Keywords
Open acess
Eletronic book
Academic library
How to Cite
Abstract
Introduction: Scholarly communication in social sciences and humanities has developed through monographic publications. In recent decades, electronic books have become prominent for communication in these areas. Objective: Given the importance of creating a more democratic science and the consolidation and advances of open access presented in recent times, this research identifies the current state of scientific knowledge regarding the production, distribution, and use of electronic book access in the social sciences and humanities fields. Methodology: Based on a qualitative methodological approach, the study used the systematic literature review (SLR) method with the library and information science abstracts (LISA) and the Scopus databases, which has international recognition within the areas of information science, social sciences and humanities. Results: Fortytwo articles that discussed the analyzed themes were verified based on the defined SLR protocols and StArt tool. Conclusions: It was concluded that the social sciences and humanities area has been using open access digital books in its research, and academic libraries and university press are the main actors in their distribution. Moreover, some technological, social, economic obstacles persist in the use and production of studies on the subject owing to its reduced importance compared to research on opena ccess journals in various other areas of knowledge.
References
ADEMA, J; SCHMIDT, B. From service providers to content producers: New opportunities for libraries in collaborative open access book publishing. New Review of Academic Librarianship, London, v. 16, n. SUPPL. 1, p. 28–43, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2010.509542.
AYRIS, P. Open access e-books: The role of the institution. Insights: the UKSG Journal, London, v. 27, n. suppl. 1, p. 7–10, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.140.
BARGHEER, M et al. Unlocking the digital potential of scholarly monographs in 21st century research. LIBER Quarterly, Amsterdam, v. 27, n. 1, p. 194–211, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10174.
BARUCHSON-ARBIB, S; BRONSTEIN, J. Humanists as information users in the digital age: the case of jewish studies scholars in Israel. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Hoboken, NJ, v. 58, n. 14, p. 2269–2279, 2007. Disponível em: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.20699. Acesso em: 27 set. 2022.
BIOLCHINI, J. C. et al. Scientific research ontology to support systematic review in software engineering. Advanced Engineering Informatics, Oxford, UK, v. 21, n. 2, p. 133–151, 2007. Disponível em: https://encurtador.com.br/gsvxZ. Acesso em: 18 mar. 2022.
BUDD, J. M.; CHRISTENSEN, C. Social sciences literature and electronic information. Libraries and the Academy, Baltimore, MA, v. 3, n. 4, p. 643–651, 2003. Disponível em: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/49289. Acesso em: 27 set. 2022.
COSTA, S. Changes in the information dissemination process within the scholarly world: the impact of electronic publishing on scholarly communities of academic social scientists. In: ELPUB CONFERENCE ON ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING, 4., 2000, Rússia. Proceedings of the […]. Russia: ICCC Press, 2000. Disponível em: https://encurtador.com.br/vNQ59. Acesso em: 14 jun. 2021.
COSTA, M. P.; LEITE, F. C. L. Acesso aberto no mundo e na américa latina: uma revisão a partir da budapest open access initiative. Transinformação, Campinas, SP, v. 28, n. 1, p. 33–45, 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892016002800003.
CRESWELL, J. W. Projeto de pesquisa: métodos qualitativo, quantitativo e misto. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 2010.
CROSSICK, G. Monographs and open access. Insights: the UKSG Journal, Londo, v. 29, n. 1, p. 14–19, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.280.
DAVIES, P.M.C.R. Calibrating the parameters: Changing hearts and minds about open access monographs. Insights: the UKSG Journal, Londo, v. 27, n. suppl. 1, p. 4–6, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.141.
EVE, M P et al. Cost estimates of an open access mandate for monographs in the UK’s third Research Excellence Framework. Insights: the UKSG Journal, London, v. 30, n. 3, p. 89–102, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.392.
EVE, M. P. Open access and the humanities: contexts, controversies and the future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781316161012.
EVE, M. P. Open Access publishing and scholarly communications in non-scientific disciplines. Online Information Review, Leeds, UK, v.39, n.5, p.717-732, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2015-0103.
FABBRI, S. et al. Improvements in the StArt tool to better support the systematic review process. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, New York, v. 01-03, Jun. 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2915970.2916013.
FATHALLAH, J. Open access monographs: myths, truths and implications in the wake of ukri open access policy. LIBER Quarterly, Amsterdam, v. 32, n. 1, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.11068.
FERWERDA, E. New models for monographs - Open books. Serials, Witney, UK,v. 23, n. 2, p. 91–96, 2010. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1629/2391.
FERWERDA, E. Open access monograph business models. Insights: the UKSG Journal, London, v. 27, n. suppl. 1, p. 35–38, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.46.
FERWERDA, E. A project exploring Open Access monograph publishing in the Netherlands: final report. Netherlands: OAPEN Foundation, 2013. Disponível em: https://openreflections.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/oapen-nl-final-report.pdf. Acesso em: 16 set. 2022.
FOLSTER, M. B. Information seeking patterns: social sciences. Reference Librarian, London, v. 23, n. 49–50, p. 83–93, 1995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1300/J120v23n49_06.
FRANKL, J. Towards an Author-Centered Open Access Monograph Program: Understanding Open Access Cultures in Scholarly Publishing. Journal of Electronic Publishing, Ann Arbor, v. 26, n. 1, p. 47–76, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/jep.3332.
FUND, S. Stop, look, listen-learning from knowledge unlatched 2016: Making OA Work. Against the Grain, Charleston, v. 29, n. 3, 2017.
GARVEY, W. D. Communication: the essence of science: facilitating information exchange among librarians, scientists, engineers and students. New York: Pergamon Press, 1979.
