{"id":2125,"date":"2019-01-09T09:12:30","date_gmt":"2019-01-09T08:12:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/?p=2125"},"modified":"2019-01-09T09:12:30","modified_gmt":"2019-01-09T08:12:30","slug":"large-scale-publisher-survey-reveals-global-trends-in-open-access-publishing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/2019\/01\/09\/large-scale-publisher-survey-reveals-global-trends-in-open-access-publishing\/","title":{"rendered":"Large Scale Publisher Survey reveals Global Trends in Open Access Publishing"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"><strong>9th January 2019<\/strong> &#8211; A survey of publishers with journals indexed in <a href=\"https:\/\/doaj.org\/\">DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)<\/a> has revealed surprising trends in the way that content is published; what types of organisations are publishing the content; on how publishing standards are being accepted globally; and geographical trends on the uptake of open access.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">The survey was sent out by DOAJ to its 6000+ account holders, that is to say publishers, in the Summer of 2018. Account holders were allowed one response each, regardless of how many journals they have in that account and all accounts have at least 1 journal active in DOAJ. The total number of responses returned was 1065. Answers revealed some interesting facts, especially when compared to answers provided in the last publisher survey carried out in 2013.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">All links point to the underlying data.<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight:400;\"><b>Type of publishing organisation:<\/b><b><br \/>\n<\/b><i><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">Out of survey respondents, the <\/span><\/i><a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/spreadsheets\/d\/1VUOzKCZJu-nFclOaWhUN29aeKkFAlThoOQG5CH72nxU\/edit#gid=433884763&amp;range=A1\"><i><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">top 5 most common types of publishing organisation<\/span><\/i><\/a><i><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"> in DOAJ are: University Department or Press, Non-commercial Publisher, Library publisher, Research centre and Society publisher.<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"> (It should be noted however that in terms of pure output, the top ten organisations in DOAJ account for just over <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/bit.ly\/1IYO9qK\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">a third of the 3.6 million articles<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"> indexed. Eight of the top ten organisations are commercial publishers.)<\/span>&nbsp;<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight:400;\"><b>Geographical spread:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">The <\/span><\/i><a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/spreadsheets\/d\/1VUOzKCZJu-nFclOaWhUN29aeKkFAlThoOQG5CH72nxU\/edit#gid=979064977\"><i><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">geographical spread between 2013 and 2018<\/span><\/i><\/a><i><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"> remains relatively unchanged apart from two notable exceptions.<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"> Open access in Indonesia has become de rigueur. In 2013, DOAJ received 9 survey responses from Indonesia; in <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/spreadsheets\/d\/1VUOzKCZJu-nFclOaWhUN29aeKkFAlThoOQG5CH72nxU\/edit#gid=828911203&amp;range=A1\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">2018 that jumped to 155<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">, the most responses from any one country in the 2018 Survey. Conversely, responses from India fell from 101 in 2013 to just 11 in 2018. (The number of Indian journals in DOAJ has fallen from 643 in 2013 to 254 in 2018.) The Top 5 countries providing responses in 2018 were Indonesia, Brazil, Spain, Romania and USA; in 2013 it was Brazil, Spain, India, Romania and Italy.<\/span>&nbsp;<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight:400;\"><b>DOIs for articles:<\/b><b><br \/>\n<\/b><i><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">While the DOI is an internationally recognised publishing technology, for some the financial and technical barrier to use of DOIs is a problem<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">. In 2013, only <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/spreadsheets\/d\/1xo97oPqOqBMuhgFq6pWsHN73ucB9GHxLAI0Uw91axQE\/edit#gid=0&amp;range=A1:D1\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">35% of respondents used DOIs<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">; <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/spreadsheets\/d\/1VUOzKCZJu-nFclOaWhUN29aeKkFAlThoOQG5CH72nxU\/edit#gid=1824794592&amp;range=A1\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">in 2018 this has jumped to 73%<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">*. However, when publishers were asked why they did not use DOIs the 5 most common words given in responses are: implementing, cost, funding, financial, paying.<\/span><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">* <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/spreadsheets\/d\/1VUOzKCZJu-nFclOaWhUN29aeKkFAlThoOQG5CH72nxU\/edit#gid=1824794592&amp;range=A9:C11\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">see note<\/span><\/a>&nbsp;<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight:400;\"><b>Article metadata:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">More publishers are supplying metadata to DOAJ than ever before; even more would if the process was easier and yet, for many article metadata is still a mystery<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">. The number of respondents providing article metadata to DOAJ has increased from <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/spreadsheets\/d\/1NQSEO_XIaEkt83aW7Xfyf9WTiE8_OGUIWME064BkMEM\/edit#gid=0&amp;range=A1:D1\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">55% in 2013<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"> to <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/spreadsheets\/d\/1VUOzKCZJu-nFclOaWhUN29aeKkFAlThoOQG5CH72nxU\/edit#gid=1576686495&amp;range=A1\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">84% in 2018<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">. When asked which format of metadata publishers would like to supply to DOAJ, 46% said they preferred CrossRef, while 8% said JATS. However, 42% of all 2018 respondents said that they didn\u2019t understand what a metadata format was so there is much work to do here!<\/span>&nbsp;<\/li>\n<li><b>Benefits of being indexed in DOAJ:<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"padding-left:30px;\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">Our respondents said that <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/spreadsheets\/d\/1VUOzKCZJu-nFclOaWhUN29aeKkFAlThoOQG5CH72nxU\/edit#gid=2147322842&amp;range=A1:C1\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">the top 3 benefits<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"> of being indexed in DOAJ in 2018 are:<\/span><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"font-weight:400;\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">Certification that our journal(s) are quality publications<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight:400;\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">Increased readership<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight:400;\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">Increased scientific impact<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p style=\"padding-left:30px;\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">In 2013, it was:<\/span><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li style=\"font-weight:400;\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">Increased visibility of content<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight:400;\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">Certification of the journals<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight:400;\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">Prestige<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p style=\"padding-left:30px;\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">74% of respondents said that <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/spreadsheets\/d\/1VUOzKCZJu-nFclOaWhUN29aeKkFAlThoOQG5CH72nxU\/edit#gid=1378568211&amp;range=A1\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">submissions had definitely or maybe increased<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"> since being indexed in DOAJ while <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/spreadsheets\/d\/1VUOzKCZJu-nFclOaWhUN29aeKkFAlThoOQG5CH72nxU\/edit#gid=1729688595&amp;range=A1\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">over 70% thought that traffic had increased<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"> to their sites.<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><b><b>Predatory publishing:<br \/>\n<i><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">Predatory publishing really isn\u2019t considered to be a big deal for DOAJ publishing community<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">. <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/spreadsheets\/d\/1VUOzKCZJu-nFclOaWhUN29aeKkFAlThoOQG5CH72nxU\/edit#gid=2030185844&amp;range=A1\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">62% of respondents<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"> said that they didn\u2019t have to deal with competition from predatory publishers or journals. There was no equivalent question in 2013.<\/span><\/b><\/b>&nbsp;<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight:400;\"><b>Research Assessment:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">\u201c<\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">It\u2019s where you publish that counts<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">.\u201d <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/docs.google.com\/spreadsheets\/d\/1VUOzKCZJu-nFclOaWhUN29aeKkFAlThoOQG5CH72nxU\/edit#gid=23382&amp;range=A1\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">86% of respondents<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"> said that in their countries researchers are evaluated on where they publish rather than what they publish. There was no equivalent question in 2013.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">Building on these findings the DOAJ team will continue to adapt and develop its systems, in accordance with <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/drive.google.com\/open?id=1Jc52mJfbqwp6IIP5tkmhS1CO17KcYDdRFa3OSX0oxGs\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">its strategy<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">, to ensure that the DOAJ platform meets user needs, particularly those needs of the global publishing community. After all the platform consists entirely of journal and article metadata, all of which (bar one exception) is provided by the publishers themselves.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b>Contact<br \/>\n<\/b><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">Dom Mitchell<br \/>\n<\/span><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">Operations Manager<br \/>\n<\/span><a href=\"mailto:dom@doaj.org\"><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">dom@doaj.org<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p><b><br \/>\nAbout DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals<\/b><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">DOAJ is a community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals. DOAJ is independent. All funding is via donations, 40% of which comes from sponsors and 60% from members and publisher members. All DOAJ services are free of charge including being indexed in DOAJ. All data is freely available.<\/span><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><span style=\"font-weight:400;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><span style=\"font-weight:400;\">DOAJ&#8217;s mission is to increase the visibility, accessibility, reputation, usage and impact of quality, peer-reviewed, open access scholarly research journals globally, regardless of discipline, geography or language. DOAJ will work with editors, publishers and journal owners to help them understand the value of best practice publishing and standards and apply those to their own operations. DOAJ is committed to being 100% independent and maintaining all of its services and metadata as free to use or reuse for everyone.<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>9th January 2019 &#8211; A survey of publishers with journals indexed in DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) has revealed surprising trends in the way that content is published; what types of organisations are publishing the content; on how publishing standards are being accepted globally; and geographical trends on the uptake of open access. The&#8230;<\/p>","protected":false},"author":378,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"","_kadence_starter_templates_imported_post":false,"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[618,620],"tags":[49,195,290,423,432,505],"class_list":["post-2125","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news-update","category-press-release","tag-academic-publishing","tag-dois","tag-jats","tag-publishers","tag-questionable-publishing","tag-survey-results"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2125","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/378"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2125"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2125\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2125"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2125"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.doaj.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2125"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}