Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications: Policy Review Survey Results

Table of Contents

Methodology

Nonprobability survey of 1431 individuals, conducted between July 4th, 2023 and September 15th, 2023. No margin of error applies, and the findings are not generalizable to the population. The survey was promoted through the Tri-Agencies’ social media channels.

 

top of page

Respondent role

What is your primary role?
Role n %
Researcher, scientist or scholar 1,080 75.5%
Librarian 190 13.3%
Research administrator 96 6.7%
Publisher 30 2.1%
Research funder 4 0.3%
Research association 2 0.1%
Other 25 1.7%
Prefer not to answer 4 0.3%
Total 1,431 100.0%
 

top of page

Field of research for researchers, scientists and scholars

What is your main field of research?
Field of research n %
Natural Sciences and Engineering 585 46.4%
Health Research 341 27.0%
Social Sciences and Humanities 331 26.2%
Prefer not to answer 4 0.3%
Total 1,261 100.0%

*Multiple selections allowed.

**Researchers, scientists or scholars only.

 

top of page

Support for Open Access by role

Do you support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or oppose open access?
  Total Researcher, scientist or scholar Research administrator Librarian Publisher
Support n % n % n % n % n %
Support 966 67.5% 656 60.7% 77 80.2% 177 93.2% 26 86.7%
Somewhat support 335 23.4% 301 27.9% 15 15.6% 13 6.8% 1 3.3%
Somewhat oppose 68 4.8% 66 6.1% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 1 3.3%
Oppose 49 3.4% 47 4.4% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 1 3.3%
Unsure 13 0.9% 10 0.9% 2 2.1% 0 0.0% 1 3.3%
Total 1,431 100.0% 1,080 100.0% 96 100.0% 190 100.0% 30 100.0%

*Categories with fewer than 10 responses have been dropped.

 

top of page

Support for Open Access by field [researchers, scientists or scholars only]

Do you support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or oppose open access?
  Total Health Research Natural Sciences and Engineering Social Sciences and Humanities
Support n % n % n % n %
Support 656 60.7% 209 61.3% 342 58.5% 220 66.5%
Somewhat support 301 27.9% 96 28.2% 170 29.1% 76 23.0%
Somewhat oppose 66 6.1% 21 6.2% 41 7.0% 16 4.8%
Oppose 47 4.4% 15 4.4% 30 5.1% 11 3.3%
Unsure 10 0.9% 0 0.0% 2 0.3% 8 2.4%
Total 1,080 100.0% 341 100.0% 585 100.0% 331 100.0%

*Researchers, scientists or scholars only.

**Respondents were allowed to select more than one field of research.

 

top of page

Ease of publishing by field [researchers, scientists or scholars only]

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is very difficult and 10 is very easy, how would you rate your ability to publish immediate open access today?
  Total Health Research Natural Sciences and Engineering Social Sciences and Humanities
Difficulty n % n % n % n %
Very difficult 1-3 437 40.5% 143 41.9% 243 41.5% 118 35.6%
Moderate 4-7 385 35.6% 132 38.7% 200 34.2% 132 39.9%
Very easy 8-10 198 18.3% 56 16.4% 115 19.7% 55 16.6%
Unsure 60 5.6% 10 2.9% 27 4.6% 26 7.9%
Total 1,080 100.0% 341 100.0% 585 100.0% 331 100.0%

*Researchers, scientists or scholars only.

**Respondents were allowed to select more than one field of research.

 

top of page

First and second ranked models

Please rank the following OA models, where 1 is the OA model you most support, followed by 2 as your second choice and so on. If unsure, rank unsure as 1 and leave other options blank. APC = article processing charge (fee charged to the author[s])
Models First Ranked
n		 First Ranked
%		 Second Ranked
n		 Second Ranked
%
Diamond OA (publishing in a fully OA journal at no cost to the researcher; journal funded by academic institutions, societies, volunteers and/or funders) 795 55.6% 264 22.3%
Green OA (archiving published manuscripts in an OA repository) 319 22.3% 453 38.3%
Transformative Agreements (universities or libraries contract with publishers for affiliated authors to publish OA at a discount) 62 4.3% 262 22.1%
Gold OA (publishing in a fully OA journal after paying APCs) 36 2.5% 121 10.2%
Hybrid OA (publishing OA in a closed-access journal after paying APCs) 23 1.6% 59 5.0%
Other 38 2.7% 19 1.6%
Unsure 158 11.0% 5 0.4%
Total 1,431 100.0% 1,183 100.0%
 

top of page

First ranked models by role

Please rank the following OA models, where 1 is the OA model you most support, followed by 2 as your second choice and so on. If unsure, rank unsure as 1 and leave other options blank. APC = article processing charge (fee charged to the author[s])
  Total Researcher, scientist or scholar Research administrator Librarian Publisher
Models n % n % n % n % n %
Diamond OA 795 55.6% 578 53.5% 50 52.1% 132 69.5% 17 56.7%
Green OA 319 22.3% 239 22.1% 23 24.0% 49 25.8% 0 0.0%
Transformative Agreements 62 4.3% 55 5.1% 2 2.1% 1 0.5% 2 6.7%
Gold OA 36 2.5% 27 2.5% 3 3.1% 1 0.5% 3 10.0%
Hybrid OA 23 1.6% 18 1.7% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 3 10.0%
Other 38 2.7% 28 2.6% 2 2.1% 2 1.1% 5 16.7%
Unsure 158 11.0% 135 12.5% 15 15.6% 5 2.6% 0 0.0%
Total 1,431 100.0% 1,080 100.0% 96 100.0% 190 100.0% 30 100.1%

*Categories with fewer than 10 responses have been dropped.

