(IMOA) Imagine Pacific Original Article
Open Access: Sometimes Gray is not only Gray
By James E. Faumuina, MBA, MPA
Editor, Imagine Pacific Pulse
7/24/2024
The peer review process equips professional academics with access to current research. However, Ph.D. students face limitations due to barriers to literature access (Marsh, 2015). Acknowledging that journal articles are the foundation for scholarly writing(Kaiser & Presmeg, 2019), articles that have gone through peer review should be utilized (Kelly et al., 2014). This is primarily because academic journals endure the rigor of the peer review process (DePoy & Gitlin, 2020). Lindgren (2014) provides an added benefit of peer review regarding the reliability of information, ensuring that what is taken from the peer-reviewed article is not subject to becoming vapor theory.
Much like the reliability gained by peer-reviewed articles, an added merit and dimension of scholarly books is what Paul & Elder (2004) described as depth. Currently, search tools such as Wikipedia (Lindgren, 2014) provide what Harris (2022) would consider superficial. Books tend to deliver consistency for readership, which Harris (2022) calls flowing. Though Harris attests that the peer review process is less rigorous for books, Paul and Elder provide an additional strength in that books provide structure and systems (Paul & Elder, 2004).
Though open-source and widespread press availability appeal, students risk compromising validity by relying on them for research (Depoy & Gitlin, 2020). Therefore, while it is recommended to use open source during the brainstorming and mapping process (Queirós et al., 2017), limiting its use to peer-reviewed books and chapters might restrict access to new and topical information.
Concerning gray literature, Marsh (2015) offers several examples of formats that can be considered. In the pursuit of a universal definition, these examples provided by Marsh could be described as non-traditional resources, as they do not undergo peer review. These types of literature include research reports, government white papers, and studies. If there is a prevailing benefit of gray literature, it provides additional value to institutional repositories. The promise of open access lies in how it enhances the value of institutional repositories, to the extent that it might even complement or eventually replace the mechanism of peer reviews.
To advocate for access in all forms, open access offers the benefit of serving as what Marsh considers a single source for students, faculty, and academic staff (Marsh, 2015). The drawback of institutional repositories is the reluctance of creators to contribute to the body of literature, potentially diluting the field's most current concerns and contributions.
From the perspective of research into the field of Global Resilience, gray literature holds significance in developing a current body of literature, with work conducted on the Sendai Framework, Economic Inclusion, and Disaster Risk Reduction(Aspen, 2021; United Nations, 2015; Valavanidis, 2023). Open-access articles provide more timely currency in innovation, aligning with what Paul and Elder (2004) would consider an essential exercise of the tenet of relevancy.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding literature access in academic research reveals the critical role of peer-reviewed journals as pillars of reliability and rigor. While scholarly books offer depth and consistency, open-source and gray literature provide valuable supplementary insights but require cautious validation. The advent of open access presents promising opportunities to significantly enhance the accessibility and relevance of research across institutional repositories, potentially reshaping scholarly communication dynamics. As academia navigates these diverse resources, it remains imperative to uphold standards of rigor and integrity, ensuring that research continues to evolve with the highest standards of scholarly practice.
Reference:
Aspen Instute, T. (2021). Building as Inclusive Financial System: A Global Economic & Social Imperative for this Decade. Aspen Institute.
DePoy, E., & Gitlin, L. N. (2020). Introduction to Research (6th ed.). Elsevier Health Sciences.
Harris, S. R. (2022). How to Critique Journal Articles in the Social Sciences. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878743
Kaiser, G., & Presmeg, N. (Eds.). (2019). Compendium for Early Career Researchers in Mathematics Education. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15636-7
Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adeli, K. (2014). Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. The Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 25(3), 227–243.
Lindgren, S. (2014). Crowdsourcing Knowledge Interdiscursive Flows from Wikipedia into Scholarly Research. Culture Unbound, 6(3), 609–627. https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.146609
Marsh, R. M. (2015). The role of institutional repositories in developing the communication of scholarly research. OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, 31(4), 163–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/OCLC-04-2014-0022
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2004). And the Art of Close Reading, Part III. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(1), 36–37.
Queirós, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths And Limitations Of Qualitative And Quantitative Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.887089
United Nations. (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015—2030.
Valavanidis, A. (2023). World Bank Report: Extreme Poverty is Rising Again. Scientific Reviews.
James is the owner of Imagine Pacific Enterprises and the Editor of Imagine Pacific Pulse (IMPULSE). He is a retired Lt Col, Hawaii Air National Guard. Former medical administrator, planner, program manager, and operations officer. Graduated from the USAF Air War College and is currently a Ph.D. student in the in Troy Global Leadership Program. He can be contacted at jfaumuina@troy.edu
