OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING IN UROLOGY: A SURVEY OF AUTHORS, READERS, AND EDITORIAL BOARDS KNOWLEDGE, IMPRESSIONS, AND SATISFACTION

Abstract:  INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: To report the level of knowledge, impressions, and attitudes 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, 5 sections crosssectional survey, including 23 questions after multiple rounds of assessment from various stakeholders including editorial board members, readers, and authors among the urology community. To recruit participants, we used mixed methods to obtain responses based on a simple random sampling (probabilistic sampling method) and a convenience sampling (non-probabilistic sampling method). We collected data using the electronic data capture system REDCap�. Herein we present descriptive outcomes of the responses. RESULTS: 82 participants from 13 countries responded to the survey between May and September 2023. The majority of respondents (85%) reported having a “quite good” to a “very good” knowledge regarding OA publishing, and 6% reported that they knew “nothing” about the subject. However, of those that responded that they were familiar with the concepts, only 30%, 18%, 18% and 21% of them respectively knew the definitions of Gold, Green, Diamond, and Hybrid OA publishing models. Of all respondents, 54% reported a “positive” to “strongly positive” impression of and general attitude toward the concept of OA publishing, whereas 18% had “negative” to “strongly negative” impressions. Although a majority replied that OA publishing can improve scientific research (65%) and give more exposure for the author’s work (77%), 34% thought that the quality of peer review is lower for OA journals compared to traditional publishing models. The vast majority (92%) agreed that articles processing charge (APC) for the Gold OA model can be overly burdensome for authors. The majority of those surveyed have published in an OA journal (74%), with 40 % of the participants not knowing in which type of OA model they have published. Of those who have published in an OA publishing journal, majority were either “satisfied” or “completely satisfied” with Gold, Diamond, and Hybrid models (65%, 86%, 83% respectively). Almost half of the participants (45%) would not submit their work to an OA journal over a conventional access journal. CONCLUSIONS: Initial results from this anonymous, international survey show high awareness of OA publishing with low knowledge regarding details. Participants are pessimistic regarding the quality of OA journals and peer-review