Abstract

The Open Access (OA) movement has revolutionized the dissemination of scientific knowledge by making research literature freely available to all. This study examined how OA affects science and communication researchers in India. This is based on a survey conducted between June and December 2023. The survey included scholars from CSIR laboratories (NPL, NIScPR, IGIB), communication schools [(IIMC), Anwar Jamal Kidwai Mass Communication Research Centre (AJK MCRC) Jamia Milia Islamia, Amity University), and technical universities (IIT Delhi, NIT Delhi, Dronacharya College of Engineering, JNU). The survey assessed researchers' perspectives of the accessibility, utility, challenges, and policy efficacy of OA. The results indicate that OA has significantly enhanced access to literature, although concerns about Article Processing Charges (APCs) and India’s OA policy persist. These findings highlight the need for stronger institutional support and policy reforms to maximize the benefits of OA for the research community.

• 1.   Allen, I. E., & Seaman, C. A. (2007). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality Progress, 40(7), 64-65.
• 2.   Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396-402.
• 3.   Beall, J. (2016). Predatory publishing: Overzealous open-access advocates are creating an exploitative environment. The Scientist.
• 4.   Björk, B. C. (2017). Open access to scientific articles: A review of benefits and challenges. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(1), 203-207.
• 5.   Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002). Declaration on Open Access.
• 6.   Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among f ive approaches. Sage publications.
• 7.   CSIR-NIScPR. (2023). India’s Open Access Policy Guidelines.
• 8.   Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons.
• 9.   European Commission. (2012). Scientific data: Open access to research publications and data. Publications Office of the EU.
• 10.   Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open science: One term, five schools of thought. Opening Science, 17-47.
• 11.   Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health services research, 48(6pt2), 2134-2156.
• 12.   Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Larivière, V., et al. (2012). Green and gold open access citations and usage impact. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e36257.
• 13.   Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., et al. (2004). The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access. Serials Review, 30(4), 310-314.
• 14.   Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D., & Herman, E. (2019). Scholarly reputation and the perceived credibility of open access research. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(1), 228-241.
• 15.   Krosnick, J. A., & Berent, M. K. (1993). Comparisons of party identification and policy preferences: The impact of survey question format. American Journal of Political Science, 941-964
• 16.   Laakso, M., & Björk, B. C. (2012). Anatomy of open access publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(5), 975-986.
• 17.   Piwowar, H. et al. (2018). The State of OA: A Large-Scale Analysis of Open Access Practices.
• 18.   Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., et al. (2018). The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375.
• 19.   Suber, P. (2012). Open access. MIT Press.
• 20.   Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., et al. (2016). The academic, economic, and societal impacts of open access. Science and Public Policy, 43(6), 750-756.