tdoneanythingmuchsinceIretiredverylargelybecausedespitethepublication

that is comingout inDecember, Ihave lost thedesire tobeassociatedwith that sortof

process.Andalsobecausethatsortofprocessisonesymptomofadiseasethatpervades

ourwholeenterprisewhichseemstohave lost itbearing. It’sdoingsomuchandyet its

goingnowhere.AndIjustdon’tcareanylongerIwouldjustassooncookandtalktomy

cat and work in the garden. It seems more productive quite honestly. I’m sorry to be

depressingyou.

Interviewer–nono,it’sgood,itswhatyoufeel.IthinkprettymuchthelastthingIwantto

talk to you about it something you may or may not be aware of which is [identifying

information]aninstitutionalrepository.Itisbasically,Idon’tknowifyouhaveheardofPub

Med

Yesofcourse.

Interviewer–wellitslikePubMed,butinsteadofbeingsubjectbased,hereitisinstitutionally

basedsomostoftheuniversitiesaroundthecountryarebuildingoneoftheseanditideally

somewherewhere people could deposit past and current paperswhere they are kept and

theyareupdatedsoifitisinanoldformatitisupdated,soitisinthereforperpetuity.Isthat

332

something that you would find of use in anyway that you can think of? Would you be

preparedtoputyourstuffintoitretrospectivelydoyouthink.

Oh I probably would, partly out of obligation and a sense of possibly some misplaced

vanity,Idon’twanttobeleftoutifeveryoneelseisdoingit.ButIcan’tseemyselfactually

usingit.

Interviewer they have a very vague plan about letting people in the community knowing

aboutit,soIdon’tknowifyouareevergoingtohearaboutit.Iwenttospeaktothematthe

libraryandtheyarejustfocusedongettingitworkingandthenextstepisofcourseletting

thecommunityknowabout it,andtheredoesn’tseemtobeanygreatsolidplansasthings

standaboutthatyet.

Itisprobablybetternottoletthecommunityknowaboutitbecausetheymightbesorely

disappointed about the community’s response to it. Like they will probably get one

enquiryayear,somethinglikethat.

Interviewer–wellthatprettymuchcoverseverythingIwantedtotalktoyouabout.

Goodoh.

Interviewer–Nowwhatam Idoing, togiveyou thebiggerpicture, Iam interviewing five

people here in this department and I’m hoping to get a similar number in Chemistry and

Computer Science departments and going to mirror that at the [other university] and

hopefullygeta few insights that showmedifferencesbetween thedisciplinesandbetween

the institutions. Iwill seehowthatgoes Imayhavetopull inathird institutions Iwill see

howitgoes.SothatisthegeneralstructureofwhatIamtryingtodo.

Itisinteresting.

Interviewer–ButIamhappytosendyouanypapersorfindingsthatIhave.

Yespleasedo,Iwouldbeinterested.Wellgoodluck,Ithinkitisaworthwhilething[tape

ends]

333

Appendix 4c - Full transcript of interview: Computer Science at university A

(12February2007)

Interviewer–….Ithinkifyouwanttomakechangestothewaypeopleworkyouneedtohave

anunderstandingoftheircurrentworkpractices.SothatissortofwhatIamdoingandI’m

tryingtogetabaselineintheinterviewsIamdoing.SothestructureoftheresearchisIam

interviewingComputerScientists,ChemistsandSociologistswhoeachhavedifferentwaysof

publishingtheirworkandIamcomparingheretotheANUtoseeifthereisaninstitutional

difference.Isuspectthattherewon’tbe,Isuspectthatthedifferenceswillbeacrossgroups

ratherthanbetweencampuses.Sothatisthewayitisallflowing.

SoprettymuchwhatIwillbeaskingaboutisyourinteractionwiththeliteraturebothasa

readerandasanauthor.And Iamaskingmostpeople to start, just togiveme some idea

abouthowyouareworkingatthemoment.Iknowitisdifferentbetweenholidaytimeand

termtime,butabouthowmuchofyourtimeisspentinteachingandadminandresearch?

BecauseIamaPostDoctoralfellowmostofmytimeisbeingspentonresearch.Iworkfor

theARCCentre forExcellencewhichyouprobablyknowaboutalready inrobotics.That

means that there is significant practical component aswell as the research component.

Thingslikecompetitionsandsoon,whicharen’tresearchassuchbutkindofprovidethe

motivation for research. So in terms of, I would say 80% of time is basically spent on

researchandIwouldacknowledgethatisaprivilegedpositionthatwillprobablyendsoon

butIwanttotakeadvantageasmuchasIcan.

Interviewer–Andhowlonghaveyoubeeninthatposition?

Ihavebeenhereforabouttwoyears.BeforethatIwasworkingforacooperativeresearch

centre,whichwashalfresearchandhalfdevelopment.

Interviewer–andpriortothatwasyourPhD?

That’sright

Interviewer–Ifwestartthinkingaboutyouasareaderofresearch,howdoyoukeepupwith

whatisgoingoninyourdiscipline?

334

MostlyitisconferenceswhenIcangettothem.ButtobehonestIhaven’tbeentoalibrary

intwoyears.Becauseitiscomputersciencemostofthecomputerscienceresearchersout

thereputtheirpapersupontheweb.AndnowthereareserviceslikeCiteSeerandGoogle

Scholar that justmake it really easy to pick up papers. Other than thatwhat I do is go

throughtheconferenceproceedingsofsomeoftheconferencesthatIreallylikeandpick

outsomeinterestingthreads.Usuallyyouwouldcheckoutjournalarticlesafterthat,once

youhavekindoffoundaninterestingthread.Andofcoursegoingtoconferencesmyself.

Interviewer–andhowmanywouldyougoto?

Probably two or three per year. And in Computer Science it is kind of known that the

conferences aremore important than in other fields like Chemistry. So to give you one

exampleIhavejustsubmittedapapertooneconferenceICML(InternationalConference

onMachineLearning),andthepublicationthereisregardedequivalenttothetier1ortier

2journal.Andacceptanceratesarelike20%soitisareallybigdealtogetintothat.

Interviewer–andyoudon’tknowyet?Youarestillwaiting?

Yesstillwaiting.Igotonebackin2001andgotintoICMLin2003Ithink.

Interviewer – So when you are saying the conference proceedings you just go to the

conferencewebsite?

Wellusuallysomeoneinthedepartmentwillhavegone.Sosometimesitsmorefunjustto

flickthroughtheproceedings.

Interviewer–sotheywillbringbackabook?

Yesand,buthalfthetimetheconferencesyougotothesedaysgiveyouCDROMsanyway,

so.There isacertainpleasure in flickingthroughabookandsaying ‘ohthatcatchesmy

eye’, ‘that doesn’t catchmy eye’. But the other option is going to the conferences itself

(sic).

Interviewer–soifyourcolleagueshaven’tgone,youknowthatblahdyblahconferencehas

justbeenon,soyoujustjumpontotheirwebsitedoyou?

Yes,yep

335

Interviewer–anddoyou,andtheproceedingsarejustupthere?

Sometimestheproceedingsareonline,ifnotIwillgothroughthelibrarywhichwillhave

accesstotheproceedings.SoIusuallywilltrythenetfirstandifIdon’tthenIgothrough

thenetandthenetwillhavelikewithACM[AssociationofComputingMachinery]orIEEE

[Institution of Electronic and Electric Engineers]which are the two big...Bothwill have

really huge databases and any kind of mainstream conference will be in one way or

anotherbeaccessiblethroughtheirwebsitewhichIgetaccesstothroughthelibrary.But

likeIsaid,Ihaven’tphysicallybeentothelibraryinanamazingamountoftime.

Interviewer–butwhenyousayyoufirstgototheweb,areyouabletogetontoitbecause

youarecomingfromaUNSWdomain?

ThatiswhatIsaid,Iamfirsttryingtogettothewebsitejustasanindividual,ifthatfails

thenIgotothelibraryandthatusuallygetsmeadditionalaccess.JustsoIcanworkfrom

homeandstuffwithouthavingtomessaroundwithlogginginandallthatkindofstuff.

Interviewer–soyouareathomeandratherthanloginatthelibrary,youprobablyhaveit

bookmarkedIguessandyouhavealookatitandifyoucan’tgotoitfromthere..

Andwithinmyownfieldtherehasbeenatendencytowardsopenpublication.Sotwoof

themajor,orthreeorfourofthemajorjournalsainmyspaceandconferencesinmyspace

have gone to a policy where they make the papers online anyway. So things like the

JournalofMachineLearningResearchbasicallypublishesallofthepapersonline.Soifyou

want to you can subscribe to the physical journal but hardly anyone does because the

papersareonline.

Interviewer–Howdotheyfinancethemselvesdoyouknow?

One of the, Imean,what do you need?OK, the attitude among some peoplewithin the

researchcommunityis‘whatdowegetoutofpublishers?’Right?Allthattheyreallydois

organiseforpeoplefromwithinthecommunitytoreviewworkfromotherpeoplewithin

thecommunity,andthentopublishaphysicalcopy.Andtheyseemtochargethroughthe

noseforthatprivilege.Ifmembersofthatcommunityarekindofcoordinatedthenthereis

notmuchresourcesneeded.Youwillneedaneditortomanageit.Youneedpeoplewithin

thefieldtoreviewitandyoujustneedsomeonetodonatesomewebspace,whichisnot

336

reallymuch of a cost for a university and the places hosting it get a certain amount of

reputationasastrongplace.Soitdoesn’treallyneedthatmuchIdon’tthink.

Interviewer–OKthat’sathreadIdowanttofollowbutbeforewegetcompletelyoffwhatwe

weretalkingaboutbefore,youweresayingthatyouareusingCiteSeerandGoogleScholar.If

youwanttolookataparticularjournal.NoactuallyIwon’tputwordsinyourmouth.Apart

from looking at conferences or conference proceedings, you were saying sometimes you

followthingsupinjournals.Whatareyoulookingforthere?Areyouwonderingissoandso

published this or ‘I’ve heard’ or I had better go and look at that journal. What is your

motivation?

Thereisacoupleofpossibilities.NumberoneIamonsomemailinglistsandmailinglists

areincreasinglyimportant,sotheygivemepointerstowhat’sbeenpublished.

Interviewer–andtheywouldbewhat,tablesofcontentsfromthepublishers?

No,theyarejustwhoisdoingwhat.Andyouknowofgetvibes‘Ohthispieceofsoftwareis

available’or‘thispersonisadvertisingforthisjobasaPhDstudent’

Interviewer–OhIseeyes,sorry.

So it is another sourceof information in addition to those.Whenyouare sayingwhat I

lookforinjournals.It’salmostlikethereistwowaysIcheckjournals.OneiswhenIhavea

preconceived…I am doing some research and for the background I need this kind of

information.SoIwilldoaspecificsearchforthat.Sothatisonetypeofusingjournalsand

thelikeandconferences.Soitiswhenyouhaveaspecificquestionthatyouneedtosolve

aspartofotherquestion.Oryouarelookingatthebackgroundofanareatounderstand

whatotherpeoplehavedone.

Theotherwayyouuse journals iskindof asa sourceof inspiration. Soyoukindof see

wherearethingsgoing,whatideascatchmymind,wherecanIgetsomenovelideasthat

willperhapsdevelopintonewresearchstreams.SoIshouldhavemadeitclearerearlier

butreallythereisthosetowkindsofwaysofusingjournals.AndwhenIwastalkingabout

flicking through proceedings it was more for the inspiration question not the directed

research‘whathavepeopledoneinthisspace’,‘howcanIapproachit’typequestions.

337

Interviewer – sowhen you are doing that,when you are doing your specific research, I’m

writingapaperonblahdyblah, sodoyouthengo to the journalanddoasearch,areyou

doingasubjectsearch?

TypicallywhatIwilldoisIwillactuallyhitwebfirstandincomputersciencethesedays

thewebpages ofmost academicshaveprettynear to completepublication record. So I

havepersonallyfoundit ismuchbettertotrackpeoplethantotracksubjects.Soyougo

‘whatisXXdoinginthisarea,Iknowheisworkingonforexampleinmycasecognitive

architectures. I’ll just see his website and see what he is up to and see what his PhD

studentsaredoing. Ihavefoundthat lookingat it fromapeople’spointofviewismuch

moreproductivethanlookingatisolatedpapers.Becauseinsomewayspapersareanodd

artefactof theresearchthathasbeengoingonandbasically forhistoricalreasonsthere

arelimitsonpagenumbersandsoon.Soyoufindthatstuffgetscompressed,stuffdoesn’t

get completely voiced and really you don’t get to see the big picture that you get from

visitingaperson’s site.Youseemoreof theresearchprogramandresearchagendaand

howlotsoftheseideasfittogether.

Interviewer–soyouarenotreallylooking…areyoulookingatjournalsitesatall?

LikeIsaidtypicallynot.Butthatmightbespecifictothecomputersciencefieldthatthings

movesofast.Journalsbecomekindoftherepositoryofestablishedknowledgeratherthan

thecuttingedge.Soconferencesarefarmoreimportantincomputersciencebecausethat

iswherethecuttingedgeis.Basicallybecausejournalstakesolong,theturnaroundona

journalisanywherefrom3monthsto12monthsandbythenthefieldhasmovedonand

therehasbeen4conferencesandtheconferencescheduleismuchtighterthanthat.

Interviewer–sowhenyoumentionedCiteSeerandGoogleScholar,whatwouldthatbefor?

Thatwouldbemoreforthebackgroundchecking,thedirectedresearchtypestuff/

Interviewer–sothat’snotlookingupXX,that’slookingup…

Yes,ifIwanttounderstandasubjectandwhathasbeendoneonit,whatIwill

Interviewer–whenyouwantthebigpicture

338

Yes thebigpicture, IwillhitGoogle,Google to findthepeoplewhoare involved.Google

Scholar to find relevant people or again just to get the feel and CiteSeer because it has

accesstodifferentresourcestoGoogleScholarbutitisprettymuchthesame.

Interviewersorrytobesopernickybutit’swhatIaminterestedin

That’sOK

Interviewer–Haveyoueverhitanybarrierswhenyoucan’tgetwhatyouarelookingfor?

Yes

Interviewer–andwhatsortofcircumstancesarethey?

Ittendstobetheoldermaterialactually,sopre1994–1995

Interviewer–wouldyouhavemuchuseforthatkindofstuff?

Yesitcomesupoccasionally,andsometimeswhenyouarelookingfortheclassicpapers

inthefield,sosomeoftheearlypapersinmachinelearning,butjusttounderstandwhere

thewere at the time. That’swhen you tend to hit barriers and it is basicallywhen you

eithergotothelibraryoraskcolleaguesiftheyhaveacopy.(13.04)

Interviewer–andwhenyousaygotothelibraryisthatbecausethereisahardcopythere?

Yesandyoujustphotocopyitoutofajournalorabookorwhatever.

Interviewer–howoftenwouldthathappen?

Maybeonceortwiceayear.

Interviewer–soitisatechnologyissueratherthananaccessissueinsomeways,itissimply

becauseitwasprewebwhenitwaswritten?

Yes

339

Interviewer–sointermsofmodernmaterialthatyouneedtogetholdof,doyoueverhita

pointbecausethelibrarydoesn’tsubscribeoranythinglikethatwhenyouthink“Iwillhave

toworkoutsomeotherwayofgettingthispaper?”

It does happen occasionally but usually you will find that if you can’t get hold of one

publication, theauthorwillhaverelatedpapersthatyoucanfind.So it tendstobe that

particularpaper than Idon’t lookatbut I findarelatedpaper that isavailableeasilyor

that is at a major conference but not a minor conference that the library might not

subscribeto.ButlikeIsaidmyfeelingisthatespeciallyoverthelastfewyearsthatgetting

access to this information like the ACMwebsite or the IEEEwebsite for those for rare

exotichardtogetthingsisactuallyprettygood.Becausethosetwogroupsorsocietiesare

so dominant, almost everymajor conference is linkedwith one or the other. Possibly a

thirdinmyareawhichisAAAI.Butitisusuallynotthathardtogetaccesstothosemajor

conferences.

Theother things I amsaying is that colleaguesarepretty important inkeepingupwith

whatisgoingon.

Interviewer–inwhatway?

OhIcameacrossthisreallyinterestingpaperbywhoever,andthenyouwillgo“OKIwill

have a look at that and you chase it down. And they send you a link or they give you

enough details that you can do a search to track the paper down that they are talking

about.

FrommyperspectiveIcertainlymakesureallofmypapersareaccessibleonlinefrommy

website.Thatisusuallywithpermissionofthepublishersthattheysayyouareallowedto

storeapersonalcopyonyourwebsiteaswellasuspublishingthephysicalversion.

Interviewer – now when you say that, ‘with permission’ how do you know you have

permission.

Whenwesignthecopyrightform,sousuallywithSpringerorKluwerorwhoeverisdoing

it. OrIEEE,whoeverispublishingtheproceedings,whenyousignthecopyrightformsit

specificallysaysyouareallowedtopublishacopyofthisonasinglewebsitewhichisfine

andthe..

340

Interviewer–andwhichversionwouldyouputup?

ItdependsontherulesbuttypicallyIwouldputveryclosetothefinalversionifnotthe

finalversion.

Interviewer–Butthat’syourversionnottheirpdf?

That’smyversionyes.Imeanformostconferences…that’stheotherthing,almostallthe

conferences Igo tohaveswitched topdfas themainsubmissionmediumand itsonline

submission sowhat I generate iswhat theyuse typically. Imean theymight stick some

extrastuffatthetop.Whichisdifferent,itusedtobethatyousubmittedtherawfilesthe

documentor incomputerscienceweuseatoolcalledLateXandtheywouldmodifyand

changethem.Butthesedaysyousayhereisthepdfandprettymuchwhatyouseeinprint

iswhatyougavethem.

Interviewer – have you heard of, just on the whole idea of this copyright issue, of

Sherpa/Romeo?Itisasite…IhavegotasheetthathasinformationonitthatIwillgiveyou

attheend.Itisasitethatlistsallofthepublisherspoliciesonputtinguppreorpostprints.

Yes

Interviewer–Soyoujusttypeinthenameofthejournalanditcomesupwithwhattheycall

green,darkgreendependingonhowopentheyareandhowmuchtheyallowtobeputup.

Yes,that’sanotherwayofcheckingifyouwantedtohavealook.

YesIdidn’tknowaboutitbutinmostcasesyouhavetosignacopyrightformanywayso.

AndIdopayattentiontothose.

Interviewer–wellletsjustquicklytalkaboutcopyright,whatisyour,inyourwordswhatis

yourunderstandingofthecopyrightstatusoftheworkyouhavepublished?(17.56)

Itreallydepends,thereisnotonestandard,itdependsonconferences.Butmostofthem

wouldbeprettyopen,mostofthemwouldbethatyoucouldputacopyontheirwebsite.

After of course they have published it. So I won’t publish a paper before I go to the

conferencetopresentitsfindings,orIwon’tpublishajournalarticleuntilthejournalputs

itoutbutafterthatfromallthecopyrightformsIthinkIhavesignedIhavecheckedthat

and it is fine for me to put it up onmy website. And if it didn’t I would have serious

341

misgivingsIwouldsay,Iwouldprobablypursueitwiththem.GiventhatIwrotethework

inthefirstplaceandIdidn’tgetanyincomefromthemandthemostyouwouldusually

getisapileofpreprints.ButlikeIsaidthemostimportantjournalsandconferencesinmy

fieldaremanagedprettymuchby thecommunity itself, so then there isnoproblem, its

justthecasethat….EveryoneelseinthefieldprettymuchfeelsthesamewayIdo.Sowe

makesurewehaveprettyopenresearch.

Interviewer–soyou’republishinginwhatareeffectivelyopenaccessmeans,butareyoualso

puttingacopyuponyourwebsite?

Yes,thereisonecasewhereIhaven’tputacopyuponmywebsitebecauseI justlinked

straighttotheirs.ButusuallyIputacopyuponmywebsitebecausethepublishersusually

changewherethingsarelinkedtoandunlessIknowthattheotherpeoplewhoareputting

it up on the website are not password protecting it or putting it behind some stupid

interfacethatstopspeoplebeingabletoinstantlyclickandgetthefile,thenIwouldputa

copyuponmywebsite.

Interviewer–soIwouldbeabletofindyoueitherbylookingupyouandgrabbingthingsoff

your website or by going to somewhere where you have published and it will be openly

accessible

Yesandbecauseyouknow,Imeanitsgoodtohavesomeredundancyanywaysoifthere

aretwocopiesonthewebandtheirwebsiteitdownormywebsiteisdownthenyoucan

finditfromsomewhereelse.Soredundancyisagoodthing.

Interviewer – OK this is a bit of an odd question so just answer it how you think is

appropriate.Whydoyoupublish?(20.43)

WellIamfundedbythepublic.WellImean,OKitisanoddquestionbecausethereareso

manydifferentperspectives to it.Andthere is (sic)multiplereasons.One isbecause it’s

the nature of science. Science is about exploring ideas, showing what works and what

doesn’t. So you feel it is a contribution it is your job as a scientist to describe the

experimentsyouranandwhattheoutcomeswere.

The second thing is of course is because it is important careerwise andyouknow that

whenpromotioncommitteeslookatyouoryouarelookingtostartsomewhereelse,the

firstthingtheywilllookatisyourpublicationrecord.

342

And thirdly it is a kind of like a foray into the field of ideas so the field is going in a

particulardirectionandyouhopetoinfluencethisdirectioninthefuturebecausethatis

whatwetrytodo.It isabouttryingtofindtherightwayofdoingthing.Andsoyousay

wellItriedtodothatandthatworked,andItriedtodothisandthatdidn’tworkwellit’sa

contributiontothatkindofglobaldiscussionaboutacommunitythatIalsohaveapassion

aboutwhichinmycaseisroboticsandmachinelearning.Soit is,howcanIputit,that’s

why you do research its kind of you are trying to solve problems andwhat point is it

solving problems for yourself unless you can show other people how you solved the

problemtoo,sotheydon’thavetogothroughthesamemessandtroublethatyouwent

through.(22.46)

Interviewer – Now when you think about your publishing what influences your decisions

aboutwhereyouarechoosingtosendsomethingforpublication.Whatarethethingsthat

influenceyourchoicethere?

OKwhenIpublishsomeImeanIhaveonlypublished18andtwopatents,soit’snotlikea

huge amount of work, that I have a huge amount of experience at that but things that

wouldinfluencemeistheinternationalreputationoftheconference.IsitaconferenceI’d

liketogotoanywaysothewaythefundingworksisit’smucheasiertogotoaconference

ifyouhavepublishedapaperattheconference.

Interviewer–Whenyousayitsmucheasieryoumeanit’seasiertogetthemoneyforit?

It’s easier to get themoney, it’s easier to get support from the university, it’s easier to

justify all of those things. A second question iswhether you are invited to submit, like

someoneyoutrustsaysitwouldbereallygoodifyousubmittedtothisconference.

Interviewer–andhasthathappenedtoyou?

Yesonceortwice

Interviewer–andhaveyoudoneso.

Soifyouarepartofacommunityofresearchersandoneofthetopresearcherssayswe

are getting together pleasemake a contribution, I think it’s own invitation (?)makes a

differenceIthink.Soitisthequalityoftheconferenceorit’sthequalityofthejournal,its

343

whetheryougetinvited…Sometimesyouhavetoshoparound,soyouwillhaveabodyof

workthatyousayIwanttopublishthisnowwhereisthebestplacetopublishit?.Soin

the ideal case you are not writing reactively. You are doing the research, finishing the

researchthenaskingthequestionwhere is thebestplacethat IcanshowpeoplewhatI

did.Sosometimesyouhavebasicallyapaperorajournalpaperreadytogoandyoulook

aroundforwhereisthebestplaceIcanpublishthis.

Interviewer–soyoutendtodotheresearch,determinewhereyouaregoingtopublishand

thenstartwritingisthatusuallytheprocessyou..

Ittendstobebecauseitisso,youmighthaveanideatheresearchisdoneandyouthink

whereamIgoingtopublishthis.Butthethingisyouneedtoconsiderwhich,…whereyou

publish requiresquiteabitof tuning in termsofpaperwriting.And it isnot justat the

levelofformatting,whichiscourseanissueandannoyingbutapracticalone.ButIhave

the got the issue of community and leadership. I work at the kind of boundary of two

areas,machinelearningandrobotics.AndthewayIwouldapproachapaperforarobotics

conference is totallydifferent for theway Iwouldwrite apaper for amachine learning

conference.Therearedifferentbackgroundassumptions, therearedifferent subpartsof

theresearchthataremoreinterestingtoonepartofthecommunitythantheother,there

is different levels of proof and how you show your results are significant to one

communityandanother.Solikeyousaidittendstobedonesomecoolwork,Ishouldspin

outsomepapersoutofthis,wherecanIpublishsuchpapers,hereandhereandthenyou

writethemandsubmitthemandgothroughtherollupsotospeak.

Interviewer–andwithyourchoice,howspotonhaveyoubeen,whatpercentagehaveyou

beenrejectedandhadtogobackagainandsubmitsomewhereelse?

Therehavebeenacoupleof…OK.GenerallyIwouldsayIhavea60‐70%successrate.But

what tends to happen is you do some research that is in your view constructive,

worthwhile,rewarding,butsometimesyoucan’t,youhaven’tcommunicateditright.Soit

tendstobeonepieceofworkthatyoueithergetit infirsttimeoryouhavetosubmitit

twoorthreetimes.Soitskindoflikeskewedinonedirection.Ittendstobegoodresearch

that will just go in 1st time. Or research that doesn’t engage other researchers, or you

haven’texplainedwell.Ifitisabitoddballhavetosubmititthreeorfourtimes.Thestuff

that is notwithin… how do I put it. Some of it is tweaking existing approach,whereas

othertimesthisisatotallynewwayofdoingthings.

344

Interviewer–andtheyareharderarethey?

Muchharderyes.

Interviewer – and do you think that is just conservatismwithin the field, people saying ‘I

don’tknowaboutthis’

Iwouldn’tsayitisconservatives,Iwouldsayitis,howcanyouputit,just,theydon’tknow

howtounderstand…Sometimesitisyourfault,it’sbecausehaven’texplaineditclearly.So

sometimesyouhavetoputquiteabitofworkintoexplainingandideaoraconceptwell.

And you try oneway and you get feedback from the reviewers and you say they have

missed the point on this one, so letme try to rewrite it. But sometimes its…OK this is

goingtobeslightlycontroversial.Withinanycommunity,cliquesformaroundparticular

approaches or ideas. And if your idea doesn’t fit into an existing clique, then you don’t

havepeoplewhowilladvocateyourpaperandgoreallyhardandsaythisisreallygood,

becausethereisnothinginthatforthemitsofcoursetheirpointofvieworispartoftheir

clique.So ifsomething’sabitoutof left fieldanddoesn’tcomenaturally, fitnaturally in

anyof these cliques, youwon’t have any advocates for yourwork and sopeoplewould

kindofbeabitiffyaboutyourworkbecausetheywouldgo,Idon’tknowhowtoapproach,

Idon’tknowhowthisonefitsin.

Interviewer–yesthereisthewholebodyofthoughtaboutthatissueofchangingparadigms

YesIhavereadsomeofThomasKuhn’sworkandparadigmsandthatsortofstuff

Interviewer–whichiswhatyouarereferringto.OKgood,whenyouwerestartingoutinyou

publications,whenwasyourfirstpublicationintermsofyourcareer,whenyouwereaPhD

student?

ActuallyIwasanhonoursstudent–someofmyworkwhenIwasanhonoursstudentgot

publishedinaworkshop.Imeanitwasn’tagreatpublicationbutitwasmyfirstone.That

wasbackin1996andIreallyhadnoideawhatIwasdoingandIwasreallyluckyIhada

mentor.

Interviewer – That’s what I’m asking about, how much handholding or what form of

handholdingdidyouhaveorinstructionoranything?

345

Iwrote the paper I gave it tomymentor, he totally rewrote the paper. And to a lesser

extent that still happens today. It’s not the content that gets changed its, so this is

protectedbyanonyminity,youwon’t…OK.Soit’sthespin.Wherethementorhasbeen…

Interviewer–isitthesamementor?

Yes it’sbeen the samementor throughout.Other research I’vepublishedonmyownor

withotherpeople,butsomeparticularstrands, Ihaveavery longstandingcollaboration

with my mentor and I have got better at the spin side of things but I still think it is

somethinghe’smasteredthatIhaven’tquitegotyet.Anditsnottheactualcontentorthe

researchprocess,Icandothatallonmyown.WhatIamnotgoodatandheisamazingat

ispitching it topeople andgetting them to engagewith the ideas.And it is really in an

academiccontexttheartofspin.Howdoyouphrasethisasareallyinterestingresearch

problemthatotherpeoplewilllatchonto?

Interviewer–doyouthinkyouareimproving?

Ithinkso,ImeanIlookatmymentorandheis48,49andIfigurehewasn’tlikethiswhen

hewasyounger,soIfigurethatthespinistheaccumulationof20yearsexperience.SoI

amgettingbetter,butnotasgoodashim.

Interviewer–Butwehaveallgotstrengthsindifferentwaysdon’twe.Andyouarenotatthe

momentinthepositionthatyouareassistingstudentsareyou?

YesIam

Interviewer–Ohyouare,andhowdoyouhelpstudentswiththeirpublications?

Pretty much the same process, but also in my particular case with the students I am

involvedwith I ammuchmore involved in educating themabout the scientific process.

This is whatwe need to do, this is science, this is engineering, that kind of question, I

wouldsayprettymuch thesame thingbut,also inaddition to that ismore involvement

withthebasicscience.Thisishowwesetupanexperiment.Thisishow,makesureyou

evaluate, make sure your evaluation meets the expectation of the community, so I

probablyhavefourorfivepaperswhichIhaveco‐writtenwithPhDstudentsorHonours

students.Youcanseebehindmethereisapileofpapersbyhonoursstudents.Onlyoneof

themhasledtoanacademicpresentation.

346

Interviewer–That’stheirtheses?

Yesthat’stheirthesesoverfourtofiveyearssothereisprobably15

Interviewer–GoshIhadtogetmineallfancypantsboundandsoon

Yesthat’shonoursthesis,I’veonlygotonePhDstudentatthemoment,welltwokindof.

SoreallytwoPhDstudentsthatI’minvolvedwithonadailybasis.That’sawholenewball

gamesupervisingPhDstudentsI’mstillgettingthehangofthat.Ididhave,ImeIthinkmy

experiencewithhonoursthesisstudentshasgivenmea littlebitabouthowtobeaPhD

supervisor,butyesIwouldtypicallygetapaperfromthemandgothroughit.Thetypical

criticism is youhavedescribedwhat youdid but youdidn’t showwhatwasnewabout

whatyoudid.AndtheotherweaknessesthatItendtofindwithstudentsisevaluationsoI

thinkthat’soneofthebiggestgapsforstudentstocross.Itisnotenoughinapapertosay

“thisiswhatIdid”thetwoareasyouhavetosayis“ThisiswhatIdiddifferenttoother

peoplethat’snewandthisishowIshowedthatwhatIdidisdifferentorbetterthanother

people’swork”.AndthosearethetwokeydistinctionsthatIamhavingtoworkwithmost

studentstoemphasiseisnoveltyandevaluation.

Interviewer–Andsoyouweresayingearlierthatyoudoyourresearchandthenyoumakea

decisionwheretopublishit

Sometimes.Youwillseeaconference,Ireallywanttogotothatconference,

Interviewer–whathaveIgotthatwillfit?

Yes

Interviewer–Wellwiththosestudents,becauseyousaywhereyousenditchangestheway

youapproachthepaper,Doyousitdownpriortothembeginningandsaywemighttryand

sendittosuchandsuchajournalorsuchandsuchaconference?

Yes

Interviewer–Andthendotheygooffandhavealookatthestyleetc

347

Yes, typicallywhatwouldhappen is….Withanhonours thesis isverydifferent toaPhD

thesis.Becauseyoudoyourbestandthenattheendofthethesisyoulookatitandkindof

go is thispublishableornot and in14 theses Ihavehad threepotential things that are

good enough to qualify as publications. Then once you decide that it is worthy of

publicationsomewhereyougoOKletshavealookwhatconferencesarecomingupThen

hewillgotothewebsite

Imake itapoint thatunless Iwas the leadresearcher, I think it’san importantskill for

students to learn todraft the1stpaper themselvesandgo through thatexperience.And

thatiswhatIwouldusuallyencourage.Andatthepointbasically,usuallyyouhavetodo

someprettyheftyworktothepaper.ButIseeitasaformofeducationistokindof…It’s

likecasebasedlearning,youcangivethemallkindsofgeneralcriteriaabouthowtowrite

apaper,butuntiltheytrytowriteapaperandyousaywhat’swrongtheywon’treallyget

it.SoIthinkco‐writingpaperswiththestudentsisanimportantlearningexperience.

Interviewer – Just pulling in the questions about, you mentioned earlier that one of the

reasonsyoupublish isbecause it’s for jobsand tenureandall that sortof stuff.Sowhat is

your understanding of things like impact factors and citations, are these words that are

familiartoyou?

Yes

Interviewer–Soarethesesortsofthingsaconsiderationforyouwhenyouarethinkinghow

topresentyourCVforexampleorwhenyouarethinkingwheretopublish?

YesIthinktheymakeabigdifference.Iprefertopublishsmallnoofhighqualitypapers

wherepossible.Sothereisusuallythereissixorsevenpapersofthe18thatIhavethatI

amreallyproudofthatthesearewheremyheartandsoulare.Sometimesyoudoresearch

andthereiskindofspinoffpapersaswell.ButIreallypridemyselfon…SoImaynothave

many papers, 18 is not a lot for someone who has finished a PhD four years ago or

whateverbutIhaveover100citationsfromthose18papers.Andsomeofthemhave30‐

40citations.Andthatgivesmea lotofpride,becauseyouknowthereisrulesofthumb.

Only20%ofpapersevergetreferencedbyanyoneelsesothatmakesabigdifference.Yes

I’mfullyawareofthem

To be honest I have just finished reviewing how do I measure my success. But this is

somethingthatIhaveonlystartedtolookatinthelastcoupleofyears,careerandbefore

348

thatitwaswhat’sagoodconferencetopublishat,thatjournalsaiditwashavingaspecial

issueonthatsowewillsubmittothatissue.Nowitsismuchmorelikewhatarethebest

journals in the field. And I remember earlier this year in June going,what’s the impact

factorofallthejournals,what’stheimpactfactorofalltheconferenceswhereisthebest

placetopublish?AndsoIamstartingtousethatinformationnow.Iwillsayitismoreofa

recentthingthansomethingIhavedonethroughoutmycareer.

Interviewer–Isthatbecauseyouarenowlookingforwardinyourcareer?

Wellyeah.Ihaveathreeyearcontract.AndIfiguredthetimehascomewhenIhavedone

enough research and it is time to step back and look at the bigger picture. I even

researchedsomeoftheotherthingslikeH‐numbersandsoon.

Interviewer–Iamstillgettingmyheadaroundthat

It’sprettysimpleactuallyitsjust…

Interviewer–yesIknowwhatitis,it’sjusthowitrelatesthen,howitalltiesin.Justmoving

ontopeerreview,isthataroleyoutakeon?

Yes

Interviewer–andhowmanywouldyoureview,orhowoftenwouldyoureviewapaper?

Localconferencesprobablytwoayear,internationalconferencesprobablyoneayearand

occasionaljournalpapers,specialeditionsandsoonmaybethreeayear.

Interviewer–andhowlongdoesittakeyouusuallytodoareview?

Conferencepaperusuallytwotothreehours,journalpaperprobablyfourtofivehours.

Interviewer–Andwhatisyourfeelingaboutthetimeyouspendonthat?

Kindofunrewarded[halflaughs]It’slikeyouputallthiseffortintotryingtounderstand

someone’s idea and what do you get? You get your name in the list of a program

committee.Buttobehonestitsalsobeenkindofusefulbecausepeopledirectthepapers

toyouthatarewithinyourownfieldofexpertise,itcanbereallyinterestingwaytoknow

349

whatisgoingonandyougetagoodvibeforwhatisreallyhappeningintheresearch.That

isonewaytokeepupwithwhatisgoingon.(40.18)

Interviewer–Soareyouontheeditorialboardofajournaloraconferencecommittee

IhavebeenonprogramcommitteesbutIhaven’tbeenoneditorialboards.

Interviewer–Andisbeingonaprogramcommittee,isthatquite…

Notreally,ImeantypicallyforsomeoftheconferencesIgototherewouldbe100people

ontheprogramcommittee.It’sbasicallyeveryonewhoreviewedafewpapers.

Interviewer – So your role there would be as a reviewer of a few papers rather than a

decisionmakeratsomeotherlevel?

Yes you would typically have the program chair, the area chair and then the program

committee.Ihaveneverbeenanareachair,Iusuallygetabunchofthingstoreview.

Interviewer–Wouldyou liketobe is thatsomethingyouwillprobablydo inthe future?Is

therestatusassociatedwithdoingsomethinglikethatcareerwise?

I think so, I think so. But it is statuswithin community,whichmaynot translate to job

progress.Andhavinghelpedorganiseconferencesandsoon,it’salotofeffortfornotalot

ofreward.Youdoitbecauseyouloveitnotbecauseitmakesyourcareer,improvesyour

careerprospectsthatdramaticallyI’dsay.

