Open Access: The Whipping Boy for Problems in Scholarly Communication: A Response to the Rebuttals

Danny A. Kingsley, Mary Anne Kennan

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    In this paper, we respond to five rebuttals to Kingsley and Kennan (2015). Four researchers in the information systems field and a university library director of research infrastructure provided these rebuttals. Almost without exception, the rebuttals from the information systems researchers take an analytical approach to the question of scholarly communication in their field. However, in undertaking their individual analyses of scholarly publishing or communication, they do not directly address the issues raised in our original debate piece. The rebuttal from the university library administrator (Groenewegen, 2015) alone directly addresses the discussion points raised in the original debate. As researchers in the field of scholarly communications, while this was not how we originally envisioned the debate, the rebuttals as a body of work have opened up some interesting themes, which we explore in addition to responding to the individual rebuttals.
    LanguageEnglish
    Article number20
    Pages383-394
    Number of pages12
    JournalCommunications of the Association for Information Systems
    Volume37
    Publication statusPublished - Aug 2015

    Fingerprint

    Communication
    Information systems

    Cite this

    @article{56ff52d3c6424bffae3c3b8bc634f711,
    title = "Open Access: The Whipping Boy for Problems in Scholarly Communication: A Response to the Rebuttals",
    abstract = "In this paper, we respond to five rebuttals to Kingsley and Kennan (2015). Four researchers in the information systems field and a university library director of research infrastructure provided these rebuttals. Almost without exception, the rebuttals from the information systems researchers take an analytical approach to the question of scholarly communication in their field. However, in undertaking their individual analyses of scholarly publishing or communication, they do not directly address the issues raised in our original debate piece. The rebuttal from the university library administrator (Groenewegen, 2015) alone directly addresses the discussion points raised in the original debate. As researchers in the field of scholarly communications, while this was not how we originally envisioned the debate, the rebuttals as a body of work have opened up some interesting themes, which we explore in addition to responding to the individual rebuttals.",
    keywords = "Open access version available, Scholarly Publishing, Open Access, Predatory Publishing, Institutional Repositories, Article Processing Charges, Subscriptions, Hybrid Publishing, Mega Journals.",
    author = "Kingsley, {Danny A.} and Kennan, {Mary Anne}",
    note = "Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: month (773h) = August; Journal title (773t) = Communications of the Association for Information Systems. ISSNs: 1529-3181;",
    year = "2015",
    month = "8",
    language = "English",
    volume = "37",
    pages = "383--394",
    journal = "Communications of the Association for Information Systems",
    issn = "1529-3181",
    publisher = "Association for Information Systems",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Open Access

    T2 - Communications of the Association for Information Systems

    AU - Kingsley, Danny A.

    AU - Kennan, Mary Anne

    N1 - Imported on 12 Apr 2017 - DigiTool details were: month (773h) = August; Journal title (773t) = Communications of the Association for Information Systems. ISSNs: 1529-3181;

    PY - 2015/8

    Y1 - 2015/8

    N2 - In this paper, we respond to five rebuttals to Kingsley and Kennan (2015). Four researchers in the information systems field and a university library director of research infrastructure provided these rebuttals. Almost without exception, the rebuttals from the information systems researchers take an analytical approach to the question of scholarly communication in their field. However, in undertaking their individual analyses of scholarly publishing or communication, they do not directly address the issues raised in our original debate piece. The rebuttal from the university library administrator (Groenewegen, 2015) alone directly addresses the discussion points raised in the original debate. As researchers in the field of scholarly communications, while this was not how we originally envisioned the debate, the rebuttals as a body of work have opened up some interesting themes, which we explore in addition to responding to the individual rebuttals.

    AB - In this paper, we respond to five rebuttals to Kingsley and Kennan (2015). Four researchers in the information systems field and a university library director of research infrastructure provided these rebuttals. Almost without exception, the rebuttals from the information systems researchers take an analytical approach to the question of scholarly communication in their field. However, in undertaking their individual analyses of scholarly publishing or communication, they do not directly address the issues raised in our original debate piece. The rebuttal from the university library administrator (Groenewegen, 2015) alone directly addresses the discussion points raised in the original debate. As researchers in the field of scholarly communications, while this was not how we originally envisioned the debate, the rebuttals as a body of work have opened up some interesting themes, which we explore in addition to responding to the individual rebuttals.

    KW - Open access version available

    KW - Scholarly Publishing, Open Access, Predatory Publishing, Institutional Repositories, Article Processing Charges, Subscriptions, Hybrid Publishing, Mega Journals.

    M3 - Article

    VL - 37

    SP - 383

    EP - 394

    JO - Communications of the Association for Information Systems

    JF - Communications of the Association for Information Systems

    SN - 1529-3181

    M1 - 20

    ER -