OAPEN-UK Final Year Benchmarking Survey of Participants

Survey respondents GroupTotal number of respondents Number in control group Number in experiment group All authors21 Tracking authors17 Total number of respondents PublishersUniversity staffAuthorsFunders Advisory group ‘All authors’ refers to all authors who completed the survey in ‘Tracking authors’ refers to those authors who completed both the 2011 and 2015 surveys (baseline and final) Due to staff turnover, only 5 members of the steering group completed both the baseline and final survey. Therefore we are not presenting comparative data for the advisory group.

Most UK-based authors know about RCUK mandate and HEFCE policy, but not Crossick Report Base: all authors based in UK

Green OA is more common than Gold, but many authors don’t know which option they’ve used Of the content you have published via open access, was most of it published using Gold open access (payment to the publisher) or Green open access (post-publication archiving in a repository)? Base: all authors with OA publications

Tracking the authors We compared data from authors who responded to both baseline and year one surveys. This is a small sample so it is dangerous to draw sweeping conclusions. There are also some specific issues: We changed the survey questions in year 1 to reflect feedback from the advisory group, splitting some response categories into two options. Therefore, for some data we are not presenting responses to exactly the same questions. We have highlighted where this happens.

Participant familiarity with open access has increased This chart shows author levels of familiarity with open access in baseline and final surveys. No authors showed a decrease in familiarity with open access, and by the final survey none of our tracking authors considered themselves unfamiliar with open access. Base: authors responding baseline and final

Electronic publishing has become more common This chart shows the number of authors who said they had not published electronically at baseline, but had published electronically in the final survey. Base: authors responding baseline and final

Views on the effect of OA on scholarly communications goals have changed Base: authors responding baseline and final BaselineFinalDescription Availability and dissemination AvailabilityEnsuring the work is reliably available to readers Availability and dissemination DisseminationEnsuring the research reaches the maximum number of readers who will find it relevant Efficiency and effectiveness Ensuring authors and readers are offered services that meet their needs Quality Selecting and signalling high-quality work using tools such as peer review Reputation and reward ReputationIncreasing the profile and prestige of a scholar within his or her discipline Reputation and reward RewardFor example, giving published scholars financial reward through royalties, or career reward through impact measures Organisation and preservation OrganisationCurating important content and ensuring that relevant research can be found Organisation and preservation PreservationPreserving important content in the longer term

Views on the effect of OA on scholarly communications goals have changed Base: authors responding baseline and final

Views on the effect of OA on scholarly communications goals have changed Measures of availability and dissemination only ones not to show much change in attitude over 3 years For OA effects on: efficiency & effectiveness, half of respondents are more positive than they were at baseline reward (the financial measure), almost half of respondents are more negative than they were at baseline reputation (the non-financial measure), 6 respondents became more positive and 4 became more negative than at baseline organisation, around half the respondents changed their view, with most becoming more negative preservation, around half the respondents changed their view, with most becoming more positive By the final survey, there were only 2 ‘I don’t know’ responses to the various measures, compared to 15 at baseline (though do remember the changed question, which may affect this) Why have opinions changed so much? Increasing familiarity with OA for journals? Evolving OA book landscape makes possibilities more concrete?

Views on the effect of OA on sales have changed Base: authors responding baseline and final Most authors changed their view of the effect of OA on print sales: about evenly split between those who became more positive and those who became more negative Views on online usage have generally stayed the same: the 12 authors who expressed this all felt the impact would be very positive

OAPEN-UK participation increases understanding We asked whether participation in OAPEN-UK had increased the advisory group members’ understanding of other groups involved in the scholarly communications process, specifically their role in publishing open access monographs. This chart shows whether members of the advisory group felt their understanding of researchers, librarians, publishers and funders had increased. Note that some respondents felt their understanding of their own group’s role had improved through participation in the project, particularly publishers. Base: all AG respondents