Interviewer – So I assuming from your description there that you have not been offered

anything,anycompensationforyourtimeforreviewing

No,ImeanIdon’tknowofanyjournalinComputerSciencethatwould….

Interviewer–Ihavenotcomeacrossanyonewhohasalthoughpublisherskeepinsistingthat

theydo[laughs]

Maybefortheeditors,there’sanhonorarium,I’veheardofsomeoftheeditorsgettingan

honorarium but it is in the order of $500 or $200 per edition which is like, given the

amountyouhavetoputintoitisnotthatconsiderable.

350

Interviewer– yes I have yet to speak toa realpersonwhohashad somemoney.Wehave

talkedabitaboutopenaccess,soobviouslyyouareprotheconceptofopenaccess?

Yes

Interviewer–Andyouhavealsopublishedinopenaccessjournals?

Yes, not only that but I makemy, one of the artefacts of computer science research is

software, Imakemy software available as open source. So that basicallymeans anyone

coulddownloadmysoftwareandreproducemyresults.TheresultsofmyPhDworkare

released under something called a GNU public license. That is something I would

encourage. I should also mention I use other tools by other researchers that are also

releasedundertheGNUlicensethateverytimeIusethemIamamazedbyhowgoodthey

are. Inmachine learning – giveka (?) that came out of wakardin (?) university. And in

robotics there is Player, so both of those tools. In Computer Science it makes a big

difference to be able to bypass all of the practical development issues and get to the

researchquestion.Andthatiswhatotherpeople’sopensourcetoolkitshavehelpedmeto

do.

Interviewer – the last thing Iwant to talk about is something that has been instituted at

universitiesworldwideandAustraliawidecalledinstitutionalrepositories.Isthisatermyou

haveheardbefore.

YeswellIknowat[institution]thereissomethingcalledadigitalthesisproject.

Interviewer–Yesthat’sone,[identifyinginformation]Theideaisultimatelytotieitintothe

reportingprocessoftheuniversity.Isthissomethingyouwouldfeelcomfortableputtingyour

materialinto?

Generallyyes.

Interviewer–TheytendtoworkunderaCreativeCommonslicense

YesIdon’thaveaproblemwithit.LikeIsaidIfigureIhavebeenfundedbygovernmentso

thatmeansthepublichassomeentitlementtotheworkI’vedone.Myissuewiththatkind

ofthingismoreofapracticalone.Imeanitissoeasyforme,itseasyformepersonally,I

351

don’tknowaboutotherresearchers,itseasyformetomaintainmywebsite.Anddothat

anyway. Since this is anonymous Iwill just say it. So the university has a digital theses

project,butIcan’tseethepointofputtingmythesisonthewebsitewhenIhaveacopyon

myownandifIfindanerroror…actuallyIprobablywouldn’tmodifyit,butiftherewas

somekindoftypographicalerror,Iwouldbeinapositiontocorrectit.

IshouldsayIdon’tjustmakemysoftwareopen,butinmanycasesImakemydataopenas

well, and to some extent theywouldn’t knowwhat to dowith someof that data. So its

moreapractical concernabout these institutional repositories actuallybeing able tobe

kept up to date and getting into a format they are happywithwhen I can just do that

myselfand if Icollectanewdataset, itwill takethe institutionalrepository6monthsto

updateitwhereasapersonvisitingmywebsitecanseeit.Soitismoreanissueofpractical

control over conceptual objection. But just having dealt with libraries in the past it is

sometimes easier to justmanage it yourself. But I do someof those things anyway and

[institution]hassomepoliciesaboutresearchrecords,notebooksandallthatsortofstuff

anyway,stuffhastobearchived.[identifyinginformation].

Interviewer–[identifyinginformation]Wellthatisgreatthat’severythingIwantedtotalk

toyouabout.NowI’maskingeveryone,I’mhappytogoawayandneverspeaktoyouagain,

butifyouareinterested,ifIdocreatesomethingthatisnotawholethesiswouldyouliketo

knowaboutit?

YesofcourseIwouldliketoknowwhatcomesofthisresearch

352

Appendix 4c - Full transcript of interview: Chemistry at university B

(20March2007)

Interviewer–I’minterestedintalkingtopeopleabouttheirinteractionwiththeliterature.

SowhatIwillbetalkingaboutisyouasanauthor,youasareaderandyouasareviewerof

literature.That iswhat I’ll be talkingabout, butusually the first thing I askpeople, and I

havebeengivenacluebywalkingthroughyoulab,iswhatisthenatureoftheworkthatyou

do,howmuchissittinginfrontofascreen,howmuchisinteractingwithpeople,howmuchis

interactingwiththesubstancesyouareworkingwith?

Well I don’t do any experimentalworkmyself, even though the area ofwork I am in is

experimentallybased.Soalloftheworkthatisdonethatispublishedisdonethroughthe

handsofpostdocs,PhDstudentsandhonoursstudentsalthoughtoalesserextent.Andso

Iaminadialoguewiththosepeopleinmygrouponaregularbasis.Sowetalkaboutthe

research and plan the research together we talk about the results of attempts to

implementresearchideasandthosestudentsorpostdocswillgobackintothelabandtry

tomodifyexperiments.

SononeofwhatIdoinvolvesexperimentalhands‐onwork.ButIamintimatelyinvolvedin

interpretingthedatathatthestudentsandpostdocsaregeneratinginthecourseoftheir

laboratory activity and I write grant proposals, I write up themanuscripts and look at

draftsofPhDthesesandmakefairlydetailedcommentsonthoseasthestudentsdevelop

theirtheses.SothosearethesortsofactivitiesIminvolvedin.Isometimesjokinglycall

myselfaMicrosoftWordchemistbecauseIguessIspendasmuchtimemanipulatingdraft

proposalsandmanuscriptsasanythingelse.

Interviewer–Ifwemoveontoyouasareaderofliterature,howdoyoukeepontopofthe

literature?

I’mnotsurethatIdo[laughs].Thereisahugevolumeofmaterial.Butbroadlyspeaking,I

keepon topof the literature asbest I can. I read regularly skim thekey journals inmy

area.

Interviewer–Anddoyougotothemordotheycometoyou?

I go to them,with the exceptionof a couple of general journals likeNature andScience

whichIhavesubscriptionstoorIshareasubscriptiontothemwithmycolleagues.

353

Interviewer–Andthat’sthehardcopy?

Yes thehardcopy.Becausewe likereadingthehardcopy.Andthenwehavetoa lesser

extentthanweusedtothehardcopyofcertainjournalscomingintothelibrary.Although

obviously the university policy is ifwe get an electronic subscription, youdon’t get the

correspondinghardcopy.Sowhatthatmeansisforthejournalsofslightlylesserstature,I

amtendingtogointothelibraryandreadthehardcopyasitcomesin,justspendafew

hours each week in the library, normally in one block sitting down and reading the

journalsastheyarecomingin.

Interviewer–AndthisistheChemistrylibrary?

Yeswehavealibraryisthisbuilding,anditisaverygoodoneImightadd.Thennormally

ontheweekendsIdotwothings.OneisIgotowebsitesofthekeyjournalsinmyareaand

browsethecontentsandchemistryisverymuchembracedtheideaofgraphicalabstracts

andidentifythosearticlesofgreatestinterestbyskimmingthenprintouthardcopiesof

those.Theneitherreadthematthetimeorcollectoverafewdaysandtakethemhome

andreadthem.

Interviewer–Anddoyoukeepanelectronicversion?

Yesnormallyalthoughalways,becausetheotherthingIwasgoingtotellyouaboutitwe

haveaverygoodchemicaldatabasecalledSciFinderwhichyoumaybefamiliarwith,run

byUSChemicalSociety.Oftenitisactuallyeasiertofindanoriginalpaperjustthrougha

search.Idon’tkeepthatmanyelectronicorhardcopiesofpapersthesedaysbecauseyou

canfindthemdenovobyjustgoingtothedatabase.KeypapersIkeep.

Interviewer–Soonceyouhaveprintedapaperoutandreadit,whatdoyoudowithitthen?

WellI,normallythewayIoperateisIamrunningfilesinallmyprojectsandIinsertthat

hardcopyintotherelevantfileandoftenthatfilegetswinnoweddownasweworkona

projectcontinuestoafileofthepaperweareproducingfromthatproject.

SciFinderissuchapowerfultoolthatIdon’tasIusedto,Idon’tanymoreconscientiously

keep copiesof everything and file things as I used to.Notbecause I amgettingold and

slowbutbecausethedatabaseisjustsopowerful.Youcanfindthingsveryquickly

354

Interviewer–AndsoareyoutalkingabouttopicsearchesonSciFinder?

Well it’sacombinationoftopicsearches,authorsearchesandwhatwecallsubstructure

searches.

Interviewer–Andwhatdoyougetwhenyou,whatcomesup,canyouclickthroughtothe

actualpaper?

Occasionally,butnotalwaysobviouslythatwouldbenicetodobutnotnecessarilyfrom

SciFinderit’snotnecessarilysoeasy.

Interviewer–Sowhatyouwillfindisyouwillgetthefullreferenceatthatpoint?Andwhere

doyougofromthere?

ThenIgotothewebsitethejournalispublishedat.

Interviewer–soyouarenotgoingviatheuniversitylibrary?

YesI’mgoinginthroughtheuniversitylibrary,soIhavetheuniversitylibraryelectronic

journalssegmentbookmarkedsoIgostraighttothatthenIgostraighttothejournals.

Interviewer–OKsodoyoufindyoueverhitapointwhereyoucan’tfindapaperbecauseit

doesn’tsubscribe?

Occasionallybut,umbutjusttotakeastepbackbecauseIthinkthisisanimportantpoint,

SciFinderisoneoftwotools.ThesecondoneisGooglebecauseoftenGoogleandSciFinder

arecomplimentary.Sometimessomeofthesemoremodestjournalsyoucanfindthrough

Google and get free access to them. So just because the library does not have a

subscription,itdoesn’tmeanyoucan’tgetitthroughothermeansbydoingalittleGoogle

searching.Itisnotfoolproof,youstillgetstymiedeverynowandthenbynotbeingableto

getholdofcopyofanarticlethat’sveryrarethesedays,veryrare.

Interviewer So if you get to that point where you can’t get a copy because we don’t

subscribetoit,wouldyoukeeppushingorwouldyougiveup?(8.01)

Itdependsonhowimportanttheparticulararticleis.ThereisabitofstuffintheChinese

literaturethatIfindishardtogetholdof.AbitinRussianliterature,butitisprettyrare

thesedaysnottohaveaccessbyonemeansoranother.

355

Interviewer–WhenyougetholdofChineseliteratureisthatinChinese?

Often, but the chemical structure, I don’t read Chinese, but the chemical structure and

schemesare instandardchemical format, soyoucanoftenread thesearticlesandgeta

fairlystrongsenseofwhatisinthem.

Interviewer–Howlong,inpageswouldtheaveragearticlebe?

Itvariesfromfour,fourpagesisthetraditionallengthofthecommunications,twotofour

pagesisthestandardlength,

Interviewer–andhowmanyimages?

Againitvariesitanotherroughfigure.Inafourpagecommunicationtherewouldbefour

tofivefigures,schemes.

Interviewer–sothebulkoftheinformationiscontainedintheimages

And/or the surrounding text. And of course many of the images these days have

substantial supporting information, documents supporting them and they can be very

largeindeedandoftenwehavetoconsultthose.Sothecommunicationisoftenthefront

endofamuchmoresubstantialdocument,andsometimesyoudohavetodrilldowninto

that supporting information. I guess there is a variation there. It depends if you are

interested in and article for the concepts or if you are interested in the article for the

technicaldetail. Itdependson the specificpurpose thatyouarehoning in. If it’s for the

conceptsorprinciplesyouprobablydon’tneedtogotothesupportinginformationbutif

youarelookingforspecifictechnicaldetailthenoftenyouwillhavetodothat.

Interviewer–Soifwejustmovenowfromyouasareadertoyouasanauthorofmaterial,

when you are designing an experiment and working through the experiment with your

collaborators, at what point do youmake the decision aboutwhere you are intending to

publishsomething?

Itvariesalittlebit.Ifwethinkitisagoodideaandveryearlyonwegetproofofconcept

thenwe talk fairly quickly about the high‐end journals. If things aren’t working out as

planned, but there is still useful material emerging then we will probably go for more

356

mainstreamjournal,andprobablyafullpaperratherthanacommunication. Itvariesan

awfullotI’mnotsureIcangiveyouastandardformula.

Interviewer–OKearlieryouweretalkingaboutcommunicationsbeingthefourpages,and

that’sdistinctfromafullpaperisit?

Yes

Interviewer–OKsoinyourwork,whatsortofpercentageswouldyouhaveasfullpapersand

ascommunications?

Ataroundguessabout50/50%

Interviewer–Andisthereasortofstatusassociatedwithafullpaperoracommunication?

Dotheyhavedifferentroles?Whatisthedistinction?

Yestheydo,acommunicationobviouslyisamorerapidformofpublication.Andmoreand

more these days people are scanning the chemical literature at least looking at

communications more than at full papers. Full papers can tend to be mechanisms for

depositing your information and often we will follow up a communication with a full

paper in order to get all the experimental details out there and possibly additional

experimentalwork thatwasn’t disclosed in the original communication. I don’twant to

denigratefullpaperstoomuch,becausetheyplayanimportantrole,weallrecognisethe

valueoffullpaperswhicharechockablockofexperimentalanalysisanddetailwhereas

communicationstendtobethehighlights.

Interviewer–Sowouldmostoftheinformationthatyouputinthefinalpaperthebigpaper,

wouldthathavebeeninthesupportingmaterialofthecommunication.

Nothatisnotwhatwetendtodo.Certainformsofcommunicationhavethisopportunity

toco‐publishsupportinginformationandifwehavegonedownthattrackwewouldargue

thatthepackageofthecommunicationandthesupporting informationis inonesensea

bitlikeafullpaper.Butthereareotherjournalsthatdon’trequiresupportinginformation,

andwemightpublishtherefirstandthenfollowupwithafullpaperwhichexpandsupon

thematerialintheoriginalcommunication,towhichwehaveaddedalltheexperimental

detail.(14.46)

357

Interviewer–Soisthereadifferenceinthetimetopublishforthetwo?

Alittlebit.Communicationstendtohaveaquickerturnaround.

Interviewer–Ofhowlong?

Sixto12weeks.

Interviewer–andthatisforyoutofindoutifithasbeenaccepted?

Noeverything, submission throughappearanceon theweb. Six to12weeks, sometimes

shorterthanthat.Wehavepublishedonepaperthat Isubmitted, itwasacceptedinone

day,wegottheproofsthreedayslater itwillbepublishedinlessthanoneweekhaving

gonethroughthefullrefereeandproofsprocess.

Interviewer–Wowthatisamazing

A lot of that is highly automated these days. I am amazed by that too, it is more the

exceptionthantherule, it isquitestriking, it issomething thathashappened in the last

fewdays.

Interviewer–Andwhataboutafullpaper?

A fullpaper isa littledifferent itdependson the journalbutcertainlyat least12weeks

anditcanbeupto24weeks.

Interviewer–soitisstillwithinsixmonths,

Yes, chemicalpublishingand I’msure inotherdisciplines, is sucha competitiveactivity

that journals dine out on how quickly they can get something that is submitted, put it

throughtherefereeingprocessandthenpublishitontheweb.Sosixmonthsmighteven

bealittlebitoutsidetheboundary.Iwouldsay16‐24weeksisatypicaltimeframefora

paperinchemistry,atleastOrganicChemistry.That’stheotherthingtobeawareofthisis

organicchemistryandthereisadistinctionyouneedtobeawareof.

Interviewer–Andhowlongwouldafullpaperbe?

Intermsofprintedpages?

358

Interviewer–yes

Oh, it can vary but it normally wouldn’t be longer than 20 pages tight packed double

column.

Interviewer–Andtheimageswouldbeinthere?

Theimagesandtheexperimentalinformationaswell,socommunicationis2‐4pagesand

fullpaper20pages.Againveryroughfiguresthere.

Interviewer–Which factors come tomindwhenyouare thinkingaboutwhich journals to

sendthepaperto?

Theprofileof the journalobviously.Howmuchhassleorotherwisegettingthings intoa

particularjournal.Idon’tlikedoublehandlingsoItendtoaimforjournalsthatIampretty

confident thingswill get into.My argument being if it is sufficiently significant piece of

work,regardlessoftheforum,becausethesearchtoolsarenowsopotentifitissignificant

enoughitwillgetpickedup.Idon’tlikebecauseofdistance(?)itisanimpostonmytime

andIhaveaResearchAssistantorthechemistryschoolhasaresearchassistantwhohelps

usformatpapersforsubmission,she’sjustfantasticatthat.Idon’tlikehavingherdouble

handling things, if it hasbeen rejected it has tobe reformatted for another journal it is

doublehandling,itisaninefficientwasteoftime.(18.49)

Interviewer–Sowhatisyourhitratelike?Howoftendoyougetrejected?

5%ofthetimeIsuppose.

Interviewer–Soprettygood.

Yes.Iamprettydisappointedifsomethinggetsrejected.AnyonewouldbebutI’mtrying

to make a balanced decision between the ranking of journal and the likelihood of

acceptance.

Interviewer–sotherankingofthejournaldoescomeintoit?

Absolutely yes. I am a mainstream organic chemist and the highest ranking journal

devotedtoorganicchemistryiscalledOrganicLetterspublishedbytheAmericanChemical

359

Society.ThatistypicallywhereIpublishmymosthighqualitywork,whatIconsidermy

highqualitywork.Anditisconsideredthehighestrankingjournalinorganicchemistry.

Interviewer – if you cast yourmind back towhere you started, when you startedwriting

papersyourself,didanyonegiveyouanyinstructiononhowtowriteapaperitself,andwhich

journalstosubmittoandhowthejournalrankingsystemmightaffectyourcareer.Howdid

youfindoutaboutthosethingswhenyouwerestartingout?(20.17)

Istartedouta longtimeago.WhenIwasaPhDstudentmysupervisorwouldwrite the

papers,letmehavealookatthemandwewouldarguethetossaboutvariousthingsbut

he did all the writing. I think the fascination/obsession with rankings of journals was

muchlessamatterofconcernwhenIwasdoingmyPhD,thiswasattheformativetimeof

mycareer,whenallthesethingswerebeingconsidered.AndmyPhDsupervisorwhowas

awonderfulsupervisor,andIwouldhavealongdiscussionsaboutwhichjournalwemight

consider submitting to, the chances of getting into that particular journal trying to be

reasonablypragmaticaboutourchancesofgettingintoonejournaloranother.Iguessmy

ownpragmatismaboutselectingjournalscomesfromthattime.

Interviewer–sothatwasquitegoodinstructionthen?

YeshewascertainlyverygoodaboutinstructingonallthesemattersandIliketothinkI

dothesamewithmyownstudents.

