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