Abstract

Freely available information resources, which can be accessed freely and without paying any price on the Web, are increasing their effect in the scientific communication process day by day. It is extremely important to observe how and at what level this effect occurs in this study. It is aimed to determine concretely the ideal contribution of them to the field of Library and Information Sciences (LIS). Citation analysis of 4384 references in the bibliography of 99 (47 BD, 52 TK; 11 English, 88 Turkish) peer-reviewed articles published in the five-year period covering the years 2015-2019 of Information World and Turkish Librarianship journals, which continue their publishing activities in the field of LIS, has been carried out. In this study, the availability of each resource on the Web was searched through Google and Google Scholar. Findings are presented with descriptive statistics and visualization. In the context of the citation analysis carried out, it was determined that 65% of the resources were accessed as freely available. Based on the findings, the most “articles”, “other resources” and “meeting resources” were accessed as freely in the context of the relevant data set; “legal sources”, “books” and “reports” were determined as the least accessed sources, respectively. It has been found that the total and freely available information resources in the citations are mostly in English, followed by Turkish. As a result, it has been revealed that there is a dependent relationship between freely available status and journals, years, and types of information resources. The original aspect of the study is that it tried to present the possible contribution of free access to the scientific communication process by comprehensively categorizing the sources used in refereed articles in two peer-reviewed journals that adopted open access publication life in the national literature in terms of freely availability in terms of types of information resources and languages. Since this research ideally tries to reveal the contribution of freely available information resources to scientific communication in the context of this sample, it is recommended to carry out comparative studies that determine the contribution of both the libraries and freely available information resources to scientific communication process with a national and larger sample to complete this research in the future.

Keywords: Open access, Information World, scientific communication, Google, Google Scholar, Library and Information Science, Turkish Librarianship, freely available sources

