Your views on Open Access publishing are needed!
BioMed Central has partnered with CERN, The Max Planck Society, and others in the European Commission-funded project SOAP – a Study of Open Access Publishing.
The project analyzes researchers’ attitudes towards, knowledge of and experiences with open access. The resulting insights as well as recommendations will be shared with the European Commission, publishers, research funding agencies, libraries and researchers.
Your contribution will be very valuable in shaping the public discourse on open access and we would be very grateful if you could take 10-15 minutes to complete this survey.
Please follow this link:
Thank you in advance for your help,
It happens that I had already completed the survey. It did require only about 10-15 minutes to complete. I found Question 23 especially interesting:
23. Listed below are a series of statements, both positive and negative, concerning Open Access publishing. Please indicate how strongly you agree/disagree with each statement.
[Responses are via a 5-level Likert item in typical format: ‘Strongly agree'; ‘Agree'; ‘Neither agree nor disagree'; ‘Disagree'; or ‘Strongly disagree’].
Open Access publishing leads to an increase in the publication of poor quality research
[That OA scientific journals won’t preserve the quality/pedigree of science is one of the suggestions made by Eric Dezenhall to the Association of American Publishers – see Open Access to Science Under Attack by David Biello, Scientific American, January 26, 2007. For a recent response to a suggestion of this kind, see: PLoS ONE: Editors, contents and goals, available via: http://ff.im/jPasa]
Open Access unfairly penalises research-intensive institutions with large publication output by making them pay high costs for publication
[This is an issue for Gold OA based on article-processing fees (APFs) – see, for example, Science in the open, Nature Materials 2009; 8: 611. For some comments about this issue, see: More on the costs of scholarly communications, Peter Suber, May 22, 2008]
It is not beneficial for the general public to have access to published scientific and medical articles
Publicly-funded research should be made available to be read and used without access barrier
Open Access publishing is more cost-effective than subscription-based publishing and so will benefit public investment in research
[For a summary of a pro-OA perspective on this issue, see: Major new report on the economic implications of OA, Peter Suber, Open Access News, January 27, 2009]
Articles that are available by Open Access are likely to be read and cited more often than those not Open Access
[This is actually two questions. The ‘read more?’ issue is currently less controversial than the ‘cited more?’ issue. For an extensive bibliography from The Open Citation Project, see: The effect of open access and downloads (‘hits’) on citation impact: a bibliography of studies]
If authors pay publication fees to make their articles Open Access, there will be less money available for research
Researchers should retain the rights to their published work and allow it to be used by others
Open Access publishing undermines the system of peer review
[Another suggestion made by Eric Dezenhall was to “Paint a picture of what the world would look like without peer-reviewed articles” (quoted in Open Access to Science Under Attack by David Biello, Scientific American, January 26, 2007). See also: Will open access undermine peer review?, Peter Suber, SPARC Open Access Newsletter, September 2, 2007]
Comment: A weakness of the SOAP Survey is that it appears to be feasible to respond to it more than once.