바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

  • P-ISSN1013-0799
  • E-ISSN2586-2073

빅딜, 오픈액세스, 구글학술검색과 대학도서관의 전자학술정보구독

Big Deal, Open Access, Google Scholar and the Subscription of Electronic Scholarly Contents at University Libraries

정보관리학회지, (P)1013-0799; (E)2586-2073
2012, v.29 no.4, pp.143-163
https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2012.29.4.143
심원식 (성균관대학교)

  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수

초록

현재 국내외 대학도서관의 전자학술정보 입수는 일명 빅딜로 불리는 수백, 수천 종의 전자학술지 묶음을 다년간, 고정된 인상율로 계약하는 구독방식이 주류를 이루고 있다. 1990년대 중반에 시작된 이러한 구독방식은 대학도서관과 이용자에게 많은 장점을 제공했다. 하지만 이들 패키지의 가격이 지속적으로 상승함에 따라 이러한 방식의 지속가능성에 대한 의문이 제기되고 있다. 현재까지 pay-per-view 방식을 제외하면 구독기반 모형의 구체적인 대안은 제시되지 않고 있으며 향후 도서관 예산문제가 심각한 뇌관으로 남아있다. 2000년대 초반 시작된 오픈액세스 운동은 다양한 방법으로 학술지의 출판과 유통의 장벽을 제거하고 있다. 오픈액세스 출판 규모는 매년 두 자릿수로 증가하고 있고, 오픈액세스 학술지 논문은 Scopus와 Web of Science 인용데이터베이스에의 편입비율이 20%에 육박하는 등 양적, 질적인 성장을 보이고 있다. 2004년에 시작된 구글 학술검색은 현재 대다수 학술출판사의 학술지 논문에 대한 편리한 검색 및 접근 도구로 성장하고 있다. 비록 학술지 선택의 기준, 제한된 검색 기능, 독점화에 대한 우려 등이 있지만 구글 학술검색을 대학도서관 데이터베이스의 대안으로 진지하게 주목할 필요가 있다. 대학도서관의 예산 문제, 오픈액세스 출판의 활성화, 구글 학술검색과 같은 무료 도구의 성장은 구독기반 모형을 대체할 수 있는 파괴적인 변화로 인식되고 있으며 대학도서관 사서는 새로운 환경에 대한 구체적인 대응을 고민해야 한다.

Abstract

The dominant model of acquiring scholarly contents at academic libraries is so called big deal where libraries subscribe to a bundle of hundreds, if not thousands of journals in a multi-year contract with fixed annual rate increase. The bid deal, started in the mid-1990s, offered a number of advantages for academic libraries and their users. However, escalating prices for these packages have become a serious issue casting doubts about the sustainability of the subscription-based model. At the moment, it appears there is no viable alternative other than pay-per-view method that is being tested at some libraries. Libraries’ budget situation will remain a key factor that might change the situation. Open access started in the 2000s as a vehicle to eliminate barriers to publishing and distributing peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles. Open access publishing is witnessing two-digit growth annually. Open access articles now occupy close to 20% of two major citation databases: Scopus and Web of Science. Google Scholar service, debuted in late 2004, is now a popular tool for discovering and accessing scholarly articles from a vast selection of journals around the world. There is a call for taking Google Scholar seriously as a potential replacement of library databases amid concerns regarding the quality of journals indexed, limited search capabilities vis-à-vis library databases, and monopoly of public goods. Escalating budget problems, rapid growth of open access publishing and the emergence of powerful free tool, such as Google Scholar, need to be taken seriously as these forces might bring disruptive changes to the existing subscription-based model of scholarly contents at academic libraries

참고문헌

1

신은자. (2007). 학술지 빅딜판매의 문제점 및 개선 방안. 한국문헌정보학회지, 41(1), 373-389.

2

한국과학기술정보연구원. (2010). KESLI 컨소시엄 사업의 경제적 가치 분석. 한국과학기술정보연구원.

3

Arendt, J.. (2008). Imperfect tools : Google Scholar vs. Traditional commercial library databases. Against the Grain, 20(2), 26-27.

4

Björk, B-C.. (2012). The hybrid model for open access publication of scholarly articles: A failed experiment?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 63(8), 1496-1504.

5

BOAI. (2002). Budapest Open Access Initiative. http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/openaccess/read.

6

Bosch, S.. (2012). Periodicals price survey 2012. Library Journal, , -.

7

Callicott, B.. (2006). Google Scholar vs. Library Scholar: Testing the performance of Schoogle. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 10(3), 71-88.

8

Canadian Research Knowledge Network. (2012). CRKN to terminate national agreement with the ACS. http://www.crkn.ca/communications/crkn-to-terminate-national-agreement-with-the-acs.

9

Carr, P.. (2009). Acquired articles through unmediated, user-initiated, pay-per-view transactions : An assessment of current practices. Serials Review, 35(4), 272-277.

10

Carr, P. L.. (2010). Forcing the moment to its crisis: Thoughts on pay-per-view and the perpetual access ideal. Against the Grain, 21(6), 16-18.

11

Chamberlain, C.. (2008). Pay-per-view article access: A viable replacement for subscriptions?. Serials, 21(1), 30-34.

12

Chen, X.. (2010). The declining value of subscription-based abstracting and indexing services in the new knowledge dissemination era. Serials Review, 36(2), 79-85.

13

Chen, X.. (2010). Google Scholar’s dramatic coverage improvement five years after debut. Serials Review, 36(4), 221-226.

14

Christensen, C. M.. (1997). The innovator's dilemma : When new technologiescause great firms to fail:Harvard Business School Press.

15

Danneels, E.. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered : A critique and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 246-258.

16

EBSCO. (2012). 2012 EBSCO library collections and budgeting trends survey. http://www2.ebsco.com/EN-US/NEWSCENTER/Pages/ViewArticle.aspx?QSID=360.

17

Gargouri, Y.. (2012). Green and gold open access percentages and growth, by discipline. http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.3664.

18

Hightower, C.. (2010). Shifting sands: Science researchers on Google Scholar, Web of Science, and PubMed, with implications for library collections budgets. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 63, -.

19

Howland, J. L.. (2009). How scholarly is Google Scholar? A comparison to library databases. College & Research Libraries, 70(3), 227-234.

20

Jacsó, P.. (2005). Google Scholar: The pros and the cons. Online Information Review, 29(2), 208-214.

21

Jacsó, P.. (2009). Google Scholar's ghost authors. Library Journal, 134(18), 26-27.

22

Jacsó, P.. (2010). Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 34(1), 175-191.

23

Laakso, M.. (1993). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLOS ONE, 6(6), 20961-.

24

Laakso, M.. (2012). Anatomy of open access publishing: A study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Medicine, 10, 124-.

25

Matthew, E. F.. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 22(2), 338-342.

26

Meier, J.. (2008). Google Scholar's coverage of the engineering literature : An empirical study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(3), 196-201.

27

Morrison, H.. (2012). About 30% of peer-reviewed scholarly journals are now open access. http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.kr/2012/05/about-30-of-peer-reviewed-scholarly.html.

28

Neuhaus, C.. (2006). The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An empirical study. portal. Libraries and the Academy, 6(2), 127-141.

29

Nourbakhsh, E.. (2012). Medical literature searches: A comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 29(3), 214-222.

30

Pomerantz, J.. (2006). Google Scholar and 100% availability of information. Information Technology and Libraries, 25(2), 52-56.

31

Poynder, R.. (2011). Interview with DerkHaank, CEO, Springer Science+Business Media: Not looking for sympathy. Information Today, 28(1), -.

32

Poynder, R.. (2011). The big deal: Not price but cost. Information Today, 28(8), -.

33

Rapp, D.. (2011). RLUK announces new publisher terms; ARL and LYRASIS sign negotiation agreement. Library Journal, , -.

34

Suber, P.. (2004). Open access overview: Focusing on open access to peer-reviewed research articles and their preprints. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm.

35

Suber, P.. (2012). Open access:MIT Press.

36

UW Today. (2010). Libraries reduce journal subscriptions and book orders; Budget cuts affect online as well as print materials. http://www.washington.edu/news/.

37

Weicher, M.. (2011). Unbundling the Big Deal with patron driven acquisition of eJournals (-). Proceedings of the 77th IFLA General Conference and Assembly. Meeting 164-Access and Innovation: Delivering Information to All-Serials and Other Continuing Resources Section.

정보관리학회지