On 28 Oct 2019, at 01:35, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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) 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