GEORGIOU, P; TSAKONAS, G. Digital scholarly publishing and archiving services by academic libraries: Case study of the University of Patras. LIBER Quarterly, London, v. 20, n. 2, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.7991.
GILLIAM, C; DAOUTIS, C. Can openly accessible E-theses be published as monographs? A short survey of academic publishers. Serials Librarian, London, v. 75, n. 1–4, p. 5–12, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2019.1589633.
GRANT, M. J.; BOOTH, A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, Chichester, v. 26, n. 2, p. 91–108, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
HACKER, D. A. Building it together: Collaboration in university-based open access book publishing. Insights: the UKSG Journal, London, v. 27, n. suppl. 1, p. 26–29, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.120.
HARNAD, S. Mandates and metrics: how open repositories enable universities to manage, measure and maximise their research assets. In: UUK RESEARCH INFORMATION AND MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP, 2007, London. Conference of the… London, United Kingdom: [s. n.], 2007. Disponível em: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/265693. Acesso em: 1 maio 2023. 98 slideshow.
HARTMANN, H. Academic Publishing in the humanities: Current trends in Germany. Logos, Amsterdam, v. 28, n. 2, p. 11–26, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/1878-4712-11112127.
HUANG, M. H.; CHANG, Y. W. Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: from a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Hoboken, NJ, v. 59, n. 11, p. 1819–1828, 2008.
KAVITHA, E. S. A study on knowledge and usage of electronic resources by the SC/ST research scholars and PG students among Periyar University affiliated colleges. Library Philosophy and Practice, Moscow, ID, p. 199, 2018. Disponível em: https://encurtador.com.br/ktCF9. Acesso em: 19 fev. 2022.
KERN, D.; HIENERT, D. Understanding the information needs of social scientists in Germany. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Hoboken, NJ, v. 55, n. 1, p. 234–243, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2018.
LEITE, F. C. L. Busca, acesso e disseminação da informação científica de cientistas, cientistas sociais e humanistas. Biblios, Lima, n. 57, p. 22–42, 2014. Disponível em: http://biblios.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/biblios/article/viewFile/195/214. Acesso em: 19 fev. 2022.
LEITE, F. C. L; COSTA, S. M. S. Modelo genérico de gestão da informação científica digital para instituições de pesquisa na perspectiva da comunicação científica e do acesso aberto. In:
COSTA, S. M. S.; LEITE, F. C. L.; TAVARES, R. B. (org.). Comunicação da informação, gestão da informação e gestão do conhecimento. Brasília: Ibict, 2018. p. 339–362. Disponível em: http://livroaberto.ibict.br/handle/123456789/1071. Acesso em: 10 jan. 2022.
LINE, M. B. The information uses and needs of socials cientists; an overview of INFROSS. Aslib Procedings, Bingley, UK, v. 23, n. 8, p. 412–434, 1971. Disponível em: https://encurtador.com.br/cmBOT. Acesso em: 12 mar. 2022.
LOOK, H; PINTER, F. Open access and humanities and social science monograph publishing. New Review of Academic Librarianship, London, v. 16, n. suppl. 1, p. 90–97, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2010.512244.
MAMÉDIO, Cristina et al. A estratégia PICO para a construção da pergunta de pesquisa e busca de evidências. Rev Latino-am Enferm., Ribeirão Preto, v. 15, n. 3, p. 508–511, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-11692007000300023.
MANGAI, G; GANESAN, P. Researchers’ perception and attitude towards Open Access (OA) resources: an alternative model and important for academic and research libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice, Moscow, ID, p. 5681, 2021. Disponível em: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5681. Acesso em: 9 nov. 2022.
MARYL, M et al. The case for an inclusive scholarly communication infrastructure for social sciences and humanities. F1000Research, London, v. 9, 2020. https://doi.org/10.12688/
f1000research.26545.1.
MEADOWS, A. J. A comunicação científica. Brasília: Briquet de Lemos/Livros, 1999.
PYNE, R. et al. The future of open access books: findings from a global survey of academic book authors. Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc, 2019. Disponível em: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/113. Acesso em: 16 set. 2022.
SERAKAN, U. Research methods for business: a skill-building approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2003.
SHAW, P.; PHILLIPS, A.; GUTIÉRREZ, M. B. The death of the monograph?. Publishing Research Quarterly, New York, v. 38, n. 2, p. 382–395, 2022.
SHAW, P; PHILLIPS, A.; GUTIÉRREZ, M. B. The future of the monograph in the arts, humanities and social sciences: publisher perspectives on a transitioning format. Publishing Research Quarterly, New York, v. 39, n. 1, p. 69–84, 2023. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-023-09937-1. Acesso em: 5 nov. 2023.
SPINK, A.; COLE, C. Information and poverty: information-seeking channels used by African American low-income households. Library & Information Science Research, Oxford, v. 23, n. 1, p. 45–65, 2001.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-8188(00)00067-0.
SUBER, P. Timeline of the Open Access Movement. [S. l.], 2022. Disponível em: http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Timeline. Acesso em: 9 mar. 2022.
TAYLOR, M. An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences. Scientometrics, Budapest, v. 125, n. 3, p. 2523–2543, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03735-8.
WATKINSON, C. University presses and the impact of COVID-19. Learned Publishing, Oxford, UK, v. 34, n. 1, p. 17–24, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1352.
WILSON, T. D. Fifty years of information behavior research. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Silver Spring, MD, v. 36, n. 3, p. 27–34, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.2010.1720360308.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Ana Flavia Lucas de Faria Kama, Fernando César Lima Leite
Downloads
