Eger, Scheufen and Meierrieks (2015)

From Copyright Evidence
Jump to: navigation, search

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Eger, Scheufen and Meierrieks (2015)
Title: The determinants of open access publishing: survey evidence from Germany
Author(s): Thomas Eger, Marc Scheuen, Daniel Meierrieks
Year: 2015
Citation: Eger, T., Scheuen, M., and Meierreks, D. (2015) The determinants of open access publishing: survey evidence from Germany. Eur J Law Econ, 39, p475-503
Link(s): Definitive
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: The study consists of an online survey, with 2151 complete respondents. The survey was targeted at researchers from German universities, research organisations, and institutes, specifically in regards to experiences with open access publishing.
Data Type: Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2012
Funder(s):

Abstract

“We discuss the results of a survey conducted in the fall of 2012 and covering 2151 researchers in Germany. We show that there are significant differences between the scientific disciplines with respect to researchers’ awareness of, and experience with, both open access (OA) journals and self-archiving. Our results reveal that the relevance of OA within a discipline may explain why researchers from particular disciplines do (not) publish OA. Furthermore, several aspects like copyright law, age, profession or the inherent reward system of a discipline also play a role. Consequently, the paper emphasizes that a ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ approach, as promoted by most recent policy initiatives, is unlikely to provide an effective framework for shaping the future of scholarly publishing.”

Main Results of the Study

Open access publishing is is most prevalent in: Biology and Life Sciences; Health Sciences; History and Archaeology, and; Physics and Astronomy (and noting that only 52% of respondents have ever published open access). Conversely, self-archiving practices are most common in Mathematics and Statistics, and Physics and Astronomy. Determinants of open access publishing are also stronger in disciplines where publication output is a more general measure of achievement. However, this does not apply to self-archiving behaviours.

Professional and senior researchers are more likely to have published in an open access journal and self-archived, though this likelihood decreases once a certain level of seniority has been attained.

The poor status or reputation of open access journals are the main concern for researchers who refrain from self-archiving, or publishing open access. The authors estimate that only 8.45% of researchers who have never published open access would maintain this stance if journals improved their reputation.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

Amidst the push for open access, the study cautions policy makers to consider the main barriers to researchers who do not publish in open access journals:

As there is a reputational concern, introducing mandatory requirements to publish open access will force high-ranking scholars to contribute, in turn increasing the reputation of open access journals.

As researchers value an inalienable right to secondary publication following an embargo period, this should be ensured.

Business models should adapt to a subscription fee, rather than publication fee model.

As appropriate measures differ between disciplines, there may be context-specific factors which ensure the highest quality publications in open access journals.



Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Green-tick.png
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets