Paige Hall Smith, PhD Associate Professor, Public Health Education Director, Center for Women’s...
Preview:
Citation preview
- Slide 1
- Paige Hall Smith, PhD Associate Professor, Public Health
Education Director, Center for Womens Health and Wellness Member,
UNCG Scholarly Communications Committee Open Access: A glimpse at
faculty perspectives
- Slide 2
- Survey Methodology and Participants 9 open-ended questions
using survey monkey Questions Published published in OA (Open
access) How did the experience compare to publishing in TJ
(Traditional Journal) Other experiences with OA Benefits to faculty
from OA Benefits to science and knowledge from OA Potential harm to
science and knowledge from OA Concerns about OA What should
university response to be growth of OA Other thoughts
- Slide 3
- Respondents Convenience sample Respondents N=41 Experience with
publishing in OA 34% published in OA 5% submitted but not published
61% neither Other experience 24% review/editorial board/copy
editing
- Slide 4
- How did publishing in OA compare to TJ BenefitsNegatives Equal
rigorsame people review for both OA and TJ Comparable Simpler
Faster More streamlined, valuable feedback Able to include AV Less
challenging and rigorous Seemed to simple
- Slide 5
- Benefits to faculty BenefitsConcerns Authors own work (keep
copyright) Work more widely available Not just scientists Not just
privileged few Researchers in nonacademic setting Global audience
(and for those without libraries) Potential for more interaction
with others Faster turnaround Able to publish work in new areas
None Hurdle in paying to publish Pad CV with less quality work
- Slide 6
- Benefits to science and knowledge Promotes equity of access
which is socially just Science should not be locked away accessible
only to privileged few Provides greater access by more and expands
the free exchange of ideas More sharing of knowledge More
comparison of own research Explore more cutting edge research
Better science Bench to publication is faster Undermines dominance
by few publishing companies Making scholarship more readily
available to students and the general public is a good thing. I
think in this era, when many of the public reject science and
celebrate ignorance, we should make access to science and knowledge
a priority. However, I think that open access to scholarly writing
needs to be accompanied by an effort on the part of scholars to
make their language understandable to the general public.
- Slide 7
- Concerns Costs of publishing to faculty is high and mostly
unaffordable This payment model becomes confused by many as a pay
to publish model May undermine peer review process Publish flawed
manuscripts Peer review in OA not rigorous pay to publish may
dominate over review More published work that is not good science
Author retaining copyright may increase plagiarism Explosion in
journals not affiliated with reputable publishers or organizations:
we depend on these reputations to be the gatekeepers of knowledge
Tenure and promotion will not know how to evaluate work in OA: not
know how to separate good from bad work and may not count them I am
concerned that the peer review process will not be as strong, that
it's a "pay for publication" scheme that will encourage lesser
quality manuscripts to be published, and that these articles are
the very ones that the public will have access to which may bias
their view of the literature. It appears that they will publish
most anything as long as it doesn't have a glaring flaw. Sometimes
they publish bad science, and media outlets may pick up the
research without realizing that its poorly done.
- Slide 8
- Quality science depends on reputable publishers and sound peer
review Quality scienceSound peer review Reputable publishers
- Slide 9
- OA could undermine the foundation of quality science
Questionable science Sketchy peer review Uncertain publishers
- Slide 10
- Flawed process undermines value of OA Uncertain publishers
& sketchy peer review Questionable science Undermines main
benefit of OA: wider access to more science General public and the
media have limited ability to discern good from bad science and may
draw wrong conclusions
- Slide 11
- What should the university do? Stay linked to Beals list Help
determine which journals are credible Make sure library has the
staff to help monitor the quality of OA journals Keep P&T
committees abreast of trends and ways to judge quality of outlets
for both OA and TJ Equal weight must be given to both OA and TJ in
P&T: this is an educational process Faculty who review for OA
should use same standards Assist with publication fees But only if
there is documentation of good scientific peer review Encourage TJ
to improve their response time and time to publication Or
RESIST!
- Slide 12
- Conclusion This limited study suggests that faculty find much
to value in the trend toward more OA publishing Particularly valued
is the potential for the democratization of scientific knowledge by
increasing access to this knowledge by the general public and
scientists without access to TJ Concerns center on the possibility
that OA could undermine scientific integrity by undermining the
peer review process; and Potential for inequities in publication
since most scientists cannot afford publications fees Solutions
center on ensuring sound peer review increasing the ability of the
academic community to monitor and evaluate the quality of OA
journals, and Increasing university support for publication
fees