Study on the Open Access Status of CSSCI Source Journals in Library, Information, and Archival Science: Commemorating the Release of the Suzhou Declaration

Wang Zhaohui, Gao Junkuan
School of Sociology, Soochow University, Suzhou, China

[Keywords] library, information and archival science; CSSCI; open access; Suzhou Declaration

1. Current Status of Open Access in CSSCI Source Journals for Library, Information, and Archival Science

This study investigates the open access status of CSSCI source journals in library, information, and archival science through multiple channels, including journal websites, print publications, email correspondence, and telephone inquiries. The analysis examines fifteen dimensions: hosting institutions, open content, quality control, paper publishing and usage, and user services. The research period covers the CSSCI source journal directory (2021–2022), with data collection concluding in December 2022.

The hosting institutions for these journals demonstrate diverse characteristics. Among the fifteen CSSCI source journals, nine are hosted by universities, three by libraries, two by research institutes, and one represents a cooperative publication venture. University-hosted journals leverage disciplinary strengths in library, information, and archival science, implementing national policies while maintaining academic rigor. Library-hosted journals possess practical advantages, with intimate knowledge of library operations and direct connections to public services. Institute-hosted journals emphasize theoretical development and disciplinary innovation. Notably, journals co-sponsored by library societies and libraries, such as China Library Journal and National Library, receive state financial support and should serve as pioneers in open access initiatives, setting examples for other journals in the field.

Regarding open content, journals exhibit varying degrees of accessibility. Complete open access, defined as providing all published papers free of charge without restrictions, characterizes journals such as Archival Science Research, China Library Journal, and Journal of Library and Information Science. These publications maintain comprehensive backfiles extending to their inaugural issues, ensuring continuity and completeness. Restricted open access manifests in two forms: current issues where papers lack "OA" markings remain inaccessible, and backfiles with limited temporal coverage. Most journals delay open access rather than providing immediate availability upon publication. For instance, Library and Information and Library and Information Service impose embargo periods before releasing full texts. Discrepancies also exist between website and WeChat platform content, with some journals offering different access levels across platforms, challenging the sustainability and stability of their open access models.

Quality control mechanisms remain predominantly traditional. Peer review serves as the critical method for ensuring journal quality, with CSSCI source journals employing single-blind or double-blind review systems. Single-blind review, where reviewers remain anonymous to authors, facilitates rapid decision-making and characterizes journals such as Library and Information Science and Data Analysis and Knowledge Discovery. Double-blind review, with anonymity for both parties, dominates the field and enhances objectivity by minimizing personal bias, as seen in Library and Information Service and Library Forum. However, most journals have yet to adopt transparent, interactive open peer review mechanisms that would align with open access principles.

Copyright management reveals complex arrangements. Copyright transfer agreements typically require authors to assign compilation rights and information network transmission rights to publishers while retaining moral rights. Some agreements, such as those used by National Library, transfer all economic rights to the publisher. Others, like Library and Information Knowledge, adopt Creative Commons licenses, with CC-BY being the most permissive, allowing free reproduction and distribution with attribution. CC-BY-NC-ND, which prohibits commercial use and derivative works, offers stronger protections but restricts usage. The analysis reveals that explicit self-archiving rights—crucial for open access—are often inadequately addressed in copyright agreements, creating barriers to authors sharing their work.

User services demonstrate progressive development but require enhancement. All fifteen journals maintain functional websites providing submission, review, and reading services. Search functionalities vary, with Library and Information Service offering the most detailed retrieval options, including keywords, author affiliations, and chart descriptions. National Library emphasizes bilingual search capabilities to accelerate internationalization. Full-text reading primarily occurs through PDF and HTML formats, with PDF maintaining consistency with print layouts and HTML offering superior accessibility across devices. WeChat integration provides mobile reading services, though platform consistency remains problematic. Interactive features such as commenting and community engagement are underdeveloped, limiting user participation and resource utilization.

2. Constraints on Open Access Development in CSSCI Source Journals

Despite progress, four primary constraints hinder open access development: policy limitations, cognitive barriers, funding shortages, and platform inadequacies.

Policy constraints stem from an incomplete regulatory framework. While China has responded positively to open access through initiatives like the 2014 Management Measures for Scientific Data and the OA2020 Expression of Interest, specific implementation guidelines for library, information, and archival science journals remain scarce. Policies appear primarily as general directives within broader information strategies, lacking mandatory enforcement and detailed operational rules. This results in slow progress and persistent access barriers.

