“Exploring Open Access Practices, Attitudes, and Policies in Academic L” by Rachel E. Scott, Caitlin Harrington et al.

Abstract: This article reports the results of a 2019 survey of academic librarians that investigated their attitudes, practices, and policies regarding open access (OA). This study asks if academic librarians write policies to ensure that they approach OA intentionally and systematically across all library services. The results indicate that, though librarians report favorable beliefs about OA and integrating OA into technical and public services, they seldom create OA policies.

Springer Nature and the University of California join together to better understand author attitudes to open research | Corporate Affairs Homepage | Springer Nature

“Springer Nature and the University of California (UC) today launched a new initiative to gain greater understanding of researcher attitudes to and motivations towards open research practices (including open access articles, data, and code; transparent peer review; and preprints). As part of the partnership, participating UC authors will also have the option to trial Guided Open Access (GOA) for some flagship Nature titles….”

Survey on Cross-Cultural Open Science

“In recent years, there has been growing interest in a new type of open and transparent research worldwide. More and more practices are emerging that not only change the research process, but have already become an integral part of research in some disciplines. Thereby, the spectrum of practices is broad. It ranges from the preliminary disclosure of all hypotheses and analytical steps to the detailed publication of conducted analyses and collected data. These practices are often summarized under the term “Open Science”. The use of these practices and attitudes towards them vary from person to person, subject to subject, and country to country. However, a global picture of use and attitudes has not yet been determined.

Therefore, essential questions about the integration of Open Science cannot be answered yet:

 

Which Open Science practices are used?
What are the obstacles to the use of certain practices?
Are some practices perceived as particularly positive or particularly difficult?
Are there any national trends and differences across countries?

Your answers to these questions should provide possible impulses for the future goals of scientific work and, thus, make a decisive contribution to the further development of scientific practice.

 

We appreciate your participation in this project! Whether you use Open Science practices frequently or you have never heard of them, whether you are an advocate or opponent of the Open Science movement, your opinion is important to us!…”

Survey on Cross-Cultural Open Science

“In recent years, there has been growing interest in a new type of open and transparent research worldwide. More and more practices are emerging that not only change the research process, but have already become an integral part of research in some disciplines. Thereby, the spectrum of practices is broad. It ranges from the preliminary disclosure of all hypotheses and analytical steps to the detailed publication of conducted analyses and collected data. These practices are often summarized under the term “Open Science”. The use of these practices and attitudes towards them vary from person to person, subject to subject, and country to country. However, a global picture of use and attitudes has not yet been determined.

Therefore, essential questions about the integration of Open Science cannot be answered yet:

 

Which Open Science practices are used?
What are the obstacles to the use of certain practices?
Are some practices perceived as particularly positive or particularly difficult?
Are there any national trends and differences across countries?

Your answers to these questions should provide possible impulses for the future goals of scientific work and, thus, make a decisive contribution to the further development of scientific practice.

 

We appreciate your participation in this project! Whether you use Open Science practices frequently or you have never heard of them, whether you are an advocate or opponent of the Open Science movement, your opinion is important to us!…”

Faculty Survey on OER: Perceptions, Behaviors, and Implications for Library Practice

Abstract:  INTRODUCTION The Mary Couts Burnett Library at Texas Christian University (TCU) seeks to learn more about university faculty members’ perceptions and behaviors related to open educational resources (OER), and to identify one or more initiatives to increase adoption of OER at the university. METHODS The researchers sent a survey to all university faculty using Qualtrics™, and 104 persons responded. The survey used a combination of multiple-choice and free-text questions, and covered OER adoption and creation by faculty members, their perceptions of OER, and recommendations related to possible initiatives to increase OER interest. RESULTS Among respondents, almost half used OER either currently or in the past, while a fifth created their own OER. When comparing OER to traditional textbooks in terms of being scholarly, the majority indicated that OER and traditional textbooks were about the same level, but a quarter of faculty indicated that traditional textbooks were more scholarly. When asked about initiatives the library could pursue to increase faculty OER creation, the leading responses included financial support of faculty using OER, along with training opportunities. DISCUSSION The researchers were pleased to see that many faculty have used OER either currently or in the past, and that many had positive views surrounding OER. The researchers now have data that support the establishment of OER initiatives. CONCLUSION The survey informs the TCU Library and academic libraries in general. Two initiatives that libraries should consider are establishing an OER training program for faculty and developing a grant program to support faculty members who are adopting or creating OER. Libraries should collaborate with other units on campus such as the center for teaching excellence or the faculty senate.

