How social are open-access debates: a follow-up study of tweeters' sentiments

Abstract

PurposeDespite the widespread studies on the attitudes about OA, there exists little comparative evidence about the opinions of author and non-author parties at a global level in a social context. To bridge the gap, this study first investigated the opinions of the users who posted at least one tweet about OA in 2019. Then, it zoomed in to explore the views of the OA-interested tweeters, i.e. the users who have posted five or more tweets about OA.Design/methodology/approachUsing a content analysis method, with an opinion-mining approach, this study examined a sample of 9,268 OA-related tweets posted by 5,227 tweeters in 2019. The sentiments were analyzed using SentiStrength. A threshold of at least five tweets was set to identify the OA-interested tweeters.FindingsAcademics and scholars, library and information professionals, and journals and publishers were the main OA-interested tweeters, implying that OA debates have not been widely propagated from its traditional audience to the general public. Despite an overall positive attitude, the tweeters showed negative perspectives about the gold and hybrid models, validity and quality, and costs and funds. The negativity depended on the OA features tweeted, the tweeters' occupations and gender, as well as the trends.Research limitations/implicationsThe low societal impact of the OA debates calls for solutions to attract the public's attention and to exploit their potential to achieve the OA ideals. The OA stakeholders' divergence necessitates finding solutions to remedy the pitfalls. It also underlines the need for scrutiny into social layers when studying society's opinions and behaviors in a social network.Originality/valueThis is the first study in estimating the extent of the societal impact of OA debates, comparing the social OA stakeholders' opinions and their dependence on the OA features tweeted, the tweeter roles and gender and the tweet trending status.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-09-2022-0502