Dear HIFA colleagues,
The research fellows in this study (based in New York City) 'expressed hesitation to publish OA related to confusion surrounding legitimate OA and predatory publications and frustration with APCs [author processing charges]'. I look forward to hear the experience of HIFA members as researchers/authors. What are the main incentives and disincentives for you to publish your research open access? How could these be optimised?
CITATION: Publishing habits and perceptions of open access publishing and public access amongst clinical and research fellows
Robin O’Hanlon et al. J Med Libr Assoc. 2020 Jan 1;108(1):47–58. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2020.751
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6919981/
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Open access (OA) publishing rates have risen dramatically in the biomedical sciences in the past decade. However, few studies have focused on the publishing activities and attitudes of early career researchers. The aim of this study was to examine current publishing activities of clinical and research fellows and their perceptions of OA publishing and public access.
Methods: This study employed a mixed methods approach. Data on publications authored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center fellows between 2013 and 2018 were collected via an in-house author profile system and citation indexes. Journals were categorized according to SHERPA/RoMEO classifications. In-person and telephone interviews were conducted with fifteen fellows to discern their perceptions of OA publishing.
Results: The total percentage of fellows’ publications that were freely available OA was 28.6%, with a relatively flat rate between 2013 and 2018. Publications with fellows as first authors were significantly more likely to be OA. Fellows cited high article processing charges (APCs) and perceived lack of journal quality or prestige as barriers to OA publishing. Fellows generally expressed support for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy.
Conclusions: While the fellows in this study acknowledged the potential of OA to aid in research dissemination, they also expressed hesitation to publish OA related to confusion surrounding legitimate OA and predatory publications and frustration with APCs. Fellows supported the NIH public access policy and accepted it as part of their research process. Health sciences information professionals could potentially leverage this acceptance of public access to advocate for OA publishing.
EXTRACTS
'While many health sciences information professionals have been at the forefront of open publishing initiatives, the vitality of the OA movement ultimately hinges on the decisions made by authors about where they publish their work.'
'Quote: "I’d like to publish more in open access journals, but some of the fees for authors are like $3000, $4000. I’m on a trainee salary, living in one of the most expensive cities in the country, I’ve got two kids. How could I ever afford that fee? It makes it untenable. I mean, with my research, I want to be “open,” but with the fees they charge, how can I?"
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org