Following the publication of our recent article in Insights [https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.406/] we wish to bring the following corrigendum to your attention.
There are two sections that are to be corrected to reflect the existence of a freely available LIS repository earlier than suggested.
In the Discussion section, the paragraph beginning ‘The LIS Scholarship Archive is a recent …’ is corrected to:
While the e-LIS (e-prints in library & information science) is now in its 15th year of existence, it has been relatively unknown by the larger librarian population. The LIS Scholarship Archive is a recent addition to the scholarly academic literature.20 The platform is still in soft launch phase and was not available for the published articles used in the study. However, for librarians who work where a local institutional repository does not exist, they do now have two platforms outside their institution where they can deposit their preprint. Deposit into a subject repository is a permitted repository according to the authors’ rights web pages provided by Taylor & Francis. It will be interesting to see if the editors, editorial boards and column editors will promote the fact that their authors can now readily deposit accepted manuscripts to this alternative platform. It is of note that 17% of the articles reviewed fall into the category of no repository available and it will also be interesting to see if any authors choose to go back retrospectively and deposit their content now that a subject repository is readily available to them.
In the Conclusion, the paragraph beginning ‘In the introduction, the definition of success is stated …’ is corrected to:
In the introduction, the definition of success is stated as a green deposit rate of 50% or more. The study results show that the deposit rate is closer to 22%. The pilot project undertaken by Taylor & Francis has not been successful according to this author. However, this deposit rate is on a par with many disciplinary studies as noted in the literature review section. The high number of articles published by authors who did not have access to institutional repositories is also a consideration in this conclusion. If there had been a more widely recognized and known subject repository, such as e-LIS, and if each author in this category deposited their article/column there, the results would have been closer to the 50% mark.
The author has declared no competing interests.
About, LIS Scholarship Archive: https://lissarchive.org/about/ (accessed 30 April 2018).