MY CHAPTER ONE EXPERIENCE

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION This chapter introduces the study. It starts by describing scholarly communication using the definition of The Association of College and Research Libraries who describes Scholarly Communications as a system through which scientific report and other scholarly works are produced, assessed for quality, published to the scholarly community and preserved for posterity. The system includes both formal means of communication, such as publication in peer – reviewed journals, and information channels, such as electronic mailing lists (ACRL Research, 2003; 2016). The basic attribute of scholarly communication is to facilitate public inquiry and knowledge through direct or indirect funding of a research work by a government or non-government organizations (ACRL Research, 2003). However, there were a lot of crisis about the formal practices of scholarly communication. During the second half of 20th century, prices for scholarly journals have risen above what libraries can cope with dues to inflation in the economy and their budgets. Libraries have to cope with price increases through a different means such as subscription cuts and reductions in the monographic buys. But the issues of proliferation of scholarly information including high price in the number of scholarly journals, which affects in the significant reduction to accessing scholarly publications. The economic challenges facing scholarly monograph publishers especially the university press is part of the crisis. Access to scholarly publishing is further threatened by various issues at the national policy ranks. Following this criticism, scholars and commercial interests have successfully supported and advocate – change in the way communication is being passed to the scientific communities which slightly addressed copyright laws and public domain that significantly reduce principles of fair use, particularly in the digital form (Solomon, 2013a). However, the issue of consolidating journal publishing industry and the prices that result from publisher mergers remain unaddressed by the National policy. This moves also reduced access to scholarship. Nevertheless, the rise of the world wide web (www) and the Internet have not only facilitated the paradigm shift from print to online communication, but have also supported the development of new tools, new formats, and even new business models for open access publishing (Dawson, 2014). The chapter further discusses the concept of Open scholarly communication as a term highlighting the movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiry society (FOSTER, 2015) and have gained approval and turn out to be more recognized as a model for steering research in the twenty first century. It presented the problem statement, the objectives, research questions, research hypotheses, research methodology, limitation and significance of the study and operational definition of terms and thesis organization. Research Objectives The objective of the study is to investigate the readiness of Malaysian academic researchers in Open Science in relation to their cognitive, conative and affective open scholarly communication. Research Questions In order to address the objective of the study, the following research questions were developed: 1. To what extent are Malaysian academic researchers aware of open scholarly communication as regards to open access, open data and open peer review? 2. What are the practices exhibited by Malaysian academic researchers towards Open Access, Open Data and Open Peer Review? 3. To what extent do Malaysian academic researchers perceive the capability and ability of Open Access, Open Data and Open Peer Review for open scholarly communication? 4. Is there a significant difference between gender, types of researchers, and discipline among Malaysian academic researchers and readiness of open scholarly communication? In order to answer this RQ4, the following hypothesis were postulated: Research Hypotheses Ho1: There is no significant difference between gender of Malaysian academic researchers and readiness of open scholarly communication. H1a: There is a significant difference between gender of Malaysian academic researchers and readiness of open scholarly communication. Ho2: There is no significant difference between discipline of Malaysian academic researchers and readiness of open scholarly communication H2a: There is a significant difference between discipline of Malaysian academic researchers and readiness of open scholarly communication Ho3: There is no significant difference between type of researchers of Malaysian academic researchers and readiness of open scholarly communication. H3a: There is a significant difference between type of researchers of Malaysian academic researchers and readiness of open scholarly communication. Limitations of the study This study was conducted based on certain delimitation that set boundaries to focus the research. The study is limited to 5 research institutions in Malaysia namely Universiti Malaya (UM), Univeriti Sains Malaysia (USM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). The study is also limited for the generalization of the findings. Another limitation is the number of respondents towards the data collection and analysis were small. It is also limited in the scope of Open Science (i.e. Open Access, Open Data and Open Peer Review only). Albeit limitations in this research, the present study still manages to share an acceptable amount of contribution to the literature and methodology with a new insight with better understanding towards open scholarly communication among scholars. Significance of the study The research aims to investigate the readiness of Malaysian academic researchers in Open Science in relation to their cognitive, conative and affective open scholarly communication. Since there is no study on scholarly communication readiness of academic researchers in open science, this study will be useful and significant to the scholars by providing an understanding about various