Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40924173›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2025

Open access publishing: is urology ready? A survey of authors, readers, and editorial board's knowledge, impressions and satisfaction.

Abbas Guennoun, Kahina Bensaadi, Marc-André Simard, Liam Murad, Ryan Schwartz, Kelven Chen, Saud Almousa, Max Levitt, Michael Leveridge, Robert Siemens and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Abbas GuennounDivision of Urology, University of Montreal Hospital Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. abbas.guennoun.chum@ssss.gouv.qc.ca.
Kahina BensaadiResearch Centre of the Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Marc-André SimardÉcole de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l'information, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Liam MuradFaculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Ryan SchwartzFaculty of Medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Kelven ChenDivision of Urology, University of Montreal Hospital Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Saud AlmousaDivision of Urology, University of Montreal Hospital Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Max LevittDivision of Urology, University of Montreal Hospital Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Michael LeveridgeDepartment of Urology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Robert SiemensDepartment of Urology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Vincent LarivièreÉcole de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l'information, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Naeem BhojaniDivision of Urology, University of Montreal Hospital Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo 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.

methodsWe 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.

results157 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.

conclusionResults 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.

Indexed as

Open Access PublishingPeriodicals as TopicUrologyAuthorshipCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMalePersonal SatisfactionSurveys and QuestionnairesImpressionKnowledgeOpen access publishingSatisfaction.Urology

Identifiers

PMID40924173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.