Publishing habits and perceptions of open access publishing and public access amongst clinical and research fellows
Keywords:Open Access, Open Access Publishing, Publishing, Scholarly Communications, Clinical Fellows, Research Fellows, Medical Education, Libraries
Introduction: Open access (OA) publishing rates have risen dramatically in the biomedical sciences in the past decade. However, few studies have focused on the publishing activities and attitudes of early career researchers. The aim of this study was to examine current publishing activities of clinical and research fellows and their perceptions of OA publishing and public access.
Methods: This study employed a mixed methods approach. Data on publications authored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center fellows between 2013 and 2018 were collected via an in-house author profile system and citation indexes. Journals were categorized according to SHERPA/RoMEO classifications. In-person and telephone interviews were conducted with fifteen fellows to discern their perceptions of OA publishing.
Results: The total percentage of fellows’ publications that were freely available OA was 28.6%, with a relatively flat rate between 2013 and 2018. Publications with fellows as first authors were significantly more likely to be OA. Fellows cited high article processing charges (APCs) and perceived lack of journal quality or prestige as barriers to OA publishing. Fellows generally expressed support for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy.
Conclusions: While the fellows in this study acknowledged the potential of OA to aid in research dissemination, they also expressed hesitation to publish OA related to confusion surrounding legitimate OA and predatory publications and frustration with APCs. Fellows supported the NIH public access policy and accepted it as part of their research process. Health sciences information professional could potentially leverage this acceptance of public access to advocate for OA publishing.
This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program.
Rodriguez JE. Awareness and attitudes about open access publishing: a glance at generational differences. J Acad Libr. 2014 Nov;40(6):604–10.
Gaines AM. From concerned to cautiously optimistic: assessing faculty perceptions and knowledge of open access in a campus-wide study. J Libr Sch Comm. 2015;3(1):1–40.
Tenopir C, Dalton E, Christian L, Jones MK, McCabe M, Smith M, Fish A. Imagining a gold open access future: attitudes, behaviors, and funding scenarios among authors of academic scholarship. Coll Res Libr. 2017 Sep;78(6):824–43.
Serrano-Vicente R, Melero R, Abadal E. Open access awareness and perceptions in an institutional landscape. J Acad Libr. 2016 Sep;42(5):595–603.
Rowley J, Johnson F, Sbaffi L, Frass W, Devine E. Academics’ behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech. 2017 May;68(5):1201–11.
Dallmeier-Tiessen S, Darby R, Goerner B, 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. Highlights from the SOAP project survey. what scientists think about open access publishing [preprint]. arXiv. 2011:1101.5260.
Heaton R, Burns D, Thoms B. Altruism or self-interest? exploring the motivations of open access authors. Coll Res Libr. 2019 May;80(4):485–507.
Mischo WH, Schlembach MC. Open access issues and engineering faculty attitudes and practices. J Libr Admin. 2011;51(5-6):432–54.
Lwoga ET, Questier F. Open access behaviours and perceptions of health sciences faculty and roles of information professionals. Health Inf Libr J. 2015 Mar;32(1):37–49.
Kim J. Faculty self-archiving: motivations and barriers. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tech. 2010 Sep;61(9):1909–22.
Banks MA, Persily GL. Campus perspective on the National Institutes of Health public access policy: University of California, San Francisco, library experience. J Med Libr Assoc. 2010 Jul;98(3):256–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.98.3.015.
Charbonneau DH, McGlone J. Faculty experiences with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy, compliance issues, and copyright practices. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 Jan;101(1):21–5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.1.004.
Laakso M, Björk BC. Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Med. 2012;10(124):1–9.
Piwowar H, Priem J, Larivière V, Alperin JP, Matthias L, Norlander B, Farley A, West J, Haustein S. The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. Peer J Preprints. 2017;5:e3119v1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3119v1.
SHERPA/RoMEO. Definitions and terms [Internet]. SHERPA/RoMEO [cited 22 Jul 2019]. <http://sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/definitions.php?la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=simple&version=>.
Unpaywall. Frequently asked questions [Internet]. Unpaywall; 2018 [cited 22 Jul 2019]. <https://unpaywall.org/faq>.
Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition. Open access [Internet]. The Coalition; 2018 [cited 22 Jul 2019]. <https://sparcopen.org/open-access/>.
National Institute of Health. Frequently asked questions about the NIH public access policy [Internet]. The Institutes; 2014 [cited 22 Jul 2019]. <https://publicaccess.nih.gov/faq.htm#753>.
Shamash K. Article processing charges in 2016. Jisc Schol Comm [Internet]. 2017 [cited 22 Jul 2019]. <https://scholarlycommunications.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2017/08/23/article-processing-charges-in-2016/>.
Björk BC. Growth of hybrid open access, 2009–2016. Peer J. 2017;5:e3878.
Butler D. Dutch lead European push to flip journals to open access. Nature News [Internet]. 2016 [cited 20 Aug 2019]. <https://www.nature.com/news/dutch-lead-european-push-to-flip-journals-to-open-access-1.19111>.
Prosser D. The costs of double dipping. [Internet]. Research Libraries UK; 2015 [cited 20 Aug 2019]. <https://www.rluk.ac.uk/the-costs-of-double-dipping/>.
Dawson DD. Effective practices and strategies for open access outreach: a qualitative study. J Libr Schol Comm. 2018;6(1):eP2216.