%0 Journal Article
%T Librarian and LIS Faculty Participation in Self-Archiving Practice Needs Improvement. A Review of: Xia, J., Wilhoite, S. K., & Myers, R. L. (2011). A ※librarian-LIS faculty§ divide in open access practice. Journal of Documentation, 67(5), 791-805. doi:10.1108/00220411111164673
%A Annie M. Hughes
%J Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
%D 2012
%I University of Alberta
%X Objective 每 To compare librarian and LISfaculty open access (OA) self-archivingbehavior. Design 每 Logistical Regression Analysis. Setting 每 Twenty top-ranked library andinformation science journals published in 2006. Subjects 每 A total of 812 research articles inLIS journals. Methods 每 For the purpose of data collection,the researchers first compiled a list of libraryand information science journals utilizingJournal Citation Reports (JCR) from 2006.Twenty journals were selected by consideringimpact factor and the list compiled waschecked against Ulrich＊s Periodicals Directoryfollowing a similar methodology utilized in a2007 article by Anita Coleman. The sampleincluded was representative of both libraryand information science journals, and therewere exclusions of 3 types of journals: freeonline journals where OA participation couldnot be measured; subscription based journalsthat do not supply free articles; and annualreview journals. Here, OA participation or OApractice is considered to be author selfarchivingof articles that are not freelyavailable online. Research articles wereincluded in the sample; however, editorialsand book reviews were excluded. Theresearchers also collected information aboutthe article itself, including the title, name of thejournal and name of the author. Only firstauthor＊s status as librarian or LIS faculty wasconsidered in data collection. One difficulty in collecting data about the authors was that their professional status was not always clear. The researchers collected information on whether the author＊s status was librarian or faculty; when an author＊s status was unclear, researchers searched online to determine it. If the author＊s status still could not be determined via online searching, the authors chose to exclude those articles.After the articles were collected, Google Scholar was searched in order to determine OA status. The articles that were deemed OA were opened and if the article was downloadable, it was included; otherwise, it was not included. Researchers also avoided linking to articles through their own library portal which would have allowed for access to articles through their own library＊s subscription. Other data was collected using Web of Science and included citation information; length of articles; and number of references, authors, and self-citations.Analysis of data was performed utilizing logistic regression. The researchers selected the professional status (librarian or faculty) as the dependent variable, assigning 1 to librarian status and 0 to faculty status. The independent variables included the
%K Open Access
%K librarians
%K librarian faculty
%U http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/16575/14041