ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2006
Open access publishing and author-pays business models: a survey of authors' knowledge and perceptions.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Open Access: hearing the music but not knowing the lyrics. The evolution of knowledge and perceptions among researchers at a Spanish university (2021-2024).Open research Europe · 2026Article
- Open access publishing: is urology ready? A survey of authors, readers, and editorial board's knowledge, impressions and satisfaction.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- A comparison of scientometric data and publication policies of ophthalmology journals.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- A Metric for Evaluating a Transformation of Subscription-Based Journals into Open-Access Journals.Journal of medical systems · 2020Article
- Open Access Publishing: A Study of Current Practice in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Research.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2016Article
- The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review.F1000Research · 2016Review
- What affects authors' and editors' use of reporting guidelines? Findings from an online survey and qualitative interviews.PloS one · 2015Article
- Open access publishing: a study of current practices in orthopaedic research.International orthopaedics · 2014Review
- The impact of free access to the scientific literature: a review of recent research.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2011Review
- A hybrid open-access model to bridge the publishing divide and reach out to a broader community.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2011Article
- 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
- "Open-access" publishing: first the evidence--then the verdict.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2006Article
- What should urologists know about Pseudojournals and open access publishing? A narrative review of the literature.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to assess journal authors' current knowledge and perceptions of open access and author-pays publishing.
designAn electronic survey.
settingAuthors of research papers submitted to BMJ, Archives of Disease in Childhood, and Journal of Medical Genetics in 2004.
main outcome measuresFamiliarity with and perceptions of open access and author-pays publishing.
results468/1113 (42%) responded. Prior to definitions being provided, 47% (222/468) and 38% (176/468) reported they were familiar with the terms "open access" and "author-pays" publishing, respectively. Some who did not at first recognize the terms, did claim to recognize them when they were defined. Only 10% (49/468) had submitted to an author-pays journal. Compared with non-open access subscription-based journals, 35% agreed that open access author-pays journals have a greater capacity to publish more content making it easier to get published, 27% thought they had lower impact factors, 31% thought they had faster and more timely publications, and 46% agreed that people will think anyone can pay to get published. 55% (256/468) thought they would not continue to submit to their respective journal if it became open access and charged, largely because of the reputation of the journals. Half (54%, 255/468) said open access has "no impact" or was "low priority" in their submission decisions. Two-thirds (66%, 308/468) said they would prefer to submit to a non-open access subscription-based journal than an open access author-pays journal. Over half thought they would have to make a contribution or pay the full cost of an author charge (56%, 262/468).
conclusionsThe survey yielded useful information about respondents' knowledge and perceptions of these publishing models. Authors have limited familiarity with the concept of open-access publishing and surrounding issues. Currently, open access policies have little impact on authors' decision of where to submit papers.
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.