Mathematicians' Views on Current Publishing Issues: A Survey of Researchers.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29173/istl1529Abstract
This article reports research mathematicians' attitudes about and activity in specific scholarly communication areas, as captured in a 2010 survey of more than 600 randomly-selected mathematicians worldwide. Key findings include: Most mathematicians have papers in the arXiv, but posting to their own web pages remains more common; A third of mathematicians have published papers in open access (OA) journals, with speed of publication being seen as the primary advantage over traditional journals, but there is substantial philosophical opposition to OA journal models that charge author fees; Tenure and promotion criteria influence publishing decisions even among most tenured faculty members; Mathematicians want to keep more rights to their publications than they have been allowed, but they have a high success rate in negotiating with publishers for more; Online collaboration tools, such as Google Groups, are not yet widely used for research but their use is expected to rise in the near future. Reasons behind the mathematics culture of openness were also explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Downloads
References
American Mathematical Society. 2010. About MathSciNet [Internet]. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. [cited 2011 7/15]. Available from: http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/help/about.html
American Mathematical Society. 2009. Journal Price Survey [Internet]. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. [cited 2011 7/15]. Available from: http://www.ams.org/membership/mem-journal-survey
arXiv. 2011. arXiv Monthly Submission Rate Statistics [Internet]. Cornell, NY: arXiv. [cited 2011 7/15]. Available from: http://arxiv.org/Stats/hcamonthly.html
Beschler, E. 1998. Pricing scientific publications: A commercial publisher's point of view. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 45:1333-43.
Birman, J.S. 2000. Scientific publishing: A Mathematician's viewpoint. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 47(7):770.
Burns, L., Dennis, N., Kahn, D., and Town, B. 2009. Advocacy to Benefit from Changes: Scholarly Communications Discipline-Based Advocacy Final Report Prepared For JISC Scholarly Communications Group [Internet]: Publishing Directions. Available from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/aboutus/workinggroups/scadvocacyfinal report.pdf
Carter, H., Snyder, C.A., and Imre, A. 2007. Library faculty publishing and intellectual property issues: A survey of attitudes and awareness. Portal 7(1):65-79.
Coonin, B. and Younce, L.M. 2010. Publishing in open access education journals: The authors' perspectives. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian 29(2):118-32.
Directory of Open Access Journals. 2011. [Internet]. [cited 2011 6/6]. Available from: http://www.doaj.org
Editors of Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt für Mathematik. 2010. Mathematics Subject Classification MSC2010 [Internet]. [cited 2010 11/29]. Available from: http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/msc/pdfs/classifications2010.pdf
Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., and Probets, S. 2003a. RoMEO studies 1: The impact of copyright ownership on academic author self-archiving. Journal of Documentation 59(3):243-77.
Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., and Probets, S. 2003b. RoMEO studies 2: How academics want to protect their open-access research papers. Journal of Information Science 29(5):333-56.
Grossman, J.W. 2005. Patterns of research in mathematics. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 52(1):35-41.
Harley, D., Acord, S., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S., and King, C. 2010. Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines [Internet]: Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley. Available from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g
IMU General Assembly. 2010. Best Current Practices for Journals [Internet]: The International Mathematical Union, Committee on Electronic Information and Communication. [cited 2011 7/1]. Available from: http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/CEIC/bestpractice/bpfinal.pdf
International Mathematical Union Committee on Electronic Information and Communication. 2002. Recommendations on Information and Communication [Internet]: The International Mathematical Union, Committee on Electronic Information and Communication. Available from: {http://www.mathunion.org/ceic/Publications/Recommendations/recommendations.pdf}
Kaufman-Wills Group. 2010. Editorial Benchmark Study: Method and Tables [Internet]. Available from: {http://www.kaufmanwills.com/images/kaufmanwills/PDFs/Editorial_Benchmark_Study_2009_Method_and_Tables.pdf}
Kim, J. 2010. Faculty self-archiving: Motivations and barriers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 61(9):1909-22.
King, C.J., Harley, D., Earl-Novell, S., Arter, J., Lawrence, S., and Perciali, I. 2006. Scholarly Communication: Academic Values and Sustainable Models [Internet]: Center for Studies in Higher Education (CSHE), University of California, Berkeley. Available from: http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/docs/scholarlycomm_report.pdf
Maynard, S. and O'Brien, A. 2010. Scholarly output: Print and digital in teaching and research. Journal of Documentation 66(3):384-408.
Morris, S. 2009. Journal authors' rights: perception and reality [Internet]. London: Publishing Research Consortium. [cited PRC Summary Paper 5.Available from: {http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/110-prc-projects/summary-papers/journal-authors-rights-summary-paper/140-journal-authors-rights-perception-and-reality}
Nicholas, D. and Rowlands, I. 2005. Open access publishing: The evidence from the authors. Journal of Academic Librarianship 31(3):179-81.
Rowlands, I. and Nicholas, D. 2005. Scholarly communication in the digital environment: The 2005 survey of journal author behaviour and attitudes. Aslib Proceedings 57(6):481-97.
Schonfeld, R.C. and Housewright, R. 2010a. Faculty Survey 2009: Key Strategic Insights for Libraries, Publishers, and Societies [Internet]: Ithaka S+R. Available from: {http://www.sr.ithaka.org/research-publications/us-faculty-survey-2009}
Schonfeld, R.C. and Housewright, R. 2010b. Faculty survey 2009: Supplementary data. Personal communication to author, 9 December 2010.
Sparks, Sue. 2005. JISC Disciplinary Differences Report [Internet]. London: Rightscom Ltd.. Available from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/themes/infoenvironment/disciplinarydifferencesneeds.pdf
Swan, A. and Brown, S. 2005. Open Access Self-Archiving: An author study [Internet]. Truro, Cornwall: Key Perspectives. Available from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Open%20Access%20Self%20Archiving-an%20author%20study.pdf
University of California Office of Scholarly Communication and the California Digital Library eScholarship Program. 2007. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication: Survey Findings from the University of California [Internet]: University of California Office of Scholarly Communication and the California Digital Library eScholarship Program. Available from: {http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/userresearch/surveys/2007_CDL_OSC_Survey.pdf}
Xia, J. 2010. A longitudinal study of scholars attitudes and behaviors toward open-access journal publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(3):615-24.
Xia, J. 2008. A comparison of subject and institutional repositories in self-archiving practices. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 34(6):489-95.
Xia, J. 2007. Assessment of self-archiving in institutional repositories: Across disciplines. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 33(6):647-54.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2011 Kristine K. Fowler
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.