Digital Preservation Status of Library and Information Science Journals Published in Open Journal Systems in Turkey: A Fatcat-Based Analysis

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 252 - 271, 31.12.2024

Kemal Yayla

https://doi.org/10.33721/by.1541321

Öz

This study examines the digital preservation status and visibility in Fatcat—a versioned and publicly editable catalog of academic content—of open-access journals published using Open Journal Systems (OJS) in Turkey's Library and Information Science field. A mixed-methods approach was employed to analyze two prominent journals: Türk Kütüphaneciliği (TK) and Bilgi Dünyası (BD). Content hosted on OJS platforms was quantitatively compared with data in Fatcat, while the journals' digital preservation policies were scrutinized through document analysis. Findings reveal that 67.44% of TK's digital content and 26% of BD's content are accessible via the Internet Archive. Additionally, the visibility rates of TK and BD in Fatcat were determined to be 55.58% and 33.33%, respectively. While both journals have established digital preservation strategies, areas requiring improvement were identified, particularly regarding accessibility and long-term sustainability. The study indicates that archiving academic journals on national platforms in Turkey positively contributes to digital preservation efforts; however, integration with international preservation systems remains insufficient. It is recommended that TK and BD be incorporated into international digital preservation systems and that data transfer processes be enhanced. Future research should aim to assess the situation in Turkey more comprehensively by examining the digital preservation strategies of journals across various academic disciplines.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fatcat, Digital Preservation Policies, Open-Access Journals

Türkiye'de Açık Dergi Sistemlerinde Yayımlanan Kütüphane ve Bilgi Bilim Dergilerinin Dijital Koruma Durumu: Fatcat Tabanlı Bir Analiz

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki Kütüphane ve Bilgi Bilim alanında Açık Dergi Sistemleri (OJS) kullanılarak yayınlanan açık erişimli dergilerin dijital koruma durumlarını ve akademik içeriklerin sürümlenmiş ve kamuya açık olarak düzenlenebilir kataloğu olan Fatcat'teki görünürlüklerini incelemektedir. Araştırmada, Türk Kütüphaneciliği (TK) ve Bilgi Dünyası (BD) dergileri karma yöntemle analiz edilmiştir. OJS sistemlerindeki içerik, Fatcat'teki verilerle nicel olarak karşılaştırılmış, dergilerin dijital koruma politikaları doküman analizi ile incelenmiştir. Bulgular, TK dergisinin dijital içeriğinin %67,44'üne, BD dergisinin ise %26'sına Internet Archive üzerinden erişilebildiğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca, TK dergisinin Fatcat'teki görünürlük oranı %55,58, BD dergisinin ise %33,33 olarak belirlenmiştir. Her iki derginin de belirlenmiş bir dijital koruma stratejisi olduğu, ancak erişilebilirlik ve sürdürülebilirlik açısından iyileştirme gerektiren alanlar bulunduğu tespit edilmiştir. Çalışma, Türkiye'deki akademik dergilerin ulusal platformlarda depolanmasının dijital koruma politikalarına olumlu katkı sağladığını, ancak uluslararası koruma sistemlerine entegrasyonun yetersiz kaldığını ortaya koymaktadır. TK ve BD dergilerinin uluslararası dijital koruma sistemlerine dahil edilmesi ve veri aktarım süreçlerinin geliştirilmesi önerilmektedir. Gelecekteki araştırmaların, diğer akademik alanlardaki dergilerin dijital koruma stratejilerini inceleyerek Türkiye’deki durumu daha kapsamlı bir şekilde değerlendirmesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fatcat, Dijital Koruma Politikası, Açık Erişim Dergiler

