Perception of Academics Regarding the Credibility of Online Resources: Open Access versus Subscribed Journals with Special Reference to Eastern University, Sri Lanka
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic information resources can be either credible or unreliable. Vast majority of information on the Internet is neither authenticated nor having any mechanism to validate its credibility. Thus, it has been a great challenge for any researcher who uses them for their problem-solving. Education and research institutions use and contribute to the development of academic journals that broadly fall under two categories, namely subscribed and open access. In this regard, this paper discusses about the views of academics of Eastern University, Sri Lanka depending on these resources for using and publishing their research work. Particularly, this study investigates about the perception of academics over subscription journals and open access resources in regard to their accessibility, visibility and credibility. Summary of results show that researchers hold high value for online subscribed journals in terms of their credibility, meanwhile accessibility to the same is quite a challenge. On the other hand, open access journals give rise to visibility and affordability. Therefore, authors shed light on the need of making open access resources more credible.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".