bioRxiv: the preprint server for biology | bioRxiv

Abstract:  The traditional publication process delays dissemination of new research, often by months, sometimes by years. Preprint servers decouple dissemination of research papers from their evaluation and certification by journals, allowing researchers to share work immediately, receive feedback from a much larger audience, and provide evidence of productivity long before formal publication. Launched in 2013 as a non-profit community service, the bioRxiv server has brought preprint practice to the life sciences and recently posted its 64,000th manuscript. The server now receives more than four million views per month and hosts papers spanning all areas of biology. Initially dominated by evolutionary biology, genetics/genomics and computational biology, bioRxiv has been increasingly populated by papers in neuroscience, cell and developmental biology, and many other fields. Changes in journal and funder policies that encourage preprint posting have helped drive adoption, as has the development of bioRxiv technologies that allow authors to transfer papers easily between the server and journals. A bioRxiv user survey found that 42% of authors post their preprints prior to journal submission whereas 37% post concurrently with journal submission. Authors are motivated by a desire to share work early; they value the feedback they receive, and very rarely experience any negative consequences of preprint posting. Rapid dissemination via bioRxiv is also encouraging new initiatives that experiment with the peer review process and the development of novel approaches to literature filtering and assessment.

Frequency and format of clinical trial results dissemination to patients: a survey of authors of trials indexed in PubMed

Abstract:  Objective Dissemination of research findings is central to research integrity and promoting discussion of new knowledge and its potential for translation into practice and policy. We investigated the frequency and format of dissemination to trial participants and patient groups. Design Survey of authors of clinical trials indexed in PubMed in 2014–2015. Results Questionnaire emailed to 19 321 authors; 3127 responses received (16%). Of these 3127 trials, 2690 had human participants and 1818 enrolled individual patients. Among the 1818, 498 authors (27%) reported having disseminated results to participants, 238 (13%) planned to do so, 600 (33%) did not plan to, 176 (10%) were unsure and 306 (17%) indicated ‘other’ or did not answer. Of the 498 authors who had disseminated, 198 (40%) shared academic reports, 252 (51%) shared lay reports, 111 (22%) shared both and 164 (33%) provided individualised study results. Of the 1818 trials, 577 authors (32%) shared/planned to share results with patients outside their trial by direct contact with charities/patient groups, 401 (22%) via patient communities, 845 (46%) via presentations at conferences with patient representation, 494 (27%) via mainstream media and 708 (39%) by online lay summaries. Relatively few of the 1818 authors reported dissemination was suggested by institutional bodies: 314 (17%) of funders reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 252 (14%) to patient groups; 333 (18%) of ethical review boards reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 148 (8%) to patient groups. Authors described many barriers to dissemination. Conclusion Fewer than half the respondents had disseminated to participants (or planned to) and only half of those who had disseminated shared lay reports. Motivation to disseminate results to participants appears to arise within research teams rather than being incentivised by institutional bodies. Multiple factors need to be considered and various steps taken to facilitate wide dissemination of research to participants.

OA potential remains untapped – report | Research Information

“Researchers want to improve access to research but remain largely unaware of initiatives and services established to increase open access (OA).

A survey of 2,755 Taylor & Francis authors, released for Open Access Week, reveals little consensus when it comes to permitting reuse of published research – and that researchers should be taking advantage more of the open access options available to them.

Some 66 per cent of researchers didn’t recognise any of 11 different initiatives presented to them, including the 2002 Budapest Open Access Declaration (with the highest level of researchers, 12 per cent, aware of this) and the Open Access Button (with the lowest level of awareness, at just 2 per cent).

Just 5 per cent of researchers are aware of Plan S – an initiative with potential to significantly affect publishing options for researchers around the world. Plan S been a headline story within the scholarly communications industry and been the focus of many political discussions around its aim of making all scholarly publications open access by 2025….”

OA potential remains untapped – report | Research Information

“Researchers want to improve access to research but remain largely unaware of initiatives and services established to increase open access (OA).

A survey of 2,755 Taylor & Francis authors, released for Open Access Week, reveals little consensus when it comes to permitting reuse of published research – and that researchers should be taking advantage more of the open access options available to them.

