Open Access News

The University of California has released an extensive study of UC faculty, Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication: Survey Findings from the University of California, August 2007.  Also see the executive summary, the survey instrument, and today’s announcement from John Ober, Director of UC’s Office of Scholarly Communication.  From the executive summary:

There is limited but significant use of alternative forms of scholarship, with 21% of faculty having published in open-access journals, and 14% having posted peer-reviewed articles in institutional repositories or disciplinary repositories. Such publishing appears to be seen as supplementing rather than substituting for traditional forms of publication. Furthermore, the large majority of faculty authors readily cede their copyright rights to scholarly societies and to commercial publishers. However, 7% of faculty authors have modified the copyright terms of a publication contract, and 4% have refused to agree to terms and thereby have forgone the opportunity to publish in a significant journal....

Furthermore, UC faculty appear to believe that nearly all published materials eventually appear online through the efforts of publishers or aggregators, and are accessible to almost anyone on the Internet. Such is not the case, however, as many published materials are legally accessible only by subscription or with the explicit author/institutional act of alternative or supplementary dissemination. These misconceptions may well stem from the UC faculty’s access to an unusually rich set of subscriptions and resource-sharing services managed by the University’s libraries....

In May 2006, a special committee of the UC Academic Council proposed that faculty routinely grant to the University a limited, nonexclusive license to place their scholarly publications in a noncommercial, publicly accessible online repository.  Under the proposal, granting this license would be the default situation, but faculty could choose to opt out. Despite full faculty governance review and discussion, the survey revealed that the vast majority of the faculty was unaware of the proposal. Asked to opine, based on a short précis of the proposal, 50% of the respondents expressed [word missing?]; support was tempered by concerns about implementation and impact....

Approximately two-thirds of faculty respondents reported being aware of or knowledgeable about open-access journals and repositories of open-access content. Faculty appear unwilling to undertake activities, such as forcing changes on publishers, that might undermine the viability of the system or threaten their personal success as traditionally evaluated....There is no dominant view about the potential impact of open-access publishing. However, a number of free-form comments highlighted concern that new forms of scholarly communication might come at the expense of existing publishers. For example, with regard to open access, some respondents voiced concern that it would undermine the financial viability of societies or commercial publishers, or that new payment models might simply shift the cost burden from institutions to individual faculty authors....

Consistently throughout the survey’s free-form comments, faculty indicated that they want to preserve the quality of published works, regardless of the form or venue. Many respondents voiced concerns that new forms of scholarly communication, such as openaccess journals or repositories, might produce a flood of low-quality output. Faculty showed broad and strong loyalty to the current peer-review system as the primary means of ensuring the quality of published works now and in the future, regardless of form or venue....

[In addition to] the lack of faculty knowledge about the potential change in University policy (mentioned above)...respondents were overwhelmingly unaware of eScholarship services, a University-wide set of tools and electronic publishing services for enabling the electronic creation and dissemination of published and unpublished works. This is an interesting contrast to the relative success of eScholarship, as evidenced by the significant quantity, quality, and regularity of contributions and the heavy use that content receives....

Comment.  As I said about an earlier study:  “All the fears or reservations documented by this study can be answered.  But it reminds us that we still have a long way to go in educating authors.  If we distinguish obstacles from objections, this study is all about obstacles, and none of the obstacles amounts to an objection.”  To repeat:  We still have a long way to go in educating authors.

Update. Also see Chris Armbruster's comments comparing the results of this survey with the results of a July 2006 Berkeley survey. "While [the 2006 study] interprets its findings...as indicating that academic values stand in the way of progress, the [new study] interprets its survey results as showing that institutional policies are the primary obstacle."

Update. The survey was conducted by Greenhouse Associates, which has posted five lessons it draws from the survey:

• There is a gap in scholars’ attitudes versus actual behaviors regarding where and how they disseminate their scholarly output. While UC faculty feel that the current scholarly communication systems need to be changed and updated, they generally conform to conventional behavior in their own chosen outlets, favoring traditional print journals over open-access journals or other alternatives. Lesson: Concern does not always translate into immediate changes in behavior.

• The current academic tenure and promotion system, which generally rewards faculty for publishing articles in well-established journals, impedes changes in faculty behavior. UC’s faculty consistently express concern about the existing promotion and tenure system, complain that it is not keeping up to date with new forms of dissemination, and say that the existing reward systems favor traditional publishing forms and venues. Lesson: The apparent advantages of new technology or other innovation do not always win out over established ways of doing business, especially when individual preferences may be subordinate to institutional rules.

• While faculty show interest in learning about dissemination modes occurring across the scholarly community, their awareness of alternative scholarly communication opportunities is generally low. Further, they express varying levels of concern about issues relating to commercial and society publishers, publishing costs, and copyright. Lesson: Where there’s smoke, there’s not necessarily fire. Despite an active dialogue in the press and on blogs about these issues, they are not yet part of the discourse among mainstream academic scholars.

• Despite widespread dissatisfaction with the current scholarly communications system, scholars are concerned about preserving their current publishing outlets, and few faculty members express willingness to engage actively in fomenting change within their academic institutions or academic societies or with commercial publishers. Lesson: Personal reward systems can be a strong factor affecting change.

• Senior faculty may be the most fertile targets for innovation in scholarly communication. Younger faculty, while likely to be more comfortable with new technologies, are less likely to adopt new forms of scholarly communication because tenure and promotion systems drive them to publish in traditional ways. Lesson: Even when a market (e.g., academic scholars) appears homogeneous, analyzing the market to understand different segments, their needs, and behaviors can yield important insights that are critical for fostering change (or marketing products).