References

  1. About: What is cOAlition S? (t. y.). https://www.coalition-s.org/about/
  2. ANKOS Web. (2021, 17 Şubat). ANKOS ile Cambridge University Press arasında imzalanan “Oku Yayımla” anlaşması [Youtube Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EPnBGMqII4
  3. Archambault, É., Amyot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A., Provencher, F., Rebout, L. ve Roberge, G. (2014). Proportion of open access papers published in peer-reviewed journals at the European and world levels: 1996-2013. Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc., 8. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=scholcom
  4. Dergi Hakkında. (t.y.). Bilgi Dünyası. https://bd.org.tr/index.php/bd/about
  5. Brody, T. (2004). Citation analysis in the open access world. Interactive Media International. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.493.3951&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  6. Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002). https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read
  7. Budapeşte Açık Erişim Girişimi. (2002). https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/translations/turkish-translation
  8. Campanario, J. M. (2003). Citation analysis. J. Feather ve P. Sturges (Yay. Haz.), International Encyclopedia of Information and Library Science içinde (2. bs., ss. 76-78). Routledge.
  9. Casserly, M. F. ve Bird, J. E. (2003). Web citation availability: Analysis and implications for scholarship. College and Research Libraries, 64(4), 300-317. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.64.4.300
  10. Connaway, L. S. ve Powell, R. R. (2010). Basic research methods for librarians (5. bs.). Libraries Unlimited.
  11. Correa, J. C., Laverde-Rojas, H., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., Tejada, J. ve Bahník, Š. (2020). The SCI-HUB effect: SCI-HUB downloads lead to more article citations. http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.14979
  12. Davis, P. M. ve Cohen, S. A. (2001). The effect of the Web on undergraduate citation behavior 1996-1999. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(4), 309–314. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/2557/52.4davis.pdf?sequence=1
  13. Dellavalle, R. P., Hester, E. J., Heilig, L. F., Drake, A. L., Kuntzman, J. W., Graber, M. ve Schilling, L. M. (2003). Going, going, gone: Lost Internet references. Science, 302(5646), 787–788. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1088234
  14. Duić, M. (2019). In labyrinths of digital text: use of Web literature by faculty from two Croatian universities. Information Research, 24(1). http://informationr.net/ir/24-1/isic2018/isic1821.html
  15. Gökkurt, Ö. (2017). Üniversite kütüphaneleri ve ulusal akademik e- yayınlar: “Büyük dev açık kütüphane düşü”. ÜNAK Akademik Kütüphanelerde Kaynak Yönetimi Sempozyumu, 12-14 Ekim 2017. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Oezlem-Goekkurt-Demirtel/publication/321905033_Universite_Kutuphaneleri_ve_Ulusal_Akademik_e-Yayinlar_Buyuk_Buyuk_Dev_Acik_Kutuphane_Duesue_University_Great_Libraries_and_National_Academic_e-Publications_The_Great_Big_Giant_Open_Library_Dream/links/5a38bc90a6fdccdd41fe6d18/Ueniversite-Kuetuephaneleri-ve-Ulusal-Akademik-eYayinlar-Bueyuek-Bueyuek-Dev-Acik-Kuetuephane-Duesue-University-Great-Libraries-andNational-Academic-e-Publications-The-Great-Big-Giant-Open-Library-D.pdf
  16. Grigas, V., Juzeniene, S. ve Velickaite, J. (2017). “Just Google it” – The scope of freely available information sources for doctoral thesis writing. Information Research, 22(1). http://informationr.net/ir/22-1/paper738.html
  17. Güngör, T. (2020). Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi anabilim dalında yapılan tezlerde açık erişimli kaynak kullanımı.Hacettepe Üniversitesi Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Bölümü ve Hacettepe Üniversitesi Bilgi Topluluğu (Ed.), Açık Bilim ve Bilimsel İletişim: 4. Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Bölümü Öğrenci Kongresi, 16 Nisan 2020, Genişletilmiş Bildiri Özetleri içinde (ss. 16–19). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Bölümü. http://bby2020kongre.bilgiyonetimi.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/28/2020/08/acik_bilim_bilimsel_iletisim.pdf
  18. Gürdal Tamdoğan, O. (2013). Sosyal bilimler ve insan bilimlerinde bilgi kaynaklarının ve kütüphane kurumunun yarattığı değeri ölçmeye dayalı bir metodoloji: Atıf analizi bulguları - II. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 27(1), 25–51. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/811518
  19. Herb, U. ve Schöpfel, J. (2018). Open divide emerges as open access unfolds. J. Schöpfel ve U. Herb (Ed.), Open divide: Critical studies on open access içinde (ss. 7–13). Litwin. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1206390
  20. Himmelstein, D. S., Romero, A. R., Levernier, J. G., Munro, T. A., McLaughlin, S. R., Greshake Tzovaras, B. ve Greene, C. S. (2018). Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature. eLIFE içinde (C. 7). https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.32822
  21. Jamali, H. R. ve Asadi, S. (2010). Google and the scholar: the role of Google in scientists’ information-seeking behaviour. Online Information Review, 34(2), 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521011036990
  22. Kwon, D. (2018, 11 Haziran). North American universities increasingly cancel publisher packages. The Scientist Magazine. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/north-americanuniversities-increasingly-cancel-publisher-packages-64324
