Guennoun Abbas, Bensaadi Kahina, Simard Marc-André, Murad Liam, Schwartz Ryan, Chen Kelven, Almousa Saud, Levitt Max, Leveridge Michael, Siemens Robert, Larivière Vincent, Bhojani Naeem
Division of Urology, University of Montreal Hospital Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Research Centre of the Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
World J Urol. 2025 Sep 8;43(1):542. doi: 10.1007/s00345-025-05928-3.
To report the level of knowledge, impressions, and satisfaction of Urology readers, authors, and editorial boards regarding Open Access (OA) publishing in the field of Urology and to determine their satisfaction with the current OA models.
We developed an online, five-section cross-sectional survey including 23 questions. To recruit participants, we used mixed methods to obtain responses based on a simple random sampling and convenience sampling. Herein we present descriptive outcomes of the responses.
157 participants from 21 countries responded to the survey between May 2023 and October 2024. The majority of respondents (80.2%) reported having "Acceptable" to "Excellent" knowledge regarding OA publishing. However, of those that responded they were familiar with the concepts, only a minority knew the definitions of Gold, Green, Diamond, and Hybrid OA publishing models. Of all respondents, 49.7% reported having a "Positive" to "Strongly positive" impressions toward OA publishing, whereas 16.6% had "Negative" to "Strongly negative" impressions. Although a majority agreed that OA publishing can offer several advantages, 40.8% thought that the quality of peer-review is lower for OA journals compared to traditional publishing models. The vast majority (82.2%) agreed that articles processing charge (APC) can be overly burdensome for authors. Members of a Urology journal editorial board are more incline to not publish in an OA journal.
Results from this anonymous, international survey among urologists, show high awareness of OA publishing with low knowledge regarding details. Participants are pessimistic regarding the quality of OA journals and peer-review.
报告泌尿外科领域的读者、作者和编辑委员会对开放获取（OA）出版的知识水平、看法及满意度，并确定他们对当前OA模式的满意度。
我们开展了一项在线的、包含五个部分的横断面调查，共23个问题。为招募参与者，我们采用混合方法，基于简单随机抽样和便利抽样获取回复。在此我们呈现回复的描述性结果。
2023年5月至2024年10月期间，来自21个国家的157名参与者回复了该调查。大多数受访者（80.2%）报告对OA出版有“可接受”至“优秀”的了解。然而，在那些表示熟悉相关概念的受访者中，只有少数人知道金色、绿色、钻石和混合OA出版模式的定义。在所有受访者中，49.7%报告对OA出版有“积极”至“非常积极”的看法，而16.6%有“消极”至“非常消极”的看法。尽管大多数人同意OA出版有几个优点，但40.8%的人认为与传统出版模式相比，OA期刊的同行评审质量较低。绝大多数（82.2%）的人同意文章处理费（APC）对作者来说可能负担过重。泌尿外科杂志编辑委员会成员更倾向于不在OA期刊上发表文章。
这项针对泌尿外科医生的匿名国际调查结果显示，对OA出版的认知度较高，但对细节的了解较少。参与者对OA期刊和同行评审的质量持悲观态度。