 

Faculty Survey on OER: Perceptions, Behaviors, and Implications for Library Practice

Abstract:  INTRODUCTION The Mary Couts Burnett Library at Texas Christian University (TCU) seeks to learn more about university faculty members’ perceptions and behaviors related to open educational resources (OER), and to identify one or more initiatives to increase adoption of OER at the university. METHODS The researchers sent a survey to all university faculty using Qualtrics™, and 104 persons responded. The survey used a combination of multiple-choice and free-text questions, and covered OER adoption and creation by faculty members, their perceptions of OER, and recommendations related to possible initiatives to increase OER interest. RESULTS Among respondents, almost half used OER either currently or in the past, while a fifth created their own OER. When comparing OER to traditional textbooks in terms of being scholarly, the majority indicated that OER and traditional textbooks were about the same level, but a quarter of faculty indicated that traditional textbooks were more scholarly. When asked about initiatives the library could pursue to increase faculty OER creation, the leading responses included financial support of faculty using OER, along with training opportunities. DISCUSSION The researchers were pleased to see that many faculty have used OER either currently or in the past, and that many had positive views surrounding OER. The researchers now have data that support the establishment of OER initiatives. CONCLUSION The survey informs the TCU Library and academic libraries in general. Two initiatives that libraries should consider are establishing an OER training program for faculty and developing a grant program to support faculty members who are adopting or creating OER. Libraries should collaborate with other units on campus such as the center for teaching excellence or the faculty senate.

 

Frontiers | Behavioral Reluctance in Adopting Open Access Publishing: Insights From a Goal-Directed Perspective | Psychology

Abstract:  Despite growing awareness of the benefits of large-scale open access publishing, individual researchers seem reluctant to adopt this behavior, thereby slowing down the evolution toward a new scientific culture. We outline and apply a goal-directed framework of behavior causation to shed light on this type of behavioral reluctance and to organize and suggest possible intervention strategies. The framework explains behavior as the result of a cycle of events starting with the detection of a discrepancy between a goal and a status quo and the selection of behavior to reduce this discrepancy. We list various factors that may hinder this cycle and thus contribute to behavioral reluctance. After that, we highlight potential remedies to address each of the identified barriers. We thereby hope to point out new ways to think about behavioral reluctances in general, and in relation to open access publishing in particular.

 

Publishers Care about the Version of Record, Do Researchers? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“It was against this backdrop that I read Exploring Researcher Preference for the Version of Record, which reported on research Springer Nature conducted in collaboration with ResearchGate. It is perhaps obvious to caveat that it is in Springer Nature’s interests to use this study to reinforce the value of the VOR, a central position of a recent keynote by CEO Frank Vrancken Peeters at the APE 2021 conference.

The study was conducted “in situ” and leveraged the Springer Nature syndication pilot project that posted VOR articles for access on the ResearchGate platform. As Mithu Lucraft, Director for Content Marketing Strategy, of the Springer Nature Group and one of the study’s co-authors explained to me, the survey was presented to ResearchGate users that were logged in and who had interacted with at least one Springer Nature publication in the 60 days prior to the survey being live in October 2020. 

Importantly, survey participants were not only asked to choose which version of an article they prefer but also which versions they would feel comfortable using for different purposes. In many cases, participants indicated that multiple different versions would be acceptable for a given use, which indicates that a preprint or accepted manuscript can substitute for the VOR in some use cases but perhaps not all. …”

Librarians’ perceptions and motivations for supporting collaborative models for Open Access monographs · Commonplace

“While the survey revealed several discoveries regarding librarians’ confidence in collaborative OA models for monographs, one of the key findings was that librarians still support the basic principle of OA—despite the obstacles standing in the way—and are willing to support OA models for scholarly books via crowdfunding to help make them available worldwide. They also do not overlook the importance of local benefits (i.e., the benefits for their own communities) derived from their participation. Previous studies on OA already confirmed librarians’ positive attitudes about supporting OA monograph publishing: OAPEN-UK 2014 librarian survey, for example, revealed that 80 of librarians would support OA monograph publishing merely in principle (Collins & Milloy, 2016). The study did not focus on a particular model, but it did show librarians’ commitment to OA, not only in the context of journals but also monographs….”

Journal attitudes and outcomes of preprints in dermatology – Jia – – British Journal of Dermatology – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  The use of preprints, manuscripts that can be uploaded to a public server and made almost immediately available for public dissemination without peer review, is becoming increasingly common.1 Preprint servers are not typically associated with established peer?reviewed journals and often operate independently. Proponents of preprints point toward improved rapid dissemination of results and opportunities for crowdsourced feedback before submission to peer?reviewed journals.1 Conversely, inconsistent upload criteria among preprint servers (such as lack of guidance for reporting conflict of interest or image manipulation),1 and the risk for widespread discourse of non?peer reviewed results by news media may impinge on research integrity.2 As members of the public may not understand the difference between preprints and traditionally peer?reviewed articles, preprints have the potential to cause widespread confusion and mistrust.2 Use of preprints may also make publication of results in traditional journals more difficult, as the results may be perceived to be less novel. Despite controversy, the number of preprints continue to rise.3 There is limited understanding of how dermatology journals view and consider preprints. In this study, we explore dermatology journal policies toward the submission of preprint articles for publication, and corresponding publication outcomes of dermatology articles previously uploaded to a large clinically oriented preprint server.