ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2005
Perceptions of open access publishing: interviews with journal authors.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Has open access in neurosurgery made access easier but sharing harder? A National survey from an LMIC (Turkey).Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Open access publishing: is urology ready? A survey of authors, readers, and editorial board's knowledge, impressions and satisfaction.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Academicians' awareness, attitude, and use of open access during the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of librarianship and information science · 2022Article
- Article
- Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review.F1000Research · 2018Review
- Knowledge sharing in global health research - the impact, uptake and cost of open access to scholarly literature.Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
- The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review.F1000Research · 2016Review
- The impact of free access to the scientific literature: a review of recent research.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2011Review
- The North-South information highway: case studies of publication access among health researchers in resource-poor countries.Global health action · 2008Article
- The Jeremiah Metzger lecture: Osler - web - rendezvous: impact of the information explosion on medical education.Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association · 2008Article
- The self-archiving principle: a momentous trek.Postgraduate medical journal · 2007Review
- An evaluation of emergency medicine investigators' views on open access to medical literature.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2006Article
- Awareness and attitude of Spanish medical authors to open access publishing and the "author pays" model.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2006Article
- Evidence based publishing.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Article
- Open access publishing and author-pays business models: a survey of authors' knowledge and perceptions.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2006Article
- Open access publishing: too much oxygen?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore authors' attitudes towards open access publishing and author charges, their perceptions of journals that charge authors, and whether they would be willing to submit to these journals.
designSemistructured telephone interviews.
participants28 randomly selected international authors who submitted to the BMJ in 2003.
resultsAuthors were more aware of the concepts of open access publishing and author pays models than previously reported. Almost all authors supported the concept of open access, but few had submitted to an open access journal, other than the BMJ. Reasons for not submitting included lack of awareness of which journals publish with open access, and journal quality taking a higher priority in decision making than the availability of open access. Authors disliked the idea of author charges without institutional support and were concerned about implications for authors from developing countries and those without research funding. However, many said they would probably continue to submit to journals they perceived as being of high quality even if they charged authors.
conclusionsAuthors consider perceived journal quality as more important than open access when deciding where to submit papers. New journals with open access may need to do more to reassure authors of the quality of their journals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.