JRSM > Volume 99, Number 3 > Pp. 141-148

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Send a Quick Comment Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Quick Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JRSM Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schroter, S. Articles by Tite, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Open access publishing and author-pays business models: a survey of authors' knowledge and perceptions

Sara Schroter¹   Leanne Tite²

¹ Senior Researcher, BMJ Publishing Group, BMJ Editorial Office, London WC1H 9JR, UK
² Research Assistant, BMJ Publishing Group, BMJ Editorial Office, London WC1H 9JR, UK

Correspondence to: Dr Sara Schroter E-mail: sschroter{at}bmj.com

Objectives: We aimed to assess journal authors' current knowledge and perceptions of open access and author-pays publishing.

Design: An electronic survey.

Setting: Authors of research papers submitted to BMJ, Archives of Disease in Childhood, and Journal of Medical Genetics in 2004.

Main outcome measures: Familiarity with and perceptions of open access and author-pays publishing.

Results: 468/1113 (42%) responded. Prior to definitions being provided, 47% (222/468) and 38% (176/468) reported they were familiar with the terms `open access' and `author-pays' publishing, respectively. Some who did not at first recognize the terms, did claim to recognize them when they were defined. Only 10% (49/468) had submitted to an author-pays journal. Compared with non-open access subscription-based journals, 35% agreed that open access author-pays journals have a greater capacity to publish more content making it easier to get published, 27% thought they had lower impact factors, 31% thought they had faster and more timely publicaitons, and 46% agreed that people will think anyone can pay to get published. 55% (256/468) thought they would not continue to submit to their respective journal if it became open access and charged, largely because of the reputaiton of the journals. Half (54%, 255/468) said open access has `no impact' or was `low priority' in their submission decisions. Two-thirds (66%, 308/468) said they would prefer to submit to a non-open access subscription-based journal than an open access author-pays journal. Over half thought they would have to make a contribution or pay the full cost of an author charge (56%, 262/468).

Conclusions: The survey yielded useful information about respondents' knowledge and perceptions of these publishing models. Authors have limited familiarity with the concept of open-access publishing and surrounding issues. Currently, open access policies have little impact on authors' decision of where to submit papers.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related articles in JRSM:

Open access for the JRSM

Kamran Abbasi
JRSM 2006 99: 101. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. A. Clauson, M. A. Veronin, N. M. Khanfar, and J. Q. Lou Open-access publishing for pharmacy-focused journals Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., August 15, 2008; 65(16): 1539 - 1544. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. K Singh The self-archiving principle: a momentous trek Postgrad. Med. J., September 1, 2007; 83(983): 564 - 567. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R M Rodriguez, J Wong, J Hardy, and E Frankel An evaluation of emergency medicine investigators' views on open access to medical literature Emerg. Med. J., December 1, 2006; 23(12): 895 - 898. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. K Aronson ;Open-access' publishing: first the evidence--then the verdict. J R Soc Med, March 1, 2006; 99(3): 103 - 104. [Full Text] [PDF]