Open access in communication

From Driscollwiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

Write up

Introduction

  • Refer to the dreams of research assisted by a computer network:
    • Vannevar Bush, Memex
    • Douglas Engelbart, OnLine System
    • Ted Nelson, Xanadu
    • JCR Licklider, ARPANET, CSNET, NSFNET
    • , USENET
    • , WWW
  • What is OA?
    • Gold, green
  • OA in comm?
  • Refer to Suber, Swan
  • By focusing on single fields/departments, we can figure out what motivates different kinds of authors
    • Recognize the heterogeneity of the academy

Economic analysis

  • Rising journal costs
  • Historical political economy re: Larry's recommendations
  • Costs rise considerably faster than inflation
  • Imperfect economy, market forces cannot contain rising costs
  • Monopoly characteristics: JoC cannot be substituted by another journal
    • Result is that JoC can price with impunity
    • Competition is for articles, but authors will publish in the dominant journals unless a disruptive force frees them to make another choice
    • Example: whole editorial board resigns and starts a new journal (TODO refer to Larry notes)
  • Stress on libraries, effects on purchasing other kinds of materials: journal subscription fees are cannibalizing other types of academic publishing (monographs, books, electronic resources)
    • Library budgets not rising
  • Journal subscription is not a competitive good because one cannot be substituted for another (see notes from François class)

But there ARE costs, OA is not free as in beer

  • Costs exist in the publishing system
    • Cost of conducting, writing, selecting, and reviewing research is taken on by volunteering academics
    • Remaining costs include: line editing, distribution, typesetting, archiving, indexing, advertising, etc.
  • Currently, these are borne by subscribers (aka library budgets)
  • New technologies enable a reduction in many of these remaining costs
  • Once reduced, costs in the future might be placed elsewhere
  • Right now, costs are felt most by libraries with smaller budgets (at smaller colleges, universities and those in developing nations)
  • By shifting to author-pays, the burden of paying for publishing is shifted away from libraries

Prestige double-bind

  • OA journals are often new and need high quality, high visibility contributions from respected authors in their fields to build a reputation
  • However, it is difficult for new journals to attract such material and contributors without having a reputation

Literature review

  • Note the publication of an OA bibliography
    • As wiki + book
    • Significant literature
    • Noted lack of authors' perspectives
    • Despite call for them in numerous places
  • Definition of OA is not always consistent
    • Contrast a few defs

Previous surveys (how they were run)

  • Swan, Key Perspectives JISC
    • Sampling limitation (Nicholas 2005 499)
    • Found that the prime reason authors hadn't submitted to OA was a lack of awareness of suitable venues in their field of study (Fullard 3)
  • Second JISC study conducted by Walthan 2005 primarily looking at business models
    • reported that there was "not a strong 'pull' from the author community, despite increased support from funding agencies that are willing to cover the cost of article charges" (Fullard 3)
  • ALPSP (2002) survey of authors + authors-as-readers
    • More general survey about publishing with implications for OA
    • More sampling limitations (Nicholas 2005 499)
  • Nicholas, et al. AP funded, Ciber
    • Very low representation of arts/humanities and social sciences/economics - because sample was drawn based on ISI reporting of "highest quality journals"
      • Relationship to journal publishing is different in these fields
      • "Research of a primarily national orientation, as in much of the social sciences ... is excluded" (502)
    • at the time, a TINY number of OA journals were covered by the Social Science Citation Index -- still a problem? (503)
    • Understanding about OA was generally low across author population (503)
    • Arts + humanities (5%), social sciences (4%) were less likely to agree that OA would result in better quality papers (Nicholas 2005 513)
    • Arts + humanities (35%), social sciences (28%) were least likely to feel that OA will improve services to authors (514)
    • 66% in arts + h believed that papers will become less concise (514)
    • A + H (73%) and SS (71%) agreed that fewer papers will be rejected as a result of OA (Nicholas 2005 513)
    • "Biggest finding to emerge from the study is the general ignorance of OA publishing on the part of relatively senior scholarly authors" (515)
    • "Real differences emerging between authors of different disciplines and countries" (515)
    • A+H (59%), SS (52%) most likely to know nothing at all (516)
    • Author pays was most likely to be held by authors in countries least likely to publish in OA (517)
  • Science Committee on the UK House of Commons study, 2004
    • Strong support for the establishment of institutional repositories at all British universities (Fullard 3)
  • Wellcome Trust 2004 study
    • Concluded that "open access author-pays models appear to be less costly and to have the potential to serve the scientific community successfully" quoted in (Fullard 3)
    • Wellcome now mandates that all funded research outcomes be deposited in an open archive or published in an OA journal (Fullard 3)
  • De Beer 2005 study of SA
    • Found more investment in OA amongst humanities and social sciences than amongst the units representing the natural sciences (Fullard 4)
    • Not enough attention paid to these groups
    • Will this be reflected in the ASCJ study?
  • Same sampling technique as Hernández: harvesting emails from ISI
  • Fullard 2006 study of SA
    • 60.7% of researchers know what OA is (6)
    • 62% of respondents "strongly agree" with the statement: "OA boosts developing countries' access to scholarly literature" (7)
    • Uncertainty regarding copyright and the optimal paradigm (8)
    • Also uncertain about the "crisis" facing libraries trying to accommodate rising journal subscription fees (8)
    • Enthusiasm for OA in the abstract seems to decline when it is brought in contrast to tradl publishing (9)
  • "Six pre-conditions" for widespread acceptance
  • Biggest block: lack of incentive to pursue OA (19)

Factors to be assessed

Impact factor

  • OA journals are frequently newer publications that have not yet achieved impact factors as measured by ISI Journal Citation Report (Fullard 8)

Rigour, quality, peer review

  • Perceptions that OA is less rigorous, less high quality seem to persist (Fullard 9)

Turnaround

  • Believed that OA had faster turn around than tradl journals (Fullard 9)

Author pays

  • Spanish-language authors strongly opposed author-pays (Hernández 2006 450)
    • Though there is dissent and disagreement in other studies, none demonstrate the same forceful resistance (450)
    • Might this be reflected in other populations of researchers?
    • Suggests renewed appeal of "green OA", self-archiving
  • Authors in developing countries are often "net readers", meaning they consume many more articles than they produce (Fullard 12)
    • Also more likely to have fees waived for major intl journals HQd in well-funded univ in developing nations
    • However, their local journals would not be able to waive fees
    • Therefore somewhat more amenable to author pays (Fullard 12)

Prestige

  • High level of uncertainty regarding the effect of OA publishing on academic awards, career advancement (Fullard 13)

Method

Sampling

  • Focus on ASCJ
  • On one hand, diversity of Comm
    • Science + humanities
  • On the other, physical proximity
    • Conversations
    • Capture mood or feeling
  • Need better response ratio
  • Eliminate problem of geography
  • Reduce problem of representation across disciplines
    • Enables more closely tailored questionnaire
  • Hope to achieve higher response rate through personal appeal (check textbook to see if this makes sense)
  • Respondents asked to self-identify a subject category (drawn from ISI), discipline, and field
  • No weighting is used to balance discipline/fields

One reason that much of the previous research has focused on biomed is that BioMed Central and PLoS Biology have contributed to a higher likelihood of awareness

  • Because the IJOC is at ASCJ, ASCJ researchers should also be more likely to have encountered OA publishing

The attitudes of Communication researchers is not represented in the current literature

  • Different funding strategies across the school may affect attitudes regarding author pays

Risk to respondents

  • Because senior faculty are involved with IJOC and presumably maintain strong opinions regarding OA, junior faculty may feel pressure to misrepresent dissenting views
  • To mitigate this, data will be anonymized: TODO
  • There will also be a disclaimer at the start
  • Emails announcing the survey will not come from members of the ASCJ community who are in a position to assess faculty promotion or student advancement
    • Can't come from me... not enough authority. Who is the best person to present this survey to faculty?
  • Is there a good incentive for faculty? Not coffee from the cart.

Data collection

Questionnaire

  • "Critical incident" approach to some questions, last published paper (Rowlands, et al. 2004)
    • "Minimizes the danger of over-generalization" (261)

"Critical incident approach" (Nicholas 2005 500)

Length
  • People in the UNC/Duke study reported lack of free time
  • Need to ensure folks that this is a worthwhile commitment
  • Need to be short survey
  • But not as short as some of the other surveys that are only 17 questions
  • Keep survey instrument open for 2 months = start before semester continue into semester (Jan / Feb 2011)
    • Different researchers will be free at different times


Question order

To assess awareness, widely-used definitions are given after terms are used questions

  • What are these definitions?

Questions assessing attitude are sprinkled throughout these sections:

  • Outset
  • Give definition
  • Discussion of incentives
  • Discussion of disincentives
  • Discussion of counterargs to disincentives

This will hopefully give us an opportunity to note changes in attitude during the course of taking the survey

Analysis

  • Value of descriptive statistics
  • Statistical analysis
    • Pearson's chi-square for relationships
    • SPSS
    • Compare with multiple regression
    • Note to Sheila that this is where i need help

Results

Discussion

  • Potential skew because of IJOC
  • Could provide a model for other departments
  • Not discussed anywhere is how the cost of printing increasingly shifted to departments via toner, paper, printer service costs

Conclusion

RQs

  • What is the current rate of self-archiving in the ASCJ?
  • Is self-archiving encouraged officially by ASCJ?
  • Self-archiving repositories
  • "Are researchers responding to funder and university OA policies by changing the patterns of where they submit their work for publication?"
  • Allowed to archive but have not?
  • How many more researchers would routinely self-archive if they understood that it was lawful? If they understood that it took an average of 6-10 minutes/paper? If they knew that self-archiving increased citations 40-250% (on average, in different fields)? -- http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Research_questions
  • Diff among professional status?
  • When researchers learn about a TA article of interest to them, how often do they look online for an OA copy? When they do so, where do they look?
  • What would motivate ASCJ researchers to self-archive?
  • What do scholars want as readers?

Survey questions

Biographical details

  • Editor of a journal?
  • Serve on editorial board of a journal?
  • Discipline, field, subject area
  • Age
  • Current title
  • Editor of a journal?
  • Career ambition

Publishing experience

  • Years you have been involved with research
    • (Count from the year you started graduate school)
  • # articles published in the last 3 years?
  • Authored a published article in the last year? (How many?)
  • Refereed a peer-reviewed article in the last year? (How many?)
  • Explain how these numbers may or may not be typical
  • Ever publish in an electronic journal that did not have a print equivalent?
  • Satisfaction with current system:
    • Satisfied with your current access to academic materials?
    • Turnaround
    • Readership
    • Peer review process
    • (etc use a consistent set of characteristics)
    • Satisfied by availability of journals via USC libraries?
    • Satisfied in general by new academic publications (including books, monographs, journals) at USC libraries?

Awareness

  • Aware of the concept of OA?
  • Do participants understand the meaning of OA?
  • Present Suber's definition
    • Does this match their expectation?
    • Open-ended response
  • Involves peer-review?
  • As distinct from no-cost or simply "online"?
  • Is OA a factor in their reading, publishing?
  • How many OA journals can you identify in your field?
    • 0, 1-3, 4-7, 8-10, 10+ (Swan, 2005, 20)
  • Awareness of specific resources/ advocacy/ campaign?
  • Aware that IJOC is OA?
  • Aware of other OA stories at USC?
  • Aware of OA at Annenberg/Penn?

Experience with OA

  • Please rank (or do a "very strong association- don't associate?") these advantages of OA publishing
    • Easier to search literature
    • Faster to search literature
    • Reduced costs for libraries
    • Access to knowledge for all scholars in my field
    • Access to scholarly publishing for people outside of academia
    • Access to academic knowledge for scholars in developing nations
    • Opportunity for new scholarship to be reported in popular press
    • Locus of 'cutting edge' research
  • How many articles have you published in the last two years?
  • Of this number, how many articles have you published in OA?
    • Don't know!
  • How do you find out about new journals?
    • Colleagues, newsletters, institution, searches, blogs/tweets from colleagues, conferences, librarian, email, other
    • Open response for description
  • How confident are you about the appropriate citation style for OA journal articles?
    • Very confident, neither, very unconfident, don't know.

Role of institution (ASCJ)?

  • In promoting awareness,
  • Encouraging self-archiving,
  • Encouraging publishing in OA,
  • Funding OA inititatives

Self-archiving

  • Do you know how to self-publish an article after it has been published in journal?
    • Y, N, not sure
  • Previous experience, have you...
    • Posted an article to personal website
    • Posted to department website
    • Deposited in an institutional repository
    • Deposited in a repository dedicated to my field/discipline
    • Open-ended explanation
  • How important is retaining the right to self-publish your work?
  • Have you ever requested a change to a publication contract to retain your right to self-publish?
  • Have you ever declined a publication opportunity because you did not want to relinquish the right to self-publish?
  • Who should manage OA repositories?
    • Self-manage (My own website)
    • Membership organization (NCA, ICA, etc.)
    • University library (USC)
    • Department or school within the university (ASCJ)
  • If presented with the ease of setting up a repository, would you volunteer to help manage?
  • If presented with the ease of contributing to a repository, how likely are you contribute your work?
  • How would you feel if you were required to deposit published articles in a respository by your institution?
  • How would you feel if you were required to deposit published articles in a respository by your department?
  • How would you feel if you were required to deposit published articles in a respository by your funding source?
    • Willing / reluctant / would refuse / don't know

Turnaround time

  • Is turnaround time important?
  • How important is turnaround time to your decision to choose a publication venue?
  • Do you believe that OA journals have a shorter turnaround time in general than toll access journals?

Peer review

  • How important is it that published articles have been peer reviewed by experts in the field?
  • In general, how do you feel that the peer review standards of OA journals compare with those of trad journals?
    • Much better, same, much worse

Impact, prestige

  • Readership
  • Number of citations, likelihood of citation
  • After seeing published results, are they more or less likely? Does this challenge expectations?
  • How to measure feelings/anxiety/confidence in impact measures?
  • How do you think a measure of downloads, views, and/or "hits" on an online article would provide a more accurate measure of "impact" as the current available?
    • Better, about the same, worse, don't know
  • Do you serve on hiring committees, search committees, faculty review, etc?
    • If so, do you consider OA in your assessment of a candidate's publication record?
    • If so, what impact?
  • Do you advise graduate students?
    • Do you advise them to seek OA journals?