Cognitive barriers affect multiple stakeholder groups. Among librarians, surveys indicate limited understanding of open access principles, with 33.3% of university libraries reporting poor familiarity with the OA2020 initiative. Researchers express concerns about quality, with many doubting the credibility of open access journals. Student populations show low awareness, as library and information science curricula rarely address open access topics. This widespread lack of understanding undermines trust and slows adoption.

Funding constraints pose significant challenges. Editorial surveys reveal that 70% of journals identify unstable funding as the primary obstacle. Current reliance on subscription models and limited institutional support prevents sustainable open access transitions. Unlike international models where article processing charges (APCs) fund publications, Chinese journals in this field have not widely adopted author-pays mechanisms, leaving them dependent on inconsistent government and institutional allocations.

Platform limitations manifest in underdeveloped technical infrastructure. Website accessibility studies show that many journal sites suffer from errors, monotonous content, and unstable operation, directly impacting utilization. While initiatives like the China Information Resources Management Preprint Platform and the Library and Information Science Journal Alliance Network have emerged, their scale and influence remain limited. Most journals rely solely on self-built websites lacking integrated, large-scale platforms that could facilitate collaborative publishing and resource sharing.

3. Recommendations for Future Open Access Development

To address these challenges, comprehensive strategies are required across policy, promotion, funding, and platform development.

Policy guidance must become more robust and mandatory. Drawing from successful international models such as the NIH Public Access Policy and the UK's Research Councils UK policy, China should implement mandatory open access requirements for publicly funded research. Policies should ensure completeness by specifying journal information, storage institutions, and submission timelines, while maintaining consistency across regulations to avoid internal contradictions. Specific guidelines tailored to library, information, and archival science journals are essential.

Promotion and education efforts require intensification. Initiatives should include signing collective open access declarations, participating in international conferences, and conducting training programs. The China Open Access Promotion Week and Open Access Publishing Association (OASPA) webinars serve as effective models. Targeted training for librarians, researchers, and students will build awareness and acceptance. Journals should actively advertise their open access policies through multiple channels, including email campaigns and dedicated promotional events.

Funding models must diversify and stabilize. Journals should explore converting subscription fees to open publishing funds, as demonstrated by the Chinese Academy of Sciences' agreement with Oxford University Press. Seeking support from foundations, enterprises, and government agencies can provide sustainable financial backing. Journals must develop business models that balance public benefit with operational viability, leveraging institutional support while maintaining editorial independence.

Platform construction should prioritize integration and user engagement. Journals need to enhance website functionality with improved search capabilities, mobile adaptation, and interactive features. Collaboration through preprint platforms like China Information Resources Management Preprint Platform enables immediate availability while preserving subsequent publication opportunities. Developing alliance-based platforms allows resource sharing, cross-journal peer review, and community-driven problem solving, increasing efficiency and expanding expert networks. Integration with social media and mobile applications will further enhance accessibility and user interaction.

4. Conclusion

Open access is integral to China's rapid scientific development and the equitable, permanent availability of global research outcomes. Library, information, and archival science CSSCI source journals have accelerated their open access efforts since the Suzhou Declaration, with expanding scale and deepening implementation. However, persistent constraints in policy, cognition, funding, and platform development require continued effort. Through strengthened policy guidance, enhanced promotion, diversified funding, and integrated platform development, these journals can provide expanded venues for scholarly communication, promote academic dissemination, and elevate the disciplinary influence of library, information, and archival science.

References

[1] BOAI. Budapest Open Access Initiative [EB/OL]. [2022-02-14]. https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/.

[2] Björk B-C. Journal portals—an important infrastructure for non-commercial scholarly open access publishing [J]. Online Information Review, 2017(5): 643-654.

[3] Van Leeuwen TN, Tatum C, Wouters P. Exploring possibilities for bibliometric monitoring of open access publishing at the national level [J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2018(9): 1161-1173.

[4] 赵灵姝. 中国开放获取论文及期刊出版现状分析 [J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2022(4): 495-502.

[5] Fukuzawa N. Characteristics of papers published in open access journals: analysis of access journals, country of publication, and languages used [J]. Scientometrics, 2017(2): 1007-1023.