Kaynakça

• Aslan, A. (2019). TR Dizin. Acta Medica Alanya, 3(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.30565/medalanya.557393
• Baudoin, P. (2003). Uppity bits: Coming to terms with archiving dynamic electronic journals. The Serials Librarian, 43(4), 63-72. https://doi.org/10.1300/J123v43n04_06
• Becerril, A., Bosman, J., Bjørnshauge, L., Frantsvåg, J. E., Kramer, B., Langlais, P.-C., Mounier, P., Proudman, V., Redhead, C., ve Torny, D. (2021). OA Diamond Journals Study. Part 2: Recommendations. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4562790
• Beh, E., ve Smith, J. (2012). Preserving the scholarly collection: An examination of the perpetual access clauses in the Texas A&M university libraries’ major E-journal licenses. Serials Review, 38(4), 235-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2012.10765472
• Belenkuyu, C. ve Karadağ, E. (2024). Better than not starting? Research university project of Turkey. Studies in Higher Education, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2328829
• Bequet, G. (2022a). From the cradle to the digital vault: Tracking the path of e-journals. The Serials Librarian, 82(1-4), 199-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2022.2028498
• Bequet, G. (2022b). Journals preserved or how to turn Diamond into JASPER. Insights the UKSG Journal, 35, 15. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.591
• Bilgi Dünyası. (t.y.). Arşivleme [OJS]. içinde Bilgi Dünyası. Erişim tarihi: 06 Ağustos 2024. https://bd.org.tr/index.php/bd/journalPolicy
• Björk, B.-C., Shen, C., ve Laakso, M. (2016). A longitudinal study of independent scholar-published open access journals. PeerJ, 4, e1990. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1990
• Burnhill, P. (2013). Tales from the Keepers Registry: Serial issues about archiving & the web. Serials Review, 39(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2013.10765481
• Carr, P. L. (2011). The commitment to securing perpetual journal access: A survey of academic research libraries. Library Resources & Technical Services, 55(1), 4-16. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.55n1.4
• Choi, H. N., ve Park, E. G. (2007). Preserving perpetual access to electronic journals: A Korean consortial approach. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 31(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649055.2007.10766142
• Creswell, J. W. (2021). A concise introduction to mixed methods research (2. bs). Sage Publications.
• Day, M. (2008). Preserving the outputs of scholarly communication for the long-term: A review of recent developments in digital preservation for electronic journal content. İçinde W. Jones (Ed.), E-Journals Access and Management (ss. 39-64). Routledge. https://www.ukoln.ac.uk/preservation/publications/2008/e-journals/draft-v01.pdf
• DergiPark. (t.y.). DergiPark DOI Hizmeti. İçinde DergiPark Akademik. Erişim tarihi: 22 Ekim 2024. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/page/doi-hizmeti
• DOAJ. (2014). DOAJ publishes lists of journals added and withdrawn. https://blog.doaj.org/2014/05/22/doaj-publishes-lists-of-journals-removed-and-added
• DoBell, D. (2008). Chipping away at academic capitalism through open access. International Journal of the Book, 5(2), 149-156. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9516/CGP/v05i02/36697
• Dylla, F. (2014). CHORUS–A solution for public access. Information Services & Use, 34(3-4), 195-199. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-140740
• Enoch, T., ve Harker, K. R. (2015). Planning for the Budget-ocalypse: The Evolution of a Serials/ER Cancellation Methodology. The Serials Librarian, 68(1-4), 282-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2015.1025657
• Eve, M. P. (2024). Digital scholarly journals are poorly preserved: A study of 7 million articles. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.16288
• fatcat. (2024). Fatcat! fatcat!. https://fatcat.wiki/about
• Fenton, E. G. (2008). Responding to the preservation challenge: Portico, an electronic archiving service. Journal of Library Administration, 48(1), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930820802029169
• Flecker, D. (2001). Preserving scholarly e-journals. D-Lib Magazine, 7(9), 1082-9873. https://doi.org/10.1045/september2001-flecker
• Fyfe, A., Coate, K., Curry, S., Lawson, S., Moxham, N., ve Mørk Røstvik, C. (2017). Untangling academic publishing: A history of the relationship between commercial interests, academic prestige and the circulation of research. Birkbeck Institutional Research Online. https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/19148/1/UntanglingAcPub.pdf
• Halliday, L., ve Oppenheim, C. (2001). Developments in digital journals. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 260-283. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007102
• Kenney, A. R., Entlich, R., Hirtle, P. B., McGovern, N. Y., ve Buckley, E. L. (2006). E-Journal Archiving Metes and Bounds. Council on Library and Information Resources. https://www.clir.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/pub138.pdf
• Kiefer, R. S. (2015). Digital preservation of scholarly content, focusing on the example of the CLOCKSS Archive. Insights the UKSG Journal, 28(1), 91-96. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.215
• Kim, S., ve Choi, H. (2019). Status of digital standards, licensing types, and archiving policies in Asian open access journals registered in Directory of Open Access Journals. Science Editing, 6(1), 41-46. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.154
• Kirchhoff, A. J. (2008). Digital preservation: Challenges and implementation. Learned Publishing, 21(4), 285-294. https://doi.org/10.1087/095315108X356716
• Kirchhoff, A. J. (2009). Expanding the preservation network: Lessons from Portico. Library Trends, 57(3), 476-489. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.0.0048
• Laakso, M., Matthias, L., ve Jahn, N. (2021). Open is not forever: A study of vanished open access journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 72(9), 1099-1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24460
• Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B.-C., ve Hedlund, T. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e20961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961
• Lawson, S., Gray, J., ve Mauri, M. (2016). Opening the black box of scholarly communication funding: A public data infrastructure for financial flows in academic publishing. Open Library of Humanities, 2(1), e10. https://doi.org/10.16995/olh.72
• Lightfoot, E. A. (2016). The persistence of open access electronic journals. New Library World, 117(11/12), 746-755. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-08-2016-0056
