Schroter Sara, Tite Leanne
BMJ Publishing Group, BMJ Editorial Office, London WC1H 9JR, UK.
J R Soc Med. 2006 Mar;99(3):141-8. doi: 10.1177/014107680609900316.
We aimed to assess journal authors' current knowledge and perceptions of open access and author-pays publishing.
An electronic survey.
Authors of research papers submitted to BMJ, Archives of Disease in Childhood, and Journal of Medical Genetics in 2004.
Familiarity with and perceptions of open access and author-pays publishing.
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 publications, 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 reputation 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).
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.
我们旨在评估期刊作者对开放获取和作者付费出版的当前知识及看法。
一项电子调查。
2004年向《英国医学杂志》《儿童疾病档案》和《医学遗传学杂志》提交研究论文的作者。
对开放获取和作者付费出版的熟悉程度及看法。
1113名作者中有468名（42%）回复。在给出定义之前，分别有47%（222/468）和38%（176/468）的作者表示他们熟悉“开放获取”和“作者付费”出版这两个术语。一些起初不认识这些术语的人，在给出定义后声称认识了。只有10%（49/468）的作者曾向作者付费期刊投稿。与基于订阅的非开放获取期刊相比，35%的人认为开放获取的作者付费期刊有更大能力发表更多内容，使得发表更容易；27%的人认为其影响因子较低；31%的人认为其发表速度更快、更及时；46%的人认为人们会觉得任何人都可以付费发表文章。55%（256/468）的人认为，如果他们各自的期刊变为开放获取并收费，他们将不再继续投稿，主要是因为期刊的声誉。一半（54%，255/468）的人表示开放获取在他们的投稿决策中“没有影响”或“优先级较低”。三分之二（66%，308/468）的人表示他们更愿意向基于订阅的非开放获取期刊投稿，而不是向开放获取的作者付费期刊投稿。超过一半的人认为他们将不得不支付作者费用的一部分或全部（56%，262/468）。
该调查得出了关于受访者对这些出版模式的知识和看法的有用信息。作者对开放获取出版的概念及相关问题了解有限。目前，开放获取政策对作者的论文投稿决策影响不大。