dimensions of open science (particularly, in the areas of open access, open data and open peer review) and what is obtainable in practicing open science in the academic world today. While some researchers in Malaysian academic institutions displayed low level of understanding the concept of open science, few scholars indicate positive awareness of open scholarly communication (open access and open data), however, the tendency to share research data openly brings with its many challenges for researchers in Malaysia. Also, in terms of open peer review, limited awareness and practices and its potentials were exhibited (Fane 2019). In addition, studies on readiness for open scholarly communication and categorization have not been discussed much in the field of library and information science (LIS), therefore, this study is valuable for academic librarians to become more aware of readiness in terms of understanding, attitudes and feelings and challenges faced when planning to establish or practice a new program, activity, or system concerning open scholarly communication. Operational Definition of Terms (a) Open Science: is a movement to make scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiry society (FOSTER, 2015). It is synonymously used as open scholarly communication in this study. (b) Scholarly Communication: is a process through which scholars openly exchange information with each other and publishing their findings so that they are available to the wider academic community and beyond (Nielson, 2011; Friesike, Widenmayer, Gassmann, et al. 2015). (c) Open Access: is “digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.” (Peter Suber, 2002) (d) Open Data: are data that can be used by anyone without technical or legal restrictions (OECD, 2015 p.55). It is the openness to availability and access, and reuse and re-distributed of data, and universal participations (James 2013). (e) Open Peer Review: is a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field (Ware & Monkman, 2008) and make it more transparent, inclusive and accountable (OpenAIRE, 2016). (f) Open Science Readiness: is the degree of awareness, practices and perceived benefits which accrue to the individual academic researcher, the university, the user of research outputs and to the other stakeholders in the open science (Abrizah, 2019, p9) (g) Cognitive/Awareness Readiness: In this study, cognitive readiness is synonymously used as awareness readiness. This deals with the mental preparedness in the understanding and knowledge of the issues of open science (Morrison and Fletcher, 2002). (h) Affective/Perception Readiness: Also, in this study, affective readiness is synonymously used as perception readiness. It is the preparedness of subjecting or process of acquiring interpreting and organizing sensory information towards open science concept. It has to do with the feelings having understand the issues related to open science (Swick, 2013). (i) Conative/Practices Readiness: further, In this study, conative readiness is synonymously used as practices readiness. These are the behavior exhibited by researchers towards scholarly communication in Open Science. It has to do with the preparedness to practice scientific communication having understand and get the feeling of open scholarly communication (Manzuma-Ndaaba et al., 2016). (j) Academic Researchers: they are scholars in research institution of learning. They comprised of: i. Early Career Researchers (ECRs): These are researchers who are generally between ages 30 and 39, who either have received their doctorate or are current in a research position (Abrizah, 2016, country’s report). ii. Mid- Career Researchers: are researchers who holds a PhD and graduated within the past 5-10 years (excluding career interruptions in relation to caring responsibilities) (access at: www.socsocmed.org.uk/mid-career) iii. Established Researchers: These are researchers who have developed a level of independence or those that are leading in their research areas (European Researchers Framework, accessed at www.vitae.ac.uk/rdf) Thesis Organization The thesis is organized in eight chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the study. It discusses the importance of the subject area, open scholarly communication, problem statements, research objectives and research questions, aspect of research methodology used, limitation and significance of the study. Chapter 2 provides a general review of the study areas (five research institutions), and critical analysis of existing literature to support the study, including key literature of the field. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology used in the present study including research design, conceptualization of the construct, research instrument, population and sample, sample techniques used, pilot study, changes made after the pilot, data collection, administering the survey, handling non-response bias from the paper survey distributed, validity and reliability of the instrument, data analysis, and summary. Chapter 4 presents the demographic information of the respondents and answered the research question 1 and readiness status of scholars towards open science. Chapter 5 explores the scholars’ practices of open access scholarly publication, practices of the Malaysia researchers towards open data and practices of scholars towards open peer review in research question 2 and readiness status of scholars towards open science. Chapter 6 presents answer to the research question 3 while presenting the analysis and findings of the study through summarizes its reports based on the findings obtained from the research question and readiness status of scholars towards open science. Chapter 7 discusses research question 4 and presents the testing of the hypothesis of scholars towards open scholarly communication while summarizes its reports based on the findings obtained from the research hypothesis and Chapter 8 presents the discussion, and recommendation of the major findings and implications of the study while supporting documents and data are in the appendices.