Interviewer –Well that ismy next question, now you are responsible for the germinating

careersofyoungsters,whatdoyoudowiththem?

Wetalkabouthowwemightpackagetheworktheyaredoing.Isaytomystudentsthere

is a real rigour that comes with writing articles for journals and if we do that writing

ahead of the production of their thesis, that essentially the article could become the

backbonesofaparticularchapterinthethesis.

Italsoforcesbothofus,myselfandthestudent,tothinkdeeplyabouttheresearch.How

weargueparticularconceptsandreasonsfordoingcertainthings.Italsoforcesustoget

our houses in order in terms of the experimental work has been probably completed,

therearen’tanygapsmissingthathaven’tbeendetectedinareasonablytimelyfashion.So

I like, and I think the students like the processwe go through talking about the paper,

talkingabouthowwearegoingtopresentourarguments,thestructureofthepaper,how

360

it canbecomeavaluableskeleton forachapterandhow itdefineshowmemightmove

forwardwiththeremainderoftheresearch.Ifinditaveryimportantprocessforallsorts

ofreasons.

Interviewer–sowhydoyoupublish?

Youcan’t, forawhole rangeof reasons,but I guessmore fundamentally thanmost, you

can’tbeattherigourofwritingapaperandsubmittingitforpeerreview.Youhavegotto

get your, you are using tax payer’s dollars to support your research.We are obliged to

publishwhatwedo.Anditprovidesarigorousconductinwhichtowork.Sothosewould

bekeythingsandofcourseifyoudon’tpublishyouperishinthegrantingsystem,sothat’s

rather critical as well, but that is a lower level of consideration than the other ones I

mentioned.IsupposetheotherreasonthatIwouldaddtothatlistiswethinkitgivesus

an international profile. It means that if we get it right, the research of the group is

respected and it assists with my students and graduates securing employment. That’s

anotherreason.

InterviewerWhatisyourunderstandingofthecopyrightstatusofyourpublishwork?

Now there’s a question [laughs]. Normally we assign copyright to journal. That’s the

typicalarrangementinmostchemistrysubmissionswesignovercopyrighttothejournal.

Interviewer– Sodo you evergive, eitherput copies of yourworkon yourwebsite or send

themofftopeoplewhohaverequestedthemofyou?

Idon’tputonthewebsite,wearenotallowedtonormallydothat.Idon’thaveawebsite

towhichpeople cannormally goand there is apdfof everpaper, far from it, thereare

linkstothejournal.Typicallythejournalwillsendyouanelectronicreprintwhichyouare

allowed todisseminate topeoplewhomakerequestsofyou,often there isa limitof20

electroniccopiesthatcanbesenttopeoplewhomakerequests.

Interviewer–Anddoyougetanyrequests?(25.50)

Yes,wewouldneverget20requests.Again,mostpeoplewouldhaveaccessthroughtheir

own libraries and can download directly. Typically these days we get reprint requests

fromthirdworldcountriesthathavemoremodestlibraryfacilitiesthanwedo.That’snot

to say thatotherpeople from firstworld countries,weknow from lookingatdownload

361

statisticsofvariousjournalsthatsomeofourpapersaregettingalotofdownloads.And

that is coming through, obvious people looking at our publications through their own

librarysystems.

Interviewer–Letsmoveontoreviewing.Whatsortofrefereeingloaddoyoutakeup?

Toomuch[laughs].I’mchairoftheeditorialadvisorycommitteefor[journalname]atthe

momentandIamcalledonbythemtodoalotofadjudicativerefereeingwhentheygeta

splitdecisionfromthenormalreferees.Ihavetoweighupthejudgementsoftwoormore

refereesandessentiallymakearulingonwhatwouldhappentothepaperthathasfallen

intothatparticularnoman’sland.

Interviewer–andhowoftendoesthathappen?

Onceamonthperhaps,somethinglikethat.

Interviewer–SothatIamguessingwouldbeagreaterburdenthananormalreview?

Yes because I have got to review the reviewers aswell as the paper itself. Then I have

normalvolumeofstuff.

Interviewer–Andwhatisthenormalvolumeofstuff.

OheverytwotothreedaysIgetarequesttoreviewsomething.Idon’tacceptthemallof

coursebutthatwouldbethenormalrateofrequest.

Interviewer–andaretheyrequestsforfullpapersorcommunications

Acombinationofboth.

Interviewersohowlongdoyouusuallyspend…I’mjusttryingtogetsomeideaofhowmuch

ofyourtimeisspentdoingthesethings.

Iwouldnormallyspendanevening,oragoodpartofanevening,readingitreviewingand

writingreport.Ofastandardpaper.

Interviewer–Whatabouttheseoneswhereyouareanadjudicator?

362

Ohthatcouldtakehalfadayatleast.Andifwearetalkingaboutreviewingreviewarticles

whichareoftenverysubstantial,thatcantakedays.

Interviewer–soallupitsquiteafewdaysofyouryear

Ohabsolutely

Interviewer–Sohowdoyoufeelaboutthattimeyouspendonreviewing?

It’skindofaquidproquoIguess.Ican’tbesubmitting,wepublishcloseto20papersa

year. And obviously that means there are 20‐40 ormore reviewers out there who are

lookingatourpapersandreportingonthem.SoIguessIfeelthereisaquidproquothere,

Ihavetocontributetothecommunityofresponsibilityfordoingreviewing.

Interviewer – And have you ever had any remuneration for the time you have spent in

recognitionatall?(29.36)

Not reviewing journal articles no. Theses and grant proposals is another matter, not

journalarticles.

Interviewer–soyoudogetpaidinsomewayforthesesand…

Well is that coming into the mix? I have a PhD thesis from another institution at the

moment.

Interviewer–andtheyofferyouandhonorarium?

$300 or something and grant proposals which I review there are some organizations

whichpayyoutodoit.ARCincludedifyouareanOzreader,butthatisonlytoestablisha

contractualobligation.

Interviewer–Haveyoueverfoundwithyourreviewingthat,itgoesbothwaysIsuppose,that

youhavehadabadreview,andbybadIdon’tmeantheyhavesaidyourworkisbad,butthe

reviewitselfseemedtobeabitoff,butbythesametokenhaveyoureviewedsomethingand

thenyouhaveseenitpublished.Likesomethingwherethesystemisn’tworking,hasthatever

happenedtoyou?

363

Iwouldn’tsaythatthesystemisn’tworking.IguesswhatIsometimesseeisIrecommend

rejectionandyet itgets inand I thinkgee thatwasprettymarginal, Iamsurprisedthat

surfaced. But obviously therewere other reviewer that have recommended publication

instead of rejecting as I have recommended. There is another interesting dynamic that

comesintoplaythatyoumaybeawareofbutIwillmakeacommenton.Manychemistry

journalskeepaneyeonthepropensityofagivenreviewertorecommendacceptanceor

rejection.SomanyjournalsestablishprofilesfortheirreviewersandIhaveafeelingthat

whentheeditorialstaffofaparticularjournallookatsomethingandsaywethinkthisis

probablyabitmarginalwhydon’twegiveittoareviewerwhoislikelytorejectitrather

thanacceptit,orviceversa,wethinkthis isfantasticstuff,wewillsendittoreviewerX

becausetheirrecordshowsthattheytendtorecommendacceptancemorethanrejection.

Ihaveasensethatsomejournalstryandmanipulateoutcomes.Idon’twanttogetintoa

discussionaboutwhether that isethicalorknotbut theycertainlydo, Iknowtheykeep

profilesbecausetheyoftensendoutaprofiletoyouattheendoftheyear.Youwilloften

getanemailwithanattachmentwhichsaysyoureviewedXpapersandrejectedYofthem

andrecommendedacceptanceofZofthem.

The other thing that is an interesting phenomenon for researchers in the southern

hemisphere in chemistry is you can guarantee that you will get more requests for

reviewing in the northern summer months when the normal cohort of referee is not

available because they are on holidays. So you tend to see a lot more requests for

reviewingfornorthernhemispherejournalsinthemiddleoftheyear.

33.30

Interviewer– Ingeneral, Iknowitwillvary fromjournal to journal,buthowmanypeople

wouldrefereeaparticulararticle?

Itishighlyvariable,itcanbesimplyeditororthesubeditorandnomorethanthatthrough

tofourorfivereviewersdependingonthequalityofthejournal.Ithinkthereissomething

of correlation between quality of the journal and the number of reviewers used. The

higherthequalityofthejournalthemorereviewersareemployedtomakeanassessment

ofthesubmission.

Interviewer–Areyoufamiliaratallwiththeexpressionopenaccesspublishing?

Yes

364

Interviewer–Whatisyourunderstandingofit?

Well I think thereare twovariantsof itaren’t there,one is that it isa journal,anormal

journalwithrefereeingassociatedwithitbutthereisnocharge,itisputontheweb,there

isnotnormallyahardcopyform.Soit’sareviewedjournalthatisfreetoair.

Andinanothervariant,andIamnoexpertonopenaccesspublishing,andanothervariant

it isbothfreetoairandthere isnotreallythatmuchvettingof it. Itpeoplecan justput

ontobulletinboardsalmostelectronicversionsofpapers.

Interviewer–ThatisaversionofopenaccessbutitisnotwhatIamreferringto.Whatyou

talkedaboutatthebeginningismorewhatIamtalkingabout.Andthereareactuallytwo

pathsthereisthatwayofpublishinginanopenaccessjournalorthereisasecondarypath

wherewithpublisherpermissionyoucanputacopyofthepreorpostprintoftheworkup

intoeitheryourwebpageoran institutionalrepository.Haveyouheardof thisexpression


Ihavehearditdiscussed.

Interviewer–WereyouawarethatthereisonehereattheANU?

I am aware there was one at one of the universities in Queensland. I think they were

trailblazingweren’ttheyandwefollowedsuittosomeextent.Somyanswertothatwas

yes Iwas aware of that here. But I am also aware, I think I have this right, one of the

smalleruniversitiesinQueensland…

Interviewer–YouwouldbethinkingoftheQueenslandUniversityofTechnology.

Yesthat’sright,QUThasbeenveryproactiveinthis.

Interviewer–yestheyhavemadeitmandatorytoputthingsin.

Yes

Interviewer–So itwouldappearthat isnotsomethingyouhaveconsidereddoing,putting

thingsintoaninstitutionalrepositoryhere?

365

No, not for any particular reason, it is just another step that I don’t see as being of

significancetothewayIinteractwiththeoutsidechemistryworld.Itwouldn’tgivemean

advantagebeyondanythingImightacquirethroughtheconventionalpublishingprocess.

Because all the colleagues thatwork in the same field as I do have access to the same

searching toolsandaccess toabroad libraryof theirwon institutions, so Idon’t think I

would gain an advantage in terms of increased exposure to my colleagues. I wouldn’t

project any further than I do now through the tools that are available to most of my

colleagues.AtleastIdon’tthinkthatIwould.

Interviewer–Myunderstandingisthatoneofthejournalsyoupublishinabit,ARCHIVOK,as

farasIunderstandthatisanopenaccessjournal?

Yes

Interviewer–Isthatinanywayaconsiderationwhenyousendsomethingthere?

Notintheleast.ARCHIVOK,althoughthereputationisimproving,itwasoriginallycreated

andstatedassuch,createdtoessentiallybearepositoryforexperimentalworkthatmight

nothavegonelongwaybuttherearestillsomeusefulresultsfromthatwork.Itpossibly

couldn’tbepublishedinamoreconventionalformandthiswasavehicleforgettingsome

information that might be of modest significance out there because it might be of

assistance to some colleagues in field. Imeanwe can’t always predictwhatwill be the

most valuable use of our research is, in our hands it might not seem important but in

someoneelse’shand,becausetheyarelookingatthingsfromadifferentdirectionitcould

beveryimportant.

Andagain,iftheworkisdoneproperlyandcarefullyandpresentedadequately,wehavea

responsibilityittogetitoutthere.ThefunnythingaboutARCHIVOKisitisevolvingand

becoming more of conventional journal with more of the conventional hurdles for

publication.Soironicallyitstartedoffasarepository/OAjournalanditnowhasallofthe

accoutrementsofamoretraditionaljournal.Soithasevolvedinaninterestingdirection.

Interviewer–Butithascontinuedtobe.

It isopenaccessstill,but itsaspirationshavechangedbecauseIguessthe impact factor

gameisimportantforeveryone.Youcan’tignorethat.

366

Interviewer–Butitstill, itdoesn’tchargeapayonsubmissionfee,youastheauthordon’t

havetopay?

No its free to air for everyone, including the authors, there are no page charges or

anythinglikethatanditisastrictlyelectronicjournal.

Interviewer–wellthatisallthestuffIwanttotalkabout,Iamofferingtowalkoutthedoor

and never bother you again [both laugh], or when I produce something that is

understandableandnotaPhDthesisIamhappytoletpeopleknowifyouwouldliketo…

Yes,Iwould,justtosee,Idon’twanttomonitorwhatyouaredoingjustseehowitfitsinto

thebigpicture.Iwouldlikethatthankyou

Interviewer–wellthatisgreatthankyouverymuchforthat

Mypleasure[endoftape]

367

Appendix 4e - Full transcript of interview: Sociology at university B

(15February2007)

Interviewer–IwilljustgiveyouaquickbackgroundofwhatIamdoing.Iaminterestedin

thechangingresearchpracticesinAustralia,andparticularlyintermsofpeople’sinteraction

with the literature, both as a researcher and as an author. And this in light of themove

towards making information more publicly accessible. So the way I am structuring my

research is I am doing a comparative study with the ANU versus the UNSW – so two

institutionswhoareatdifferentstagesoftheiradministrativeareasandI’mlookingatthree

disciplines which diversify a lot in terms of their publications methods, so Sociology,

Computer Science and Chemistry and they have different emphases in their publishing

outputs.

Yeptheysuredo.

Interviewer – So I am comparing those to hopefully get some insights into the differences

betweendisciplinesbutalsosomeinsightintothedifferencesbetweenuniversitiesandIwill

thendoa triangulationof thatwithQUTuniversitywhohave instigated various things in

theiruniversitytoseeiftheyhavehadtheexperiencesthatIthinktheyshouldgivenwhatI

havefound

RightOK,[laughs]

Interviewer–sothat’showitsallgoingtowork[laughing]hopefullyitwillbefabulous.So

whatIamaskingpeopletodoinitiallyisbasicallygivemeaquickrundownofthebreakup

ofyourworkthepercentageoftimeyouwouldspend,andIunderstandthereisadifference

between term time and non term time, in your teaching your administration and your

research.Andwithyourresearchwhatformthattakes.

Hmm.Weitalsodependsonwhereyouareinyourbiographytoo,becauseyouroutputis

pushedbyyourhungerfortenureforajoborajobfullstop.Soearlyinyourcareeryou

willbeslammingoutanythingonthebackofabusticketandgivingittoanyonewhowill

takeit.AndtheadviceIwouldgive–Iwilljustrabbitonandyoutellmetoshutupifitis

notrelevant–theadviceIwasgivenwhenIwasayoungscholarwaspublishanywhere,

anytimeandstartleavingitofftheCVasyougetmorematureandhighlightonlythegood

internationals. And I think that is probably generically true. I don’t know how many

368

peoplestartleavingthingsoffbutIcertainlydo.Ihavethingspublishedthatwererunoff

onRomeropressesthatyouwouldn’twanttoownuptoanymore.

Sothat’spartofyouroutputpush.AndIguessthemorestraightforwardanswertoyour

questionisaboutthreeyearsagoIdidaBureauofStatisticsworkdiary,whichisatime

diaryoversixmonths,whichinvolvedphoneinterviewsandkeepingatimediaryandthey

reckonedIwasworking65hoursperweek.AndatthatstageIhad3booksbacktoback.I

was writing one, proofing one and doing something with the third. That was just a

nightmare. If you look back at that period thatwas every night of theweek and every

weekendworkingonpublications.

Interviewer–sonotthetimeyouwerespendinghere.

Nonotwritingthosethree.I’dcomebackheretoworkat9pmwhenthekidswereasleep

and work through until about 2am in that period. Whereas at the minute life’s a lot

quieter. I amdoing the second edition of a textbook and I’mpulling together an edited

collectiontogetherofaconferenceIranlastyear.Sothepressureisnotasbad.Butthat

wouldstillinvolvedmostweekendswritingortryingtowrite.

Interviewer–andwiththese,theimpetustodothisworkisthatselfdirectedor,whywere

youinasituationwhereyouhadthreegoingatthesametime?

Ihaveaninabilitytosayno.

Interviewer–sosomebodyelseisaskingyou?

Well putting together a book is a long complex process, approaching commissioning

editorsandpublishersandputtingaproposaltothem.Soifoneofthose,thetextbookfor

example,wentthroughfivepublishersbeforesomeonesaidyes.Whensomebodysaysyes,

you can’t afford to say no. And with the other one, [book name] with a couple of my

colleaguesherewaspurelyserendipitous.Wewerehavingacupofcoffeeandwesaidlet’s

writeabookon[topic].Andthethirdoneatthattimewasaninternationaldictionaryof

socialsciencesandbecauseitwasatextbookthepublishersputittomeassomethingto

do.Andagainyoudon’tsayno.

Andyoudon’tsaynobecauseitiscalledpackingaparachute–weliveinperiloustimesin

academiclifeandifyourpublicationisnotuptodateyouareintrouble.Anditkeepsyou

369

geographicallyandsociallymobile.Soifyouwantachairin[city]or[city]youhavegotto

haveit.Sothereisalotofinnerdriveforit,whichalotofcolleaguesdon’tshare.Because

the other option is you get appointed and you sit back and relaxwhich is increasingly

impossiblebutyoucanstilldoitaloteasierthanIdoit.

Then having done all that you have the problem of uneven publications. So, I was

interviewedforachairjustbeforeChristmas,andnotwithstandingthesevenbooksand40

articles and chapters and Christ knows how many seminars and conferences the first

questionwas“whyhasyourarticleproductionsloweddown?”AndIsaidlookIhavejust

writtenthreebooksandhesaid“yesweunderstandthatbutyourinternationalprofilehas

gottobestronger,youhavegotto”…farout!Howmuchworkcanyoudo?

InterviewerCanIaskwhothiswas?

[personidentified]

Interviewer–anddoyouknowwhathisbackgroundis?

Yesheisapsychologist.

Interviewer–OKandhe’snotinadissimilar..

Thereisagreatdealofprofessionalboundarystampingaroundpsychologyandsociology.

InterviewerIwasjustthinkingitisnotlikehewasaphysicistorsomething

Nono,Buthewouldbeabehaviouristandhewouldbeapositivistsohewouldonlythink

thatthingsthatweredatadrivenandinternationallypublishedcount.

Interviewer – Interesting. You just mentioned before that the book went through five

publishers.Soyouhadwrittenaproposalforabook?

