Interviews with editors of library science journals on transitioning to open access
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
These three files are related to qualitative, semi-structured interviews conducted in Fall 2023 with editors of Library and Information Science (LIS) journals on transitioning to open access. One subgroup consisted of participants who were editors at the time of an LIS journal when it transitioned (or flipped) to an open access model that does not charge a fee to either readers or authors (which this study refers to as equitable open access), and the other subgroup consisted of current editors (at the time) of LIS journals that have not yet transitioned (or unflipped) to an equitable open access model. Two of the files are the interview protocols for each group of flipped and unflipped editors, and the third file is the codebook the researchers used to analyze the interview transcripts. Interview transcripts are not being publicly shared to ensure confidentiality for interview participants. The interview protocols were created based on the findings of a prior research study: Borchardt, R., Dawson, D., & Schultz, T. (2024). Financial and other perceived barriers to transitioning to an equitable no-publishing fee open access model: A survey of LIS journal editors. College & Research Libraries, 85(1). https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.85.1.96 The codebook was created iteratively based on the researchers' review and analysis of the interview transcripts.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Scholarly communicationOpen science Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.116 | 0.027 |
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