A comprehensive and high quality survey of researcher attitudes toward the scholarly publishing process was published last week. The joint product of a consultation with Research Consulting and the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) Leiden, a wide-ranging report on the survey, along with the complete dataset and survey materials, are now available.
The survey was commissioned by the Plan S coalition of funders, who proposed a new strategy, “Towards Responsible Publishing” in October 2023. The crux of the cOAlition S proposal is a powerful vision for publishing that puts researchers in the driver’s seat:
“Our vision is a community-based scholarly communication system fit for open science in the 21st century. This system empowers scholars to share the full range of their research
outputs and to participate in new quality control mechanisms and evaluation standards for these outputs. This approach will ensure rapid, transparent dissemination of high-quality scientific knowledge.”
Responsible Publishing’s vision is highly aligned with the ASAPbio vision and values, but do researchers agree? Here are five key takeaways from the report –
-
- Most researchers think traditional publishing is slow. Fewer than one quarter of over 8,000 respondents are satisfied with the speed of the journal publication process in their fields of research.
- Preprints are thought to be good for exposure. 84% of respondents believe that preprints are moderately, very, or extremely effective at enhancing research accessibility and visibility.
- Recognizing peer review in hiring and promotion could bolster the peer review ecosystem. Of five proposed options, “being recognized for my peer review activities in hiring and promotion processes” was viewed as most likely to motivate engagement with peer review with 80% of respondents saying that such recognition would encourage or strongly encourage their engagement.
- A majority of researchers support publishing peer reviews, especially when reviews are anonymized. 65% said they would probably or definitely support publication of anonymous reviews, whereas 47% said the same for non-anonymous reviews.
- Researchers recognize the potential of preprints to accelerate progress. 84% said preprints were moderately, very, or extremely effective at providing early access to research, and 79% said the same of preprints’ ability to enable early feedback on research.
The results highlight the power of preprints to transform scholarly publishing. In addition to the full report, readers might find this interactive dashboard a useful way to explore the results. Results are stratified by continent, researcher experience, discipline, and more.
Found a fact of interest? We want to hear from you. Click below to tell us about your findings on social media!