Publication fees (Schroter et al, 2005, 2)

  • Do OA journals typically require authors to pay a publication fee?
    • Always, frequently, occasionally, seldom, never, don't know
  • What is your general feeling about the "author pays" publishing model?
    • V positive, neutral, negative, not familiar with this term
  • How many "author pays" journals in your field can you name?
  • Rank the factors that would influence your decision to publish in an "author pays" journal?
    • Whether or not your grant or research funding would cover the cost of the publishing fee
    • Whether or not your department would cover the cost of the publishing fee
    • Whether or not your institution would cover the cost of the publishing fee
    • The editorial board of the journal
    • The impact score of the journal
    • The appropriateness of the journal for the article
    • Turnaround time
    • Size of readership
    • Other appropriate journals also charge fees
    • I have previously published in this journal
  • Have you paid them before?
  • What associations do you have with such fees?
  • Who should cover a publishing fee?
    • ASCJ, Department, Grant, Library, University, First author, Commercial sponsor, Other
  • Membership? Subscription? Annual dues?
  • What impact would publication fees have on the quality of scholarly publishing?
    • Positive/ neutral/ negative
    • Open ended: more?
  • How often do you have to pay a "page charge" for your publication in a scholarly journal?
    • Always...never, don't know
  • Some journals offer free access after a period of restricted access (e.g. after 12 months an article is made available at no cost). Do you prefer such a scheme to the "author pays" model that provides immediate access at no cost to all readers?
  • Must ask researchers about the sources of their funding
    • Those with grants may have different attitudes regarding author pays

Rank characteristics influencing your decision to publish in a particular journal

  • OA

Rank characteristics influencing your decision to cite from a particular journal

What is most important about the traditional academic journal (like the JoC)?

  • Peer review
  • Quality control
  • Marketing
  • Reliable archive
  • Printed on paper
  • Searchable online database
  • Feedback, improvements suggested by editors
  • Citations checked

Political economy, knowledge of currently publishing regime

  • How concerned are you with the possibility that OA will disrupt the current system of academic publishing? (Very... not at all ... don't know)
  • Do you know how much the USC libraries pay annually for a typical journal in Communication?
  • Do you think that referees should be paid to review articles? (THIS COULD BE AGREE / DISAGREE)
  • Do you think that authors of scholarly articles should be paid for their publications?
  • How might a shift toward OA publishing affect scholarly publishing process? (Swan, 2005, 39)
    • Positive/ neutral/ negative/ don't know
  • Regardless of the model, do you think OA in general promises a more cost-effective publishing model than the current model? (TODO reword)
    • Why? (Open ended response)

Development of the field

  • How might OA publishing affect communication among researchers in different parts of the world?
  • How might OA publishing affect collaboration among researchers in different parts of the world?
  • Open ended: In what ways?

Archiving (permanence of their work)

  • Will OA articles be "lost"? (Swan, 2005, 11)
  • Who should be responsible for the preservation of scholarly publications?
    • The journal, National library, Library consortia, Universities, Disciplinary societies, Governments, Authors, Archiving scholarly publications is not important

Future of scholarship and the academy

  • How confident are you that an article published in a traditional print journal such as the JoC will continue to be available to future generations of scholars?
  • How confident are you that an article published in an OA journal such as the IJoC will continue to be available to future generations of scholars?
  • Open ended q
  • What impact (if any) will OA have on the length of academic articles?
    • Longer, no change, shorter, don't know
  • What impact (if any) will OA have on the volume of academic articles published?
    • More, ...
  • What impact (if any) will OA have on the professional expectations of a researcher in your position?
    • Publish more, less, no change, don't know
  • What impact (if any) will OA have on the quality of academic publishing in your field?
    • Improve, No change, Diminish
  • What impact (if any) will OA have on the rejection rates of publishing venues in your field?

Behavioral questions (TODO convert into a single measure)

  • Reasons for publishing in OA (Swan, 2005, 11)
    • principle of free access
    • perception of faster turnaround time for OA
    • perception of larger readership
    • perception of likelihood of citation
    • concern regarding the cost of journal subscriptions
    • perception of high impact to the field
    • perception of prestige of OA journal
    • encouraged by colleagues
    • attracted by editor/ editorial board
    • oa journal published by my institution
    • influence of my funding source, grant
    • influence of my institution
  • Reasons for not publishing in OA (Swan, 2005, 11)
    • Not familiar enough with OA journals in my field to feel confident
    • perception of low impact
    • perception of low prestige
    • perception of small readership
    • could not find / identify an appropriate OA journal
    • perception of less frequent citation
    • concern regarding OA publishing fees
    • concern over the lasting archive of OA work
    • perception of poor peer review procedures
    • influence of colleagues
    • habit: always publish in the same journals
    • influence of institution
    • not familiar with, not attracted by editor, editorial board
    • influence of grant-awarding, funding org
    • perception of long turnaround time
  • Please rank these factors in order of their influence your decision to accept an invitation to serve on the board of a new journal?

ASCJ repository

  • Time is in short supply for many people at ASCJ.
  • If there was a 1 hour workshop to demonstrate how to deposite your published article in a repository in less than 10 m (Likelihood)
  • If the repository was optional, likelihood that you'd use it
  • If the respository was mandatory, feelings about those (positive, negative, don't care)
  • Would an ASCJ repository be consistent with the mission of this school?

Critical incident approach:

  • Focus on last article published
  • Is this typical?
    • Explain why or why not (optional)

Concerns regarding OA (Swan, 2005, 36)

  • Adverse effect on promotion/appoint
  • Adverse effect on Winning research grants
  • Adverse career
  • Adverse career co-authors
  • Adverse affect impact of work
  • Adverse effect on the viability scholarly societies that publish their own journals
  • Not confident of the permanence of OA publications

Likelihood of publishing OA in the future?

Opinion on number of OA journals (Swan, 2005, 37)

  • There are too many OA journals in my field
  • There are the right number of OA journals in my field
  • I would welcome more OA journals in my field
  • I don't know how many OA journals are currently in my field

PDF ecology

  • See also (Swan, 2005, 62)
  • Imagine that you have published an article in a traditional journal and you do not have the right to self publish this article. Under what conditions are you likely to distribute this article anyway:
    • Request from a colleague within your department
    • Request from a colleague from elsewhere in your institution
    • Request from a colleague in your field you know personally from another institution
    • Request from a colleague in your field you do not know personally at another institution
    • Request from someone you know personally who is not employed by an academic institution
    • Request from someone you do not know who is not employed by an academic institution
    • Request from a family member
    • Request from the representative of a government agency
    • Request from the representative of a commercial organization
    • Request from a newspaper, magazine, or other popular publication

Information overload

  • Snacks v meals

Compare your current experience of locating/reading journal articles with the experience of 5 years ago

  • a lot easier, less easier, doesn't apply to me (Rowlands, 2004, 267)

Do you expect this to continue for 5 years into the future?

  • V likely, neutral, v unlikely, don't know


Previous studies

What Authors Want

Swan, Alma. â??â??What Authors Wantâ??: The ALPSP Research Study on the Motivations and Concerns of Contributors to Learned Journals.â? Learned Publishing 12, no. 3 (1999): 170â??72. http://puck.ingentaselect.com/vl=1661376/cl=17/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/

  • Note the date: This study predates the vast digitization and archival process across disciplines.

About the survey

  • ALPSP
  • Key Perspectives, Ltd. carried it out (specialist information industry consultancy)
  • 11500 questionnaires distributed to authors who had contributed to "selected journals" from their lists
    • Which journals?
  • 2500 responses (final report may include over 3000)

Purpose

To examine...

  • The motivations involved when authors publish their work
  • Which factors authors take into consideration when deciding where to submit their work
  • The concerns of authors about the publishing process
  • The hopes and expectations of authors for the future of scholarly publishing

Findings

Motivations

Comm with peers + career are vast majority

  1. Communication with peers
  2. Career prospects
  3. Personal prestige
  4. Funding future work
  5. Financial reward

Funding less important to "arts" than "sciences"

  • How were respondents categorized?
Where to publish?
  • Reputation, audience, peer review, and impact factor were top criteria for selecting a publication venue
  • Sciences more concerned with availability of electronic version, quality of image reproduction, and turnaround time
Concerns with publishing?
  • "A huge majority" of respondents concerned with publication delays
    • Esp. in sciences (chemistry)
  • Arts more concerned with retaining copyright
  • Concerns with peer review tended to be related to delays
Future of scholarly publishing
  • 2/3rd wish to see scholarly publishing "continue broadly in its present way" (This is almost meaningless)
  • Most popular change was for "rapid peer review system"
  • 2/3rd of authors agree that the purpose of scholarly publishing is shifting from knowledge dissemination to the "building of an author's CV/résumé or reputation"

JISC/OIS Journal Authors Survey

Swan, Alma P., and Sheridan N. Brown. 2004. JISC/OIS Journal Authors Survey. Truro, UK: Key perspectives.

