참고문헌
- 신은자 (2007). 학술지 빅딜판매의 문제점 및 개선 방안. 한국문헌정보학회지, 41(1), 373-389.(Shin, Eun-Ja (2007). Analysis and proposals concerning big deals of scholarly journals. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 41(1), 373-389.) https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2007.41.1.373
- 한국과학기술정보연구원 (2010). KESLI 컨소시엄 사업의 경제적 가치 분석(K-10-ID-41-01P-10). 대전: 한국과학기술정보연구원. (Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (2010). Economic analysis of KESLI consortium(K-10-ID-41-01P-10). Daejeon: Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information.)
- Arendt, J. (2008). Imperfect tools: Google Scholar vs. Traditional commercial library databases. Against the Grain, 20(2), 26-27.
- Bjork, 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.22709
- BOAI (2002). Budapest Open Access Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/openaccess/read
- Bosch, S., & Henderson, K. (2012). Periodicals price survey 2012. Library Journal, April 30. Retrieved from http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/04/funding/coping-with-the-terrible-twins-periodicals-price-survey-2012/
- Callicott, B., & Vaughn, D. (2006). Google Scholar vs. Library Scholar: Testing the performance of Schoogle. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 10(3-4), 71-88.
- Canadian Research Knowledge Network (November 26, 2012). CRKN to terminate national agreement with the ACS. Retrieved from http://www.crkn.ca/communications/crkn-to-terminate-national-agreement-with-the-acs
- Carr, P., & Collins, M. (2009).Acquired articles through unmediated, user-initiated, pay-per-view transactions: An assessment of current practices. Serials Review, 35(4), 272-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2009.08.006
- Carr, P. L. (2009-2010). Forcing the moment to its crisis: Thoughts on pay-per-view and the perpetual access ideal. Against the Grain, 21(6), 16-18.
- Chamberlain, C., &MacAlpine, B. (2008). Pay-per-view article access: A viable replacement for subscriptions? Serials, 21(1), 30-34. https://doi.org/10.1629/2130
- Chen, X. (2010a). The declining value of subscription-based abstracting and indexing services in the new knowledge dissemination era. Serials Review, 36(2), 79-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2010.02.010
- Chen, X. (2010b). Google Scholar's dramatic coverage improvement five years after debut. Serials Review, 36(4), 221-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2010.08.002
- Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologiescause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
- Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 246-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00076.x
- EBSCO (2012). 2012 EBSCO library collections and budgeting trends survey. Retrieved from http://www2.ebsco.com/EN-US/NEWSCENTER/Pages/ViewArticle.aspx?QSID=360
- Gargouri, Y., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., & Harnad, S. (2012). Green and gold open access percentages and growth, by discipline. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.3664
- Hightower, C., & Caldwell, 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. Retrieved from http://www.istl.org/10-fall/refereed3.html
- Howland, J. L., Wright, T. C., Boughan, R. A., & Roberts, B. C. (2009). How scholarly is Google Scholar? A comparison to library databases. College & Research Libraries, 70(3), 227-234. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.70.3.227
- Jacso, P. (2005). Google Scholar: The pros and the cons. Online Information Review, 29(2), 208-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684520510598066
- Jacso, P. (2009). Google Scholar's ghost authors. Library Journal, 134(18), 26-27.
- Jacso, P. (2010). Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 34(1), 175-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684521011024191
- Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B-C., & Hedlund, T. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLOS ONE, 6(6), e20961. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961
- Laakso, M., & Bjork, B-C. (2012). Anatomy of open access publishing: A study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Medicine, 10, 124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-10-124
- Matthew, E. F., Eleni, I. P., George, A. M., & Georgios P. (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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
- Meier, J., & Conkling, T. (2008). Google Scholar's coverage of the engineering literature: An empirical study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(3), 196-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2008.03.002
- Morrison, H. (2012). About 30% of peer-reviewed scholarly journals are now open access. Retrieved from http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.kr/2012/05/about-30-of-peer-reviewed-scholarly.html
- Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus E., Asher, A., & Wrede, C. (2006). The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: An empirical study. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6(2), 127-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.2006.0026
- Nourbakhsh, E., Nugent, R., Wang, H., Cevik, C., & Nugent, K. (2012). Medical literature searches: A comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 29(3), 214-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2012.00992.x
- Pomerantz, J. (2006). Google Scholar and 100% availability of information. Information Technology and Libraries, 25(2), 52-56. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v25i2.3331
- Poynder, R. (2011a). Interview with DerkHaank, CEO, Springer Science+Business Media: Not looking for sympathy. Information Today, 28(1). Retrieved from http://www.infotoday.com/IT/jan11/Interview-with-Derk-Haank.shtml
- Poynder, R. (2011b). The big deal: Not price but cost. Information Today, 28(8). Retrieved from http://www.infotoday.com/it/sep11/The-Big-Deal-Not-Price-But-Cost.shtml
- Rapp, D. (2011). RLUK announces new publisher terms; ARL and LYRASIS sign negotiation agreement. Library Journal, December 5. Retrieved from http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2011/12/digital-libraries/rluk-announces-new-publisher-terms-arl-and-lyrasis-sign-negotiation-agreement/
- Suber, P. (2004. June 21). Open access overview: Focusing on open access to peer-reviewed research articles and their preprints. Retrieved from http://www.earlham.edu/-peters/fos/overview.htm
- Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- UW Today. (2010. January 7). Libraries reduce journal subscriptions and book orders; Budget cuts affect online as well as print materials. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/news/
- Weicher, M., & Zhang, T. X. (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. Retrieved from http://conference.ifla.org/past/ifla77/164-weicher-en.pdf
피인용 문헌
- Librarians' Perception on the Service of Cinematographic Works in Libraries and Copyright vol.30, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.3.317
- An Investigation of Information Usefulness of Google Scholar in Comparison with Web of Science vol.25, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14699/kbiblia.2014.25.3.215
- A Study for the Efficiency Analysis on Big Deals of Electronic Journal vol.47, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2013.47.4.187