This is a presentation delivered at the "Issues in Scholarly Communication: Electronic Publishing, Open Access, and JELIS" panel at ALISE 2006 Annual Conference, January 16-19, San Antonio, Texas. Key findings from two studies, ALPSP and CIBER, on the funding models for open access journals and a survey of authors are reported.

Copyright 1999, by the Association for Information Systems. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page. Copyright for components of this work owned by others than the Association for Information Systems must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers for commercial use, or to redistribute to lists requires prior specific permission and/or fee. Request permission to publish from: AIS Administrative Office, P.O. Box 2712 Atlanta, GA, 30301-2712 Attn: Reprints, or via e-mail from ais@gsu.edu. / Many IS researchers often face a difficult decision in choosing publication outlets for their research work, as some review process factors are often not well-defined for particular outlets. For example, for time-critical research, a journal with quicker turn-around time (ceteris paribus) might be a better avenue for the work to reach the audience in the shortest time possible. In addition, finding such information is difficult. For example, process information for the same journal is not consistent across individuals, and even across manuscripts submitted by the same individual to a particular journal. This research focuses on quantifying certain metrics in the IS journal review process that are important, yet not well-known to prospective authors. We collected more than 1100 observations on these metrics from 307 authors who experienced the review process. This study provides an initial attempt to pool individual and anecdotal information of these factors into a knowledge repository for current researchers which may help them to make effective decisions on targeting journal outlets. Using concepts from process design and quality control literature, we determine if the review process is under control. Finally, we correlate our findings of these factors with journal rankings from published studies to detect if rankings are impacted by the factors identified by journal editors and researchers. Our results provide a knowledge base of â ¢ the length and quality of the review process in various journals; â ¢ responsiveness of the journal office and publication delay; and â ¢ correlations of metrics with published studies of journal rankings. The data should enable authors to make effective submission decisions, as well as help to benchmark journal review processes among competing journals.

This study examines forty-nine law journal publication agreements and finds that a minority of journals ask authors to transfer copyright. Most journals also permit author to self-archive articles with some conditions. The study recommends journals make their agreements publicly available and use licenses instead of copyright transfers.

This presentation was made at a LITA panel on Institutional Repositories at the Annual ALA meeting in Chicago, IL on June 27, 2005.

The current state of intellectual property law is labyrinthine in every sense: it is difficult to follow, full of blind alleys, and the only people who know the way through it are the ones who designed it in the first place. Pamela Samuelson notes in Towards a New Politics of Intellectual Property, “copyright industry groups have cultivated relationships with policy makers in the executive and legislative branches over a long period of time” (98) and these relationships have been used to maintain control over copyrighted materials far beyond the length of time of commercial success of said materials. James Boyle noted that “the ground rules of the information society are being laid down by lawyers (strike one) employed by the biggest players in the field (strike two) all with little public debate or press scrutiny.” (Boyle, “Sold Out”) My goal in this paper will be to examine the history of copyright, attempt to unite some of the disparate aspects of the open information meme, and finally to consider how this meme is being distributed (or not distributed) by academic librarians. I will also attempt to make prescriptive suggestions that might assist librarians in seeing the strengths of the Open Information memepool.

This paper is a précis of a research project conducted in March 2001 for the Master of Library and Information Studies at New Zealandâ s Victoria University of Wellington. The project investigated the perceptions of information professionals (denoting qualified practitioners) in New Zealand regarding applied LIS (Library and Information Studies) research. It was hoped the findings would direct the future production of such research in a way that might promote its use. The project assessed the local situation and attempted to redress an imbalance in the literature created by previous studies focusing on the production, rather than consultation, of LIS research by the practising community. Project participants were asked to indicate their amount of research use; their motivations for and against consulting the research; and their opinions concerning the relationship between LIS research and practice, and how it might be improved. Amounts of research consultation were compared with the following participant variables: Library / information qualifications; Experience, indicated by number of years / months in current position; Library / information centre size; Organisational context of the library / information centre; Involvement in professional activities such as conferences. Anyone wishing to read the original research paper is welcome to contact me using the following email address: kat.turner@library.otago.ac.nz

This work is copyrighted by MIT Press and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/>. MIT Press has granted permission to place a copy in dLIST. Readers can also purchase the book from MIT Press, which publishes it (see alternative location for details). Following abstract is from MIT Press: Questions about access to scholarship go back farther than recent debates over subscription prices, rights, and electronic archives suggest. The great libraries of the past -- from the fabled collection at Alexandria to the early public libraries of nineteenth-century America -- stood as arguments for increasing access. In The Access Principle, John Willinsky describes the latest chapter in this ongoing story -- online open access publishing by scholarly journals -- and makes a case for open access as a public good. A commitment to scholarly work, writes Willinsky, carries with it a responsibility to circulate that work as widely as possible: this is the access principle. In the digital age, that responsibility includes exploring new publishing technologies and economic models to improve access to scholarly work. Wide circulation adds value to published work; it is a significant aspect of its claim to be knowledge. The right to know and the right to be known are inextricably mixed. Open access, argues Willinsky, can benefit both a researcher-author working at the best-equipped lab at a leading research university and a teacher struggling to find resources in an impoverished high school. Willinsky describes different types of access -- the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, grants open access to issues six months after initial publication, and First Monday forgoes a print edition and makes its contents immediately accessible at no cost. He discusses the contradictions of copyright law, the reading of research, and the economic viability of open access. He also considers broader themes of public access to knowledge, human rights issues, lessons from publishing history, and "epistemological vanities." The debate over open access, writes Willinsky, raises crucial questions about the place of scholarly work in a larger world -- and about the future of knowledge. John Willinsky is Pacific Press Professor of Literacy and Technology at the University of British Columbia. He is the author of Empire of Words: The Reign of the OED and a developer of Open Journals Systems software.

This study was conducted to explore the effects of expressing negative feelings and opinions through aggressive, assertive, empathic assertive, and unassertive content combined with assertive and unassertive styles. Perceptions of relational messages, attraction, and communication satisfaction were assessed. Several hypotheses were advanced. Results indicate that verbal content and communication style affected relational message interpretations. They did not, however, affect perceptions of attraction and communication satisfaction. Several implications were discussed concerning the evaluations of assertive and unassertive content and style.

Burgoon and colleagues have applied Expectancy Theory to the study of language intensity, arguing that a complex pattern of effects can be explained in terms of the expectations people hold for sources of persuasive communication. It is argued in this paper, however, that because expectations have not been directly examined, Expectancy Theory has not provided a fair test of hypotheses. The current investigation aims to alleviate this problem by determining whether expectations people have for male and female sources of persuasive communication do in fact differ. Using a variety of message topics, expectations for male and female sources were investigated by asking respondents to provide the language choices they thought would be most effective for male and female authors of persuasive communication. What the results suggest is that both men and women should utilize moderate to high intense language to be optimally effective in suasory attempts.

No description available.