Dallmeier-Tiessen, Suenje

Darby, Robert

Goerner, Bettina

Hyppoelae, Jenni

Igo-Kemenes, Peter

Kahn, Deborah

Lambert, Simon

Lengenfelder, Anja

Leonard, Chris

Mele, Salvatore

Nowicka, Malgorzata

Polydoratou, Panayiota

Ross, David

Ruiz-Perez, Sergio

Schimmer, Ralf

Swaisland, Mark

The SOAP consortium

van der Stelt, Wim

Dallmeier-Tiessen, S.

Goerner, B.

Darby, R.

Hyppoelae, J.

Igo-Kemenes, P.

Kahn, D.

Lambert, S.

Lengenfelder, A.

Leonard, C.

Mele, S.

Nowicka, M.

Polydoratou, P.

Ross, D.

Ruiz-Perez, S.

Schimmer, R.

Swaisland, M.

van der Stelt, W.

MPG.PuRe

project-soap.eu  The SOAP Symposium –  II What scientists think about Open Access Publishing   Suenje Dallmeier-Tiessen, Bettina Goerner, Robert Darby, Jenni Hyppoelae, Peter Igo-Kemenes, Deborah Kahn, Simon Lambert, Anja Lengenfelder,  Chris Leonard, Salvatore Mele, Malgorzata Nowicka, Panayiota Polydoratou, David Ross,  Sergio Ruiz-Perez, Ralf Schimmer, Mark Swaisland and  Wim van der Stelt  BMC, CERN, MPDL, SAGE, Springer and STFC   Presented by  Simon Lambert, STFC  SOAP Symposium, Berlin, 13 January 2011 Motivation •  An opportunity to conduct a comprehensive survey of scientists with respect to Open Access journal publishing –  All academic disciplines, not only “hard” sciences •  Attitudes •  Beliefs •  Practices –  The next session:  how scientists really behave with respect to OA publishing 2 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Design of the survey •  Online survey with 23 questions •  Characteristics of the respondents themselves (“demographics”), then attitudes, beliefs and practices •  Multiple choice •  Two questions also with optional free text boxes for amplification of answers 3 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Example questions 4 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Distribution of the survey 5 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Response to the survey •  53,890 responses by 10 August 2010 –  Snapshot for analysis on this date •  85.7% active researchers •  162 countries •  The “golden subset”: –  Researchers –  At least one article published in last five years –  Answered question whether OA beneficial to their field 6 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Response to the survey 7 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium 38,358 The key attitudes (1) •  Q9: Do you think your research field benefits, or would benefit from journals that publish Open Access articles? –  Yes / No / I have no opinion / I do not care 8 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Is OA seen as beneficial? 9 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Is OA seen as beneficial? 10 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Is OA seen as beneficial? 11 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Is OA seen as beneficial? 12 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Is OA seen as beneficial? 13 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Is OA seen as beneficial? 14 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium The same with error bars Free text answers: why (not) beneficial •  All free text answers were read and tagged by the essence of their content •  17,852 respondents! 15 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Positive tags (22,312 tags): Accessibility Financial issues Individual benefit Scientific community benefit Public good Other Negative tags (1,825 tags): Green OA enough Fairness/vanity press Low quality No or bad peer review Not needed Presence or amount of fees Profit-driven Unsustainable Other Why is OA beneficial? 16 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium 16,734 respondents Why is OA beneficial? 17 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Why is OA not beneficial? 18 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium 1,118 respondents The key attitudes (2) •  Q23: Listed below are a series of statements, both positive and negative, concerning Open Access publishing. Please indicate how strongly you agree/disagree with each statement. –  Researchers should retain the rights to their published work and allow it to be used by others –  Open Access publishing undermines the system of peer review –  Open Access publishing leads to an increase in the publication of poor quality research –  If authors pay publication fees to make their articles Open Access, there will be less money available for research –  It is not beneficial for the general public to have access to published scientific and medical articles 19 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium The key attitudes (2) •  Q23: Listed below are a series of statements, both positive and negative, concerning Open Access publishing. Please indicate how strongly you agree/disagree with each statement. –  Open Access unfairly penalises research-intensive institutions with large publication output by making them pay high costs for publication –  Publicly-funded research should be made available to be read and used without access barrier –  Open Access publishing is more cost-effective than subscription-based publishing and so will benefit public investment in research –  Articles that are available by Open Access are likely to be read and cited more often than those not Open Access  20 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium What is believed about OA publishing? 21 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium What is believed about OA publishing? 22 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium •  Degrees of agreement can be expressed on ordinal scale … •  … which enables identification of groups (clusters) of respondents with similar beliefs. What is believed about OA publishing? 23 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Clustering of beliefs: the OA-positive cluster 24 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Clustering of beliefs: the OA-sceptical cluster 25 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Clustering of beliefs: the OA-positive cluster 26 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Clustering of beliefs: the OA-sceptical cluster 27 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium Conclusions 28 Simon Lambert | STFC SOAP Symposium •  The SOAP survey is considerably more comprehensive than any comparable survey. •  It sheds light on subject areas and countries that have hitherto received little attention. •  The data will be made public … the questions are waiting to answered! project-soap.eu Thank you! Project team: info@project-soap.eu Presenter: simon.lambert@stfc.ac.uk Project co-ordinator: Salvatore.Mele@cern.ch  Website: http://soap-fp7.eu  

English

What scientists think about Open Access Publishing today

Max Planck Society eDoc Server

http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-82EA-5

What scientists think about Open Access Publishing today

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

MPG.PuRe

MPG.PuRe

Max Planck Society eDoc Server