**First ranked responses only. 

***See definitions of models above.

 

top of page

First ranked OA models by field [researchers, scientists or scholars only]

Please rank the following OA models, where 1 is the OA model you most support, followed by 2 as your second choice and so on. If unsure, rank unsure as 1 and leave other options blank. APC = article processing charge (fee charged to the author[s])
  Total Health Research Natural Sciences and Engineering Social Sciences and Humanities
Models n % n % n % n %
Diamond OA 578 53.5% 204 59.8% 281 48.0% 191 57.7%
Green OA 239 22.1% 65 19.1% 153 26.2% 59 17.8%
Transformative Agreements 55 5.1% 16 4.7% 30 5.1% 14 4.2%
Gold OA 27 2.5% 13 3.8% 18 3.1% 3 0.9%
Hybrid OA 18 1.7% 5 1.5% 12 2.1% 2 0.6%
Other 28 2.6% 10 2.9% 15 2.6% 7 2.1%
Unsure 135 12.5% 28 8.2% 76 13.0% 55 16.6%
Total 1,080 100.0% 341 100.0% 585 100.1% 331 99.9%

*Researchers, scientists or scholars only.

**Respondents were allowed to select more than one field of research.

***First ranked responses only.

****See definitions of models above.

 

top of page

First and second ranked barriers

Please rank the following barriers to publishing immediate OA, where 1 is the most burdensome, 2 the second most burdensome and so on. If unsure, rank unsure as 1 and leave other options blank.
Barriers First Ranked
n		 First Ranked
%		 Second Ranked
n		 Second Ranked
%
Cost 1,054 73.7% 126 11.2%
OA journals in my field are perceived to have lower prestige 112 7.8% 391 34.6%
Lack of familiarity with navigating the OA landscape 53 3.7% 134 11.9%
Lack of clarity on which OA journals/publishers are legitimate versus predatory 49 3.4% 243 21.5%
Copyright restrictions 48 3.4% 118 10.4%
There are no OA journals in my field 7 0.5% 35 3.1%
OA not supported by my research team/supervisor 5 0.3% 51 4.5%
Other 35 2.4% 29 2.6%
Unsure 68 4.8% 3 0.3%
Total 1,431 100.0% 1,130 100.0%
 

top of page

First ranked barriers by role

Please rank the following barriers to publishing immediate OA, where 1 is the most burdensome, 2 the second most burdensome and so on. If unsure, rank unsure as 1 and leave other options blank.
  Total Researcher, scientist or scholar Research administrator Librarian Publisher
Barriers n % n % n % n % n %
Cost 1,054 73.7% 833 77.1% 64 66.7% 112 58.9% 21 70.0%
OA journals in my field are perceived to have lower prestige 112 7.8% 90 8.3% 7 7.3% 14 7.4% 1 3.3%
Lack of familiarity with navigating the OA landscape 53 3.7% 23 2.1% 6 6.2% 20 10.5% 2 6.7%
Lack of clarity on which OA journals/publishers are legitimate versus predatory 49 3.4% 35 3.2% 4 4.2% 7 3.7% 1 3.3%
Copyright restrictions 48 3.4% 27 2.5% 2 2.1% 16 8.4% 0 0.0%
There are no OA journals in my field 7 0.5% 5 0.5% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
OA not supported by my research team/supervisor 5 0.3% 3 0.3% 1 1.0% 0 0.0% 1 3.3%
Other 35 2.4% 22 2.0% 2 2.1% 7 3.7% 1 3.3%
Unsure 68 4.8% 42 3.9% 9 9.4% 14 7.4% 3 10.0%
Total 1,431 100.0% 1,080 99.9% 96 100.0% 190 100.0% 30 99.9%

*Categories with fewer than 10 responses have been dropped.