Yes

Interviewer–socanyouexplainthatprocesstome(7.15)

370

HowdidIdoit?Iteach[coursename]asanundergradcourse.Andafteraboutfivetosix

yearsofpolishing the lectures itoccurred tome that thiswasnow looking likean intro

textbook.SoIliterallyjoinedallmylecturefilesintoonebigfileandbeganworkingacross

isandwritingintroductionsandsmoothingoverbuildingupevidence,gettingresearchfor

ABSstats,becauseitwassocioeconomiceffectsofillness,whogetssickwhenwherehow.

Ethnicpatterns.SoIbuiltitup.Andthepublisherlikestoseeabout3chapterscomplete

andtheintroductionaswellasadetailedTableofContents.

I sent it to Allen & Unwin, thinking that an Australian publisherwould like it but they

didn’t they said they had moved out of the text book market. And then it went to

MelbourneUniPressandtheydidn’tlikeit.

Interviewer–didtheysaywhy?

Yes, they didn’t like text books either. Which is quite odd. Then Sage International in

London took it in the end. Then it became by academic standards a good selling book

whichiswhytheywantasecondedition.Itsoldabout4000copieswhichisnotevergoing

tomakemerichbutitcountsforadecentserve.

Interviewer–andwhat sort of periodof timedid that cover, how longdid that take. Like

years?

Years,ohyes,years.Becausewhenyousendabooktoapublishertheycansitonitforsix

tosevenmonthsbeforetheydecidetheyevenwanttohaveitrefereed.If theydecideto

haveitrefereedanditgoesoutthat’sanothersixmonthsandthereisthewritingprocess

to finish it all off then there is the sub editingprocess to clean it all up afterwards and

gettingtheindexdone.It’sahugejob,it’salonghaul.Icouldfindthefirstfilewiththefirst

submissionsomewhereeonmyharddiskbutitcantakethreetofouryears.

Interviewer–sothreetofouryearsfromwhenyoufirstsentittoAllenandUnwintowhenit

finallywas published. Alright sowhat about journal articles, thatwas you trying to get a

bookpublished,Whatsortofdifferencewastherewhenthepublisherapproachedyouand

wantedyoutowriteabookwhattimewasthat?

Thatwastwoyears.

Interviewer–doesthatincludethewriting?

371

Yesbut Iworkedhammersand tongs I tellyouDanny. Itwasadictionary.Acrossover

betweenadictionaryandasortofencyclopedia. Itwasveryhardtodobut itwasquite

doablebecauseeveryentrywasquitediscreteand Iwroteall theentries thatbelonged

together,soall thehistoryofmedicineentriesIwrote inarowandall theprofessionof

medicineentriesIwroteinarow.Itwasalotofwork.Butitwastwoyearsitwasmuch

faster because they knew what they wanted and I knew what they wanted. So I put

togetherwhat they call headwords I put together a list of 900 by going through all the

textbookstodowithhealthandsocialsciencesandthenIwroteuptheentriesformaybe

30%of them.Then they sent it out to refereeswhoaddedwordsanddeletedwordsor

suggestedthings.Butintimeframetermsitwasmuchquicker.Buttheyforcedmetowrite

fast.Iwasabitsickbytheendofit.(11.24)

Interviewer – so with your journal articles, your experience there, what is the, in your

experience,whatsortoftimeframehaveyouhadwithjournals.

Mostwould take a year.There are spectacularly long lead times involved inpublishing,

which iswhyyouneed tokeepsomuch in thedrain.Thebiggest internationalsare the

besttheywilltellyouveryquicklywhetherornottheyareinterestedinrefereeingitand

theywillrefereefairlyquickly,

So I have got a handful of articles in a couple of the big journals. And once you have

writtenit,writingwilltakeasemesterbecauseithasgottoberesearchbasedandmostof

myresearchbasedworkisdocumentary,Iveryrarelyleavethisoffice.BecauseIcandoit

onthebasisofpublicdocumentsandgovernmentdocumentsandpubliclyavailablestats

andjustusethemtodevelopanargumentaboutthestateofgeneralpracticeinAustralia

or,whatelsehaveIdone,Ican’tthink.

Interviewer–[laughs]

I actually have to look upmyownCV to knowwhat I amdoing. Anyway itwould be a

documentary based form of analysis. I very rarely do interviews or observation or

qualitativestuff.Andtheywillcomethroughfairlyfast.Thesmallerjournalsaretheworst.

And so I always sendmywork international first and I have a reasonable hit rate at it

actually.

372

Interviewer–andsoyouaremakingadecisiononwheretosenditpartlyonhowlongitis

goingtotake?

Yes.IfIsenttoapapertoLabourandIndustrywhichiseditedoutofDeakin,youcanbe

virtuallyguaranteed18months.Partofitisbecausetheyaresmallandtheydon’thavethe

administrativeback‐upofsayInternationalJournalofHealthServicesdoes.Andtheydon’t

haveapoolofrefereestodrawon.Sopartof it isbuilt intothestructureof thesesmall

presses.AndtheotherpartistheAustraliancringe,whichisaliveandwell.Sothepaper

ongeneralpracticeIsenttoLabourandIndustryandtheyturneditdownsoIsentittothe

International Journal of Health Services and they took itwith almost no revision. So it’s

bettertoberefereedinternationallybecauseyoudon’trunintoyourcolleagues.

Interviewer – even though it is supposed to be blind refereeing, do you think even at the

editoriallevelbeforeitgetssentouttoreferee?

It’s a very small pool in Australia. There are only five to six people designated health

soci….ohthat’snottruethereismorethanthat,butthereisonlyfivetosixatthetopto

putitbluntly.Andwewouldberefereeingeachother’sworkendlessly.Youcantellwho

hascomein.Youknowtheirareasyourknowtheirstyle,youknowtheirwriting.

Interviewer – and are there big philosophical differences in your approaches? Are there

pointswhere you know if it goes toDr Jones they are going to say no because they don’t

agreewithyourpointofview?(15.00)

No, that doesn’t happen. The market breaks itself up. Health Sociology Review is the

national journal for Sociology of health and it doesn’t have an epidemiological or a

quantitative bias, its pretty independent. But youwouldn’t send in something based on

population statistics analysis, it’s not their cup of tea. But you would send it to the

Australian journal of public health. And so where there are epistemological divides

between thedisciplinesyoudon’tbesilly.Youdon’t sendstats to thequalitativepeople

and you don’t send a qualitative account of women’s breast cancer to the ANZ public

healthpeopleitsnottheircuppa.

Therearedifferentnetworksofwhopublisherswithwho.SoIaminanetworkbuiltoutof

MelbourneandSydney.[detailsofthepeopleworkingwith]Sothefieldlooksafteritself.

Thereis(sic)nobadfeelingsaroundalloftheseissues.

373

Interviewer–Nowyoumentionedbeforeaboutconferencepapersthatwerenotinyourlist

Oh,Ijustsentyoumypublicationslist.

Interviewer–no,nothat’sfine.Whatareobservationsaboutconferences?

Awasteoftime,Iloathethem.Itryandmakearuletodooneeverytwoyears.

Interviewer–whyisthat?

To keep yourprofile up. Peoplewant to knowyou are out and about youhave got one

headandyoucanstandupandnotbepissedat9am.AndIknowsomeacademicswhoare.

Theyalsowanttoknowyourworkhasinternationalstanding.

Interviewer–Andwhoisthey?Yourcolleagues?

Youremployers. I’vebeento[university] lastyeartherewastheDVCResearchtheDVC,

theVCsocialsciences,theheadoftheschoolofsocialsciencesandtwooutsideprofessors.

Theyisabigbunchesofboyswithbigdicksbasicallyandtheywanttoknowiftheytake

youonboardcanyougiveplenarysessionstonationalbodies,canyoutraveloverseasand

talk in public. So I do that and I have done three plenary sessions for the Australian

Sociology Association. Which is worth doing – because that counts. An invited public

addressisverydifferentthingfroma20minutepostereditioninthefoyer.Andwithmy

workwith [name],he travels internationallya lot sohepresentsourco‐producedwork

overseas so I can claim to have international visibility at a whole host of universities

overseasinCanada,Europe,Britain.

Interviewer–anddoyougetpublicationsoutofthat?

No,itsnotworthit.Thelasttime[name]andIworkedtogether,itwasabout18months

agowe got 1 co‐authored journal paper and two book chapters in an edited collection.

That’s a far better place than conference proceedings. Because even though conference

proceedings often they are refereed everyone knows it’s you know, part of the game. I

think it is a serious error that a lot of young scholars, particularly youngwomenmake,

theythinkthatgivingconferenceiswhatitisabout.AndoftenyouseetheirCVandthey

willhaveover30conferencepresentationsbutonlytwopublications.Andyouwillsay,it’s

notaboutgoingoutandtalkingtopeopleandhavingcupsofcoffee.

374

Interviewer–youmentionedwhenyoufirststartedoutthatsomebodymentionedtopublish

everywhere. So you have partly answered the question I am about to ask, but when you

started outwhat kind of formal or informal assistancewere you given in how towrite a

paperandwheretosendthatpaper.

None

Interviewer–None?Sowhathappened?

WhenIwasstartingoutIhadafriendacoupleofyearsaheadofme,whowasdoinghis

PhD. He used to keep on his desk a copy of Ulrichs. And Ulrichs is the international

classification of journals by subject and title. And [name] was a spectacular publisher.

Spectacular.Andwhathedid,everythinghewrotehewentthroughUlrichsuntilhefound

someonewhowouldpublishit.[laughs]

Heputmeontoalittlejournal,Iwillshowyoubecauseitissobadlyproduceditwillshow

youexactlywhatImean.HeputmeontoalittlejournalpublishedoutoftheUniversityof

Manchester in Britain. And look [showing it to me] they didn’t even edge the pages,

[laughs]itsstapledtogether,it’stinyfont.Butthatwasamultidisciplinaryjournalandthe

guywhoediteditwasbig,DavidLamb(?)biginthehistoryandphilosophyofknowledge

andofmedicine.Andtheyreally likedthestuff Iwasdoing,so thatgaveme, Igot three

papers. 1988,1992, very early inmy career, [identifying information]. Soonceyou find

someone like that who likes what you do and is prepared to publish it, that gives you

addedconfidenceandyoustartsendingittobiggerpeopleandyougetlucky.MyPhDwas

in [identifying information] and University of Adelaide had a little journal of South

Australian studies or something. And they took a very long paper from me which

establishedmyprofilewithhistorianswhichallowedmetogetmyfirstjob.Andthatwas

deadluckyIjustsentittothem.BecauseIhadseenacopyofthejournallyingonashelf.

Andthenyoustarttryingtostretchyourwingsandstarttogowrong.SoIwentforScience

and SocialMedicinewhich is the biggest international, and got roundly beaten up, very

roundly beaten up.Which teaches you an awful lot aboutwhat you can get awaywith

sayingandnotsayingatthatlevel.NoIdidn’tgetalegupfrommyPhDsupervisor,itwas

prettymuch‘thisisbirdbathnowyoulearntoswim’.

Interviewer So now the shoe is on the other foot.What do you dowith your students in

termsof,doyouhavePhDstudents?

375

Nineofthem

Interviewer – so do yougive themanyadvice, are you involved in any formal or informal

instructionnowyouareattheotherside?

I like to see my PhD students get two journal articles out of the thesis while they go.

Becauseonce its in theacknowledgements in the frontof the thesis itgives the thesisa

phenomenal legitimacy in theeyesofexaminer,evenbeforeheorshehasread the first

page, and that’s why I published, I managed to squeak my early articles into my

acknowledgementspage.Thatshowstheexaminerenormouslyaboutwhat’sgoingonin

thethesis,especiallyifitsnotsmackintheirarea.

Do they do it? Letme think, [name] did, I don’t think [name] has, and she’s just about

finished,buthercaseitdoesn’tmatterasmuchbecauseshe,[identifyinginformation]so

sheprobablywon’tworkinastraightacademia.[Name]convertedhisthesisintoabook

withinaboutsixmonthsoffinishing.Soyougivethemalotofmoralsupportbutyoucan’t

actuallymakethemwriteit.Andyoutellthemstrategicallythisisagoodthingtodo.And

strategicallygettingan international conferencepaperout isgood.AndataPhD level if

thatconferenceclaimstobea‘refereed’conferenceandhaspublishedproceedingsthat’s

extremelygood.

Interviewer–eventhoughyouknowitsrubbish?

Wellwe don’t think its rubbish at PhD level.We think its rubbish at senior lecturer or

professorlevelifyouarecitingyourconferencepublications.ButatPhDlevelitscritical.I

haveastudentwhoisstudying[identifyinginformation].Nowthat isgreatkudos.Tobe

invitedandpaidfor,itcameoutinrefereedproceedings.Anditgaveheranopportunityto

talkaboutherworkwithpeoplewhomightknowsomethingaboutit.Theyhavegottobe

carefulbecauseat theendwhattheywant isaPhD. It’sgreat tohavetwoarticlesanda

PhDbutlousytohavetwoarticlesandnoPhD.That’sreallyhardyards.

Less individualisticallymoreproactively Ihavebeenworkingwith [name]he teachesat

[university]campussometimes.Hesaidthereisanawfullotof[university]PhDswhoare

feelingunattachedtoanybody,alloftheninsociologyofhealthandillness.Wouldyoube

preparedtocomeonboardasaconferencedownhere.About90peoplerespondedtothe

emailstosaywewouldloveto.Wewillgivealmostallofthoseconferenceburstswhoare

376

PhDsandthatgivesthemachancetopresenttheirworkandwewillput itoutonaCD

Romattheendofit,itwillbegood.AndIthinkinitiallythingslikethatareveryimportant.

Interviewer–andwhenisthathappening?

[identifyinginformation]

Interviewer–yousaidearlyinyourcareerthatyouhadsaidIwillgoforthebigjournaland

theysaidperhapsnot.Asyouhavebecomemoreexperiencedatpitchingyourwork,what’s

yourhitrate,howoftendoyougetrejectedthesedays?

Igotrejectedafewmonthsago.Iwasdevastated[laughs]Up[longpause]itisprettyhigh.

YouseetheotherthingyoudoasayoungsterifIcanputitlikethatisyouhavetobring

thingsintoexistence.Iwillgiveyouabiographicalexample.Isyouhavegottomakethe

world work for you, because it ain’t going to do it for you. And so when I went to

Wellington,serendipitouslyontheEditorialBoard,andthisisaveryimportantjournalin

myfield,[nameofjournal].Ontheeditorialboardwas[name].SoIsaidtohimarethere

“Anytheregapsin[journal]?”.Whatitdoesisprovideanoverviewofthediscipline.And

he saidwe haven’t had a sociology of health and illness since themid 50’s. And I said

alright Iwillwrite to theeditorsandproposethatandtheywrotebackandsaidyes.So

youhavegottobeveryproactive.Andthatthen,becauseitwassuchabigcoupmeantthat

alotmorepeopleinthesystemknowaboutyouandwantyournameinthejournal,they

wantyournameonthefrontcover.

Interviewer – And have you been approached verymuch, do you get approached towrite

papers?

Almost allmy book chapters are the consequence of being approached. And vice versa,

again you hear on the grapevine, that someone is putting out a volume onmedicine in

colonial societies, you get onto them and say I heard on the grapevine would you be

interested in Australian/Canadian comparisons, as I work in that field. You know, you

pushyourselfin.Andsecondedition,theyleaveyououtbutthat’salrightyougotintothe

firstedition.

Andalsoaboutnot,ifsomeoneasksyou,youalwayssayyesyouwilldoit.Youneverlet

somebody down in the publishing field, editor, commissioning editor, it doesn’tmatter

becausethatgoesaroundthetrapstoo.YouwantapaperonX,askYbecausewhetheror

377

nottheyactuallytakeit.Thelastonethatwasrejected–theyaskedforitbutIwroteitin

theteachingperiodandeventhoughIknewitwasn’tuptoscratch.Buttheyaskbecause

youareaknownquantity.(30.29)

Interviewer–OK this is somewhatofanabstractquestion soanswer ithoweveryouwish.

Whydoyoupublish.

[whistles] God knows. To answer the perennial question of “Am I good enough?”What

drivesacademicshasgottodowithprofoundanddeepinsecuritysomewherealongthe

linebecauseyouwouldn’tdothisforthemoneyandyouwouldn’tdoitforthefun.It’sthe

personaldemonthatdrivesyou.AutobiographicallyIalwayswantedtobeafictionwriter,

that’swhatIalwayswantedtodoandwhenIwasn’tIthoughtIstillwanttobeawriter

andacademiabecame it.Notall academics share that.Maybeonly threeoutof10ofus

thatarethatdriven.

Interviewer–andhowmuchrefereeingdoyoudo?

Scads.LikeIdidtwoovertheXmasbreakfortwointernationaljournals.Icouldlookitup

ontheCVifyouwantit[lookingonline].Manuscriptreferees2006–two, lastyearIdid

healthsociologyreview,2004– three,2003– three,2002– five,2001– three,andthen

back1998– two,1997– two,1996– two.Andthat’s forall sortsof journals,European,

American,Canadian,Australian.It’salsoformajorbookpublishers.

Interviewer–andthesearearticlesyouaretalkingabout?

Thesearerefereeingarticlesandfulllengthbookmanuscripts.Aswellasbookproposals.

Soit’salot.

Interviewer–Andwhatsortoftimedoesthistakeyou?

Ifit’sawholebooktakesthreeweeksofworkoutsidetheofficelyingonthecouchreading

it. With journal articles I’m pretty fast at it now, usually two days unless it is a very

complexarticleorunlessitsanarticlethatIthinkshouldbepublishedbutitneedsalotof

work done to it and then it might take nearer to four to five days. So they are time

consuming.AndPhDsaswellIhavedoneover35PhDsinthelastwhile.

Interviewer–andhowdoyoufeelaboutthetimeyouspendrefereeing?

378

Itdoesn’tworryme.Ilookatacademiclifeasprettyseamless.Sothetimeputintoreading

someone else’smanuscript isme learning andoften aheadof thepackbecause you are

readingsomethingnew.Theprocessofreadingarticlesisveryinstructivebecauseifyou

rejectoneyouneedtogiveagoodreason.Andyoutakethatonboardforyourownwork.

WhenyoumarkPhDsgenerallyspeakingyoulearnahellofalot.Ihavedone34PhDs.SoI

don’t thinkof themas falling into categoriesofmyworkandnotmywork it is justmy

work.Youcan’twalkoutoftheofficeasanacademicandturnyourbrainoff,youcan,you

gohomeanddrink twobottlesof redwine, that’s theonlywayyoucando it.So Idon’t

thinkofitastimeIwouldotherwisespendasdoingmywork.

InterviewerHaveyoueverbeencompensatedforthetimeyouhavespentreviewinginany

way?

Verylittle–publishersusedtogiveyoutwobooksofftheirlist.Buttheyhavestoppedthat

I think theyhita taxproblemorsomething. Icertainlyhaven’thadany freebooks from

publishers in a long time.Noyoudon’t get compensationbut on theother side youget

professionallyknownorknownaboutwhichmaynotpayofffor10years.Andyoumeet

theauthorataconferenceandyousayblahblahwecouldworktogether.Youdon’tget

financialcompensation.

Interviewer–whatisyourunderstandingofthecopyrightstatusofyourwork?

I scarcely have any idea, I wouldn’t know. Most journals take over copyright but will

releaseitbacktoyouifitisforyoutoputsomewhereelseinyourotherwork.

SowhenIwrotemybooksitsgotthegutsofthreepapersinitsomewhere.Theyarevery

happy for you to reuse your work in the context of helping it further with

acknowledgement. Intermsofbookchapters– Ihaveno idea. It isnotsomethingIever

thinkabout.

Interviewer–sohaveyoubeeninasituationwhereyouhavehadtoaskforuseofyourown

work?

Yesinthetextbookon[topic]Ihadtoget[publisher]inUSAtoreleasetwoarticlesback

tome.

Interviewer–andwasthataproblem?

379

No. Itwouldbeaproblemifwantedtouse in,sayaneditedcollectionbysomeoneelse.

AndI’mnotevensurewhytheykeepcontrol likethat.But it’snotaproblemifyou just

wanttoreuseitunderyourownnameinadifferentcontext.Quitefrequentlyifyoupick

upanacademicbookintheacknowledgementsitwillhavemaybeeightorninechapters,

sevenofwhichstartedoffasarticles.

Interviewer–andyouarehappywiththatsituation?

Yes,believeme,nomoneyhangsonit,wearenottalkingJeffreyArcherhere.(38.12)

Interviewer – letsmove onto the other side of it,which is you as a reader rather than an

author.Howdoyoukeepupwithwhatisgoingoninyourdiscipline?

[Bigbreathout,underbreath‘ohgod’]Bytheseatofmypants.WhatIdoandthisiswhere

thepayoffinrefereeingandexaminingthesescomes.Youpayverycloseattentiontothe

bibliography,infactoneofthefirstthingsIwilldowhenIamreadingamanuscriptislook

atthebibliography.Itsaysanawfullotaboutwhotheyare,wheretheyarecomingfrom,

whatspeedtheyareatandhowuptodate theyare.That’saveryusefulwayofstaying

acrossthefield.

Interviewer–soifthereissomethingyouhaven’tseenyouwilllookitup?

Iwilltrackitdown,yes.AndifaPhDstudentandtheysayIhavereadblahblah,Iwillsay

givemethereferenceandIwilltrackdown.SoIwillreadalongsidemyPhDsalot,bothto

keep up with them and to keep up with the literature but with the Internet it’s a

nightmare.Putinkeywordsinanytopicyouget300,000hits.

Interviewer–andwhatsearchengineareyoutalkingaboutthere?

IuseGoogle.

Interviewer–sodoyougetsenttablesofcontentsandarticlesandstuff?

YesIdoIamonIngentaandIgetaboutfiveorsix,ohmaybemore,sevenoreightjournals

regularly. But I don’t usually have time to read through them but it is a good way of

keepingupwithwhatisgoingon.

380

Interviewersowhenyousayreadthroughthemdoyoumeantheemailsorthearticles?

Yestheemails.

Interviewer – so the bulk of what you are looking at is things that come through on

bibliographiesandPhDsmentioningmaterial.So that is somethingwhich isnotcomingto

you,youhavetogoandfindit.Sowhatistheprocessyoudowhenyouknowyouneedtoget

Smitharticlewhatdoyoudo?

GointoANUlibrary,lookupthejournalintheelectronicselectionanddownloadit.

Interviewer – and how often would you hit a barrier, when there isn’t a subscription or

somethinglikethat?

Notoftenenoughtocauseconcern.Letsputitanotherway.Ihaven’tputinaninterlibrary

loan in for an article for about five years. And so much now is archived. When I was

writing this [topic] book, I wasn’t very savvy and I used to go across to the school of

medicinelibraryandpullallthejournalsofftheshelf.

Interviewer–whenwasthis?

2002. Yes I came to the web very late. But that was great fun sitting in the school of

medicinelibrary.Youfindoutsomuchmoreserendipitouslythatyoudon’tcomeacross

ontheweb.Youdon’tspotitbecauseofhoweveritiscodedorhowtheyhavechosento

keywordsdoesn’ttriggeranything.AndwhenIwaswritingthedictionarythewebwasa

positivenightmarebecauseifyouputinakeywordyoujustgoteverythingunderthesun.

SoIspentalotoftimeinthelibraryphysicallypullingthingsofftheshelf.Howtheyhad

definedorusedaword,whatcontextitwasin,haditchangedovertime.

Interviewer–sogenerallyyouarefindingyouhavegottheaccessyouneedtothethingsyou

needtolookat.Whenyousayyougotothelibraryanddownloadit,whatdoyoudowithit

atthatpoint?

Iputitonmydeskandreadit.

Interviewer–youprintthemout?

381

YesIprintthemout.Forinstancethisonewasagreatfind.Ijustprinteditstraightout.It

comestohere[computer]andgoestothere[printer].

Interviewer–doyoukeepanelectroniccopy?

No.

Interviewer–haveyoueverhadtoapproachanauthor?Inthefewtimesyouhaven’tbeen

abletogetholdofsomethingyoumentionedinterlibraryloan,haveyouevercontactedthe

authordirect.Hasanyoneevercontactedyouforsomething?

Yes I havehad a lot of requests for that, the overview journal, especially from the then

SovietUnionandIndia.Idon’tthinkanyonefromEurope,AustraliaandUSA.Yougetnota

lotbutperhapsadozen“Pleasesendafreecopy,Ican’taffordtobuyorIcan’tgetaccess

toit”

Interviewer–andwhatdidyoudointhatcase,didyouphotocopyitandpostit?

Ican’tremember,Idon’tthinkIdidanythingtotellyouthetruth.MymemoryisIdidn’t

doanything.Butit’saveryrareeventcontemporarilyspeakingitwouldn’thavehappened

inthelast10years.

Interviewer–Ok.Now the last thing Iwant to talk to youabout is something calledopen

accesstoptheliterature.Isthissomethingyouhaveheardoforareawareof?

Isthis[identifyinginformation]?

Interviewer–thatcouldbepartofit.

Well to that extend Ihaveheardof it. Iworkedwith them last year. I amworkingwith

anotheracademiconaseriesoffiveannualconferencesaround[topic].Wastheumbrella

title.SoVolume1was[topic]inmulticulturalsocieties.Volume2isnegotiatingthe[topic].

Volume 3 which I’m just about to start is [topic] and Volume 4 which is this year’s

conference is [topic] in education and Volumes 5. is the role of the family. Becausewe

wantedtotalktoabiggeraudiencethanjustacademicwedidn’twanttoputitonashelf.

Sowewentto[identifyinginformation]withtheproposalweruntheseconferencesasa

382

collection through them precisely because we wanted to hit people outside academia,

peopleofdifferentfaithgroupspeopleofdifferentminorities.Anditworked.Ifyoulookat

[identifying information]hit list, thebiggesthit is abookon [topic]with I think13,000

hits.AndwehaveIthink6000hitswhichisavery.

Interviewer–andit’sfreelyavailableonthesite?

Yesyoucangoonthesiteyoucanlookatityoucandownloaditasapdf.Youcanprintit

off.

Interviewer–andyoucanorderacopy?

Yesyoucanorderthisfor$25.Ittakesthemtwoweeks.

Interviewer–doyouknowhowmanybookshavebeenordered?

Wellthat6000isdownloadsofthebook.Idon’tknowhowmanycopiessold.[Identifying

information] wouldtellyou ifyouaskedthem.Wedidhavea formal launch lastyear. I

thinktheysoldalltheybroughtinaboxthatnight.It’sdonequitewell.SoI’mallinfavour

ofitifthat’swhatopenaccessboilsdowntothenyeahbecausewehavedonealotofgood

workinhere,butnopunterisevergoingtopicktheseworksup.

Interviewer – one side of open access, there is kind of towmainways to open access, the

greenandgoldroadstoopenaccess.YouhavetocallthesethingssomethingIsuppose,So

the gold road is in terms of journal articles, is an open access journal that works on a

differentbusinessmodelratherthansubscriptions.Andsotheprinted,oroftentheyarenot

printed,theyarejustonline,thefinalpublishedarticleisfreelyavailable.That’sonewayof

goingaboutit.Theotherwayisforpeopletoputpreorpostprintsintowhatisdefinedasan

institutionalrepository.Whichissometimesdisciplinarybasedorinstitutionallybased.The

mostfamousonewhichyoumayhaveheardofiscalledArXiv,itsbeenrunningforsometime

nowinhighenergyphysics.[Identifyinginformation]Soifyouchosetoyoucouldputallof

yourworkintoopenaccessformatifyouwantedto.Ipresumethisisnewstoyou?

YesIhavenoideawhattalkingabout[laughs].LookIonlygottothewebfiveyearsagoit’s

goingtotakemeabitlongertogetanywhereelse.

383

Interviewer – yes they doneed to do somethingabout lettingpeople knowabout this and

howtogoaboutit,

[Laughs]

Interviewer–butinprincipletheidea,giventhatyouwouldn’tbebreachingcopyrightlaws

that there is already agreements in place with the publishers you have published with,

assumingthat’sOK,wouldthatbesomethingyouwouldbeinterestedinorseeanyvaluein?

Whoaccessesit?Iguesspeoplewhoknowitexists.

Interviewer–wellwhenyoutypeinyourtopicinGoogleitcomesup.

WellIcan’tthinkofanythingagainstit.

Interviewer–thewholepointofitisthatthemetadata–theinformationbehindthefilethat

letspeoplefindthefile,sosearchengineslikeGooglecanfindthisstuff

Well I certainly makes sense. Certainly the earlier work in smaller journals. So

Explorationsceasedtoexistyearsgo.Soyoucouldtakethatmaterialandpopit inthere

justtobringitbacktolife.Thatwouldmakealotofsense.Iwouldn’tknowwhatcopyright

would be for big international journals. But I would imagine therewould be a bit of a

problemthere.

Interviewer – OK that is prettymuch all the things Iwanted to talk to you about. I have

finishedmyinterviewsat[university]andamnowembarkingonthe[university]aspectofit.

Iamhopingtodoapresentationatthe[university]totalktothemabouttheirrepository,

andIamprobablygoingtodosomethingsimilarhere.Ihappytogoawayandnevertalkto

youagain,butI’malsohappytoletyouknowifIdosomethingthatisaccessible.

Nodo,I’dbeveryinterestedtokeepupwithwhatyougetupto.Haveyoufoundanything

interestingyet?

Interviewer–Ihaveactually.OnethingIhavefound,andIsortofdidknowthis,butithas

beenverymuch[endoftape]

384

Appendix 4f - Full transcript of interview: Computer Science at university B

(1March2007)

Interviewer – What I’m looking at is the way different people look at, interact with the

literatureandwhat Imeanby that isasa readerandasanauthorof the literature. Iam

comparingdifferentdisciplinessoComputerScienceversusSociologyversusChemistryand

lookingattheANUandatUNSWandseeingifthereisanyinstitutionaldifferencesaswell.

Yep

InterviewerSoIamaskingeveryonethesamesetofquestions,andthat’sbasicallywhatwe

aredoing.SoingeneralwhatItendtoaskpeopleinthebeginningistotalkaboutthekindof

work that you do in terms of howmuch of your personal time is taken upwith research

versus teaching versus administration, also thework that you are doing in terms of your

researchisthatallsittinginfrontofyourscreenordoyouinteractwithotherpeopleordo

youputchemicalstogetherandlaughmaniacallyandstuff.

(laughs)Yes

Interviewer–Soifyoucouldgivemethatsortofbackground

Yep,soI.AtthemomentIamonanARCfellowshipIjuststartedonthefellowship,soIam

100%research.Istillofcoursehavesomeadmintasksandofcourse,PhDsupervisionand

alittlebitofvoluntaryteaching.Butnotionally100%research.

Interviewer–Andwhatkindofresearchisthat?

In the spectrum of computer science research, the work I do is loosely called systems

whichmeansweareat theengineeringendofComputerSciencewhichmeansbuilding

artefacts, designing better artefacts and so forth rather than the theoretical end of

computer science. There are lots of different fieldswithin computer science but ours is

characterisedbythefactthatitismoreatengineeringleveldesigningbetterpermutations

ofthings.

Interviewer–Anddoyouworkcollaboratively?

385

Yeahverymuchso.(2.06)Allofmycollaboratorsasidefrommytwostudents,Ihavetwo

PhDstudents.Aside fromthemallmycollaboratorsare in theUS. Ihaveone in theUK.

OccasionallyIworkwithpeopleinothercountriesaswell.Mostly,almostexclusivelymy

collaboratorsareintheUS.IampartofaresearchconsortiumwhichIhelpedtogetoffthe

ground. That is a focus in terms of collaboration. Until recently we has six monthly

meetingsthereweresixinstitutionsinvolvedIthink.

Interviewer–andthat’sreal–youwereallactuallysittinginaroomtogether?

Yep,yeah,Sixmonthlywewouldgettogetherandsitinaroomtogetherforthreedaysand

we’ve published a huge amount of stuff together. I think together the consortium

publishedabout150papersandgraduated30PhDstudents.

Interviewer–150papers?

Not tome, but our group. Something to that order. It’s a lot of papers anyway. A large

number of papers and graduated a considerable number of PhD students, over a six to

sevenyearperiod.

It’saveryfocusedgroup.Alotofthosepaperswillhavemorethanoneinstitutiononthe

paperwhichmeansalotofcollaborationgoingon.

Interviewer–Andhowdoyoucommunicatewhenyouarenotinyourmeetings?

SoImeetveryregularlyviavideoandhavebeendoingthatregularlyeversinceIreturned

fromtheUSwhichwasfiveyearsagonow.Ihadameetingwhichfinishedafewminutes

ago.Sovideoismyprimary…

Interviewer–andthisisthroughyourcomputerscreen?

YesIjustusetheiChatwhichisastandardAppletool.

Interviewer–soyouarenotSkypingoranything,itsjust…

well,ifIamtalkingtononMacusersIwoulduseSkype,butiChatandSkypearemuchthe

samething.OhandIdousevoiceoverIPaswellforphonebutitsmostlyvideo.Iprefer

386

video I have a very strong preference for video in terms of the effectiveness of the

communication.

Interviewer–Sohowoftenwouldyouhaveavideochattosomebody?

Itdependsonwhetherwearecominguptoadeadlinecrunchornotbutuptofivedaysa

week.

Interviewer–OhOK

But with one. I mean my main collaborator is in Texas and I meet with her it varies

betweentwoandfivetimesaweek

Interviewer–Anditobviouslyhastobethemorningatthistimeofyear.

Yeah,soImeetat9aminsummerand7aminwinter.

Interviewer–YesIhaveaverygoodfriendoverseasanditisthesame.

[laughs]yeah

Interviewer–Sodoyouuseemailmuch?

Yes I use email heaps. Email, for any given collaboratorwhen I’mworkingheavilywith

themImighthavefiveemailsperdaywithaperson,I’mjustguessing.Butthequalityof

communication during one hour video is, email is just picking up the bits and pieces.

Typicallywewouldjustsummarisethemeetinginanemail.Ifthereisastudentinvolved

thestudentisrequiredtodothatanemailsummaryasadiscipline.

Interviewer–sotheywouldcomeandsitwithyouandbepartofthemeeting?

Typicallyit’stheotherwayaround,[identifyinginformation].That’soneofthereasonsI

likevideobecauseit’sveryhardtogetcuesfromsomeoneIdon’tknowverywelljustover

thephone.

Interviewer–soyoumeetwiththemoverthecomputerandtheywillsummarisewhatyou

havediscussed.

387

Themand theirmainsupervisorwho isoneofmymaincollaborators.So Iamon three

student’sthesiscommittees.Oneotherimportanttoolanditdependsonwhothestudent

isbutweuseWikisquitealot.

Interviewer–yesIamhearingthis,sohowdoyouusewikis?

I use it in a few different ways. But with a student the best thing to do for a student

discipline iswewill have awiki set up for a project. Usually projects are focused on a

particularpublication,so“wedothisworkandtrytopublishithere”Sothestudentwill

track progress on the wiki. So they will publish each day after each meeting they will

publish researchnoteson thewiki, summarising themeeting.Andbeforeeachmeeting,

preferably the day before eachmeeting, theywill have new results there, links toweb

pageof results andgraphs,data and so forth.During themeetingwewill oftenbevery

muchfocusedonthewiki,lookingattheresultsthestudentshaveproduced.

InterviewerAndyoucansplityourscreenandallowyoutodothat?

Ohyes,soIwillhavethevideothereandwikithere.

Interviewer–Andwithyourwikiisthatpotentiallyopenlyaccessible?Ifsomeoneknewwhat

theurlwas?

SothisparticularwikiIusewithmycollaboratorin[place]thatmystudentsuse.Thatone

ispasswordprotectedsoitisjustforresearchgroup.That’sprettyimportant.Thereason

whyit ispasswordprotectedisbecauseit ishasgota lotof ideasthatarenotreadyyet

theyarenotmaturetobemadepublic.

Interviewer–soobviouslyyouget toapointwhere thingsaregettingcloser towhereyou

wanttobeintermsofputtingsomethingtogetherforpublicationanddoyoucontinuewith

thewikiordoyou..

Yeayeah

Interviewer–sodoesthedraftingofthepaper.

388

Yeahthedraftingofthepaper.Dependingonthestudentparticularlyanoverseasstudent

thewritingmay fall to the senior,myself and collaborators. Studentmay be producing

final results and graphs andwhatnot right upuntil close to thedeadline sowewill be

usingthewikiuntilprettyclosetotheend.(8.34)

Interviewer–Butyouarenotcomposingthepaper?

No,whatwedowehaveawholemethodologyaroundthatwhichwehavedevelopedover

theyears.Whatwedoiswehave,Idon’tknowifyouarefamiliarwiththeterm,version

control systemand thatwill be located somewherewe can all access andwe check the

paperoutandcheckitin.Andeverytimeyouchangesomethingandemailgoesouttoall

thepeopleassociatedwith thatparticularpaper. Sending thema summaryofwhatwas

done,andbeforeyoustartyoualwayscheckthethinginandwetypicallywillbreakthe

paperup into logicalchunks.Soanyonepersoncanworkon itwithoutconflictingwith

anotherauthor.

Interviewer–andwhenyousaythisissomethingyouhavedevelopedovertheyears,whodo

youincorporateintothat.

Mainlyme andmy collaborator in [place]. Basically I follow this approach.When I say

developed,Imeanit’saworkhabit.It’snotatooloranything.Sowearejustusingexisting

toolsbutwearedoingitwearefollowingaparticulardiscipline.BasicallywitheveryoneI

collaboratewith,mycolleaguein[place]andIpushthisprettyhardbecausewedoitso

much,longdistancecollaboration.Ohandtheotherthingthatisimportantandwhythisis

sosortofneatinawayisbecauseweareoften12hoursoutontimezones,sowhileoneis

sleeping theother one isworkingon thepapers sowe aredoingprettymuch tag team

writingonthepapers.Sofindingagoodwayofdoingthatisreallyimportant.

Interviewer–Andtheversioncontrolsystemisthatjustopensourcesoftware?

Yeah,it’scalled“Subversion”theonethatweusebuttherearelotsandlotsaroundthat’s

justtheonethatismostpopularthatisopensource.

Interviewer–Andthenyourum,butwithinthatyoucanusedifferentprogramtoactually

write?

Yes

389

Interviewer–thatjustsitsontopofwhatyouaredoing

Yes its like adisk, it’s a logical fancydisk that allowsyou to goback in timeand labels

thingsandsayI’vesavedthisnowandallthathistoryisthereandyoucanwindbackthe

clock.

Interviewer–so it sitsontopofyourmetadataand looksatwhat’sgoingonordoes itgo

intothedocument.

Nothedocumentsitsonit,that’swhyitsmorelikeadisk.SothedocumentcouldbeWord

–wedon’tusewordbutitcouldbethereisnoreasonwhyitwouldn’tbe,andoftenitsnot

justworditisgraphs,couldbepdfortheoutputs,itcouldbeexcelspreadsheets.Anything,

basicallyanytextordataassociatedwith theproject isput into thesystemand itreally

looks like a file system, a disk except it has this version control that allows you to go

backwardsandforwardsintimesowecanrecoverthingsifthingsgoastrayanddatais

obviously one central thing we are all accessing via the network, so it means we are

sharingthat’stheobviousimportantthing.

Interviewer–welltocontinueonwiththewholewritingthingweareonatthemoment.Um,

whenyouaremakingyourdecisionsaboutwritingapaper,howdoesitworkforyouguys.

Somepeoplego,ohthisisagreatidea,writeitupandsaywhereshallIsendit,otherpeople

arequitedeterminedbeforehandsomethingbeforetheydotheresearchaboutwherethey

wanttosendsomething.Wheredoyoufitinonthatscale?(12.00)

Allovertheplace,dependingonthework.Typicallywewillhaveathreadofworkgoing

forsomestudentsandonestudentwillcarryononetrackofwork,soastudentwillhave

some neat idea, andwewill say lets develop this and seewhere its going. As the idea

developswewillbethinkingaboutwherewecansenditandthatcanhappensooneror

later.Atoneendofthespectrumwecansaywereallywanttohaveapaperatsuchand

suchavenuewhichisduein12monthsfromnow,or11monthsfromnowandyouare

thinkingaboutwhatyouaregoingtoputinthere.That’sonewayoflookingatit.Wedodo

that,ontheotherhand,wethinkhere’sthisneatideawherearewegoingtosendit?But

both, you need to identify where you are going to send it early on, at least, and I’m

relativelyconservativebutI’dsayatleast3monthsinadvanceiswhenyouneedtoknow

exactlywhereyouaresendingitbecauseyouthentargettheresearchandhowyoutellthe

storyaccording to thenatureof thatvenue,both in termsofexpectationofquality, you

390

knowifitisalowgradevenuethanyoudon’tneedtodoabsolutelyexhaustiveworkthe

expectationsare lowerandalso in termsof theaudience.So forus,andthis isprobably

typical,thehighertheimpactofvenuethemoregeneralitisasarule.Themorespecific

onesarelowerimpact.Andsoifyoushoothigheritalsomeansyouhavegottocastyour

work in more general terms. Like going to Nature, we don’t, computer sciences don’t

publishinNaturebutthatistheextremeintermsofgenerality.Sothatchangestheway

you are going to tell your story. That changes theway you are going to do yourwork

slightly. So I always like to have a very clear picture inmy head ofwhere the paper is

going,early,butforusearlyisthreemonths.

Interviewer – and does the issue of how you have to present your material in terms of

specificationsisthatanissueforyou?

Whatdoyoumean?

Interviewer–wellyouknow,ithasgottobeinacertainfontandyoucanonlyhaveacertain

numberofwords,spacesandallthatsortofstuff.

Ohyeah, inour field it isall isveryuniform. It just sohappens tobeveryuniform, it is

almost always 10 pages of nine point or eight point.We have style templates and it is

basically the same for almost everythingwe shoot for sowe hardly ever think of that.

Althoughthereisoneconferencewhichisvirtuallyunlimitedinlength.Soifwedodecide

togoforthatonewecanrememberthatwedon’thavetoworrytoomuchaboutspacefor

thatone.Butwithrespecttoeverythingelsetheformatalmostidenticalsoifyoulookon

mypapersonthedoorthereyouwillseetheyalllookalmostthesame.Eventhoughthey

areatdifferentplaces.

Interviewer–OK,alright,anddoyoutendtogetyourpitchright,likehowoftendoyouget

rejected,likehowgoodanestimateareyouofyourwork?(15.03)

Um,IthinkwedoprettywellbutIwon’tgivemyselfcreditforthat,mycolleague’svery

cannyatdoingthat.That’sexperience,she’sverysenior,myprimarycolleagueinTexasis

very senior person with a huge amount of experience. And that’s the other thing,

experience is very important and that was the thing I really lackedwhen I was a PhD

studenthereismyadvisorwasn’tinthegameifyoulike.Duringmypost‐docIgotinthe

gameasitwereand,sorrythisisabitlongwindedbutitissortofimportant,andtheway

our things work is the primary publication venue for us is conferences, and they are

391

refereed,eachpaperisrefereedby,dependingontheconferencethreetosevenreviewers.

So there isaprogramcommittee for theconferenceandtheir job theyarebasicallyand

editorial committee. Now you get, there is a procedure forming these committees they

havetobediverse,blahblahblahthereisasetofrules,butifyougetinvitedontooneof

these committeesyouget an insight into thewholeprocessandyouget a sense for the

waypeoplearemakingthedecisionstoincludeorexcludepapers.Andaftermypost‐doc

orduringmypostdocIstartedgettinginvitedontothoseandI’mnowactuallyonalotof

those committees and that gives me an insight into how a lot of those decisions, so it

makesitaloteasiertogetmypitchright.SoIthinkthatisreallycrucial,thethingItotally

lackedinthefirstfiveyearsofmycareerandIwastotallyshooting,stabbinginthedark.

Interviewer–andwhatyearsweretheythatyoustarted?

[identifyinginformation]

Interviewer–soitwasn’tuntil19971998thatyoukindof..

1999whenIstarteddoingmypostdocintheUS

Interviewer–that’swhenyoureally

That’swhen I learned and started toplay the game. Itwasn’t until 1999 and it’s pretty

obviousfrommypublicationrecordthatmyfirstpublicationwasin2000myfirstserious

publicationsandatallpicksupafterthat.Becauseittakesawhileonceyoumoveintothe

thingbeforeyougetyourfirstpublicationoutthedoor.Somyfirstseriouspublicationwas

in2000.SoIdon’tthinkwhileIwasinAustralia,beforeIwenttotheUSformypostdocI

don’tthinkIpublishedanypapersinwhatIwouldnowregardasthetopvenues.Andthat

wasbasicallythroughlackofexperience.

Interviewer – one ofmy questionswhich you have kind of just answered (17.34) but add

anything you think relevant is did you receive any formal or informal instruction on the

publicationprocessduringbeingastudent

No

Interviewer–Sothatjustdidn’thappenatall?

392

No,nonotreally,I,No.IhadaveryhappyPhDbutmyPhDwasveryhandsoff

Interviewer–Yoursupervisor?

ThewholePhDexperiencewasahandsoffexperience,butyeahmysupervisorwasvery

handsoff,hewasverygood,um,but,um,IdrovethepublicationthingduringmyPhDand

Isubmitteditmighthavebeenasmanyas10papersduringmyPhDofwhichaboutthree

orfourwereaccepted.

Interviewer–Andwhywereyoudoingthat?

Iusedit,IfinishedmyPhDveryquickly,usedthesubmissionofpaperstofocusmwork

andgivemedeadlines.Thatwasverysuccessful intheend. IdidthePhDinthreeyears

andgotsomeniceresultsbutthehitratewasverylow,threeorfourinten,buteventhe

deadpapers,thepapersthatwentnowherebecomefodderforthePhD.

Interviewer–Andthat’snotsomethingthatotherpeoplehavedescribedastheyhavedone,

sowhatwastheimpetusforyouwasitjustyouknowyouneededdeadlinesorwasit

[Name]was10monthsaheadin[his/her]PhDpipeline,

Interviewer–that’syourpartner?

YeahsoIhadthe,therewereotherpeopleherewhoweren’tgettingthrough.SoIformed

that idea that given inour field conferences... Letme just rethinkmy thoughts.Thekey

thing is in our field is conferences are the major venue and conferences have hard

deadlines.Becausetheyhaveharddeadlinesyoucan,itcancauseyoutofocusyourwork

towardsthedeadlineandformethatmakesmemoreproductive.Idon’tworkverywell

withoutadeadlineinfrontofme.SoIbasicallyuseitasatool,apsychologicaltricktoget

metodowork.(19.54)

Interviewer–OKsotheothersideofthatquestionisnowthatyouhavegotstudentsbelow

youdoyougivethemanyformalorinformalinstructionaboutthepublicationprocess?

Yeah,I’mtryingto.Um,thereareafewthingsIhavedoneIhavefoundsomegoodbooks

duringmyexperience.Oneofthemwasaverywellknownone‐PhillipsandPugh“Howto

get aPhD”.That’s obviouslynon‐specific to our fieldbut I found that tobe enormously

393

helpful,butIonlydiscoveredthatattheendofmyPhD.Iencouragemystudentstoreadit

beforetheystartorrightatthebeginning.Thebroadideaoftryingtogetpapers,astring

ofpapersdoneduring the first2/3of thePhDas the foundationof thewriteupstage I

havefoundIencouragemystudentstodo,withmixedsuccess.Withreasonablesuccess,

notenormoussuccess.

Interviewer–andintermsoftheactualwritingupprocess,soyouencouragethenandyou

dohavestudentskeentodothissohowdoesthat,OKI’mgoingtousethisparticularchunk

ofresultsandstartwritingitupanddoyouworkthroughitwiththemor…howdoyoudoit?

YoumeanforthePhD,forthethesis?

Interviewer–Noforpublications.

That’s complicated and it varies from student to student. Like Imentionedearlier,with

particularstudentsandIhadthiscollaboratorwhoseEnglishwasafourthlanguage,and

themostrecentpaperIwrotejustafewweeksagomycollaboratorwasRussian.Inboth

cases I ended up doing all most all of the writing. And that sometimes happens with

students,particularlyiftheyareoverseasstudents.Sotheotherperson,thestudentorthe

collaborator, their rolebasicallybecomesdelivering the result andanalysing the results

and reviewing the papers. But depending on the student and what their skills are like

thereisaspectrumbetweenthemwritingthewholethingthemselvesandmewritingthe

wholething.Mypreferenceisforthemtodoasmuchwritingaspossiblebecausethatis

one of the skills we are trying to impart but in practice particularly if they have poor

Englishskillsandparticularlyatthebeginning,oftenit’smedoingthewriting.That’snot

just for the students though, I should saywhen Iworkwithmy collaborator in [place],

becauseI’mtheonedoingtheinstrumentationworkitsoftenherthatisdoingthebulkof

thewriting. Justbecauserightupto thecrunchIamstillgeneratingresultsor finalising

results,it’snotjustthestudentswhoseeitthatway.

Interviewer–Nowthisisafairlybroadquestion,soanswerithoweveryouwant,whydoyou

publish?

I thinkIhavetworeasons,oneisthatIgeta lotofsatisfactionoutofseeingworkbeing

exposedandacceptedandtakenup.Takingupofworkisgreatandresearchpublicationis

one of the primary ways we do that in our field. The other primary way is through

softwareartefactsand Ihavebeendoingahugeamountof thataswell. It iscompletely

394

differentbutaverytimeconsumingthing,wehavealotofopensourcesoftwarethatwe

publish, that has the same thing of sharingwhat you have done, a sense of satisfaction

there.Intermsofwritingpapers,anotherpointthereisitoffersasenseofclosureonthe

work.And thatmaygoback tohelpanswersomeof thestory Iwas trying to tell about

tryingtofinishmyPhDisthatanindividualresearchpaperverydiscreetwithadefinite

endingtoit.OneofthebiggestproblemspeoplehavewithaPhDisgettingclosureonthe

PhD.SoifyourPhDisasumofafewthingseachofwhichhasclosurethenitmaymakeit

easiertogetclosureonthewholeandIlikeclosureso…

Interviewer–Sohowmuchofyourimpetustopublishrelatestothewholecareerthing?

ComparedtomypeersI’dsaynotmuch,comparedtomyAmericanpeersIshouldsay,its

animportantqualifier.ComparedtopeoplehereIwouldsayafairamount.

Interviewer–Sodoyouthinkyouhavegota,Iamjusttryingtoworkthatthrough,sodoyou

think fromyour experiences inAmerica it hasopenedyour eyesmore towhat is goingon

howthesystemworks?

Yes so, in the US because of the way the tenure process works particularly, there is

enormous pressure to publish and publish at quality venues. There is amuch stronger

sense of quality venues are and where impact lies and people are much more driven

towards getting those publications out the door. It is very intense,muchmore so than

here.Sopeopleplaythegameverythoughtfully.

InterviewerSointhesamewaywhenyougottotheUSyoudiscoveredthewholegetona

committee,workouthowasystemworks,andgetonanddoit,butyoualsoworkedoutthat

thereisthisotherprocessthatsitsontopofpublicationsthataffectsyou

Yeah

Interviewer–andthatisnotsomethingyougotfromAustralia.

No not really, no. Because, not really and I think this partly reflects this particular

department,wherethereisnotastrongpublicationculture.Thatischangingrightnowas

wespeak,Iforgettheterm,butIhavebeen,I’veonlyjustrecentlyrejoinedthe[university]

so I’m being a bit vague here about the details. There is a review coming where the

395

departmenthasgottodemonstrateitsresearchoutputthat’snew.Previouslythefocuson

publicationshasbeenveryweak.

Interviewer–Andhowdoyouknowaboutthisreview

Just because someone in thedepartmenthas askedme to tell themwhatpapers I have

publishedsotheycangointoitwith..

Interviewer– So it is not like youhavehada sort ofmeetingwhere theyhave said this is

whatitsabout.

Thatmayhavehappened itmayhavehappenedbefore Iwasback in thedepartment it

maywellIamsureithasbeendiscussedatstaffmeetingsbutIhaven’theardeitherway

orbeforeIcamebackto[university].

Interviewer – the only other thing about publication is on average what is your sort of

timeframebetweensubmissionandacceptance?(27.00)

I’vejustbeenhavingahugeemaildebateaboutthisonaconferenceIamontheprogram

committee for, and thisparticular conference I can tell youexactlywhat the timeline is.

We,peoplesubmitoneweek,fourdayslaterthepapersgotothereviewers.Thereviewers

haveinthiscaseonlythreeweekstoturnthepapersaround.Theauthorshaveoneweek

torespondtoreviews.Thenthecommitteemeetsanddecidesonthespot,it’saonedayor

two daymeeting. And sowe can ad that up , its 4.5 or fiveweeks something like that.

That’sat the tightendof thespectrum.Theothersmightbeamonthormoregenerous

thanthatsotheresult is thereviewershavethepapers intheirhandsbetweenoneand

twomonths.

Interviewer that is between submission and acceptance, what about the broader one

betweensubmissionandpublication.

That ischanginga lotatthemomentaspublicationthetechnologyIthinkismakingthe

change but that is changing. So typically our major conferences, one is submission in

March,publishinOct.TheothermajoroneissubmissioninNovemberforpublicationin

June.Theyareour twobigones,buta lotof lowergradeconferences like theone Iwas

discussinginmoredetail,theyhavefasterturnaroundForexamplewhatwewerehaving

the big debate on the email about was do we want to pick up rejects from other

396

conferences,peoplewhodon’tgetintotheotherconferencemaywanttosubmitthingsfor

thisconference,butthosetwoconferencespublishatthesametime.Onehasadeadlineof

MarchforOctober,anotheronehasadeadlineofMayforOctober,theyaregoingtobeat

thesameplaceatthesametime.

Interviewer – yes it is interesting how these thingswork.Now speaking of refereeing, lets

moveontothat,howmuchrefereeingdoyoudo?(29.12)

I do a little bit of journal reviewing. In terms of conferences, I am on two program

committeesayear,aprogramcommitteewillrequiremetoreviewabout20papersasfew

as15andashighas25probablyandeachpapertakesmethreesolidworkhours.Really

intense,nobreaks.

Interviewer–So60times20–40hourweekthat’sfourweeksworkisit?

Yeahwellprobably,butwhatIdoisIhaveownwayofdoingthis.Ibasicallylockmyself

awayforafullweekandtryandgetoneconferenceknockedover.SoItryandreview20

papersinaweeksothat’sworkinglonghourswithnobreaks–becauseyoureffectiveness

goesupenormouslywhenyouarenotinterruptedandnotchangingtasks,atleastthat’s

myexperience,sothat’s…twocompleteweekstoreviewingandthenthere’salltheother

shenanigansthatgoeson,youhavegottowritethereviewsup,partofthathappensthen.

Youhavegottogototheprogramcommitteemeetingwhichformetakeslongerbecause

youhavegottwodaysoftraveltogettotheUSandback.I’dsayeasilythreetofourweeks

nowyouhaveaskmetobudgetit,itcostsmefourweeksayearinthatsortofwork.

Interviewer–Andhowdoyoufeelaboutthattime?

I, youhave tobeverycareful.Someofyourcolleagues theybiteoffmore than theycan

chewandgetintotrouble.AtthemomentIhavegottheluxuryofbeingonafellowshipso

I’m under less acute time pressure. But I find it enormously rewarding to do that

reviewing.[Phonecall]31.35

There is also a lot of status associatedwith being on a program committee too. That’s

important.Networkingandalltherestofithelpsyourresearchcareer.

Interviewer–Justonelastquestionontheissueofpublications–What’syourunderstanding

ofthecopyrightstatusofyourwork?

397

Um, I’m hopeless on this front. But my professional organization, the ACM (the

AssociationforComputingMachinery)has,thisismyunderstandingofitistheyarevery

goodonthisfrontandtheyallowustomakeourworkavailableonourwebpagewithan

appropriatedisclaimerandIhavethatdisclaimeronmywebpageinfineprintatthetop.I

forgetexactlywhatthewordsarebutit’saparagraphortwooflegaldisclaimer,thenIcan

makemyworkavailable immediatelyand that’swhatallmycolleaguesdo.Sowemake

ourworkimmediatelyavailable.

