OAPEN-UK Final Year Benchmarking Survey of Participants

Survey respondents

Group Total number of respondents

Number in control group

Number in experiment group

All authors 21

Tracking authors 17

Total number of respondents

Publishers University staff Authors Funders

Advisory group 10 5 2 2 1

‘All authors’ refers to all authors who completed the survey in 2015.‘Tracking authors’ refers to those authors who completed both the 2011 and 2015 surveys (baseline and final)

Due to staff turnover, only 5 members of the steering group completed both the baseline and final survey. Therefore we are not presenting comparative data for the advisory group.

Most UK-based authors know about RCUK mandate and HEFCE policy, but not Crossick Report

Base: all authors based in UK

RCUK mandate HEFCE policy Crossick Report0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

12

8

4

1

5

9

AwareNot aware

Green OA is more common than Gold, but many authors don’t know which option they’ve used

Of the content you have published via open access, was most of it published using Gold open access (payment to the publisher) or Green open access (post-publication archiving in a repository)?

Base: all authors with OA publications

Gold Green Same Don't know0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

2

4

1

4

Tracking the authorsWe compared data from authors who responded to both baseline and year one surveys. This is a small sample so it is dangerous to draw sweeping conclusions. There are also some specific issues:

• We changed the survey questions in year 1 to reflect feedback from the advisory group, splitting some response categories into two options. Therefore, for some data we are not presenting responses to exactly the same questions. We have highlighted where this happens.

Participant familiarity with open access has increased

This chart shows author levels of familiarity with open access in baseline and final surveys. No authors showed a decrease in familiarity with open access, and by the final survey none of our tracking authors considered themselves unfamiliar with open access.

Base: authors responding baseline and final

Increased Same0

2

4

6

8

10

12

10

7

Electronic publishing has become more commonThis chart shows the number of authors who said they had not published electronically at baseline, but had published electronically in the final survey.

Base: authors responding baseline and final

Articles Book chapters Books0

2

4

6

8

10

12

6

5

10

Views on the effect of OA on scholarly communications goals have changed

Base: authors responding baseline and final

Baseline Final Description

Availability and dissemination

Availability Ensuring the work is reliably available to readers

Availability and dissemination

Dissemination Ensuring the research reaches the maximum number of readers who will find it relevant

Efficiency and effectiveness

Efficiency and effectiveness

Ensuring authors and readers are offered services that meet their needs

Quality Quality Selecting and signalling high-quality work using tools such as peer review

Reputation and reward

Reputation Increasing the profile and prestige of a scholar within his or her discipline

Reputation and reward

Reward For example, giving published scholars financial reward through royalties, or career reward through impact measures

Organisation and preservation

Organisation Curating important content and ensuring that relevant research can be found

Organisation and preservation

Preservation Preserving important content in the longer term

Views on the effect of OA on scholarly communications goals have changed

Base: authors responding baseline and final

Availa

bility

Dissem

ination

Efficie

ncy an

d effecti

veness

Quality

Reputati

on

Reward

Organisa

tion

Preserv

ation

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

12 11

3

8

4 5 6 7

2 3

8

2

62

3

5

1 1

2 4 4

7

62111 1 1

No change More positive More negative No longer know Neutral (from don't know)

Views on the effect of OA on scholarly communications goals have changed• Measures of availability and dissemination only ones not to show much change

in attitude over 3 years• For OA effects on:

• efficiency & effectiveness, half of respondents are more positive than they were at baseline

• reward (the financial measure), almost half of respondents are more negative than they were at baseline

• reputation (the non-financial measure), 6 respondents became more positive and 4 became more negative than at baseline

• organisation, around half the respondents changed their view, with most becoming more negative

• preservation, around half the respondents changed their view, with most becoming more positive

• By the final survey, there were only 2 ‘I don’t know’ responses to the various measures, compared to 15 at baseline (though do remember the changed question, which may affect this)

• Why have opinions changed so much? Increasing familiarity with OA for journals? Evolving OA book landscape makes possibilities more concrete?

Views on the effect of OA on sales have changed

Base: authors responding baseline and final

Print sales Online usage0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

5

12

5

4

2

1 1

No change More positiveMore negative No longer know what I thinkNeutral (from I don't know)

• Most authors changed their view of the effect of OA on print sales: about evenly split between those who became more positive and those who became more negative

• Views on online usage have generally stayed the same: the 12 authors who expressed this all felt the impact would be very positive

OAPEN-UK participation increases understandingWe asked whether participation in OAPEN-UK had increased the advisory group members’ understanding of other groups involved in the scholarly communications process, specifically their role in publishing open access monographs.

This chart shows whether members of the advisory group felt their understanding of researchers, librarians, publishers and funders had increased.

Note that some respondents felt their understanding of their own group’s role had improved through participation in the project, particularly publishers.

Base: all AG respondentsResearchers Librarians Publishers Funders

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

21 1

7

8

3

7

23

7

3

A lotA littleNot at all