  • Note: same first author as above, same consultancy firm. 5 years later.

Shorter version of results:

  • Swan, Alma, and Sheridan Brown. "Authors and Open Access Publishing." Learned Publishing 17, no. 3 (2004): 219-224.

About the survey

  • Survey conducted on behalf of the Joint Information System Committee (JISC) and the Open Society Institute (OSI) by Key Perspectives, Ltd.
  • Two samples: one of authors who published in OA, and one of authors who did not (1)
    • Large cohort from BioMed Central
  • Nov 2003 - Jan 2004
  • Online survey
  • Follow up with 1-on-1 interviews

Goals

To investigate (1)

  • The author's awareness of new open access possibilities
  • The ease of identification of and submission to open access outlets
  • Their experiences of publishing their work in this way
  • Their concerns about any implications open access publishing may have upon their careers
  • The reasons why (or not) they chose to publish through an open access outlet

Later articulated more clearly (3)

  • Awareness
  • Reasons for choosing/avoiding OA
  • Ease with which OA venues can be identified
  • Concerns about effects on career
  • Ease of submission
  • Feelings of authors about OA after publication
  • Experiences of authors following OA (e.g. feedback)

Exec summary

  • Awareness of OA among trad'l authors: two-thirds
    • Only a quarter were made aware by their institution
    • Whereas 42% of OA authors were made aware by institutions
  • Belief in the importance of OA was a motivation for 90% of the OA authors
    • They also perceive OA journals are "faster"
  • Trad authors perceive OA journals to be slower, less widely read, receiving fewer citations
    • More importantly: lower prestige, reputation
    • And, the trad authors simply didn't know about OA journals in their fields
  • Greatest concern was not funding but anticipated impact of their published work
    • Despite published results indicating the opposite
  • Respondents were poorly informed about self-archiving opportunities and relevant online repositories
    • Highest level of activity is publishing a copy of a paper to one's own website
  • Barriers to open access are "cultural and behavioral on the part of authors" (2)

Methodology (16)

Two questionnaires developed with help from

  • PLoS
  • BioMed Central
  • ALPSP
  • Institue of Physics Publishing

Sample:

  • 3059 invitations were sent to authors who had publshed in OA journals
    • 154 responses, 1 Social science + Education, 4 Humanities
  • 5000 to others from other "traditional" journals (16)
    • 157 responses, 4 Social science + Education, 3 Humanities
  • Majority of invitations and respondents from Biomedicine
    • Many more OA journals in this field

Results (18)

  • Indication that respondents are not knowledgeable about the political economy of academic publishing (39)

Interviews (59)

  • Some discussion of the global PDF grey economy (62)

Discussion (63)

  • Principle of free access is a strong motivating factor (63)
  • Familiarity with OA is an issue
  • Concern over quality, impact
    • Many OA journals of the time didn't have ISI listings (64)
    • Of primary concern in the US and UK (RAE score)
  • Misconception that OA journals have lower standards of peer review (65)
  • Some concern over the effect of OA on scholarly societies that use subscription fees to finance other activities (66)
  • Some concern over the archiving of online-only publications (67)
"... danger ahead for publishers. They have always acknowledged that the peer review process is the kernel of their service, though since scholars actually do the reviewing it really comes down to the management of the process" (72)
  • "70% of authors who have published once in an open access journal will choose to do so the next time they publish" (72)

Perceptions of OA publishing: interviews with journal authors

Schroter, S., Leanne, T., & Smith, R. 2005. Perceptions of open access publishing: Interviews with journal authors. BMJ, January 26. doi:10.1136/bmj.38359.695220.82. Retrieved from: http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7494/756.full

  • British Medical Journal

Goal

  • Explore authors' attitudes toward OA publishing and author charges
  • Their perceptions of journals that charge authors
  • Willingness to submit to these journals

Problem: limited knowledge about authors' attitudes:

"The evidence so far is limited to experiments with heavily subsidised author charges and several surveys of authors with limited sampling, low response rates, and polls of authors from specialty journals about their preference for author charges or subscription models" (1)

Methodology

Sampling

  • Divided list of corresponding authors who submitted to the BMJ in 2003 (UK, North America, Australasia, Europe-UK) (1)
  • Used random number generator to sample 10 authors from each region + 10 in EU
  • Attempted to contact 50 authors, 28 achieved (2)
    • 21 were men

Limitations

  • Sample limited to BMJ authors -- narrow field

Criticism

Aronson, JK. 2005. "Commentary: Open access publishing: too much oxygen?". BMJ, 330, April 2. pp. 759.

  • Note: Author is an editor of J of Clinical Pharmacology which is published by Blackwell, subscription journal with free access after 12mos and free archives.

"We need to ask whether immediate free access to readers ... would benefit science (not the scientists or the grant giving bodies ... )"

  • "I believe that the potential advantages are few and the disadvantages many"
  • Advocates the 12-month "delay"
    • Readers pay for access during those 12 months after which it becomes freely available
  • "There are many more readers than authors, which any balance in funding should reflect"
  • We will not be able to return to subscription once it is gone

Importance of free access to research articles on decision to submit to the BMJ: survey of authors

Schroter, S. 2006. Importance of free access to research articles on decision to submit to the BMJ: survey of authors. BMJ, January 9. Retrieved from: http://bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.38705.490961.55

Goal

The BMJ had recently closed access to research articles

  • To determine whether free access to research articles on bmj.com is an important factor in authors' decisions on whether to submit to the BMJ

Methodology

  • Cross sectional electronic survey
  • Authors of research articles published in the BMJ
  • 211/415 (51%) of eligible authors responded

Findings

  • 140/211 said they'd be at least slightly less likely to submit if BMJ went closed
  • 71/211 (34%) said it would not influence their decision
  • 40% said that the closure of certain aspects of the online journal had affected their view of the BMJ
  • 67% said it would change if the BMJ restricted access to research articles
    • Disappointment, regressive step
    • Loss of distinctive feature
    • Perceived reduction in journal's usefulness
    • Perceived reduction in journal's readership, impact

Discussion

Limited by low response rate (51%)

  • But results are meaningful even if all 49% of non-responders were indifferent to OA

Scholarly communication in the digital environment: what do authors want?

Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D. and Huntington, P. (2004). "Scholarly communication in the digital environment: what do authors want?". Learned Publishing, 17(4), 261-273. Retrieved from: http://ciber.soi.city.ac.uk/ciber-pa-report.pdf

  • Study commissioned by the Publishers Association
    • Not in favor of OA as of late
  • November 2003
  • Web-based questionnaire
  • Administered by National Opinion Polls (NOP) from 12-30 January 2004
  • Criticized for "Low response rates" (Schroter et al 2005)

Methodology

  • "Critical incident" approach: respondents asked to ground their answers with respect to their last published paper (261)
    • "Minimizes the danger of over-generalization"

Sampling

  • Total sample: 107,500 authors who had published an article in a peer-reviewed journal during the previous 18 mos.
  • Non-completion: 37%
  • Completion: 3,787
  • Response rate: 4% ("fairly typical of online surveys" (262))
  • Full details: supposed to be available but couldn't find them on the PA website.
  • No humanities or social science scholars are quoted or referred to in the paper.

How to find authors for sample?

  • ISI indeces
  • "from the world's 8,000 highest-quality, peer-reviewed journals" (262)

Findings

  • Some respondents outright hostile to the existing system: "a license to print money" (262)
  • But also largely uninformed about how the publishing industry actually functions
    • For example, what activities incur costs (262)

How do they choose a journal?

  • Targeted (not necessarily largest) readership
  • Followed by impact, editorial board
  • Then circulation, turnaround, indexing, online access
  • Last consideration: cost to reader (263)
    • Women more sensitive than men

Different priorities evident among:

  • Subgroup with experience in OA publishing
    • These authors prioritized: turnaround, pricing, ease of acceptance -- less emphasis on targeting a specific readership
  • Younger authors (under 35 y.o.)
    • De-emphasized impact, coverage by indexing, availability of hardcopy (very low)

Importance of knowing that there would be a print copy

  • Significant difference between above/below 35yo
    • Demographics not available -- supposed to be on website but weren't findable...

Desired audience:

  • Fellow researchers working on "similar problems" (264)
  • Only 18% of respondents rated "the general public" with any importance (264)
  • Women are more motivated than men to have their research available to teachers + learners (264)

Respondents seem unclear on the meaning of "open access" and one quote implies that OA is not peer reviewed (264)

Respondents reported "indifference" to copyright

  • 13% "detailed interest"
  • 46% "no interest at all" (265)
    • 54% among those who also serve on editorial boards
  • "scientific authors publish for prestige, not money" (265)
  • "few authors spoke out in favour of the current copyright regime" (266)

Authors as readers

  • 61% were satisfied with the current access to journals

Self-publishing

  • 32% have self-published to the web
    • More likely to be male (34%) than female (25%)
    • More under-35 (40%) than 36-45 (33%) or 46+ (31%)
  • 53% would consider in the future
  • "Several authors" suggested they would pay a fee for the right to self-publish
    • This was not found in any other survey (268)
  • It seems that CS skews this

Institutional repository

  • 21% have already
  • 55% might do so in the future
  • One respondent expressed concern about the single-point of failure of a centralized archive/repository (268)
    • Can be mitigated by replication, mirroring

Attitudes toward open access

  • Author of the articles uses non-standard OA definition and in survey instrument suggests an OA definition that requires author pays (269)
    • This may invalidate the results
  • 34% knew "nothing at all" about OA
  • 48% knew "a little" (269)
  • Only 11% of the respondents had experience with OA publishing (269)
  • Strongly associate OA with access to knowledge
    • Do not associate it with "author pays" (269)
  • Authors with experience in OA are much more likely to associate it with: high quality, well indexed, and cutting edge
    • and disagree about: author pays, ephemeral, self-publish, no hardcopy, not properly archived, no career advantage
  • "The overall tenor of the views expressed here on open access is definitely positive" (269)
"Little evidence here of much stomach on the part of authors to pay ... anything remotely near the rates that some commercial publishers claim are necessary for a long-term sustainable business model" (272)

Conclusions

"Demand is highly inelastic: if you are a scholar in bibliometrics, you simply have to have access to Scientometrics. You cannot substitute" (270)
  • Volunteer labor in refereeing and writing is "often overlooked" in debates about "author pays" (270)
  • Interest and understanding about business models and copyright is low
  • Authors made "hostile" comments about publishers, "resentful"
    • "the publishing community needs to address this lack of understanding and to sell its services to authors and readers more effectively" (270)

Factors influencing publication choice

Warlick, S. E., Vaughn, K. T. L. (2007). "Factors influencing publication choice: Why faculty choose open access". Biomedical Digital Libraries, 4:1. doi:10.1186/1742-5581-4-1

Background

  • From 2003-2005 22% of articles written by faculty at UNC/Chapel Hill were published in "free full text" journals (1-2)
  • Suggest a disagreement regarding the definition of OA (2)
    • Worth dedicating some space to this in both the interview + the intro
  • Some discussion of barriers + misconceptions, contrasts with the data regarding impact, peer review, readership
    • Note PA disputing
  • This article identifies a need for study of author attitudes because authors are "at the heart" of OA publishing
    • But to date there remains no study of Comm, Social Science, Humanities, Education, etc. Primarily biomed
  • Use last paragraph on page 2 as a model for discussing previous studies

Identified topic areas + definitions

Free access

  • Refer to Nicholas/Rowlands' finding that 3/4 of authors reported free access as the strongest characteristic they associate with OA
  • Some discussion of global sharing as a key justification for OA

Publication quality

  • Discussion of impact factor, peer review
  • Does not differentiate authors in different parts of their careers

Speed

  • Hypothesizing that people in certain fields put more import on speed than others

Cost

  • Nicholas/Rowland suspect that some authors believe that "author pays" means literally that the authors pay and not their grants/funding orgs/depts/etc.

Copyright

  • "Does not consistently appear as a motivating factor" (3)
  • Swan finds this more important to "the arts" than "the sciences"

4 driving questions

  • Is the author aware that she/he has publishing in open access/archives journals?
  • If so, why did he/she choose to publish in an OA journal?
  • What factors influence their publishing decisions?
  • What is their general attitude towards open access publishing models?

Survey details

17 Questions:

Q1. How do you decide where to submit your articles for publication?

  • Authors rely on their own perceptions, not specific data

Q2. Does speed of publication influence your choice of journal?

  • 13 yes, 1 no
  • "Speed" was not defined in these interviews (5)
    • Can mean: Submission, notification, peer-review, publication
  • Some seem to think that "online" and OA are the same

Q3. How important is impact factor?

  • 8 quite important, 3 moderate important, 3 not

Q4. Are you influenced by the number of subscribers/readers that a journal reports?

  • Many respondents didn't know how to find out (5)
  • Sensing a "generational factor"

Q5. What is your general attitude towards open access publishing models?

  • 12/14 were in favor of the open access approach to scholarly publishing
  • Some said that a positive attitude wouldn't influence publishing decisions (5)

Q6. Is publishing in an OA journal an important part of the "where to publish" decision?

  • 9 yes, 2 increasingly, 3 no
  • Awareness of OA may be a result of "the evolving online publishing environment" (6)

Q7. If so, what is your motivation for publishing in an OA venue?

  • Most say free access

Q8. Are there any incentives for you to publish in an open access venue?

  • Most say accessibility, exposure (6-7)

Q9. What disincentives are there for you to publish in an OA venue?

  • Respondents listed disincentives but some were careful to distance themselves from these feelings - they said that they were OTHER peoples' opinions (6-7)
  • Fewer venues, lower impact

Q10. Does your department make a statement for or against open access publishing?

  • 1:yes, 8:no, 5:not that i know of
  • Some said that there is informal encouragement (7)

Q11. Are you aware that there was an open access convocation on the UNC-Chapel Hill campus?

  • Only 1 person knew about an event on their campus

Q12. Have you published in any OA journals?

  • Note: all of them had, that's how they were selected
  • 11: yes, 3: not that i know of

Q13. If so, were you responsible for selecting the publication?

  • Even some people who CHOSE the journal didn't know it was OA (8)

Q14. If not, do you know why the decision was made to publish in an OA journal?

  • n/a

Q15. Were you or any of the other authors responsible for paying author fees?

Q16. If so, where did the funding come from?

  • All Q15 "yes" said grant funding
  • Biomed fac at UNC CH + Duke had no probs getting $

Q17. What else do you have to share about open access and publishing?