  23. Maharana, B., Nayak, K. ve Sahu, N. K. (2006). Scholarly use of Web resources in LIS research: A citation analysis. Library Review, 55(9), 598–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530610706789
  24. Manca, S. (2018). ResearchGate and Academia.edu as networked socio-technical systems for scholarly communication: a literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 26(2008), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2008
  25. Martin, R. A. (2010). Finding free and open access resources: A value-added service for patrons. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserve, 20(3), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/1072303X.2010.491022
  26. Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E. ve Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2020). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics, 126, 871-906. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4.pdf
  27. McCollough, A. (2017). Does it make a sound: Are open access monographs discoverable in library catalogs? Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 17(1), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2017.0010
  28. McCown, F., Chan, S., Nelson, M. L. ve Bollen, J. (2005). the availability and persistence of Web references in D-Lib Magazine. https://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0511/0511077.pdf
  29. Norris, M., Oppenheim, C., ve Rowland, F. (2008). Finding open access articles using Google, Google Scholar, OAIster and OpenDOAR. Online Information Review, 32(6), 709–715. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520810923881
  30. Pooley, J. (2020, 21 Şubat). Read-and-Publish Open Access deals are heightening global inequalities in access to publication. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/02/21/read-andpublish-open-access-deals-are-heightening-global-inequalities-in-access-to-publication/
  31. Prosser, D. C. (2005). Open access: the future of scholarly communication. Cadernos Bad, 1, 6–20. https://bad.pt/publicacoes/index.php/cadernos/article/download/818/817
  32. Purcell, K., Brenner, J. ve Rainie, L. (2012, 9 Mart). Search Engine Use 2012. Pew Research Center Internet & Technology. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2012/03/09/search-engineuse-2012/
  33. Rather, R. A., Jan, R. ve Loan, F. A. (2006). Search engine coverage of open access corpus in the field of biotechnology. Trends in Information Management, 2(1), 1–8. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3779774_code2892128.pdf?abstractid=3779774&mirid=1
  34. Rempel, J. ve Cossarini, D. M. (2013). Communicating the relevance of the library in the age of Google: Improving undergraduate research skills and information literacy though new models of library instruction. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education, 5(1), 49–53. https://doi.org/10.15845/noril.v5i1.176
  35. Saberi, M. K. ve Abedi, H. (2012). Accessibility and decay of Web citations in five open access ISI journals. Internet Research, 22(2), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241211214584
  36. Schiltz, M. (2018, 4 Eylül). Why plan S. https://www.coalition-s.org/why-plan-s/
  37. Sennema, G. (2019). One size does not fit all [Sunum]. 48th General Assembly of Beth, 7-11 September 2019, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1145/2324796.2324863
  38. Swartz, A. (2008). Guerilla Open Access Manifesto. https://archive.org/details/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto
  39. Tonta, Y. (2019, 23 Ocak). Bilimsel yayınlara açık erişim modelleri. Sarkaç. https://sarkac.org/2019/01/bilimsel-yayinlara-acik-erisim-modelleri/
  40. Tonta, Y., Ünal, Y. ve Al, U. (2007). The research impact of open access journal articles. Proceedings ELPUB2007 Conference on Electronic Publishing – Vienna, Austria – June 2007. http://www.openaccess.hacettepe.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11655/11625/kcb22.pdf?sequence=1
  41. Türk Kütüphaneciliği Yönetim Belgesi. (t. y.). Türk Kütüphaneciler Derneği. http://tk.org.tr/belgeler/TK-Yonetim_Belgesi.pdf
  42. Vaughan, L. ve Shaw, D. (2003). Bibliographic and Web citations: What is the difference? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(14), 1313-1322. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10338
  43. Wilke, C. (2019, 1 Mart). With no open access deal, UC breaks with Elsevier. The Scientist Magazine. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/with-no-open-access-deal--uc-breaks-withelsevier--65554
  44. Willinsky, J. (2007). What open access research can do for Wikipedia. First Monday, 12(3). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i3.1624
  45. Wu, M. ve Chen, S. (2014). Graduate students appreciate Google Scholar, but still find use for libraries. The Electronic Library, 32(3), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-08-2012-0102
  46. Zhang, Y. (1998). The impact of Internet-based electronic resources on formal scholarly communication in the area of library and information science: A citation analysis. Journal of Information Science, 24(4), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555159802400403

License

Copyright (c) 2021 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to Cite

Er-Koçoğlu, N. (2021). Scope of Freely Available Information Resources in Peer-Reviewed Articles Published in Library and Information Sciences. Information World, 22(2), 329-349. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2021.641