• Maniatis, P., Roussopoulos, M., Giuli, T. J., Rosenthal, D. S. H., ve Baker, M. (2005). The LOCKSS peer-to-peer digital preservation system. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 23(1), 2-50. https://doi.org/10.1145/1047915.1047917
• Marijanović, B., ve Stančić, H. (2023). Digital archiving policies of central european journals registered in the directory of open access journals. Libri, 73(1), 11-23. https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2021-0034
• McGuigan, G. S. (2004). Publishing perils in academe: The serials crisis and the economics of the academic journal publishing industry. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 10(1), 13-26. https://doi.org/10.1300/J109v10n01_03
• McGuigan, G. S., ve Russell, R. D. (2008). The business of academic publishing: A strategic analysis of the academic journal publishing industry and its impact on the future of scholarly publishing. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 9(3). http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v09n03/mcguigan_g01.html
• Mering, M. (2015). Preserving electronic scholarship for the future: An overview of LOCKSS, CLOCKSS, Portico, CHORUS, and the Keepers Registry. Serials Review, 41(4), 260-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2015.1099397
• Morrison, H. (2016). Small scholar‐led scholarly journals: Can they survive and thrive in an open access future? Learned Publishing, 29(2), 83-88. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1015
• Moulaison, H. L., ve Million, A. J. (2015). E-publishing in libraries: The [digital] preservation imperative. OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives, 31(2), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1108/OCLC-02-2014-0009
• Ndungu, M. W. (2020). Publishing with open journal systems (OJS): A Librarian’s perspective. Serials Review, 46(1), 21-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2020.1732717
• Niu, Y., ve Li, H. (2017). Progress report on the role of digital resource preservation and utilization for libraries in China. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33(4), 483-492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-017-9544-1
• Olivarez, J., Bales, S., Sare, L., ve van Duinkerken, W. (2018). Format aside: Applying beall’s criteria to assess the predatory nature of both OA and non-OA library and information science journals. College & Research Libraries, 79(1). https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.1.52
• Oppenheim, C., Greenhalgh, C., ve Rowland, F. (2000). The future of scholarly journal publishing. Journal of Documentation, 56(4), 361-398. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007119
• Potts, J., Hartley, J., Montgomery, L., Neylon, C., ve Rennie, E. (2017). A journal is a club: A new economic model for scholarly publishing. Prometheus, 35(1), 75-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2017.1386949
• Ratner, H., Dylla, H. F., ve Crotty, D. (2014). CHORUS – providing a scalable solution for public access to scholarly research. Insights: the UKSG journal, 27(1), 68-74. https://doi.org/10.1629/2048-7754.129
• Regan, S. (2016). Strategies for expanding e-journal preservation. The Serials Librarian, 70(1-4), 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2016.1144159
• Reich, V. (2008). CLOCKSS—it takes a community. The Serials Librarian, 54(1-2), 135-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260801973968
• Reich, V., ve Rosenthal, D. S. (2001). LOCKSS: A permanent web publishing and access system. D-Lib Magazine, 7(6). https://doi.org/10.1045/june2001-reich
• Rosenthal, D. S., Vargas, D. L., Lipkis, T. A., ve Griffin, C. T. (2015). Enhancing the LOCKSS digital preservation technology. D-Lib Magazine, 21(9/10), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1045/september2015-rosenthal
• Roussopoulos, M., ve Bungale, P. (2010). Stealth modification versus nuisance attacks in the LOCKSS peer-to-peer digital preservation system. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications, 3(4), 265-276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12083-009-0055-5
• Seadle, M. (2006). A social model for archiving digital serials: LOCKSS. Serials Review, 32(2), 73-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2006.10765034
• Seadle, M. (2011). Archiving in the networked world: By the numbers. Library Hi Tech, 29(1), 189-197. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378831111117001
• Shah, U. U., ve Gul, S. (2019). LOCKSS, CLOCKSS & PORTICO: A look into digital preservation policies. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2481. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2481
• Smith, K. (2008). Institutional repositories and E-journal archiving: What are we learning? The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.107
• Sprout, B., ve Jordan, M. (2018). Distributed digital preservation: Preserving open journal systems content in the PKP PN. Digital Library Perspectives, 34(4), 246-261. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-11-2017-0043
• Stemper, J., ve Barribeau, S. (2006). Perpetual access to electronic journals. Library Resources & Technical Services, 50(2), 91-109. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.50n2.91
• Tavernier, W., Westervelt, T., ve Carlson, A. J. (2021). Where do we keep that? The new keepers registry and the digital content in your collection. The Serials Librarian, 80(1-4), 155-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2021.1865020
• Teddlie, C., ve Tashakkori, A. (2011). Mixed methods research. içinde N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (C. 4, ss. 285-300). Sage Publications.
• Türk Kütüphaneciliği. (2024). Etik ilkeler ve yayın politikası. Türk Kütüphaneciliği. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tk/policy
• Waller, A., ve Bird, G. (2006). “We own it”: Dealing with “perpetual access” in big deals. The Serials Librarian, 50(1-2), 179-196. https://doi.org/10.1300/J123v50n01_17
• Willinsky, J. (2005). The unacknowledged convergence of open source, open access, and open science. First Monday. https://doi.org/2013
• Wittenberg, K., Glasser, S., Kirchhoff, A., Morrissey, S., ve Orphan, S. (2018). Challenges and opportunities in the evolving digital preservation landscape: Reflections from Portico. Insights the UKSG Journal, 31, 28. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.421
• Zhang, M., ve Eschenfelder, K. R. (2014). License analysis of e-journal perpetual access. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(1), 62-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.11.002