  • Most believed that OA will become the norm
    • Some believe it should be encouraged
    • Others say it will happen regardless

"I send PDFs to those who need access..." (9)

Methodology

  • UNC-Chapel Hill and Duke only
  • Started with citation search in PubMed and Pubmed Central
    • 35 UNC, 22 Duke fac
    • All had multiple OA pubs within 18 mos
  • Recruited by email
    • 14 respondents
    • Many people said they didn't have enough time
  • Mix of asst, assoc, full faculty
    • No grad students, no adjuncts
  • Only biomedical faculty
    • Medicine (7)
    • Biology (4)
    • Public health (3)
  • Interviews
    • 43% in-person
    • 14% by phone
    • 43% by email
  • Open responses were coded with Atlas/ti

Conclusion

  • Authors report getting requests for PDFs from colleagues in other countries
    • Raising awareness of their privileged positions (10)
  • Author pays models were not a major factor here
    • Authors assumed they'd have to pay one way or another (11)
  • Some authors indicated that they have and will continue to break copyright agreements (11)
    • Still, this wasn't named as a major factor in deciding to publish in an OA venue
  • Free access is big but quality trumps all (11)
  • Wasn't able to adequately address the disincentive to junior faculty concerned about career, promotion (11)

Author disincentives and open access

Anderson, R. 2004. Author disincentives and open access. Serials Review, 30, 288-291. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2004.09.001

Good skeptical voice:

  • "Will we end up paying for universal access with decreased content and/or decreased quality"? (288)
  • "Formulating a sound moral argument and constructing a feasible economic model are not the same thing" (288)
  • Error to focus on readers because in OA, "readers will have been removed from the economic equation" (289)
    • Primary problem is "attracting authors" (289)

1. The author-pay system

  • Unless an author is powerfully motivated by OA morally, he or she will chose the cheaper option (289)
  • Asserts that requesting funding from grants/institutions is "in practice ... a distinction without difference" (289)
  • "The practical question is ... whether an author-pay system will make it more or less likely that a given author will choose to publish in an OA forum" (289)
  • Competition in an author-pay paradigm will necessarily drive prices down
    • Will OA journals survive this price war?
  • Regulation could mitigate this problem but what body would enforce such a regulation? (290)
    • Self-archiving solves this problem but does not address prestige (290)

2. Open Access and Professional Prestige

  • Gap between "should" and "is"
    • At present, non-OA journals offer greater prestige in most cases
    • History is a major factor
  • Readers may "regard online publications with suspicion" (290)
  • Barrier to start an online journal is very low
    • Barriers to start a print journal are high
    • "Online-only OA providers must overcome a rational public distrust of the online format" (290)

3. Open Access and Copyright

  • The leading definitions of OA involved giving up many of the rights associated with copyright
  • Non-OA publishers have typically required copyright transfer anyway (291)
  • What matters: will authors balk at this? (291)

Conclusion

  • Advocates must shift away from "should" and "ought" and address how authors "actually do feel and want" (291)

The primacy of authors in achieving Open Access

Suber, P. 2004. "The primacy of authors in achieving open access". Nature Web Focus: Access to the Literature, August 2. Retrieved from: http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/24.html

  • "Of all the groups that want OA to scientific and scholarly research literature, only one is in a position to deliver it: authors."
  • "four author-centric strategies for achieving OA: educating authors about it, helping them to provide OA to their work, and creating incentives and removing disincentives for them to do so."

Education authors about OA

  • "A new ALPSP study shows that 82% of senior researchers (4,000 thousand in 97 countries) knew 'nothing' or just 'a little' about OA"
    • Referring to Rowlands/Nicholas "What do authors want" (2004)
  • "Firsthand testimonials from trusted colleagues are much more effective than policy arguments"
  • "Do not let damaging myths circulate without correction."
  • "Anyone who takes half an hour to email an updated bibliography to the department chair or to snail-mail offprints to colleagues on other campuses should take five minutes to deposit a new article in an open-access archive or institutional repository."

Helping them to provide OA to their work

  • Libraries and other univ institutions could be set up to assist authors

Creating incentives

  • Non-OA authors are usually not strongly wedded and would willing post in OA if required by funding or institution

Removing disincentives

Regarding the Ingelfinger Rule

  • "Journals should allow their authors to take advantage of on-line preprint exchanges, while refusing to consider submissions that have been formally published elsewhere. To allow authors to make informed decisions, journals should at least make their policies on this issue clear and explicit on their web sites."

Views of some of the world's senior authors

Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., and Rowlands, I. 2005. "Open access journal publishing: The views of some of the world's senior authors". Journal of Documentation, 61(4). pp. 497-519. doi: 10.1108/00220410510607499

  • Details for an earlier paper in Learned outlined above

Methodology

  • Winter 2003/2004
  • Questionnaire survey administered on behalf of Ciber by NOP
  • Administered by web, closed questions
    • One unprompted response at the end of the questionnaire

Sampling

  • Attempting to address small samples (as in the 2004 Key survey) and "samples that are not appropriately balanced (ALPSP, 2002) (497)
  • Sample derived from mailing lists supplied by ISI
    • 107,500 unique authors, 10% of population that met the criteria
    • "Senior authors ... representative by broad discipline and geography of research" (500)
  • Authors asked to self-identify a discipline (500)
    • Authors were chosen based on the subject area of their publication - these might diverge
    • Result: skew toward biosciences (likely because there is greatest awareness of OA here)
  • No weighting was used

Sample

  • 3787 authors from 97 countries responded ("fairly typical of online surveys" (500))
    • 2% from "arts and humanities
    • 7% from "social sciences and economics"
  • Tended to be experienced with publishing
  • "Understanding of the issues involved in OA publishing and archiving are generally low across the author population" (503)
    • 34% "know nothing about" OA
    • Also, at the time, a TINY number of OA journals were covered by the Social Science Citation Index

Sample divided into two groups

  • OA authors
  • Non-OA authors
  • "A logistic regression model was used to identify the characteristic difference between the two groups" (503)
  • Variables in this model (504, 517):
    • Attractive/unattractive factors when deciding to publish in that particular journal (significant: price, avail. in elec. version, other factors not signif)
    • Reaching readership (signif at 10 per cent significance level (p = 0.063))
    • Interest in copyright (significant)
    • Use of published research (significant: post on internal website, post on www, other options not signif)
    • Made available scholarly materials on own home page (signif)
    • Deposited scholarly materials in an institutional repository (signif)
    • Paid publisher to have paper published (not sig)
    • Current level of access to journal (not sig)
    • Gender (not sig)
    • Country location (sig)
    • Type of org (not sig)
    • Subject heading best describes last published paper (not sig)
    • Age range (not sig)
    • Number of papers written/co-written (sig)
    • Which role (journal editor sig)
  • Ever published in elec journal w no print equivalent (too close to dependent variable. users responding yes were 6-7 times more likely to publish in OA)

OA definition used

"OA journals are those that do not charge readers or their institutions for access. In an OA journal, readers are able to read, download, copy, distribute and print articles and other materials freely. The costs are met by charging authors for the publisher's services in making their materials available online. In return, authors retain the copyright in their articles" (498).
  • Curious to see how respondents interpreted this def

Results

  • "Views were divided sharply along subject and geographical lines" (497)
  • "Highlights the knowledge gap that exists between authors and publishers" (497)
  • "It might ... be argued that OA authors like publishing in cheap journals, possibly because it shores up their self-image as caring and sharing academics, or, more contentiously, provides justification of publishing in low impact journals" (504)
  • Authors with a large output were more likely to have published in an OA journal (506)
  • "In the minds of most authors, the strongest characteristic of OA journals is that they are thought to be free to access" (507)
  • Few authors associated OA with author-pays (507)
  • Very few associated OA with being "radical" (507)
  • "Most authors who knew something about OA did not rate the quality of OA articles highly" (507)

Attitudinal groupings (507-509)

  • Non-committed, 24%, "use OA but not in an affirmative way" (508)
    • More likely to be men than women
  • Committed, 17%, "far more serious and committed OA authors" (508)
    • More likely to be from Africa, Asia, S. America
  • Free-to-access, 11%, "money seems to be an issue here" (510)
    • More likely among people with "excellent access to literature" (510)
  • Author-pays, 9%

Views on OA

  • Most authors (59%) agreed that "OA would result in more money for libraries" (512)
  • Most thought it would be easier to get published , 55% believed fewer papers would be rejected (512)
  • 78% thought it would lead to end of print journals
  • 46% believed papers would become "less concise" (512)
  • Younger authors disagreed that authors would publish more
  • Older authors worried about a decline in quality and problems with the archive
  • In general, younger authors more likely to be positive about the outcomes of OA
  • Arts + humanities (5%), social sciences (4%) were less likely to agree that OA would result in better quality papers (513)
  • Arts + humanities (35%), social sciences (28%) were least likely to feel that OA will improve services to authors (514)
  • 66% in arts + h believed that papers will become less concise (514)
  • A + H (73%) and SS (71%) agreed that fewer papers will be rejected as a result of OA (513)

Attitudes grouped via factor analysis

  • Negative about OA, 22%, despite publishing in OA
    • Sharply divided by subject lines
    • More likely to be people publishing greater than 15 articles in 3 years (514)
  • Positive about OA, 21%
  • Mainly thought OA would result in print journals disappearing, 11%

Conclusions

  • "Biggest finding to emerge from the study is the general ignorance of OA publishing on the part of relatively senior scholarly authors" (515)
  • "Authors are not knowledgeable enough to influence a debate at which they are at the heart of" (515)
  • "Real differences emerging between authors of different disciplines and countries" (515)
  • Authors in N.Amer. and W. Europe knew less about OA, perhaps less need with "strong publishing system"? (516)
    • A+H (59%), SS (52%) most likely to know nothing at all (516)

Awareness and attitude of Spanish medical authors

Hernández-Borges, A. A., Cabrera-Rodríguez, R., Montesdeoca-Melián, A., Martínez-Pineda, B., Torres-Álvarez de Arcaya, M. L., and Jiménez-Sosa, A. 2006. "Awareness and attitude of Spanish medical authors to open access publishing and the 'author pays' model". J Med Libr Assoc 94(4), October. pp. 449-455.

Goal: investigate attitudes and awareness among biomed researchers publishing in Spanish (449)

Two paths to OA:

  • OA journals
  • Self-archiving on institutional or personal websites (449)

Author fees:

  • 20% of OA publishing (449)
  • Significant barrier for developing countries, small institutions (449) - possible to balance
    • "Certain OAP journals discretionally waive charges to such researchers" (449)

Why no social science OA?

  • Is it fees?
  • Or prestige?
  • Not enough data to know (449)

Methodology

Sampling

  • 354 first authors of Spanish-lang articles in Pubmed between Jun/Dec 2003
    • Classified by type of institution, residential Spanish region, medical specialty

Instrument

  • Authors contacted by email, three attempts
  • 14% of emails were automatically rejected

Statistical analysis

  • Variables:
    • Province of residence
    • Institution type
    • Biomed specialty
    • Existence of an online edition of the j in which articles were published
    • Publication of other articles during the same period
  • Chi-square tests used on responses with...
    • Medical specialty
    • Type of institution
    • Region of residence

Results

  • 100 (28%) of authors returned the survey
  • Low awareness of OA in general (22%) and specific events in OA (8%)
  • Very few had published in author-pays (5%)
    • 31% said lack of funds is a reason not to use author pays
    • 19% said lack of prestige/impact is a reason not to submit to author pays (450)

Discussion

Limitations

  • Low responses, though representative (450)
  • Limited to authors with email, introduce skew toward those authors familiar with internet (450)

Greater awareness in previous studies

  • Perhaps because OA was introduced in primarily "English-speaking setting" (450)
  • However, these authors certainly read English-language articles (450)

List of concerns regarding OA:

  • Multiple versions of the same article subject to diff degrees of peer review
  • Financial difficulties for subscription-based js
  • Weakened peer-review
  • Increased acceptance rates as a source of revenue for author pays js
  • Additional economic pressure on authors (450)

Author-pays

  • Major drawback
  • Unclear how waivers would be distributed
    • By geography?
    • By lack of support?
    • How to assess?
  • Considerable medical research is conducted without support from grants. How would they pay? (450)
    • Even less common among Spanish-language authors
  • Extra charges might inhibit important work in unsupported institutions, less-funded regions (450)

Spanish-language authors strongly opposed author-pays

  • Though there is dissent and disagreement in other studies, none demonstrate the same forceful resistance (450)
  • Might this be reflected in other populations of researchers?
    • Suggests renewed appeal of "green OA", self-archiving (450)

South African responses to OA publishing

Fullard, A. South African responses to Open Access publishing: A survey of the research community.

RQ: To what extent are the key actors in the SA research system aware of the advantages of OA?

  • "There is little prospect that academics would choose to publishg within open access journals" (1)
  • Bjork (2004) identified the academic reward system as one of the obstacles facing the OA movement (2)

Author pays

  • "a logical way to fund the publication process" (2)
  • Re: Spring and Blackwells, "author's choice" mechanism (2)

Previous studies

  • Several by state, publishers, funders:
    • 8 mo inquiry conducted under the supervision of the Science Committee on the UK House of Commons during 2004
  • Others by researchers
    • On author opinion (Rowlands, Nicholas, Huntingdon 2004)
    • On author-pays (King & Tenopir 2004)
    • On impact factor (Brody et al 2005)
    • On obstacles (Bjork 2004)
  • One previous study of SA (De Beer 2005)
    • Found greater interest among humanities/social science

Survey

Sampling

  • Aimed at 3 diff stakeholder groups: publishing authors, research managers, official research orgs/policy-makers (4)
    • Authors are "prime change agents" (4)
  • Focus on biomedical field
    • More "richly endowed" than other fields - more easily able to accommodate author fees (4)
      • Hoping to ascertain attitude, not affordability (4)
    • More likely to have encountered OA journals because there are 130 in BioMed Central
  • Email addresses harvest from ISI Web of Science
    • 500 contacted, 145 responded (29% response rate)

The promise of OA (7)

  • Seven positive statements (agree/disagree 5 likert)

Perceptions of OA (9)

  • Seven statements about characteristics of OA journals (same likert)

Results

Do they know what OA publication is? (5)

  • 88/145 (60.7%) of researchers knew what OA was (6)

How respondents view open access journals (8)

  • OA journals are frequently newer publications that have not yet achieved impact factors as measured by ISI Journal Citation Report (8)

Peer review

  • Perception that OA is less rigorous seems to persist (9)
  • Speed of publication did not rate highly (7th out of 10)
    • Yet they associate this with OA -- "perhaps believing that peer review is brief and skimpy"? (9)
    • Might also perceive that it is an online activity and therefore faster?

