A further exploration of the views of chemists and economists on Open Access issues in the UK

"There was unanimity that if a piece of research was regarded as high value or important to one's career then the first thought would be to publish in a conventional journal with a high impact factor. Open Access would only be considered if there were a specific reason....The more junior the researcher, the more vital it is to get a high ranking journal on your CV and typically that does not include Open Access journals. Finding the money to publish even in a relatively cheap OA journal was also an issue....Note that, particularly in Chemistry, there is an implicit and explicit assumption that OA=low impact factor....Most respondents were well aware of the institutional repository and generally approved of it. There was feeling that stuff in an institutional (OA) repository (particularly data) got cited more than if it were in a subscription-based repository. The repository is useful for tracking accesses and citations, it was felt that the existence and use of the repository was slowly bringing about a "sea change" in researcher practice, although the deposition of material in the repository goes in bursts – typically when there is a REF or mock-REF exercise when the researchers run a ound in a frenzy updating their publications....Some of our respondents were aware of institutional and funder mandates but treated them with scepticism. All agreed that there is a mismatch between the high-level policy statements of funders and institutions and the practice on the ground. As far as the institutional mandate to deposit in the repository goes, we know the e is a mandate, but it is for your supervisor or line manager to tell you to operate it..."