Managing the transition to open access publishing: a psychological perspective

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample characteristics

Table 2. Motivations for OA publishing

Automatic and reflective motivations for OA publishing	Coding references (number of respondents)
	GR 1	GR 2
GR 1	GR 2
57 evaluations of costs of OA, of which:	30 (10)	27 (9)
(-) APCs are expensive	5 (3)	10 (7)
(-) APCs not proportional to value added by publishers	1 (1)	2 (2)
(-) negative evaluation of availability of institutional funds for APCs	24 (8)	15 (5)
32 evaluations of the need for OA, of which:	9 (7)	23 (10)
(+) Need for OA	8 (6)	9 (7)
(-) No need for OA	1 (1)	14 (6)
26 moral judgement of OA, of which:	18 (9)	8 (4)
(+) OA is the good/right thing to do	17 (8)	8 (4)
(-) Doubts about OA being the right thing	1 (1)	0 (0)
14 evaluations of OA’s impact on readership, of which:	11 (6)	3 (3)
(+) OA will increase readership	10 (6)	3 (3)
(-) Doubts about the public’s abilities to comprehend scientific papers	1 (1)	0 (0)
14 evaluations of personal benefits from OA, of which:	10 (6)	4 (3)
(+) OA will generate more citations	4 (4)	2 (1)
(+) OA makes it easier for me to create databases	2 (2)	0 (0)
(+) OA gives me access to wider range of journals	1 (1)	1 (1)
(+) OA helps to establish contacts abroad	1 (1)	0 (0)
(+) OA preprint protects the claim to priority over an idea	1 (1)	0 (0)
(+) OA will give me quicker response to my papers	1 (1)	0 (0)
(+) OA will help to create new collaborations	0 (0)	1 (1)
13 evaluations of OA’s impact on innovation, of which:	3 (2)	10 (7)
(+) OA stimulates innovation (SMEs, academia/industry outside UK)	2 (1)	2 (2)
(-) Doubts about OA’s positive impact on innovation	1 (1)	6 (5)
(-) OA information can be put to ill use	0 (0)	2 (2)
10 references to automatic motivation, of which: (+) Habit* of OA publishing	8 (5)	2 (2)
5 evaluations of OA’s impact on transformation of publishing system, of which:	4 (3)	1 (1)
(-) People may be priced out of being able to publish	1 (1)	0 (0)
(+) Authors, not libraries, will be the gatekeepers of what is accessible	1 (1)	0 (0)
(+) OA may lead to fewer but better publications	1 (1)	0 (0)
(+) Subscription-based publishers will become more open	0 (0)	1 (1)
(+) The stranglehold of publishers will be broken	1 (1)	0 (0)
4 evaluations of OA’s impact on science, of which:	1 (1)	3 (1)
(-) Doubting that OA will advance science	0 (0)	1 (1)
(+) OA will advance science	1 (1)	2 (1)
2 evaluations of OA’s impact on university	2 (2)	0 (0)
(-) OA does not help universities to increase competitiveness	1 (1)	0 (0)
(+) University libraries will save money	1 (1)	0 (0)

Note:

The motivational factors are presented according to the decreasing number of references. Total numbers in bold are broken down in following lines.

^* Habits represent automatic motivations; other factors are reflective motivations.

Table 3. Physical opportunities for OA publishing

Physical opportunities for OA publishing	Coding references (number of respondents)
	GR 1	GR 2
61 references to the availability of suitable fully OA journals, of which:	30 (11)	31 (8)
(+) availability of suitable OA journals (relevant or good quality or high-impact factor journals)	22 (10)	18 (7)
(-) unavailability of suitable OA journals	8 (7)	13 (5)
21 references to university process for allocation of funds for APCs, of which:	11 (8)	10 (5)
(+) university fund allocation process is clear or easy	4 (3)	4 (3)
(-) university funds allocation process is unclear	2 (2)	3 (2)
(-) university does not have a system for allocation of OA funds	1 (1)	1 (1)
(-) researchers no longer have control over funds for APCs within research project budget	4 (4)	2 (1)
10 references to the availability of funds for APCs, of which:	7 (5)	3 (2)
(+) availability of institutional grant funds for APCs	7 (5)	3 (2)
5 references to the availability of time for archiving, of which:	0 (0)	5 (3)
(-) no time for self-archiving	0 (0)	5 (3)
2 references to publishers’ errors, of which:	2 (1)	0 (0)
(-) publisher fails to make a paper openly accessible even though APC is paid	2 (1)	0 (0)

Total numbers in bold are broken down in following lines.

