From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 10:05:45 +0100

Hi Danny



I have checked with my colleagues and in our work with ECRs [Early Career
Researchers] this confusion (assuming that researchers see hybrid as the
only gold model) has not come up with ECRs. Might I suggest that this is
because the people you have been talking to are only thinking of the high
impact factor journals (the journals they want to publish in by
preference), the great majority of which are subscription journals with
hybrid options. As to the association with predatory journals, we have
found over 4 years that the association of OA journals with low quality is
much less than it used to be – again among ECRs and in this case US/UK.



Anthony Watkinson






From: Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 18:24:29 +1000

Thanks Rachel,



I may be misunderstanding what you were trying to achieve. But my concern
is that if the academic community (the people surveyed) are generally
confused about the difference between hybrid and fully gold OA journals
then the likelihood is the questions that were asked about ‘gold OA’ may
well have been misunderstood. At some high level discussions with
experienced researchers I have been attending recently there was generally
a misconception that ALL gold OA publishing was in hybrid journals. So if
we are trying to understand what the landscape might be in a model without
hybrid, then we would want to be sure that respondents were clear that the
question referred to a fully gold journals (which many researchers
automatically associate with predatory publishing, so they have a negative
position towards them). It is a very complicated space that is not well
understood. That’s what I mean about it not being very helpful.



Sorry if I am missing the point.



Danny



On 24 Oct 2019, at 16:18, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: "Bergan, Rachel" <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:38:47 +0000

Hi Danny,



Thanks for taking a look at the new survey. If you’d prefer, I can email
you a PDF of the report (an offer also open to anyone else in this
discussion group) and the full dataset is available on Figshare at:
https://figshare.com/collections/Taylor_Francis_Researcher_Survey_2019/4700408



You’re right, only one of the questions (submission choices) touches on
hybrid. Given all the recent discussion about moving away from this model,
we wanted to explore a few scenarios which might unfold if hybrid journals
are no longer option for many researchers.



I hope some of these results are useful for future discussions.



Kind regards,



Rachel

Taylor & Francis Group







From: Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:24:15 +1000

Hello,



I (like others) have chosen not to provide my details to T&F to download
the article, but looking at the summary page from the link below my
observation is:



It is very frustrating that they appear not to have asked about hybrid
versus fully gold (this may be for obvious reasons, given the large number
of hybrid journals T&F publish). This is a source of great confusion
amongst researchers, particularly in Australia where the academic literacy
about open access is generally poor.



Given this statement:

*Only a minority of researchers would definitely submit to a full open
access journal which charged for publication.*

40% of researchers wouldn’t submit to such a journal, primarily because
they don’t have access to funds or don’t like paying to publish on
principle. 40% of respondents might submit to a fully open access journal
with fees, depending on the cost and whether funding is available to them.



One assumes that the: "42% have published the final version of an article
open access in a journal (gold OA
<https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-open-access/#goldoa>)
in the last 12 months.” are either the 40% who might submit to fully OA
journals, or they are publishing in journals that don’t charge APCs.



I see these numbers are being unhelpful because they are badly articulated.



Danny





On 22 Oct 2019, at 05:42, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:



From: "Bergan, Rachel" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 08:42:33 +0000

*Apologies for cross-posting*

Earlier this year we asked over 2,500 researchers around the world for
their views on a range of scholarly communication issues, including
their publishing habits, opinions about different licenses, and the
impact of scenarios for realizing an open access future.

Released for Open Access Week, the survey results reveal that while
researchers are clearly in favor of widening access to research, they
remain largely unaware of the initiatives and services that have been
established to encourage growth of OA.

There is also little consensus when it comes to permitting reuse of
published research and it is still a minority who are archiving
manuscripts in repositories (green OA). The results demonstrate that
there’s much more publishers, librarians, funders, and all open access
advocates need to do to raise researchers’ awareness of the OA options
available to them.

Download a free copy of the survey report at:
http://bit.ly/TFResearcherSurvey

Kind regards,

Rachel Bergan

Taylor & Francis Group