Open Access & Scholarly Communication Habits in LIS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Librarians are advocates for the open access movement and encourage academics to use various open access publishing models to disseminate their work. Despite this, they still face barriers to publication when attempting to use these open access models, such as processing charges or visibility of their work. In this study, we first review literature that examines the open access publishing habits of librarians and the challenges they face using these models. We then perform a statistical analysis of citation totals, using a queried dataset of Library & Information Science publications indexed by Web of Science. This work finds that a small percentage of publications were made open access, yet they did have a higher citation count on average. Therefore, librarians that are publishing scholarly work face the same barriers to publication as other academics and further advocacy is needed to ensure free and open access to scholarly communication.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.053 | 0.141 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.044 | 0.129 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it