Interviewer–Thatleadsstraightintotheideaofgettingholdofmaterial.Howdoyoukeep

upwithwhat’shappeninginyourdiscipline?

One thing is the program committees. That’s great because you also see the stuff that

doesn’tgetpublished,yougetasenseofwhatisbrewing,what’sgoingtobeoutthere.So

that’soneofthereasonswhyyoucanjustifyspendingsomuchtimeonthat.Theotherone

isnetworkingat,someofithappensatprogramcommitteemeetingsandatconferences

because conferences are such a vital part of our publication regime. So we go to the

conferenceandyouspendalotoftimetalkingtopeers.

AndformethatresearchconsortiumIspokeabout is incredibly important.Becauseour

consortium dominates our subfield in computer science, so if there is something good

goingoninourfield,veryoftenoneofmyimmediatecolleaguesaretheresoIgettofind

outfairlyearlyonandthat’sreallyhelpful.

Interviewer–sotheyjustletyouknow?

Wellthat’soneoftherules.Wesetthiswholethingupandwehavethesemeetingsevery

sixmonthsandthereisanenormousamountoftrustbetweenusbecauseitsanacademic

family tree, everyonehadultimately the samesupervisor, soeveryonekneweachother

well,althoughdistributednow.Andthereisatrusttherethatwewon’tscoopeachother.

Andweinvitepeoplefromindustrytocomealongwhichexposespeopletoourworkand

wegetcontactsinindustryandtheyaretoldveryclearlythatbasicallywhatwearesaying

isconfidential.Andviceversasowhattheysay,theycantellusstuffthatisleadingedge

too.Thatisveryeffective.Yougettheheadsuponwhat’shappening.

Interviewer–Wouldyousay, isthisafairassessment, isyourinterpretationof ‘keepingup

withyourfield’involvescommunicatingwithpeopleverballyprettymuch

398

Yeah

Interviewer–Verballyevenintermsofemailbutitsnotfollowingtheliterature?

Wellofcourseyouhavetofollowtheliterature.Iguessoneofthethingsisourfieldisso

fast moving that you want to know before its published. You want to know what is

brewing.Obviouslyitgoeswithoutsayingthatyouhavegottoreadtheliteratureandyou

go to the conferencesand read the journalsandyouknowwhat isbeingpublished.For

sure, absolutely for sure but to know what new developments are emerging and

strategicallythat’swhatyouwanttoknow,howtogetahead,whathasalreadyhappened.

Youdon’twanttoknowafterthehorsehasbolted.(36.00)

Soyouwillgetasenseofwherethingsaregoingthiswaythenonceyoustartdoingyour

workyoudo literaturereviewsandofcourseyoudothattheorthodoxwaywithsearch

enginesandstuff.Butyousearchthroughtheliteratureandfindoutwhateverybodyelse

hasalreadydone.Soyoustillhave todo the literaturereviewsbut this stuff I’m talking

aboutjustgivesaheadsuptowherewearealreadygoing.(36.15)

Interviewer –OKGood. So letsmove onto that, the digging around, howdo you go about

that?

ItendtojustuseGooglebutitislinkedtoourprofessionalorganizationwhichhaslinked

backallofourworkfor20yearssoitisallavailabledigitallysoIcanjustdoasearchand

itcomesupwithpapersandcitationsandIcandownloadthepdfstraightaway.

Interviewersoyouare inthesituationwhereyouare,youknowthat JohnSmithwrotea

paperonthistopicinabout1983andyouaredoingaGooglebasedonthat?

WellifitissomethingwithanamelikeSmithwhichisgoingtomakeithardertofindvia

Google, Iwould just go to theACMdigital librarywhich is linked toGoogle,Googlewill

always find something if it is on the digital library, but if its SmithGooglemight find a

wholelotofotherjunkaswell.SoIwouldgotoourdigitallibraryandsaySmithandthen

presumablyIwouldknowawordortwoaboutwhatthatisabout,putthatinthereandit

willfinditformeandIdothatalotOneotherimportantthingistheyhavealltheirstuff

crosslinkedsowiththeircitationsyoucanjustclickonthemandfollowthroughsoifyou

aredoingittransiently,youcanjustfollowreferences,readthispaperseewhatitrefersto

399

youcanjustdothatbyclickingthrough,that’sreally important,youare less likelytobe

doingthistypeofsearchesforsomeone’sname,youaremorelikelytobeclickingalink.

Interviewer–Sowouldyouhaveusedthe[university]library,wouldyougointhatway?.

Virtuallynever,virtuallynever.I’veprobablyuseditthreetofourtimesin15years.

Interviewer–OKsoyouaretalkingaboutasituationwhereyouknowwhatyouarelooking

for,whatisyoudon’t?Areyoueverinasituationwhereyouwonderwhathasbeendonein

bladyblahandyoujustwanttodoatopicsearch?

Yeswecandothatonlinetoo.OnewayIwouldapproachthatisifIaminterestedinwhat

isgoingoninacertainareathat’soutsideofmyarea, thenIwouldtypicallybrowsethe

proceedings of the recent top conference in that area. So I find out the topic of the

conferenceandIbrowse,andIdothatallonline,readabstractsofafewpapersthenread

the whole paper if I feel it is going to be relevant. But often that can happen through

Googlingorjustsearching,youwillfindyougetofsomeideaandyouwillkeepsearching.

Onceyouhavetractioninthefielditbecomeseasier.

Interviewer–Sometimespeoplewouldrefertothatasserendipitousresearch,that’skindof

whatyouarereferringtoisn’titwhereyouarenotlookingforsomethinginparticular,and

thattakesyouoffhere..

Yes that’s thequestionyouwereposing, is if youarenot looking for somethingspecific

then how do you do it, theway I’d do itwould be theway I just said if youwere just

wondering what was going on in some other area that’s pretty much how I would

approachit.

InterviewerOKsoyouarethen,youarestillusingthesamesearchenginestodothat?

Yeahbutalsoourproceedingsareonline.Aswellasbeingsearchableyoucanjustlookat

thetableofcontentsandsearchthatwayaswell.

Interviewer–Aretheyfreelyavailableoraretheyavailablebecauseyouareamemberofa

society?

Both.Thethingyouhavetopayforgenerallyisadownloadofthewholetext.Allyouhave

to pay for now is the pdf of the full text. The proceedings and citation have been

400

meticulously maintained by someone in Germany for ten years now and that guy is

supportedbyourmajororganizations.And so you can go andyou can find the table of

contentsforanyparticularthingandthenhehaslinkstoalloftherelevantdigitallibraries

soyoucanfollowthroughanddigoutthepaper.

Interviewer–Whathappensifhegetshitbyabus?

Oh,ithasbecomemorethanahenow.Itstartedoffwithoneguyanditstartedasjust1

subfieldof computerscienceandnow it isallof computerscience. It is linkedontoCDs

nowtoo.

Interviewer–whenyouaretalkingabouthavingtopayforthedownloadofthewholetext,

whatsortofcostisthat.

Itismembershiptotheprofessionalbody,it’salittlehardtopindown.

Interviewer–soifyouareamemberyoudon’thavetopayforthis.

Yestherearedifferent,itsverycomplicated,therearealldifferentclassesofmembership.

YougettheseCDsinthemail.Ithinkyoucanjustgetmembershiptothedigitallibraryand

I think it isUS~$90peryear foranacademicandsubstantially less for students. Inour

areatheymassivelysubsidisestudentssothestudentsalmostgetstuffforfree.

Interviewer–OK,ifyougettoapointwhereyouhavegottheproceedingsandyouneededto

payforthem,wouldn’tyoujustgototheirwebsiteandgettheirversionofit?

I’mnotsurewhatyoumean?

Interviewer–doyouevergettoapointwherethereisabarrier,eitheryouhavetopayforit

oritsnotfreelyavailable?

OhabsolutelyI’lljustsearchforitusingGoogleandifthepersonhasitontheirwebpageit

willjustshowup.There’sanotherthingcalledCiteSeer,thathasn’tbeenmaintainedvery

wellso Idon’tuse thatasmuchnowbut IalwaysusedtouseCiteSeerandthatusedto

gatherdownloadableversionsofpapers togetherso if itwasdownloadableanywhere it

wouldbeonCiteSeer.SoIuseCiteSeerbutGoogleScholarnowdoesalotofwhatCiteSeer

usedtodo.

401

Interviewer–SohowoftenwouldyouhitabarrierwhereyouwouldsayohOK.

Not very often. I can only think of one casewhere a studentwanted a particular paper

fromanobscureworkshop.Theyendedupaskingthe[university]libraryiftheyhaditand

beforeheknewithehadapackageonhisdeskThe[university]hadorderedthebookin,it

costUS$200orsomethingexpensive for this littlebookofproceedings.The [university]

librarygotit,hehashaditsittingonhisdesk.Butitturnedoutwhilehewasdoingthat,I

didn’tknowhewasdoingthat,Iknewtheprogramchairoftheconferenceandmanaged

todigoutthestuffthatway.Sobythetimewehadthebook,wehadtheelectroniccopy

anyway.

Interviewer–howoftenwouldyoudosomethinglikethat?

Gotothelibrary?That’sthefirsttimeiteverhappened[laughed]

Interviewer–No,no,whatyouweredoing, forexample Ihavea friendat [university]and

that librarysubscribestostuffwedon’theresoIcontactherandaskhertogetmecopies,

andwetrade.

NoIhaveneverdonethat,whatIwastalkingaboutwasthepersonIknewsohappenedto

betheeditorofthatparticularthing,Iknewreasonablywell.

Interviewer–isthattheonlytimeyouhavedonethat?

YesIthinkitwasandtheonlyreasonwhywasbecauseitwasanobscurepublicationfor

an obscure workshop which they chose to publish in a strange place. Most stuff gets

publishedinaACM,whichIalwayshaveaccessto.

Interviewer–thelastbitIwanttotalkaboutistheconceptofopenaccesspublishing.Isthat

atermyouhaveheardof?(45.00)

Idon’tthinkIhaveheardthatspecifictermbutIthinkImay..

Interviewer–OKwhatdoyouthinkitmightmean?

So, I’ll give you a little anecdote, about 10 years I went to the major conference of

databasesandtheyhadahugepaneldiscussion–thesearethetoppeople indatabases,

402

and the main person who was advocating it was Jim Gray. He was arguing that his

professional association shouldmakeall thedocuments availablehistorically and in the

futureforfreeonthebasisofacademiclibertyandparticularlyonthebasisofavailability

forunderprivilegedpeople and so forth.Andhemadeapassionate argument.And they

did. It has happened, this was the ACM Sygmod (Sigmod?) for databases and it has

subsequentlyhappenedwithothergroupstoo,buttheywerethefirsttodoit.

Interviewer–thatiswhatitis

ThatwaswhenIwasaPhDstudent,1993/4

Interviewer–Thereisprettymuchtwowaystogoaboutopenaccess,thereisthegreenroad

andthegoldroad,thegoldroadjournals,oranopenaccesspublishingoutlet,andtheACM

prettymuchdoesthatnow,soifyouarepublishingwithanACMoutlet,whetheryouknowit

ornotyouarepublishing inanopenaccess format.Theotherway is toputcopiesofyour

material somewhere freelyavailableon theweb.Nowa lot of computer sciencepeopledo

that already on their own websites abut what universities are now starting to do and

institutionsworldwideare starting todo is build things called institutional repositories. Is

thatsomethingyouhaveheardof?

Ihaven’theardthattermbutalotofmyPhDstudentshonoursthesesareon[university

ADT].

Interviewer–Yesthat’sthe[university]one

But I don’t know, I have no idea. I would never have considered puttingmy published

work there,work that ispublished inothervenues, Iwouldneverhaveconsidered that

becauseit’ssoeasilyaccessiblealready.AndIwouldhavenoideawhatthelegalissuesare

associatedwiththat,soIjustwouldn’thaveentertainedthatidea.Iamnotopposedtoitat

allbutthat’swhyIwouldn’thaveconsideredit,becauseofthefactthatitisalreadyvisible.

Interviewer–Alrightso foryoutoconsiderdoingthat thesortsof thingssomebodywould

havetodiscusswithyouwouldbewhyyouwouldbotherforastartwhenyoualreadyhave

materialavailable,butalsothatthisisthelegalarrangement,that’saboutit?

Yes, for thehonourstheses it’sano‐brainerbecausehonoursdon’tgetpublishedbythe

ACMsothatmakestotalsense,butforapaperthatispublishedintheACM,Idon’tsee,I

403

havenoideawhattheythinkofmedoingthat.Andit’sprettymuchfreelyavailablesothe

benefitassociatedwiththatisreallymarginal–itsunclearthat’swhatImean.

Interviewer – yea, there is talk of tying the repository into the RQF. In the sameway not

havingtoreporttotheresearchoffice.

Wellthatwouldappealtome.Theadhocreportingofresearchpublicationsisanadmin

drag. If therewassomestandardwayofdoing it,youknowIhavetogoandupdatemy

webpage with my publications, if I could just do it that once somehow and it was

automatically knownandmade available to everyone thatwouldbe great. There is one

issuethatIwouldwantthemtoconsider,andthatisthat,ifthereisatraditioninourfield

ofmakingstuffpubliclyavailablethenpeopleexpectstufftobeonourwebpageoronthe

ACM,theyarenotgoingtogolookingforthe[university]place.

Interviewer–YestheUniversityofMelbourne,thewaytheyhavedoneitthereistheyhave

tiedtheiradministrativehumanresourcesandreportingalltogetherinonesystemsoyour

CVcomesup.Theideaisputitinonceanditsup.

Soundsgreat!

Interviewer – And I think that the argument for having things sitting in your repository

perhapswitha link fromyourpage, is that the repositories arenow lookingat long term

sustainability.Sowordslikethatwouldbeamenabletoyou?

Yes that all sounds great. The little sketch you gave me about what’s happening in

Melbournesoundsgreattome

Interviewer–yespersonallyIthinkthat’sthebestwayofgoingaboutit.OKthankyouthat’s

allthestuffIneededtotalktoyouabout.PrettymuchwhatI’mdoingis…[endoftape]

405

Listofwebsitesaccessed

iWebsite:http://arxiv.org/accessed16September2008iiWebsite:http://pubmedcentral.nih.govaccessed5October2008iiiWebsite:http://www.openarchives.orgaccessed5October2008ivWebsite:http://www.arl.org/sparc/accessed5October2008vWebsite:http://www.bepress.com/accessed22September2008viWebsite:http://www.plosone.org/static/information.actionaccessed28September2008viiWebsite:http://www.lockss.org/lockss/Homeaccessed16September2008viiiWebsite:http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/accessed5October2008ixWebsite:http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htmaccessed5October2008xWebsite:http://www.info.scopus.com/about/accessed5October2008xiWebsite:http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/publishers.htmlaccessed5October2008xiiWebsite:http://www.harzing.com/resources.htmaccessed5October2008xiiiWebsite:http://www.eigenfactor.org/accessed5October2008xivWebsite:http://pkp.sfu.ca/?q=ojsaccessed5October2008xvWebsite:http://www.openarchives.org/accessed22September2008xviWebsite:http://roar.eprints.org/accessed22September2008xviiWebsite:http://univ.cc/accessed22September2008xviiiWebsite:http://www.opendoar.orgaccessed5October2008xixWebsite:http://repec.org/accessed5October2008xxWebsite:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/accessed5October2008xxiWebsite:http://opendoar.org/accessed5October2008xxiiWebsite:http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/accessed5October2008xxiiiWebsite:http://www.alpsp.org/ngen_public/default.asp?id=380accessed21November2008xxivWebsite:http://www.publishers.org/accessed21November2008xxvWebsite:http://www.stm‐assoc.org/accessed21November2008xxviWebsite:http://www.prismcoalition.org/principles.htmaccessed5October2008xxviiWebsite:http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtmlaccessed5

October2008xxviiiWebsite:http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/accessed5October2008xxixWebsite:https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/browse‐dateaccessed21November2008xxxWebsite:http://www.anu.edu.au/graduate/scu/accessed29September2008xxxiWebsite:http://www.apsr.edu.auaccessed29September2008

406

xxxiiWebsite:http://dspace.anu.edu.au/accessed19September2008xxxiiiWebsite:http://arrow.unsw.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Indexaccessed19September2008xxxivWebsite:

http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/leftnav/publications/reprint_permissionsaccessed19September

2008xxxvWebsite:http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e35syn.htmaccessed29

September2008xxxviWebsite:http://www.go8.edu.au/accessed19September2008xxxviiWebsite:http://www.atn.edu.au/accessed19September2008xxxviiiWebsite:http://www.irua.edu.au/accessed19September2008xxxixWebsite:http://dspace.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/45159accessed19September2008xlWebsite:http://assda.anu.edu.au/accessed25September2008xliWebsite:https://academicskills.anu.edu.au/accessed5October2008xliiWebsite:http://www.anu.edu.au/cedam/accessed29September2008xliiiWebsite:http://www.plosone.org/home.actionaccessed29September2008xlivWebsite:http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/accessed26September2008xlvWebsite:http://eprints.qut.edu.au/accessed22November2008xlviWebsite:http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/accessed26September2008xlviiWebsite:http://adt.caul.edu.au/accessed22November2008xlviiiWebsite:

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/online_forms_services/higher_education_researc

h_data_collection.htmaccessed24September2008xlixWebsite:http://www.apsr.edu.au/orca/index.htmaccessed24September2008lWebsite:http://www.apsr.edu.au/technical_support/index.htmaccessed24September2008liWebsite:http://eprints.qut.edu.au/topauthorids.phpaccessed7January2008liiWebsite:http://www.cas.org/products/scifindr/index.htmlaccessed30September2008liiiWebsite:http://repec.org/accessed5October2008livWebsite:http://ideas.repec.org/accessed24September2008lvWebsite:http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/en2008.htmaccessed22November2008lviWebsite:http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=243&pubCode=1

accessed22November2008lviiWebsite:http://www.in‐cites.com/research/2005/november_28_2005‐1.htmlaccessed20

September2008lviiiWebsite:http://www.chem.unsw.edu.au/schoolinfo/staffpages.htmlaccessed20September

2008lixWebsite:http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/db/staff/lists/academic.htmlaccessed20September

2008

407

lxWebsite:http://rsc.anu.edu.au/Contacting_RSC_Staff.phpaccessed20September2008lxiWebsite:http://chemistry.anu.edu.au/Staff/home.htmlaccessed20September2008

The effect of scholarly communication practices on engagement with open … · 2020-02-05 ·...

Documents

Transcript of The effect of scholarly communication practices on engagement with open … · 2020-02-05 ·...