Purpose & Goals

The purpose was to enhance current understanding of faculty perspectives, needs, and motivations related to open access (OA) publishing, both within the university library system and among colleagues in other campus units. While the library offers long-standing services and expertise to support faculty across many aspects of scholarly communication, the acceleration in OA publishing, as well as the adoption of significant and relevant policy updates and public access requirements by governments and funding agencies, have presented a timely opportunity to review corresponding library service models and levels of investment. As we continue to explore and evaluate the viability of a range of models for open scholarship support and advancement, it is imperative that we center faculty needs and perspectives in our analysis. By surveying and interviewing faculty authors regarding their OA experiences, we aimed to learn how local faculty are impacted by recent changes to the scholarly publishing landscape, including changes to publisher policies, and related institutional efforts to relieve the financial pressures presented by OA Article Processing Charges (APCs). By inquiring about their attitudes regarding OA and the changing publishing landscape, we also aimed to understand more about their overall publishing and access barriers, concerns, and insights. The studies have contributed to our overall efforts to engage our research community in an ongoing conversation related to open research and scholarship. We have designed these engagement efforts to inform our current and future service planning, especially given the potential cost implications of OA publishing agreements, including “transformative agreements,” for library acquisitions budgets.

Design & Methodology

To explore faculty experiences and opinions regarding OA publishing, our paper features two independently planned studies—one used a survey, the other interviews—that together enrich understanding about our institutional OA landscape. The survey was distributed via email during fall and winter, 2021–22, and the interviews were conducted one-on-one via Zoom during the summer of 2021. Analysis includes 233 survey responses and 14 interviews. The survey included faculty from all disciplines, ranks, and tracks and the interviews were with tenure track faculty from two natural sciences departments. The survey was structured around the following themes: 1) awareness of and attitudes about OA publishing 2) OA formats 3) library services 4) editorial experience 5) demographic information. The interviews were structured around themes of: 1) general impressions of OA publishing venues 2) predatory publishing 3) library support 4) decisions that influence publication choices. Overlapping themes in both studies included 1) interest and experience in OA publishing 2) motivations and reservations related to OA publishing 3) OA processing charges 4) the library’s role in the future of OA. Coding schemes for interview and open-ended questions were developed via an inductive process during conversations held within the research team. For coding categories, the agreement between two raters was evaluated based on Cohen's kappa (κ) benchmark of .70 or greater. In a few cases where κ < .70, the authors revisited the approach to coding for the relevant categories and conducted independent coding again to ensure that interrater reliability was acceptable. All statistical processing was conducted using SPSS.

Findings

Both studies established that faculty are knowledgeable about, and generally supportive of, OA publishing with caveats. Participants described perceived benefits for publishing OA, including broadening readership, potential to increase impact, and opportunities for career progression. OA Author fees emerged as a primary and substantial barrier. Among survey respondents, the most common motivations for OA publishing included: increasing equity in access to knowledge; increasing international audiences; meeting funder requirements; and getting more citations. Interview respondents cited increased research visibility and potential to boost career progression as main motivations. The most common reservations among both studies’ participants were: steep publishing fees, the view that authors should not have to pay to publish, and concerns about quality. The survey highlighted equity as a top motivating factor in relation to expanded access to knowledge. A more nuanced perspective emerged through analysis of both studies. Interview participants described ways that OA presents challenges to equity. Survey respondents universally indicated that OA interest in their primary fields of research was moderate to substantial and growing. They reported positive experiences publishing OA across multiple formats previously. Participants in both studies indicated a desire to publish OA in the future. The journal article was the most likely format for which respondents reported prior OA experience, with an average reported APC payment of $2458. Interview participants indicated that APCs are most frequently paid with grant money, followed by discretionary accounts and departmental funds. Interviewees also indicated that the library could support them by negotiating better terms with publishers and prioritizing publishing agreements with trusted scholarly societies. Our faculty recognize many affordances for sharing their work openly, tempered by the high cost of OA publishing. In principle and practice, faculty described dissatisfaction with the APC model. Our collective findings showcase the complex considerations that characterize faculty perspectives on OA.

Action & Impact

Since conducting these studies, our library has incorporated faculty perspectives into internal planning activities and conversations with partner units. Owing to our university’s decentralized environment, we have necessarily socialized our understanding in distributed ways, with connections to relevant school, college, and departmental initiatives. We have shared findings with faculty across disciplines and administrative groups, including the library’s Faculty Council, the Engineering Faculty Library Advisory Committee, and the Research Associate Deans Committee. Engaging around the findings has served as a productive avenue for continuing campus conversations, as we learn more about points of resonance, agreement, and inquiry. The library’s Collection Strategy Steering Team incorporated the concept of an open research and scholarly ecosystem as a pillar of its work for the next several years and charged an Open Ecosystem Subcommittee (OES) with several initiatives, including: 1) building a knowledge base of current OA publishing agreements and 2) developing criteria for evaluating publisher agreements. In addition to the primary charge, the OES has initiated several companion projects to enhance the library’s promotion of OA-relevant content, including the discoverability of waivers and discounts for APCs. We have been more attentive to our messaging and support avenues and have created a dedicated email address for OA publishing questions, which has quickly become a high traffic pathway for consultation and engagement. We have transitioned from pilot phases to longer term agreements for some read and publish agreements. We have leveraged consortial initiatives via the Big Ten Academic Alliance, as well as some smaller institutional agreements with society and commercial publishers. We continue to explore options for agreements with several other publishers with whom our university community frequently publishes. Even with well-established OA publishers, current fee structures continue to be a barrier for sustainability, and increased work toward mutually beneficial cost models are needed.

Practical Implications & Value

This work is timely and relevant to academic libraries as they seek to effectively manage transitions in scholarly publishing toward a more open landscape. This two-study paper highlights faculty perspectives at a major public research university and identifies a series of approaches for advancing OA campus conversations and library initiatives. The study features two approaches, a campus-wide survey and interviews with faculty, that can readily be adapted by other institutions for gathering similar information and informing data-based decision making. As a unit that supports authors at various stages of their careers and from boundary spanning disciplinary areas, the data we collected will be helpful in highlighting author decision making processes related to publishing outlets and formats. Knowing more about how authors think and feel about OA publishing options can aid library subject experts as they provide information and referrals to authors in their liaison areas. Our research also highlights that the library’s publishing and OA-related services are unknown to many authors on our campus. This finding points the way toward new and broader communication efforts and also elevates planning on potential new library roles and services. Faculty made substantive recommendations for how librarians can support Open Access publishing initiatives, including the following areas: Negotiating better terms with publishers Prioritizing deals with trusted professional societies Lobbying for improved funder policies Developing publishing and writing workshops Supporting OA repositories Investing in systematic rigorous analysis of usage statistics Educating and creating knowledgeable academic constituencies Additionally, knowing more about the OA-related challenges that authors encounter can position the library to advocate at the institutional level for sustainable solutions and can illuminate discussions with publishers as libraries evaluate subscription offers and licensing agreements.