From: Colin Steele <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 01:05:03 -0400


Rowley, J., Johnson, F., Sbaffi, L. et al. (2 more authors) (2017)
Academics' behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in
scholarly journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science
and Technology. ISSN 2330-1635

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/114578/8/PaperOAPFinal%20%281%29.pdf

Abstract

While there is significant progress with policy and a lively debate
regarding the potential impact of open access publishing, few studies
have examined academics' behavior and attitudes to open access
publishing (OAP) in scholarly journals. This article seeks to address
this gap through an international and interdisciplinary survey of
academics. Issues covered include: use of and intentions regarding
OAP, and perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages of OAP,
journal article publication services, peer review, and reuse. Despite
reporting engagement in OAP, academics were unsure about their future
intentions regarding OAP. Broadly, academics identified the potential
for wider circulation as the key advantage of OAP, and were more
positive about its benefits than they were negative about its
disadvantages. As regards services, rigorous peer review, followed by
rapid publication were most valued. Academics reported strong views on
reuse of their work; they were relatively happy with noncommercial
reuse, but not in favor of commercial reuse, adaptations, and
inclusion in anthologies. Comparing science, technology, and medicine
with arts, humanities, and social sciences showed a significant
difference in attitude on a number of questions, but, in general, the
effect size was small, suggesting that attitudes are relatively
consistent across the academic community.

Conclusion and recommendations

This article draws on data from a major international survey, based on
the database of authors and reviewers of a major publisher, Taylor &
Francis. It offers insights into various aspects of academics
behaviour and attitudes towards OAP in OAJ’s. As well as providing a
general profile, analyses have been performed to explore any
differences on the basis of the two major disciplinary groups, STM and
HSS. In terms of behaviour, this study suggests that HSS and STM
authors are equally engaged in publication in OAJ’s, but that there is
considerable progress to be made regarding the adoption of gold open
access routes. Indeed, respondents reported a high level of
uncertainty regarding their future intentions regarding OAP.  Overall,
then, whilst there is some evidence of adoption of OAP, especially in
the arena of OAJ’s, gold open access only accounts for around a
quarter of open access publications, and coupled with this academics
are unsure as to their future intentions regarding OAP.

Academics are uncertain as to the future of scholarly communication,
and this presents them with dilemmas in their choice of publication,
yet this study suggests that there is an agreement that there may be
some value on OA publication. On one hand, some authors are being
mandated and funded to choose gold open access, but on the other,
there are financial and ideological drivers inclining them to
participation in various green open access models.  Taking this into
account, it is likely that for the short term at the very least, green
and gold open access models will continue to complement each other.
Publishers, researchers and policy makers need to take an omnichannel
perspective to scholarly communication, and to develop further
understanding of the models and contributions of green and gold open
access to effective and sustainable scholarly communication.

Responses on attitudes to various aspects of OAP provide insights into
the characteristics of OAP in OAJ’s that are important to academics,
and therefore need to be incorporated into any successful model. These
are: rigorous peer review, and rapid publication. More specifically,
there is considerable support for peer review models that are aligned
with the traditional 12model that involves pre-publication review of
all aspects of the article, including techniques contribution and
novelty. This study provides some tentative indication that STM
researchers may be more amenable to alternative methods of review than
HSS researchers, and there might be scope for further research in this
area. The peer review process is pivotal to any model of scholarly
communication. However, with the advent of electronic manuscript
submission systems, greater internationalisation of reviewing and
editorial communities, and increased interdisciplinary, it is in
transition.

Many studies have identified the importance of peer review to the
success of OAP, but there is considerable scope for further research
into this ‘hidden’ world. Other authors have also identified the
importance of journal impact factors and reputation. There are grounds
for believing that academics will migrate to and embrace any model of
scholarly communication or specific publication outlet that is
perceived as high impact, rigorously refereed, and of good reputation,
and by so doing will re-enforce its status. Accordingly, those OA
initiatives that will succeed are those that work with scholarly
communities to co-create the scholarly communication models of the
future.

Finally, there is the matter of intellectual property. Whilst
academics may traditionally have accepted the copyright and licence
agreements that publishers put before them in the interests of being
published, open access brings into the limelight the issues associated
with re-use. Academics are strongly against the re-use of their work
for commercial gain without their prior knowledge or permission, even
if they receive credit as the original author. They also have concerns
regarding adaption of their work, and its inclusion in an anthology,
without their permission, with HSS academics expressing much stronger
views on this than STM academics. Publishers and policy makers need to
focus further attention on the intellectual property rights of
authors, especially in a world where there are serious concerns
regarding plagiarism and copyright infringement. Maintaining
appropriate controls are likely to be all the more difficult where the
author deposits more than one version of an article in different OA
‘repositories’.

---------------------------------------------

Colin Steele
Emeritus Fellow
ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences
The Australian National University
Room 3.31, Beryl Rawson Building #13
Acton, ACT, 2601
Australia

P: + 61 2 6125 8983
E: [log in to unmask]