[6] Cuschieri S. WASP: open access publishing forward? A review of different access publishing models [J]. Early Human Development, 2018: 54-57.

[7] 柯春晓. 我国学术期刊开放获取政策现状及制定策略研究 [J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2018(11): 1078-1084.

[8] Budzinski O, Grebel T, Wolling J. Drivers of article processing charges in open access [J]. Scientometrics, 2020(3): 1869-1887.

[9] Jain K, Iyengar P, Vaishya R. Article processing charge: barrier in open access publishing [J]. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma, 2021: 14-16.

[10] Moed HF, Lopez-Illescas C, Guerrero-Bote VP. Do journals in Beall's list perform differently from other open access journals? A Scopus-based analysis to reveal large differences among publishers [J]. Learned Publishing, 2022(2): 130-139.

[11] Krawczyk F, Kulczycki E. Is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall's lists on academic publishing [J]. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 2021(2): 102271.

[12] Barik N, Jena KC. Bibliometric portrait of select open access journals in the field of library and information science: a Scopus-based analysis [J]. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2019: 1-18.

[13] 吕星月, 刘兹恒. 学术期刊的出版规范及其版权管理 [J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2021(9): 1209-1216.

[14] 车晓彤, 张斌. 国内档案学期刊网站建设现状 [J]. 档案学通讯, 2012(3): 59-62.

[15] 中国图书馆学情报学期刊开放获取出版苏州宣言 [J]. 图书情报工作, 2012(21): 147-148.

[16] 袁海林, 陈星辰. 开放存取出版的版权因素与法律关系分析 [J]. 中国出版, 2016(24): 41-43.

[17] 周煜, 等. 高校图书馆推动学术期刊从订阅模式向开放获取模式转化的困境与出路 [J]. 图书情报工作, 2020(18): 45-52.

[18] 刘敬仪, 等. 我国开放科学发展策略: 从科研人员视角的探索 [J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2023(2): 78-88.

[19] 张晋朝, 等. 我国高校学生开放获取学术资源使用意愿研究 [J]. 情报理论与实践, 2023(2): 78-88.

[20] 初景利, 等. 不同角色对开放获取期刊的认知态度与认可度调研与分析 [J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2018(5): 87-96.

[21] 李麟, 等. 我国开放获取期刊现状及发展分析 [J]. 中国科技期刊研究, 2017(8): 736-740.

[22] 王昭晖, 高俊宽. CSSCI来源期刊开放获取现状研究 [J/OL]. 图书馆论坛: 1-8 [2023-07-06]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/44.1306.g2.20230207.0844.001.html.

[23] Jisc. Sherpa Juliet [EB/OL]. [2023-02-01]. https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/view/funder_visualisations/1.html.

[24] 刘兹恒, 等. 国外大学开放获取政策研究 [J]. 图书情报工作, 2013(10): 12-17.

[25] 柯春晓. 我国学术期刊的融合发展道路探析: 以开放获取的出版模式为例 [J]. 中国传媒科技, 2019(3): 49-50, 65.

[26] Open Access 2020 Expression of interest: large-scale implementation of open access to scholarly journals [EB/OL]. [2023-04-01]. https://oa2020.org/mission/#eois.

[27] 中国科学文献情报中心. 中国科学文献情报中心与牛津大学出版社达成国内首个开放出版转换协议 [EB/OL]. [2023-02-11]. http://www.las.cas.cn/xwzx/zhxw/202005/t20200522_5584635.html.

Abstract

This study examines the open access status of CSSCI source journals in library, information, and archival science, commemorating the anniversary of the Suzhou Declaration. The analysis of current conditions, challenges, and strategies holds significant importance for academic resource exchange and sharing oriented toward disciplinary development in China's library and information science community. Through journal websites, print publications, email, and telephone inquiries, the article analyzes the open access landscape from five perspectives: hosting institutions, open content, quality control, paper publishing and usage, and user services. The findings reveal that while Chinese library, information, and archival science journals have accelerated their open access efforts since the Suzhou Declaration, they face constraints related to policy, cognition, funding, and platforms. Effective strategies require enhanced policy support, promotional activities, funding mechanisms, and platform development to advance open access in these academic journals.

Keywords: library, information and archival science; CSSCI; open access; Suzhou Declaration