Table 4. Social factors stimulating or constraining OA publishing

Social opportunities for OA publishing	Coding references (number of respondents)
	GR 1	GR 2
15 references to social pressure from peers, of which:	14 (8)	1 (1)
(-) difficulties in sharing OA cost in collaborative projects	6 (4)	1 (1)
(-) co-authors decide to publish without providing OA	3 (3)	0 (0)
(-) international collaborators do not understand the need for gold OA	3 (3)	0 (0)
(+) my co-authors want to have OA publications	2 (1)	0 (0)
14 references to social pressure from research funders, of which:	3 (3)	11 (6)
(+) now research funders expect me to provide OA	3 (3)	11 (6)
9 references to social clue/pressure from employing universities, of which:	4 (4)	5 (2)
(-) universities do not brief staff on OA requirements of funding bodies	1 (1)	0 (0)
(-) university postgraduate education does not include OA agenda	0 (0)	1 (1)
(-) university promotion policies – high-impact journals matter regardless of their OA policies	1 (1)	1 (1)
(+) university encourages staff to adopt OA publishing	2 (2)	2 (1)
(+) university strategy includes OA agenda	0 (0)	1 (1)
3 references to social norm of pro-openness in the discipline, of which:	3 (2)	2 (1)

Total numbers in bold are broken down in following lines.

Table 5. Social factors constraining publishing (OA or non-OA)

Opportunities for publishing	Coding references(number of respondents)
	GR 1	GR 2
21 references to barriers related to collaborative research with industrial partners, of which:	3 (2)	18 (7)
(-) commercial partner restricts the content of a publication	2 (2)	10 (6)
(-) commercial partner delays a publication	1 (1)	5 (4)
(-) commercial research partner prohibits a publication	0 (0)	3 (2)
11 references to barriers related to patenting and commercialisation of university IP, of which:	0 (0)	11 (6)
(-) publication is not undertaken for strategic reasons (weak patent, plans for more patents, lack of IPR protection)	0 (0)	8 (5)
(-) commercial partner restricts the content of a publication	0 (0)	1 (1)
(-) patenting process delays a publication	0 (0)	1 (1)
(-) commercial partner prohibits a publication	0 (0)	1 (1)
5 references to barriers related to contract research, of which:	0 (0)	5 (1)
(-) commercial partner’s restrictions on the content of publications	0 (0)	2 (1)
(-) research material is not scientifically interesting	0 (0)	1 (1)
(-) research material not methodologically robust for a publication	0 (0)	1 (1)
(-) publication is not undertaken for strategic reasons (secrecy enables future contract research)	0 (0)	1 (1)

Total numbers in bold are broken down in following lines.

Table 6. Capabilities for OA publishing

Psychological capabilities	Coding references (number of respondents)
	GR 1	GR 2
5 references to psychological capabilities related to repository-mediated OA, of which:	2 (2)	3 (2)
(-) not understanding the legal rules on self-archiving (copyright)	1 (1)	1 (1)
(-) lack of awareness of the possibility of self-archiving pre-prints	0 (0)	1 (1)
(-) lack of awareness of institutional OA repository	0 (0)	1 (1)
(-) lack of computer skills for self-archiving	1 (1)	0 (0)
2 references to psychological capabilities related to journal-mediated OA, of which:	1 (1)	1 (1)
(-) not understanding systems provided by publishers	1 (1)	0 (0)
(-) lack of awareness that paying an APC makes a paper OA	0 (0)	1 (1)

Total numbers in bold are broken down in following lines.

Table 7. Cross-group comparison

	Group 1	Group 2
Behaviour	Before RCUK OA policy: provided OA to 74.09% of publications in 2010–2011 After RCUK OA policy: provided OA to 84.80% of publications in 2014–2015	Before RCUK OA policy: provided OA to 45.11% of publications in 2010–2011 After RCUK OA policy: provided OA to 49.55% of publications in 2014–2015
Drivers/ enablers of OA publishing	Reflective motivations (52 references): beliefs in morality of OA, personal benefits from OA, positive impact on readership, need for OA, positive impacts on innovation, publishing system, science, universities Enablers in physical environments (33 references): availability of suitable journals, easy university processes for funding allocation, availability of funds Habit of OA publishing (8 references) Drivers in social environment (10 references): encouragement from peers, pressure by funders and employer, norm of pro-openness	Reflective motivations (29 references): beliefs in need for OA, morality of OA, personal benefits from OA, positive impacts on readership, innovation, publishing system, science Enablers in physical environments (25 references): availability of suitable journals, easy university processes for funding allocations, availability of funds Drivers in social environment (16 references): pressure by funders and employers, norm of pro-openness Habit of OA publishing (2 references)
Inhibitors of OA publishing	Obstacles in a physical environment (17 references): unavailability of suitable journals, cumbersome university processes for allocation of funds for OA fees, publisher’s mistakes Reflective (de)motivations (36 references): negative evaluation of OA costs; disbelief in the need for OA; disbelief in morality of OA; disbelief in positive impacts on readership, innovation and universities; beliefs in negative impacts on publishing system Inhibitors in social environment (14 references): problems with co-authors, OA not valued by employers Limited psychological capability (3 references)	Reflective (de)motivations (50 references): negative evaluation of OA costs, disbelief in the need for OA, disbelief in positive impact on innovation and science, belief in negative impacts on innovation Obstacles in physical environment (24 references): unavailability of suitable journals, cumbersome university processes for allocation of funds for OA fees, no time for archiving Limited psychological capability (4 references) Inhibitors in social environment (3 references): OA not valued by employers

Note:

Enablers, drivers and inhibitors are listed in order of prevalence.

Table 8. Examples of interventions targeting identified barriers and inhibitors in Group 2

COM-B	Barriers/inhibitors	Potentially useful intervention functions (Michie et al., 2011)	Examples of university interventions
Reflective motivation	Disbelief in the need for OA	Educate or persuade to create more positive beliefs about providing OA	To educate – collect reliable evidence of OA’s benefits and present in departmental meetings
	Disbelief in positive impact on innovation and science	Persuade, incentivise, coerce, model or enable to feel positively about providing OA and negatively about failing to provide OA	To persuade – in departmental meetings present pros and cons of OA, comparative images of the future of academic publishing, induce anticipated regret
	Belief in negative impacts on innovation		To incentivise – announce that publishing in recent peer-reviewed fully OA journals will be valued by the university as much as in established high-quality non-OA journals
			To coerce – require that any articles to be considered in an annual appraisal/promotion must be archived in an open repository
	Negative evaluation of OA costs	Enable funds for OA	Develop user-friendly, fair and transparent APC allocation processes that do not disadvantage OA journals that have not had time to earn prestige or impact factors (e.g. allocate annual self-managed OA funds to each research-active employee)
		Restrict charging for OA
		Restructure environment to reduce the costs of OA
Physical opportunity	University processes for allocation of funds for OA fees	Restructure the university processes for allocation of funds for OA
	Unavailability of suitable journals	Restructure the environment to increase availability of suitable journals	Support academics in launching OA journals
			Reward academics who serve as editors or referees for OA journals
	No time for archiving	Train or restructure environment to reduce time demand	Allocate resources for helping academics deposit articles in an institutional repository
			Provide instructions on self-archiving in the institutional repositories (in person or online videos)
Social opportunity	OA not valued by employers	Restructure the social environment to shape employees’ ways of thinking	Identify model university OA policies Revise recruitment, appraisal and promotion policies (at least, do not penalise faculty for publishing in recent peer-reviewed fully OA journals: at best, incentivise journal and/or repository-mediated OA)
		Identify model social environments
Psychological capability	Knowledge of self-archiving	Educate about ways of self-archiving	Create user-friendly institutional repository
		Train in cognitive skills required for self-archiving	Inform about SHERPA/RoMEO service
		Enable development of self-archiving skills	Inform about available repositories
			Provide instructions on self-archiving in the institutional repositories (in person or online videos)

Michie, S., van Stralen, M. and West, R. (2011) ‘The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions’, BMC Implementation Science, 6, p.42, available from https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/papers/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 [accessed October 2017].10.1186/1748-5908-6-42

 Google Scholar