Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open access (OA) publication has emerged, with disruptive effects, as a major outlet for scholarly publication. OA publication is usually associated with on-line distribution and provides access to scholarly publications to anyone, anywhere–regardless of their ability to pay subscription fees or their association with an educational institution. The article overviews the growth and impact of OA publication in Canada and elsewhere. The article also presents a case study of the evolution over its first nine years of the International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education (IRRODL). IRRODL has become the most widely read and widely cited journal in the distance education and open learning community, yet it continues to struggle for recognition by some academics, funding, and rating organizations. In this article IRRODL’s editors document the challenges involved in leading the charge for equal support for open access journals from Canada’s research funding organizations and for review and accreditation from commercial and non-commercial review services. In its literature review section the article looks at scholarly works documenting and comparing on-line journals to ones that publish in paper only, or in which access is restricted behind the walls of licensed use. The article also documents issues related to various innovations, including production of articles in both text and audio formats, and the challenges of incorporating more interactive media into a scholarly, peer- reviewed journal. Data is produced demonstrating the ways in which 72 CJHE / RCES Volume 39, No. 3, 2009 influence and impact for open access journals can be measured, including hit rates and citations reference data from Google Scholar. The article concludes with a description and discussion of the advantages and challenges of using review and publication management tools such as Open Journal System in the production of open access journals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.089 | 0.245 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.061 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".