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]