Some 66 per cent of researchers didn’t recognise any of 11 different initiatives presented to them, including the 2002 Budapest Open Access Declaration (with the highest level of researchers, 12 per cent, aware of this) and the Open Access Button (with the lowest level of awareness, at just 2 per cent).

Just 5 per cent of researchers are aware of Plan S – an initiative with potential to significantly affect publishing options for researchers around the world. Plan S been a headline story within the scholarly communications industry and been the focus of many political discussions around its aim of making all scholarly publications open access by 2025….”

ACADEMIC AUTHOR COPYRIGHT LOSS— IMPACTS AND REMEDIES

Abstract:  One of the cornerstones of scientific advancement is academic, peer-review publishing. Published articles are critical to advancing scientific research and disseminating verified results to other scientists and the public. Despite its importance, the copyright issues surrounding publishing are poorly understood by many of its scientific authors. In an effort to demystify and empower scientific authors, this Note discusses copyright ownership during the peer-review publishing process, loss of author copyright through publishing agreements, and remedies authors may employ to protect and distribute their works.

Open access popular with researchers but full potential remains untapped, says new global study

“New figures released for Open Access Week, reveal little consensus when it comes to permitting reuse of published research. The survey of 2,755 Taylor & Francis authors also finds they are failing to take advantage of the open access options available to them.

Sixty-six percent of researchers didn’t recognize any of 11 different initiatives presented to them, including the 2002 Budapest Open Access Declaration (with the highest level of researchers, 12 percent, aware of this) and the Open Access Button (with the lowest level of awareness, at just 2 percent).

Just 5 percent of researchers are aware of Plan S—an initiative with potential to significantly affect publishing options for researchers around the world. Plan S has hit the headlines and been the focus of many political discussions around its aim of making all scholarly publications open access by 2025….”

Researcher survey 2019 – Author Services

“This new Taylor & Francis survey asked researchers around the globe for their opinions on a range of important scholarly communication issues, including:

Publishing habits: which publishing options researchers are currently choosing, including their use of green and gold open access, and how they decide which journals to submit to.
Licenses: researchers’ preferences for sharing and permitting reuse of different versions of their work.
Future scenarios for scholarly communication: including what researchers believe the impacts might be if all journals moved to publishing only open access articles, and the factors they think are important for ongoing and sustainable research communication in their field….”

Open access challenge at the national level: comprehensive analysis of publication channels used by Finnish researchers in 2016-2017

Abstract:  The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive picture of open access publishing in Finland. Data consists of the complete national peer-reviewed output of 48177 articles and books from 14 Finnish universities in 2016- 2017 stored in the VIRTA Publication Information Service. Each publication record contains an indication if it is openly available as Gold or Hybrid OA and/or if it is deposited in OA repository. Using this data, we investigate the share of openly available outputs across fields, as well as journal and book publishing, and analyse the open access status of all 10342 publication channels (journal/series and book publishers) used by Finnish researchers. We also examine the utility of international open access information sources, DOAJ and Bielefeld list for OA journals, and Sherpa/Romeo for self-archiving policies, in estimating the potential for open availability of peerreviewed outputs, as well as the importance of the largest international commercial publishers in light of these comprehensive national data.

Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study | Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:  Background: Predatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved.

Objective: Our objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory.

Methods: Potential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited.

Results: A total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall’s list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future.

Conclusions: Authors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors’ increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.

Identification of Influencing Factors Regarding the Decision for or Against an Open Access Publication of Scientists of Medical Informatics: Description and First Results of Group Discussions and Interviews

Abstract:  Open Access provides researchers another opportunity of publishing, besides the traditional publication in subscription-based journals. Providing higher dissemination and therefore visibility as well as better accessibility, among others, Open Access helps to fulfil changed needs of authors and readers in our information and communication society of today. Though this publication model provides a lot of advantages both for readers and authors, there are also some obstacles. In order to identify the incentives that can lead scientists of medical informatics to an Open-Access-publication, we conducted a study consisting of group discussions, interviews, and surveys. This tripartite evaluation starts in its first part with group discussions and interviews. First results of them show that, among others, the higher visibility, indexing, Impact Factor and better accessibility are factors for an Open-Access-publication.