Researcher’s Perceptions on Publishing “Negative” Results and Open Access | Nucleic Acid Therapeutics

Abstract:  Scientific advance is based on reproducibility, corroboration, and availability of research results. However, large numbers of experimental results that contradict previous work do not get published and many research results are not freely available as they are hidden behind paywalls. As part of COST Action “DARTER”, a network of researchers in the field of RNA therapeutics, we have performed a small survey among our members and their colleagues to assess their opinion on the subject of publishing contradictory or ambiguous results and their attitude to open access (OA) publishing. Our survey indicates that, although researchers highly value publication of “negative” results, they often do not publish their own, citing lack of time and the perception that those results may not be as highly cited. OA, on the other hand, seems to be widely accepted, but in many cases not actively sought by researchers due to higher costs associated with it.

 

Researcher’s Perceptions on Publishing “Negative” Results and Open Access | Nucleic Acid Therapeutics

Abstract:  Scientific advance is based on reproducibility, corroboration, and availability of research results. However, large numbers of experimental results that contradict previous work do not get published and many research results are not freely available as they are hidden behind paywalls. As part of COST Action “DARTER”, a network of researchers in the field of RNA therapeutics, we have performed a small survey among our members and their colleagues to assess their opinion on the subject of publishing contradictory or ambiguous results and their attitude to open access (OA) publishing. Our survey indicates that, although researchers highly value publication of “negative” results, they often do not publish their own, citing lack of time and the perception that those results may not be as highly cited. OA, on the other hand, seems to be widely accepted, but in many cases not actively sought by researchers due to higher costs associated with it.

 

National comparisons of early career researchers’ scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours – Jamali – – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  The paper compares the scholarly communication attitudes and practices of early career researchers (ECRs) in eight countries concerning discovery, reading, publishing, authorship, open access, and social media. The data are taken from the most recent investigation in the 4?year?long Harbingers project. A survey was undertaken to establish whether the scholarly communication behaviours of the new wave of researchers are uniform, progressing, or changing in the same overall direction or whether they are impacted significantly by national and cultural differences. A multilingual questionnaire hosted on SurveyMonkey was distributed in 2019 via social media networks of researchers, academic publishers, and key ECR platforms in the UK, USA, France, China, Spain, Russia, Malaysia, and Poland. Over a thousand responses were obtained, and the main findings are that there is a significant degree of diversity in terms of scholarly communication attitudes and practices of ECRs from the various countries represented in the study, which cannot be solely explained by the different make?up of the samples. China, Russia, France, and Malaysia were more likely to be different in respect to a scholarly activity, and responses from the UK and USA were relatively similar.

 

National comparisons of early career researchers’ scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours – Jamali – – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  The paper compares the scholarly communication attitudes and practices of early career researchers (ECRs) in eight countries concerning discovery, reading, publishing, authorship, open access, and social media. The data are taken from the most recent investigation in the 4?year?long Harbingers project. A survey was undertaken to establish whether the scholarly communication behaviours of the new wave of researchers are uniform, progressing, or changing in the same overall direction or whether they are impacted significantly by national and cultural differences. A multilingual questionnaire hosted on SurveyMonkey was distributed in 2019 via social media networks of researchers, academic publishers, and key ECR platforms in the UK, USA, France, China, Spain, Russia, Malaysia, and Poland. Over a thousand responses were obtained, and the main findings are that there is a significant degree of diversity in terms of scholarly communication attitudes and practices of ECRs from the various countries represented in the study, which cannot be solely explained by the different make?up of the samples. China, Russia, France, and Malaysia were more likely to be different in respect to a scholarly activity, and responses from the UK and USA were relatively similar.

 

Stony Brook University Author Perspectives on Article Processing Charges

Abstract:  INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of Stony Brook University (SBU) author perspectives on article processing charges (APCs). Publishing an article without restrictions, also known as open access publishing, can be a costly endeavor. Many publishers charge APCs ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars to publish an article without access restrictions. Authors who cannot obtain funding from grant agencies or their institution must pay APCs on their own. Do APCs fundamentally impact how authors choose their preferred publication venues? METHODS A cross-sectional survey was designed to learn SBU author perspectives on, and concerns about, APCs. RESULTS Responses mainly came from the sciences. Many SBU authors preferred to publish in a prestigious journal or journal of their choice rather than in an open access journal. Most authors published their articles in open access journals even if they were required to pay APCs. Many authors found that it was difficult finding funding for APCs and some expressed their concerns about the double charging practice. DISCUSSION SBU authors might believe that publishing in established and prestigious journals could secure their career’s advancement. Authors who chose to pay open access journals with APCs might be following publishing criteria. Libraries can encourage authors to negotiate with publishers to obtain a discount or waiver of APCs, when possible. Institutions should negotiate shifting journal subscription costs toward hybrid open access publishing. CONCLUSION Data will be used to inform how the SBU Libraries can help authors locate funding opportunities for APCs.

 

Attitudes towards open access publishing among BIPOC faculty Recruitment Survey

“This survey is intended to identify participants interested in participating in a focus group exploring attitudes towards open access publishing among faculty who identify as Black, Indigenous and/or people of color. The focus group will last approximately 90 (ninety) minutes and will be conducted online. This survey is completely voluntary and should take less than 20 (twenty) minutes to complete. All responses will be kept confidential by the two member research team.

Note that completing this survey does not guarantee participation in a focus group. The researchers are striving for a diverse representation of racial and ethnic identities. This survey will be used to identify a diverse sample of participants. Focus group participants will receive a $100 (USD) gift card. The nature of a focus group is such that confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. The researchers will provide participants with the procedures in place to maintain confidentiality of the research data and will inform participants not to repeat what is said in the focus group to others. This study has been approved by Adelphi University’s Office of Sponsored Research and Programs and Florida State University’s Sponsored Research Administration….”

The adoption of open access journals for publishing management research: A review of the literature and the experience of The University of the West Indies

Abstract:  The article reviews the literature in the field of academic journal publishing highlighting the phenomenon of the recent entry of Internet-driven open access journals into a field dominated by the traditional subscription journals. The article has a twofold purpose of gaining an understanding of the main features and characteristics of the open access journal system through a review of the literature; and assessing the extent of adoption of open access by researchers in the management discipline through a review of the management publications by the University of the West Indies (UWI) researchers. A sequential exploratory strategy of two phases was used. The first phase focused on the collection of secondary data on journal publishing and the second involved reviewing the publishing record of The UWI with particular reference to management research. The main finding is that open access was not fully embraced as a publishing outlet because of academic resistance derived from questions of acceptability, and the existence of a system that assigns greater recognition to the established subscription journals. The article concludes that open access journals have grown in respectability and quality and are a good option for publishing management research by authors located in developing regions, provided the operational characteristics of this mode of publishing are understood and caution in journal selection is exercised. 

Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing | Research Integrity and Peer Review | Full Text

Abstract:  Background

Our aim is to highlight the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review. Our argument is based on the literature and on responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open review track within the so-called Computer Human Interaction (CHI) conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction. This track currently is the only implementation of an open peer review process in the field of human-computer interaction while, with the recent increase in interest in open scientific practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields.

Methods

We ran an online survey with 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers, collecting quantitative data using multiple-choice questions and Likert scales. Qualitative data were collected using open questions.

Results

Our main quantitative result is that respondents are more positive to open and non-anonymous reviewing for alt.chi than for other parts of the CHI conference. The qualitative data specifically highlight the benefits of open and transparent academic discussions. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews.

Conclusion

While the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well-liked by alt.chi participants, they remain reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation.