Getting to grips with the Research Councils UK policy on open access
- Date:
- September 18, 2014
- Source:
- Taylor & Francis
- Summary:
- Over a year has passed since the Research Councils UK policy on open access came into effect, requiring all articles and datasets arising from Research Councils funded projects to be published either gold or green open access. But how aware are authors of its implications, and do they understand it? Does a researcher working in a traditional science discipline have a better grasp of what the policy means than someone researching in the humanities or social sciences?
- Share:
Over a year has passed since the Research Councils UK (RCUK) policy on open access came into effect, requiring all articles and datasets arising from Research Councils funded projects to be published either gold or green open access. But how aware are authors of its implications, and do they understand it? Does a researcher working in a science discipline have a better grasp of what the policy means than someone researching in the humanities or social sciences?
As part of a wider survey on Open Access carried out in March 2014, Taylor & Francis asked authors a series of questions on the RCUK open access policy, with the aim of gauging authors' awareness and understanding. Just under 900 UK-based authors responded (or 11% of the total respondents globally).
With the survey sent out as the RCUK policy was reaching its first anniversary, 30% of respondents said they understood the policy, though many appeared to be unsure whether it applied to them (over half [55%] said they were unsure whether they would publish under it in the future). However, nearly two-thirds [62%] were already aware of the policy, the highest level of awareness among authors across all thirteen countries surveyed on their respective open access mandates.
The survey results showed a mixed picture when authors were questioned on the benefits of the RCUK's open access policy. 46% believed publishing their work under this policy would mean it would be read by more people, whilst just 31% thought it would enable their work to reach people outside their field. 31% also thought it would lead to more citations but just 28% thought it would help their work have greater impact. Uncertainty was the resounding response to these questions, with authors who neither agreed nor disagreed comprising the largest group of respondents.
Authors in the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine were marginally more aware of the policy and more likely to understand it. This is reflected by the fact that they were also more likely than those in the Social Sciences and Humanities to have already published work under this policy, and were more likely to think they would publish work under it in the future.
Analysis by age reveals that authors in their 20s were the only group where fewer than half [43%] were aware of the RCUK policy. Given that junior researchers are usually less involved with the provision of research funding (a third chose 'N/A' on the question on grant funding), it is unsurprising that only 4% of young authors said they 'fully understand' the policy and three-quarters [73%] said they were unsure if the work they publish in the future will fall under its remit.
This mixed picture suggests that advocacy and communication will be vital to ensuring the success of the RCUK's policy. While many UK-based researchers are aware of it, many seem unclear on what it actually means for them and what the benefits will be, suggesting more collaboration will be needed by all stakeholders in the future, whether publisher, funder or institution.
Further information: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess/opensurvey/2014
Story Source:
Materials provided by Taylor & Francis. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Cite This Page: