Stony Brook University Author Perspectives on Article Processing Charges

Pilato, Victoria; Tran, Clara

doi:10.7710/2162-3309.2349

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings in terms of how authors pay for APCs are consistent with the existing literature, as less than 20% of our respondents reported using personal funds. Similar studies also report the general sentiment that OA journals are of lower quality [12,13], which was reflected in the free text comments left by our faculty respondents. Finally, our results echo the disconnect reported in previous studies, where researchers and authors support the concept of OA but believe that APCs are too expensive and should not be paid by authors.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…Finally, our results echo the disconnect reported in previous studies, where researchers and authors support the concept of OA but believe that APCs are too expensive and should not be paid by authors. Pilato & Tran [13] found that the majority of authors are unwilling to contribute any personal funds to APCs, which reflects our finding that about 70% of respondents Disagree or Strongly Disagree that APCs should be paid by authors. It is clear that despite support for the concept of OA, authors will typically publish behind a paywall when funding is not available.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

“…A 2020 survey of authors at a public university in New York State found that the majority of authors will not pay APCs out of personal funds and feel that institutions should be responsible for paying APCs. It is worth noting that this study, while similar to our own, did not focus solely on Biomedical/Health Sciences authors, for whom APCs are often the highest [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Faculty Attitudes Towards Article Processing Charges for Open Access Articles

Halevi

Walsh

2021

Pub Res Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article Processing Charges (APCs) are significant charges for publishing Open Access (OA), and have no accepted standards for authors to source the funds or negotiate the charges. While there is a growing body of literature exploring academic authors’ perceptions of OA publishing, there is little data on how authors pay for APCs. The aim of this study was to examine how authors prepare for and fund APCs, as well as their perceptions of these charges. In early 2021 the authors deployed a survey to Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai faculty members via email. The survey was completed by 310 faculty, representing 10.6% of the active researcher population. Our findings show that about 50% of respondents include anticipated APC costs in grant applications, and that 16% of faculty will pay APCs using personal funds. Questions evaluating perception of APCs show that while the majority of respondents support the concept of Open Access, most believe that charges are too high and should not fall on authors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Faculty Attitudes Towards Article Processing Charges for Open Access Articles

Halevi

Walsh

2021

Pub Res Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As previously mentioned, the academy continues to reward authors who publish in prestigious journals, and that impacts decisions on where faculty choose to publish. Research by Pilato and Tran (2020) carried out at Stony Brook University in the United States (US), found that 83% of respondents prefer to publish in a prestigious journal or a journal of their choice rather than in an open access journal.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Author preferences for open access in Portugal: survey findings

Carvalho

Boock

Todorova

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeSurveying authors at doctoral-granting institutions of higher education in Portugal, the authors in this paper aim to seek to determine the extent to which Portuguese researchers prefer that their work appears in open access journals or open access repositories resulting in improved access to quality, peer-reviewed scientific information and faster scientific and technological advances. The authors also seek to gauge Portuguese author's familiarity with open access, the importance they attach to open access when choosing a publication outlet, and to determine their preferences for achieving open access.Design/methodology/approachThe methodology adopted in this research is the case study. The case study intends to understand a complex social phenomenon through an in-depth study holistically. In May 2020, the authors distributed a survey to faculty in all academic ranks at 14 Portuguese higher education institutions to learn the extent to which Portuguese authors currently make their research openly available, ascertain their awareness of open access, their support of the European Union (EU) open access goal and their preferences for achieving open access.FindingsResearchers at Portuguese universities overwhelmingly are aware of arguments in favor of open access and believe that open access benefits researchers in their fields. Portuguese researchers regularly publish in open access journals and deposit their papers in institutional or disciplinary repositories.Research limitations/implications16.7% of 740 potential respondents completed the survey. The relatively low response rate prevents extrapolations from being made to the universe. The study was implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, which, due to the disruption created in all sectors, made data collection complex and delayed its subsequent treatment.Originality/valueSimilar studies have been conducted at individual universities and in particular disciplines to determine the degree to which their faculty authors are aware of open access, its benefits, and preferences for achieving it. A similar study of Bulgarian university authors was conducted in 2018. No previous study of Portuguese authors at institutions of higher education has been conducted. The results will be useful to Portuguese institutions of higher education and academic libraries to establish and revise open access outreach and implementation services that may be helpful to their faculty in meeting EU open access and funder open access requirements.

show abstract

A Qualitative Analysis of Open-Access Publishing-Related Posts on Twitter

Okere,

Onyebinama

2024

Open Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The open-access (OA) discourse is shrouded in controversy and is actively discussed on forums like social media, where scholars engage in professional conversations. The mining of the conversations of the Twitter (X) scholarly community with an open-source intelligence tool for a 7-day time frame yielded a cleaned dataset of 67 posts, which were analyzed and coded into seven major themes. Most Twitter users who participated in the #openaccess discussion were scholars (64%), but (institutions) libraries and publishers, universities, and repositories were also part of the participants in the discourse. The major themes that were identified in the corpus of posts retrieved were article processing charges (25%), repositories (16%), paywalls (15%), support initiatives for OA (15%), definitions of OA (12%), benefits of OA (10%), and OA policies (10%). These themes were found to be of high interest to scholars and in line with contemporary research, based on the volume and tone of the peer-reviewed literature that supports the study. While Twitter (X) can be accepted as an authentic platform for exploring scholarly discourse, such studies can also lean on other forums for scholarly communication such as LinkedIn, Facebook, focus groups, peer-reviewed literature, and institutional policies for a well-rounded exploration of the evolving perspectives and practices of OA publishing.

show abstract

Stony Brook University Author Perspectives on Article Processing Charges

Abstract: This article underwent semi-anonymous peer review in accordance with JLSC's peer review policy.

Cited by 4 publications

References 14 publications

Faculty Attitudes Towards Article Processing Charges for Open Access Articles

Faculty Attitudes Towards Article Processing Charges for Open Access Articles

Author preferences for open access in Portugal: survey findings

A Qualitative Analysis of Open-Access Publishing-Related Posts on Twitter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About