Lipinski and Kritikos (2017)
|Lipinski and Kritikos (2017)|
|Title:||Legal and policy implications and licenses between LIS open access journal publishers and authors: a qualitative case study|
|Author(s):||Tomas A. Lipinski, Katie Chamberlain Kritikos|
|Citation:||Lipinski, T.A. and Kritikos, K.C. (2017) Legal and policy implications and licenses between LIS open access journal publishers and authors: a qualitative case study. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML), 6, pp 545-558|
|Key Related Studies:|
|About the Data|
|Data Description:||The study consists of a clause-by-clause, comparative analysis of agreements offered by five open access publications in the library and information science domain.|
|Data Type:||Primary and Secondary data|
|Secondary Data Sources:|
|Data Collection Methods:|
|Data Analysis Methods:|
|Cross Country Study?:||Yes|
|Government or policy study?:||No|
|Time Period(s) of Collection:|
““Open access” (“OA”) refers to research placed online free from all price barriers and from most permission barriers (Suber, 2015). OA may apply to research outputs published traditionally, such as books (Schwartz, 2012) and articles in academic journals (Suber, 2015), and non-traditionally, such as student dissertations and theses (Schöpfel & Prost). The lack of legal barriers is grounded in and given effect through the law of copyright and contract, and the submission of content by authors is often executed through a publication agreement. This paper studies the contract aspects of OA and the open publishing movement in library and information science (“LIS”) scholarly communication. To explore this phenomenon, it undertakes a case study of the publication agreements of five OA LIS journals. The sample consists of a brand-new open journal with an agreements drafted by copyright librarians (journal 1) and top-ranked LIS journals that converted to OA (journals 2 through 5) (Scimago, 2017). With a descriptive data analysis based on that in Lipinski and Copeland (2015; 2013) and Lipinski (2013; 2012), the case study investigates the similarities and differences in the agreements used by the sampled OA LIS journals. The study builds on the best practices from the Harvard Open Access Project (Shieber & Suber, 2016; 2013). It recommends best practices for the drafting and content of OA LIS publication agreements."
Main Results of the Study
The study uncovers problematic provisions in the terms and conditions of open access journals. This includes:
• Formation and contractual particulars - some agreements only imply that they are contracts or licences in their titles, rather than content. Assent to the agreement may also be unclear where check-boxes are used instead of signatures.
• Publisher rights - agreements may contain contradictory clauses regarding first publication and permission to deposit copies of a work in repositories.
• Author rights - in every agreement surveyed the author retained the copyright in their work, with some agreements more specifically permitting e.g. reuse, or use for teaching and research. Each agreement also permits self-archiving by authors.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
The study offers a range of recommendations for OA journal agreements, including retention of copyright by authors, allowance to deposit work in institutional repositories, and the use of Creative Commons licences.