**First ranked responses only.

 

top of page

First ranked barriers by field [researchers, scientists or scholars only]

Please rank the following barriers to publishing immediate OA, where 1 is the most burdensome, 2 the second most burdensome and so on. If unsure, rank unsure as 1 and leave other options blank.
  Total Health Research Natural Sciences and Engineering Social Sciences and Humanities
Barriers n % n % n % n %
Cost 833 77.1% 301 88.3% 474 81.0% 209 63.1%
OA journals in my field are perceived to have lower prestige 90 8.3% 18 5.3% 43 7.4% 37 11.2%
OA not supported by my research team/supervisor 3 0.3% 1 0.3% 2 0.3% 1 0.3%
Copyright restrictions 27 2.5% 3 0.9% 8 1.4% 18 5.4%
Lack of familiarity with navigating the OA landscape 23 2.1% 1 0.3% 11 1.9% 11 3.3%
There are no OA journals in my field 5 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 1.5%
Lack of clarity on which OA journals/publishers are legitimate versus predatory 35 3.2% 9 2.6% 14 2.4% 19 5.7%
Other 22 2.0% 4 1.2% 12 2.1% 7 2.1%
Unsure 42 3.9% 4 1.2% 21 3.6% 24 7.3%
Total 1,080 99.9% 341 100.1% 585 100.1% 331 99.9%

*Researchers, scientists or scholars only.

**Respondents were allowed to select more than one field of research.

***First ranked responses only.

 

top of page

First and second ranked incentives

Please rank the following items, where 1 would most encourage immediate OA, 2 second most and so on. If unsure, rank unsure as 1 and leave other options blank.
Incentives First Ranked
n		 First Ranked
%		 Second Ranked
n		 Second Ranked
%
Financial supports 895 62.5% 189 17.7%
Consideration of OA in research assessment 200 14.0% 275 25.7%
Access to repositories 104 7.3% 338 31.6%
Compliance monitoring 55 3.8% 140 13.1%
Technical support and training 14 1.0% 105 9.8%
Other 65 4.5% 18 1.7%
Unsure 98 6.8% 3 0.3%
Total 1,431 100.0% 1,068 100.0%
 

top of page

First ranked incentives by role

Please rank the following items, where 1 would most encourage immediate OA, 2 second most and so on. If unsure, rank unsure as 1 and leave other options blank.
  Total Researcher, scientist or scholar Research administrator Librarian Publisher
Incentives n % n % n % n % n %
Financial supports 895 62.5% 730 67.6% 54 56.2% 62 32.6% 26 86.7%
Consideration of OA in research assessment 200 14.0% 95 8.8% 19 19.8% 75 39.5% 2 6.7%
Access to repositories 104 7.3% 89 8.2% 10 10.4% 5 2.6% 0 0.0%
Compliance monitoring 55 3.8% 20 1.9% 3 3.1% 32 16.8% 0 0.0%
Technical support and training 14 1.0% 10 0.9% 3 3.1% 1 0.5% 0 0.0%
Other 65 4.5% 50 4.6% 2 2.1% 10 5.3% 1 3.3%
Unsure 98 6.8% 86 8.0% 5 5.2% 5 2.6% 1 3.3%
Total 1,431 100.0% 1,080 100.0% 96 99.9% 190 99.9% 30 100.0%

*Categories with fewer than 10 responses have been dropped.

**First ranked responses only.

 

top of page

First ranked incentives by field [researchers, scientists or scholars only]

Please rank the following items, where 1 would most encourage immediate OA, 2 second most and so on. If unsure, rank unsure as 1 and leave other options blank.
  Total Health Research Natural Sciences and Engineering Social Sciences and Humanities
Incentives n % n % n % n %
Financial supports 730 67.6% 259 76.0% 412 70.4% 191 57.7%
Access to repositories 89 8.2% 26 7.6% 51 8.7% 30 9.1%
Compliance monitoring 20 1.9% 5 1.5% 9 1.5% 6 1.8%
Consideration of OA in research assessment 95 8.8% 20 5.9% 40 6.8% 50 15.1%
Technical support and training 10 0.9% 1 0.3% 2 0.3% 8 2.4%
Other 50 4.6% 17 5.0% 20 3.4% 16 4.8%
Unsure 86 8.0% 13 3.8% 51 8.7% 30 9.1%
Total 1,080 100.0% 341 100.1% 585 99.8% 331 100.0%

*Researchers, scientists or scholars only.

**Respondents were allowed to select more than one field of research.

***First ranked responses only.

 

top of page

Other comments

Do you have any other comments you would like to share to help shape the Tri-Agency's renewed OA policy or plans for community engagement?
Comment n %
Concerned about cost/paying APCs out of existing grant funds 278 40.9%
Do not spend public funds on APCs/for-profit journals 74 10.9%
Create sustainable journal ecosystem/national strategy/support diamond 59 8.7%
Support Green/repository-based OA 55 8.1%
OA journals lack prestige or quality/can be predatory 35 5.1%
Supportive of change 32 4.7%
Culture change is needed/Recognize OA in assessment 27 4.0%
Monitor and enforce policy 19 2.8%
Worried about the sustainability of certain journals 13 1.9%
Suggested stakeholders for consultation 11 1.6%
More training/information/clarity is needed 11 1.6%
Difficult to plan for, don't know all publications in advance 9 1.3%
Consider disciplinary differences 8 1.2%
Public use/benefit of OA is questionable 6 0.9%
Will result in fewer publications 5 0.7%
Other 38 5.6%
Total 680 100.0%
 

top of page

Date modified: