Scholarly Communication Report: Final Draft

“FINDINGS
1. Researchers are embracing non-traditional modes of scholarly output. 
2. Researchers are interested in sharing their work more broadly and more meaningfully than they have in the past.
3. Researchers feel a tension between their desire to create and share broadly and the pressures of tenure and promotion.
4. Researchers view the library as a trusted authority with whom they
would like to partner in advocacy and new scholarly production….”

Geographic trends in attitudes to open access | Research Information

In the OA report, when asked whether authors had ever published in an OA journal, the majority of researchers from each country responded affirmatively (B, 68% of 1,133 respondents; I, 57% of 213; J, 59% of 708; UK 60% of 111; US, 51% of 419), except for China (34% of 2,085) and South Korea (44% of 409; roughly equal, yes verses no). Overall, across all survey respondents, with Yes at 45% and No at 35%, OA advocates may feel comfortable that the pendulum is swinging in the right direction. However, there are some striking differences in the geographic profiles of whether or not an author chooses to publish in an OA journal, with an overall 9% of responding authors indicating that they don’t know what OA publishing is.

For example, in response to why respondents chose to publish in an OA journal, more than 60% of authors in almost all geographic areas responded “I wanted my paper to be read by a larger audience” (B, 60% of 766; C, 69% of 710; I, 64% of 121; J, 64% of 415; UK, 63% of 67; US, 60% of 215), however in South Korea, only 37% of 181 authors responded in such a manner, and instead, 71% of 181 authors indicated that “I chose the journal that was the best fit for my paper and it happened to be OA”. This was in striking contrast to authors in the UK, for which the “best fit being OA” response was only indicated by 31% of 67 authors. Notably, when authors in the UK who had “never” published in an OA journal were asked why, 65% (of 34) said “I chose the journal that was the best fit for my paper and it happened to be a subscription journal”. …”

Open Access Publishing: New Evidence on Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors – The Scholarly Kitchen

On Friday, Ithaka S+R released the latest cycle of our long-standing US Faculty Survey. This survey has tracked the changing research, teaching, and publishing practices of higher education faculty members on a triennial basis since 2000. Here, we highlight some of the key findings around open access that we expect will be of interest to the scholarly communication community. Notably, we find a widening disconnect between faculty attitudes, on the one hand, and reported practices, on the other, related to open access publishing….”

Humanities Scholars and Library-Based Digital Publishing: New Forms of Publication, New Audiences, New Publishing Roles | Journal of Scholarly Publishing

Abstract:  The rise of library-based digital scholarly publishing creates new opportunities to meet scholars’ evolving publishing needs. This article presents findings from a national survey of humanities scholars on their attitudes toward digital publishing, the diversification of scholarly products, changing perceptions of authorship, and the desire to reach new audiences. Based on survey findings, the authors offer recommendations for how library publishers can make unique contributions to the scholarly publishing ecosystem and support the advancement of digital scholarship in the humanities by accommodating and sustaining more diverse products of digital scholarship, supporting new modes of authorship, and helping scholars reach broader audiences through interdisciplinary and open access publishing.

Ithaka S+R US Faculty Survey 2018 | Ithaka S+R

Faculty have displayed a notable increase in interest for an open access publication system since the last survey cycle. Approximately 64% of respondents in 2018 indicated they would be happy to see the traditional subscription-based publication model replaced entirely by an open access system compared to 57% in 2015.

Younger faculty are more interested than their older colleagues in replacing the traditional subscription-based system with an open access one (See Figure 32). This is perhaps surprising given that older faculty place more importance on the characteristics of open access when deciding in which journals to publish (see Figure 31). Older faculty are also more likely to understand the criteria used in tenure and promotion evaluations, and are less likely than younger faculty to shape their research outputs and publication choices to match the criteria for success in tenure and promotion (see Figure 32). This suggests that older faculty, who are often more established, published, and/or tenured, may make their publications and findings open because the traditional scholarly incentives are not as relevant for them….

Change ahead: How do smaller publishers perceive open access? | Impact of Social Sciences

“Small and medium-sized publishers also tend to operate much less profitably than large global publishers, which makes it difficult for them to to build new infrastructures and develop innovative offerings….

More than three quarters of all small and medium-sized publishers who took part in the survey published books and journals in the humanities and social sciences, reflecting the fact that global publishing companies dominate the market in natural sciences….[W]hilst all the participants in the survey publish scholarly books (usually fewer than 100 per year), most of them publish academic journals as well….

A vast majority (90%) of the 33 survey participants reported a slow or significant increase in Open Access requests from their authors. One third believed that Open Access will become the future standard of scholarly publishing; another 60% assumed that it will complement existing services….

Nearly half of respondents preferred Gold Open Access as a business model to Green and Hybrid Open Access. This cohort, as to be expected, also turned out to be more open-minded towards and experienced with Open Access publishing than the circa 30% who prefer Green Open Access….

Only a third of respondents reported making their Open Access publications accessible via established platforms such as the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB), and no more than 27% say they have a self-archiving policy. Only 20% of the publishers rated their staff’s knowledge of Open Access as “very good” and there are considerable differences depending on disciplines and publishing programmes….

Most expect a decline in sales as a consequence of the free availability of “their” works and associate Open Access with legal uncertainties, unclear business models and pressure from politicians and funders. However, a considerable number of publishers apparently have also not yet paid much attention to the issue. Only 67% of the participants state that they are familiar with the content of the “Berlin Declaration“, a fundamental document of the Open Access movement, and 43% say the requirements for Open Access publications are unclear to them….

Overall, “traditional” publishers are more open-minded than might be expected about the topic of Open Access and for good reason: funder announcements, such as Plan S, that they will move to only accepting Open Access publications are rapidly becoming more effective. Scholarly Publishers who do not adapt their services to this changing demand, or who are unaware of it at all, are likely to have a rude awakening in the future.”

The Unstoppable Rise of Sci-Hub: How does a new generation of researchers perceive Sci-Hub? | Impact of Social Sciences

“How do early career researchers (ECRs) use Sci-Hub and why? In this post David Nicholas assesses early career researcher attitudes towards the journal pirating site, finding a strong preference for Sci-Hub amongst French ECRs. He raises the question, will Sci-Hub prove the ultimate disruptor and bring down the existing status quo in scholarly communications?…”

Open data: growing pains | Research Information

“In its latest State of Open Data survey, Figshare revealed that a hefty 64 per cent of respondents made their data openly available in 2018.

The percentage, up four per cent from last year and seven per cent from 2016, indicates a healthy awareness of open data and for Daniel Hook, chief executive of Figshare’s parent company, Digital Science, it spells good news….

For example, the majority of respondents – 63 per cent – support national mandates for open data, an eight  per cent rise from 2017. And, at the same time, nearly half of the respondents – 46 per cent – reckon data citations motivate them to make data openly available. This figure is up seven per cent from last year….

Yet, amid the data-sharing success stories, myriad worries remain. Top of the pile is the potential for data misuse….

Inappropriate sharing of data is another key concern….

Results indicated that a mighty 58 per cent of respondents felt they do not receive sufficient credit for sharing data, while only nine per cent felt they do….

Coko recently won funding from the Sloan Foundation to build DataSeer, an online service that will use Natural Language Processing to identify datasets that are associated with a particular article. …”

Scholarly Communication Practices in Humanities and Social Sciences: A Study of Researchers’ Attitudes and Awareness of Open Access : Open Information Science

Abstract:  This paper examines issues relating to the perceptions and adoption of open access (OA) and institutional repositories. Using a survey research design, we collected data from academics and other researchers in the humanities, arts and social sciences (HASS) at a university in Australia. We looked at factors influencing choice of publishers and journal outlets, as well as the use of social media and nontraditional channels for scholarly communication. We used an online questionnaire to collect data and used descriptive statistics to analyse the data. Our findings suggest that researchers are highly influenced by traditional measures of quality, such as journal impact factor, and are less concerned with making their work more findable and promoting it through social media. This highlights a disconnect between researchers’ desired outcomes and the efforts that they put in toward the same. Our findings also suggest that institutional policies have the potential to increase OA awareness and adoption. This study contributes to the growing literature on scholarly communication by offering evidence from the HASS field, where limited studies have been conducted. Based on the findings, we recommend that academic librarians engage with faculty through outreach and workshops to change perceptions of OA and the institutional repository.