Open access, social norms and publication choice
Tóm tắt
The aim of this paper is to shed light on scholarly communication and its current trajectories by examining academics’ perception of Open Access, while also providing a reference case for studying social norm change. In this respect, the issue of publication choice and the role of Open Access journals casts light on the changes affecting the scientific community and its institutional arrangements for validating and circulating new research. The empirical investigation conducted also offers a useful vantage point for gauging the importance of localised social norms in guiding and constraining behaviour.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Anderson, S. P., & Gabszewicz, J. J. (2006). The media and advertising: A tale of two-sided markets. In V. A. Ginsburg & D. Throsby (Eds.), Handbook of cultural economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Arthur, B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events? Economic Journal, 99, 116–131.
Bicchieri, C., & Muldoon, R. (2011). Social norms, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring Edition). In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/social-norms/.
Casati, R., Origgi, G., & Simon, J. (2011). Microcredits in scientific publishing. Journal of Documentation, 67, 958–974.
Cavaleri, P., Keren, M., Ramello, G. B., & Valli, V. (2009). Publishing an E-journal on a shoe string: Is it a sustainable project? Economic Analysis and Policy, 39, 89–101.
Cohen, & Levinthal, (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
Edlin, A. S., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (2004). Exclusion or efficient pricing? The “big deal”bundling of academic journals. Antitrust Law Journal, 72, 128–159.
Faber Frandsen, T. (2009). The Integration of open access journals in the scholarly communication system: Three science fields. Information Processing and Management, 45, 131–141.
Feess, E., & Scheufen, M. (2011). Academic Copyright in the Publishing Game: A Contest Perspective, WP, http://www.serci.org/2011/Feess.pdf.
Ferrarella, L. (2010). ‘Milano ha 20 mila avvocati (la metà di tutta la Francia)’, Il Corriere della Sera, 16 September, available at http://www.corriere.it/cronache/10_settembre_16/ferrarella-milano-ventimila-avvocati_ed502096-c154-11df-96dc-00144f02aabe.shtml.
Guthrie, K., Griffiths, R., & Maron, N. (2008). Sustainability and revenue models for online academic resources. An Ithaka report available at http://sca.jiscinvolve.org/wp/files/2008/06/sca_ithaka_sustainability_report-final.pdf.
Hamermesh, D., Johnson, G., & Weisbrod, B. (1982). Scholarship, citations and salaries: Economic rewards in economics. Southern Economic Journal, 49, 472–481.
Harnad, S. (1999). Free at last: The future of peer-reviewed journals. D-Lib Magazine. doi:10.1045/december99-harnad.
Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., Oppenheim, C., Stamerjoanns, H., & Hilf, E. R. (2004). The green and the gold roads to Open Access. Nature (web focus). http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/21.html.
Harper, G. (2009). OA and IP: Open access, digital copyright and marketplace competition. Learned Publishing, 22, 283–288.
Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B.-C., et al. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS One, 6(6), e20961. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020961.
Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, 31, 247–264.
McCabe, M., & Snyder, C. M. (2005). Open access and academic journal quality. American Economic Review, 95, 453–458.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.
Migheli, M., & Ramello, G. B. (2013). Open Access and Academics Behaviors. IEL Working Paper n. 18.
Nicita, A., & Ramello, G. B. (2007). Property, liability and market power: The antitrust side of copyright. Review of Law and Economics, 3, 767–791.
Origgi, G. (2010). Epistemic vigilance and epistemic responsibility in the liquid world of scientific publication. Social Epistemology, 24, 149–159.
Panitch, J. M., & Michalak, S. (January, 2005). The Serials Crisis, UNC-Chapel Hill Scholarly Communications Convocation. http://www.unc.edu/scholcomdig/whitepapers/panitch-michalak.html.
Parks, R. P. (2002). The Faustian grip of academic publishing. Journal of Economics methodology, 9, 317–335.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The republic of science. New York: Minerva.
Posner, R. A. (1997). Social norms and the law: An economic approach. American Economic Review, 87, 365–369.
Ramello, G. B. (2005). Property rights, Firm boundaries and the republic of science. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 1195–1204.
Ramello, G. B. (2010). Copyright and endogenous market structure: A glimpse from the journal publishing market. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 7, 7–29.
Shavell, S. (2010). Should copyright of academic works be abolished? Journal of Legal Analysis, 2, 301–358.
Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20, 357–358.
Stern, S. (2004). Do scientists pay to be scientists? Management Science, 50, 835–853.
Warlick, S. E., & Vaughan, K. T. L. (2007). Factors influencing publication choice: Why faculty choose open Access. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 4, 1–12.
Willinsky, J. (2009). The stratified economics of open access. Economic Analysis & Policy, 39, 53–70.
Xia, J. (2010). A longitudinal study of scholars attitudes and behaviors toward open-access journal publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 6, 615–624.
Young, H. P. (2008). Social norms. In S. N. Durlauf & L. F. Blume (Eds.), New palgrave dictionary of economics (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.