Impact factor

  • Ranked highest among authors

Enthusiasm for OA in the abstract declines when carried into specific circumstances (9)

The issue of article charges/ author pays

  • Great quote from Biomed Central 2004:
"The present system, in which smaller universities effectively subsidize the cost of publishing the research carried out at relatively wealthy research centers, is more inequitable and unsustainable"
  • 45% thought local journals would not survive (11)
  • 47% thought overall systemic savings + improved access were most important considerations (11)

Academic awards

  • Used statements from Swan & Brown 2004
  • High level of uncertainty regarding the effect of OA publishing on academic awards, career advancement (13)

Answering research questions

  • Generalization limited by low response rate, homogeneity of field/discipline (biomed)
  • "Pleasingly open yet cautious approach to OA publication" (16)

Six pre-conditions for acceptance

  • Dissatisfaction with the current problems in scholarly publishing
  • Informed understanding of the principles and benefits of open access
    • Rowlands/Nichols/Huntingdon 2004, Seitmann 2005
  • Active interest in furthering the development of OA
  • The availability of a comprehensive spread of open access journals in which to publish (18)
  • The recognition of OA journals by review committees
  • The ability to pay article charges

Recommendations

Indirect:

  • "Mainstream" journals may offer "author's choice" or convert to OA
  • Researchers will be increasingly likely to encounter OA publications via web searches, social media (20
  • OA is also increasingly endorsed, mandated by funders/ institutions/ governments (20)

Direct:

  • Scholars, librarians need to become "agents of change", re: Create Change brochure (No longer available) (20)
  • Policy statement mandating OA publishing (21)

Articles specifically about humanities/social science and OA

Open access in the humanities, Suber

Nine differences that explain a slow rate of progress

  • Journal prices are higher in science, technology, and medicine than humanities
"According to the 2002 _Library Journal_ pricing survey, the average subscription prices for journals in STM fields were 10-20 times higher than the average prices in the humanities. For example, compare biology ($1,097.01), chemistry ($2,143.22), and physics ($2,218.82) with history ($126.35), literature ($110.51), and philosophy ($146.60)" -- http://www.libraryjournal.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA209908#t2
  • More STM research is funded. Therefore, there is money with which to pay OA publication fees.
  • More government funding for STM than humanities research (in the US). "Taxpayer argument" isn't as strong.
"The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) budget for 2002 was $124 million, less than 1% of the STM funding from the 8 leading federal agencies alone." --
  • "On average, humanities journals have higher rejection rates (70-90%) than STM journals (20-40%). This means that the cost of peer review per accepted article is higher in the humanities, lower in the STM fields."
  • Greater public demand for OA research on many STM topics as compared with humanities. Public demand drives "funding, policy, incentives, and lobbyists".
  • Quick turnaround is less of a concern among humanities.
  • Demand for journal articles in humanities lasts longer than in STM which means that the "embargo" model is less applicable
  • Harder to get "reprint permission" from copyright holders for images, illustrations, poems, etc. that humanities scholars use in their work. "This is why OA will come last to art history".
  • Journal articles play a different role in the humanities. Primary literature is published in books. "Logic of OA applies better to articles, which authors give away"


Other research materials

To find

Questions used by SOAP

Study of Open Access Publishing logo SOAP Survey

Open access publications

67%

How important are the following criteria for you to choose to publish in open access journals? 

	Extremely important	Important	Less important	Irrelevant

Quality or prestige of open access journal How important are the following criteria for you to choose to publish in open access journals? Quality or prestige of open access journal Quality or prestige of open access journal

Quality or prestige of open access journal

Quality or prestige of open access journal

Quality or prestige of open access journal The journal charges no fees for publishing The journal charges no fees for publishing The journal charges no fees for publishing

The journal charges no fees for publishing

The journal charges no fees for publishing

The journal charges no fees for publishing An easy mechanism exist for me to obtain the funds and arrange payment (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing) An easy mechanism exist for me to obtain the funds and arrange payment (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing) An easy mechanism exist for me to obtain the funds and arrange payment (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing)

An easy mechanism exist for me to obtain the funds and arrange payment (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing)

An easy mechanism exist for me to obtain the funds and arrange payment (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing)

An easy mechanism exist for me to obtain the funds and arrange payment (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing) I have access to sufficient funds to cover publication fees from my own grants I have access to sufficient funds to cover publication fees from my own grants I have access to sufficient funds to cover publication fees from my own grants

I have access to sufficient funds to cover publication fees from my own grants

I have access to sufficient funds to cover publication fees from my own grants

I have access to sufficient funds to cover publication fees from my own grants A reasonable fee (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing) A reasonable fee (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing) A reasonable fee (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing)

A reasonable fee (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing)

A reasonable fee (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing)

A reasonable fee (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing) The content is open access and is freely available to all readers The content is open access and is freely available to all readers The content is open access and is freely available to all readers

The content is open access and is freely available to all readers

The content is open access and is freely available to all readers

The content is open access and is freely available to all readers Quality and speed of the publishing service Quality and speed of the publishing service Quality and speed of the publishing service

Quality and speed of the publishing service

Quality and speed of the publishing service

Quality and speed of the publishing service Impact factor of open access journal Impact factor of open access journal Impact factor of open access journal

Impact factor of open access journal

Impact factor of open access journal

Impact factor of open access journal The article publishing fee is reasonable (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing) The article publishing fee is reasonable (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing) The article publishing fee is reasonable (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing)

The article publishing fee is reasonable (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing)

The article publishing fee is reasonable (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing)

The article publishing fee is reasonable (in case the journal charges a fee for publishing) Open access journals are considered by tenure and promotion committee, as well as granting agencies Open access journals are considered by tenure and promotion committee, as well as granting agencies Open access journals are considered by tenure and promotion committee, as well as granting agencies

Open access journals are considered by tenure and promotion committee, as well as granting agencies

Open access journals are considered by tenure and promotion committee, as well as granting agencies

Open access journals are considered by tenure and promotion committee, as well as granting agencies The content is open access and can be reused for any purpose The content is open access and can be reused for any purpose The content is open access and can be reused for any purpose

The content is open access and can be reused for any purpose

The content is open access and can be reused for any purpose

The content is open access and can be reused for any purpose Reputation of the publisher of open access journal Reputation of the publisher of open access journal Reputation of the publisher of open access journal

Reputation of the publisher of open access journal

Reputation of the publisher of open access journal

Reputation of the publisher of open access journal Reaching beyond the traditional readership Reaching beyond the traditional readership Reaching beyond the traditional readership

Reaching beyond the traditional readership

Reaching beyond the traditional readership

Reaching beyond the traditional readership My favourite journal was converted to open access My favourite journal was converted to open access My favourite journal was converted to open access

My favourite journal was converted to open access

My favourite journal was converted to open access

My favourite journal was converted to open access

Impact, citation

Bibliography

Articles

In humanities, social science

OA models, overviews

Books

Law articles from Lexis

Link to lexis:

Unsorted articles

Unsorted links

Lists of OA journals in comm

DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)

International Association for Media and Communication Research listings

Too new for inclusion in DOAJ

Cultural studies review

Non-OA lists for comparison

Jump offs

  • Is this a generalizable tool?
  • Could it be used in other Comm depts?
  • Could it be easily adapted for use in other disciplines? (e.g. give to Mako for B-school?)
  • Could there be an Annenberg repository for all Annenberg funded research?
  • Move text from word doc back to this page
    • TODO add paragraph with data about gap between beliefs + reality with regard to impaoct after "universal access" question

Immediate TODO

  • Continue transferring survey to Word
    • Only got as far as "Behavioral questions (TODO convert into a single measure)"
  • Consider breaking out some measures to a follow-up survey on self-archiving
  • More interstitial paragraphs
  • Create Qualtrics
  • Design pilot strategy for Jan-Feb
  • Design "real" strategy for March-April
  • Beef up intro paragraph
  • Beef up Suber's discussion of humanities with some research on OA and monographs
Retrieved from "http://www.kevindriscoll.org/wiki/Open_access_in_communication"
Personal tools