petersuberNew study: "Open access publishing: is urology ready? A survey of authors, readers, and editorial board’s knowledge, impressions and satisfaction."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00345-025-05928-3
(#paywalled)
Not a good way to run a survey or report the results.
* The results are paywalled.
* The article does not include the survey questions.
* The survey defines #GoldOA, #GreenOA, #DiamondOA, and #HybridOA. But the article only reports the attitudes toward APC-based gold OA. No surprise, they're negative. Yet disdain for #APCs only strengthens the reason to ask about green and diamond OA. If the survey did ask, then what are the answers? If it didn't ask, then why not?
* The survey gives a false definition of green OA, saying that it's always embargoed. That's especially odd since under current US federal agency policies, it's never embargoed.
Open access publishing: is urology ready? A survey of authors, readers, and editorial board’s knowledge, impressions and satisfaction - World Journal of Urology
Purpose 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.
Chuck Darwin
IGB Library
Craig Aaen Stockdale
Marc Robinson-Rechavi