Open Access Publishing Behavior of University Faculty Members:
Examining the Moderating Role of Self-efficacy
Abstract
Open access (OA) has emerged as a modern academic publishing paradigm that strives to provide all members of society with free access to scholarly knowledge. The content creators are generally agreed that researchers' scholarly work (e.g. books, theses, and research papers) should be freely accessible on the web for wider community use without any financial, legal, or technological limitations other than the author's right of acknowledgment and citation. For developing nations such as Pakistan, OA is an essential trend. The present study is aimed to assess the behavior of faculty members to publish in OA outlets from the perspective of the decomposed theory of planned behavior (DTPB). It further explores the moderating role of self-efficacy on the association of attitude towards behavior (ATB), subjective norms (SN), perceived ease of use (PEU) and perceived usefulness (PU) with the actual behavior of university faculty members towards OA publishing. A quantitative survey research design based on a cross-sectional approach was applied to investigate the phenomenon. The data were collected through a structured questionnaire from 338 faculty members of the University of the Punjab, and Riphah International University. The results of the study showed a positive significant association of ATB, PEU, PU, and SN with the actual behavior of publishing in OA. Furthermore, the findings revealed that self-efficacy positively moderates the association of ATB, PEU, PU, and SN with the actual behavior of publishing with OA systems. This study will hopefully contribute to the insights on how to facilitate the faculty members as they are the key contributors to OA publishing outlets.
Keywords: Open Access, Open access publishing, Theory of planned behavior, scholarly publishing, scholarly communication, journals, and faculty members.
References
References
Abrizah, A. (2009). The cautious faculty: their awareness and attitudes towards institutional repositories. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 14(2), 17-37.
Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71-80.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). Amos user’s guide, 5.0 Update. Chicago: Smallwaters.
Arunachalam, S. (2008). Open access to scientific knowledge. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 28(1), 7.
Bailey Jr, C. W. (2008). Open access and libraries. Collection Management, 32(3-4), 351-383.
Baloch, N., Siming, L., Abraha, A., & Hong, S. (2021). Faculty research productivity: differences between foreign and local doctoral degree holders in Pakistan. Higher Education, 82(1), 203-225.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social foundations of thought and action, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, NJ, pp. 23-28.
Beasley, G. (2016). Article processing charges: a new route to open access? Information Services & Use, 36(3-4), 163-170.
Björk, B. C. (2017). Open access to scientific articles: a review of benefits and challenges. Internal and emergency medicine, 12(2), 247-253.
Brown, L. D., & Caylor, M. L. (2006). Corporate governance and firm valuation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(4), 409-434.
Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Byrne, B. M., & Van de Vijver, F. J. (2010). Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of nonequivalence. International Journal of Testing, 10(2), 107-132.
Chen, X., & Olijhoek, T. (2016). Measuring the degrees of openness of scholarly journals with the open access spectrum (OAS) evaluation tool. Serials Review, 42(2), 108-115.
Choi, Y.-J., & Park, J.-W. (2020). Investigating factors influencing the behavioral intention of online duty-free shop users. Sustainability, 12(17), 7108.
Dallmeier-Tiessen, S., Darby, R., Goerner, B., Hyppoelae, J., Igo-Kemenes, P., Kahn, D., Mele, S. (2011). Open access journals what publishers offer, what researchers want. Information Services & Use, 31(1-2), 85-91.
Dhanavandan, S. & Tamizhchelvan, M. (2013) A critical study on attitude and awareness of institutional repositories and open access publishing. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice 1: 67-75.
Farida, I., Tjakraatmadja, J. H., Firman, A., & Basuki, S. (2015). A conceptual model of Open Access Institutional Repository in Indonesia academic libraries: Viewed from knowledge management perspective, Library Management, 36(1/2), 168-181.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
Foth, M. (2016). Factors influencing the intention to comply with data protection regulations in hospitals: based on gender differences in behaviour and deterrence. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(2), 91-109.
Gangwal, N., & Bansal, V. (2016). Application of decomposed theory of planned behavior for m-commerce adoption in India. In International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (Vol. 3, pp. 357-367). Scitepress.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications (10th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Gerrish, K., & Lacey, A. (2010). The research process in nursing. John Wiley & Sons.
Graverrer, F. J. and Wallnau, L. B. (2007). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (8 ed). USA: Wadsworth.
Gul, S., T. A. Shah, and T. A. Baghwan. (2010). “Culture of Open Access in the University of Kashmir: A Researcher’s Viewpoint.” Aslib Proceedings 62 (2) 210–222.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 40(3), 414-433.
Harnad, S. (2010). Gold open access publishing must not be allowed to retard the progress of green open access self-archiving. Logos: The Journal of the World Book Community, 21(3-4), 86-93.
Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallières, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., Hilf, E. R. (2008). The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access: An update. Serials Review, 34(1), 36-40.
Hartshorne, R., & Ajjan, H. (2009). Examining student decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: theory and empirical tests. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3), 183.
Herciu, M., & Ogrean, C. (2015). Wealth, competitiveness, and intellectual capital–sources for economic development. Procedia Economics and Finance, 27, 556-566.
Joshi, A. N., Vatnal, R. M., & Manjunath, G. A. (2012). Open access initiatives: A boon to academic libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1.
Kaba, A., & Said, R. (2015). Open access awareness, use, and perception: a case study of AAU faculty members. New Library World, 116(1/2), 94-103
Kim, J. (2010). Faculty self‐archiving: Motivations and barriers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1909-1922.
Kline, R. (2013). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Applied quantitative analysis in the social sciences, 171-207.
Kline, T. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage.
Kumari, N. A., Rao, D. N., & Reddy, M. S. (2017). Indexing student performance with fuzzy logics evaluation in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research, 4(9), 514-522.
Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 657-678.
Lwoga, E. L. & Questier. F. (2014). Faculty adoption and usage behaviour of open access scholarly communication in health science universities. New Library World, 115(3/4), 116–139.
Malik, A., Mahmood, K. and Islam, T. (2021), “Understanding the Facebook users’ behavior towards COVID-19 information sharing by integrating the theory of planned behavior and gratifications”, Information Development, ahead of Print, doi: 10.1177/02666669211049383.
Mischo, W. H., & Schlembach, M. C. (2011). Open access issues and engineering faculty attitudes and practices. Journal of Library Administration, 51(5-6), 432-454.
Myers, C., Garcia, A., Beidas, R., Trinh, X., & Yang, Z. (2020). A theory of planned behavior exploration of child welfare caseworker referrals to an evidence-based parenting program. Journal of Social Service Research, 46(6), 877-889.
Ng'andu, C., Chisale, A., Mweemba, M., Chisenga, K., & Bwalya, M. M. (2018). An Investigation into Factors that Hinder Self-Archiving of Scholarly works among Lecturers at the University of Zambia. The University of Zambia.
Ollé, C., & Borrego, Á. (2010). A qualitative study of the impact of electronic journals on scholarly information behavior. Library & Information Science Research, 32(3), 221-228.
Pickard, A. J. (2013). Research methods in information. Facet publishing.
Qutab, S. (2012). Open Access Moment in Pakistan. Trends in Information Management (TRIM), 4(1).
Raza, M. M., & Upadhyay, A. K. (2006). Usage of e-journals by researchers in Aligarh Muslim University: a study. The International Information & Library Review, 38(3), 170-179.
Rizor, S. L., & Holley, R. P. (2014). Open access goals revisited: How green and gold open access are meeting (or not) their original goals. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 45(4), 321-335.
Rodriguez, J. E. (2014). Awareness and attitudes about open access publishing: a glance at generational differences. The journal of academic librarianship, 40(6), 604-610.
Rowley, J., Johnson, F., Sbaffi, L., Frass, W., & Devine, E. (2017). Academics' behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(5), 1201-1211.
Rubin, R. E. (2016). Foundations of library and information science. USA: American Library Association.
Sadaf, A., & Gezer, T. (2020). Exploring factors that influence teachers’ intentions to integrate digital literacy using the decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 36(2), 124-145.
Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring factors that predict preservice teachers’ intentions to use Web 2.0 technologies using decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 171-196.
Sahli, A. B., & Legohérel, P. (2014). Using the decomposed theory of planned behavior (DTPB) to explain the intention to book tourism products online. International Journal of Online Marketing (IJOM), 4(1), 1-10.
Schiltz, M. (2007). Knowledge as a global public good: The role and importance of open access. Societies without Borders, 2(2), 157-174.
Schroter, S., & Tite, L. (2006). Open access publishing and author-pays business models: a survey of authors’ knowledge and perceptions. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(3), 141-148.
Sheikh, A. (2019). Faculty awareness, use and attitudes towards scholarly open access: A Pakistani perspective. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 51(3), 612-628.
Sheikh, A. (2020). The international open access movement and its status in Pakistan. Libraries and the Academy, 20(1), 15-31.
Shiue, Y. M. (2007). Investigating the sources of teachers' instructional technology use through the decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 425-453.
Shuva, N. Z., & Taisir, R. (2016). Faculty members’ perceptions and use of open access journals: Bangladesh perspective. IFLA Journal, 42(1), 36-48.
Suber, P. (2016). Knowledge unbound: Selected writings on open access, 2002–2011 (p. 456). The MIT Press.
Sultan, M., & Rafiq, M. (2021). Open access information resources and university libraries: Analysis of perceived awareness, challenges, and opportunities. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(4), 102367.
Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2004). Authors and open access publishing. Learned Publishing, 17(3), 219-224.
Tan, M., & Teo, T. S. (2000). Factors influencing the adoption of Internet banking. Journal of the Association for information Systems, 1(1), 5.
Tattersall, A. (2015). For what it’s worth-the open peer review landscape. Online Information Review, 39.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information systems research, 6(2), 144-176.
Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302-312.
Turoff, M., & Hiltz, S. R. (1982). The electronic journal: A progress report. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 33(4), 195-202.
Ullah, A. and Rafique, M. (2014), “Pakistan research repository: a showcase of theses and dissertations”, Library Hi Tech News, 31(4), 17-20.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., & Ackerman, P. L. (2000). A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 33-60.
Warlick, S. E., & Vaughan, K. (2007). Factors influencing publication choice: why faculty choose open access. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 4(1), 1-12.
Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). 12 structural equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 543-604.
Xia, J. (2010). A longitudinal study of scholars attitudes and behaviors toward open access journal publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(3), 615-624.
Zaheer, N., & Trkman, P. (2017). An information sharing theory perspective on willingness to share information in supply chains. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 28(2), 417-443.
Zhang, L., & Watson, E. M. (2017). Measuring the impact of gold and green open access. The journal of academic librarianship, 43(4), 337-345.
Zolait, A. H. S. (2014). The nature and components of perceived behavioural control as an element of theory of planned behaviour. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(1), 65-85.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.