Evidence Summary
Traditional Factors of Fit, Perceived Quality, and Speed of Publication
Still Outweigh Open Access in Authors’ Journal Selection Criteria
A Review of:
Solomon, D. J., & Björk,
B.-C. (2012). Publication fees in open access publishing: Sources of funding and
factors influencing choice of journal. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1),
98-107.
doi: 10.1002/asi.21660
Reviewed by:
Michelle Dalton
Assistant Librarian, HSE Mid-West Library &
Information Services
University of Limerick
Limerick, Ireland
Email: michelle.dalton@ul.ie
Received: 16 Aug. 2012 Accepted:
9 Oct. 2012
2012 Dalton.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike
License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc‐sa/2.5/ca/), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work
is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed,
the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this
one.
Abstract
Objective – To determine the extent
to which the open access (OA) status of a journal influences authors in their
journal selection decisions and to analyze the
sources of funding for the article-processing charges (APCs) applied in
professional OA publishing.
Design – Survey questionnaire.
Setting – The international open
access scholarly publishing sector.
Subjects – 1,038 researchers
across all academic disciplines who have recently published work in open access
journals that charge APCs.
Methods – Journals listed in the
Directory of Open Access Journals were stratified into seven discipline
clusters, and systematic random sampling was used where possible to collect a
sample of up to 15 journals per cluster that levy APCs. For each individual journal,
the authors of the 15 most recently published articles (working from 2010
backwards) were invited to complete a web-based questionnaire on the factors
influencing their choice of journal and the source(s) used to fund processing
charges. Additional background information about the authors and journals was
also collected and merged with the survey responses.
Main Results – The results
of the survey identified the fit of the article with the journal’s subject
area, the perceived quality or impact of the journal, and the speed of the
peer-review and publishing process as the dominant factors in the journal
selection decision of authors. All three aspects were judged as either “very
important” or “important” by 80% or more of respondents – significantly higher
than the corresponding figure of 60% in relation to the open access status of
the journal.
The analysis also indicated that two key elements
appear to influence how APCs are funded: the research discipline and the
country of origin of the author. The use of research grants to fund charges is
more prevalent in scientific disciplines than in the humanities, whilst
researchers based in lower-income countries more frequently identify APCs as a
barrier than those in higher-income countries. Grants and institutional funding
tend to be the primary sources of funding for journals with higher APCs, whilst
personal funding is utilised more often in cases where the fee is less than
$500.
Conclusion – Despite the
increasing focus on the accessibility and visibility of research, academics
still appear to place a greater value on ‘who’ rather than ‘how many’ readers
access their research, and consequently traditional factors still persist as
the main determinants in an author’s choice of journal. The future success of
the APC model, compared with the traditional subscription-based or hybrid
models, will ultimately depend on the ability of authors to obtain the
necessary funding to pay such charges, combined with the extent to which the
quality of services offered by open access publishers is perceived as being
commensurate with the associated publishing fees.
Commentary
The study deals with two emerging themes in scholarly
publishing: how authors typically evaluate and select journals, and how
scholars perceive the importance of a journal’s open access policy when
submitting manuscripts. These results lend resonance to the view that journal
rankings and impact factors (often used as a proxy for quality) remain highly
influential in the scholarly publishing environment.
While the intention of the study was to collect a
representative sample from all disciplines, the difficulty encountered in
obtaining sufficiently large samples outside the science technical and medical
field, where APCs are less prevalent, highlights possible limitations in terms
of the external validity and replicability of the
results. This problem in itself flags opportunities for further research into
why there is such a discrepancy in APC policies across disciplines, as well as
the use of the APC as a proxy for the willingness to pay for publishing
services, particularly with a view to estimating which services are valued
most: visibility and dissemination, the peer-review process, reputation, or
branding.
The authors state that the survey was piloted before
distribution with 123 authors across 4 journals, but that no subsequent changes
were made to the instrument. However, the study acknowledges the lack of
clarity in phrasing one of the questions (concerning the maximum charge authors
would be willing to pay), which led to some respondents misinterpreting the
intended context. This casts doubt over how effective this pilot testing
actually was, as well as the consistency and
reliability of the questionnaire. A more rigourous
approach in developing and testing the survey instrument may have anticipated
such problems and yielded more precise answers, thus increasing the validity of
the survey.
The concern that APCs are a more pervasive barrier for
authors in lower-income countries and those working in certain disciplines
where authors often pay charges from personal funds may ultimately lead to a
bias in the volume or geographic distribution of the research published in open
access journals if the APC model gains further traction. The overall awareness
and recognition of these fees should ideally be made more explicit at funding
agency and institutional levels, with more visible supports put in place by
both publishers and institutions for those working in areas where processing
charges act as a prohibitive barrier to publishing in OA journals.
From the evidence presented, it appears that
librarians still have an essential role to play in promoting the benefits of
open access publishing to researchers, with almost 20% of authors indicating that
the openness of a journal is of little or no influence when targeting a
publication. Furthermore, as the authors included in the sample exclusively
comprise those recently published in OA journals rather than those published in
both OA and subscription journals, this may be indicative, ceteris paribus,
that the figure across researchers as a whole is potentially even higher.
While the degree of openness may not currently be of
intrinsic importance to authors, it is clear that those factors which are judged
as critical are not exogenously determined. For instance, open access channels
may increase the potential fit of an article, as niche publishing becomes more
feasible in the context of a zero marginal cost model that is not dependent on
a high volume of reader subscriptions to fund it. Furthermore, a faster review
and publication process is also an advantage offered by several open access
journal publishers. Promoting and highlighting these endogenous relationships
to researchers could prove to be a valuable tool for librarians in further
leveraging the support of authors for open access publishing.
References
Boynton, P. M., & Greenhalgh,
T. (2004). Hands-on guide to
questionnaire research: Selecting, designing, and developing your
questionnaire. BMJ, 328, 1312. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7451.1312