# Introduction to the survey

Welcome to the interactive dashboard with the results of the researcher survey on the “Towards Responsible Publishing” proposal by cOAlition S.

cOAlition, an international group of 28 research funders working together to promote open approaches to scientific publishing, has recently introduced its “[Towards Responsible Publishing](https://www.coalition-s.org/towards-responsible-publishing/)” proposal. This proposal envisages a community-based publishing system that will empower scholars to openly share their research and engage with innovative quality control and evaluation standards, thus promoting rapid and transparent dissemination of rigorous scientific knowledge.\
\
Understanding that the perspective of the researcher community would be crucial in shaping the direction of the proposal, cOAlition S commissioned a global consultation process which included the current survey. Through that, researchers could express their views about the ideas presented in the proposal, and influence its further development, ensuring it resonates with the needs and aspirations of the research community. 

### Confidentiality and use of data:

The survey, conducted for cOAlition S by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS | Leiden University), and Research Consulting, adheres to ethical standards approved by the Ethics Committee at Leiden University. Responses were collected without personal identifiers, safeguarding confidentiality. Any subsequent publications or presentations feature anonymised findings.


# Sampling strategy and responses

The methodology for distributing and analysing researcher survey data, sourced from the 2023 ORCID database, involved a multi-step process. A comprehensive data extraction was conducted, retrieving relevant details such as researcher IDs, given names, family names, countries of residence, and email addresses. Records lacking publicly available information were excluded from the dataset to ensure adherence to privacy norms and regulations. This filtering process yielded 333,105 email addresses corresponding to 213,511 unique researcher IDs. 

Recognising the importance of capturing a globally representative sample of researchers' opinions, the country data was utilised to map the number of researchers per region, as delineated in Table 1. 

Table 1. Original distribution of ORCID IDs by region. 

<table><thead><tr><th width="156.33333333333331">Continent </th><th width="358">Region</th><th>ORCID IDs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Africa </td><td>Northern Africa </td><td>4,753 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Sub-Saharan Africa </td><td>4,666 </td></tr><tr><td>Americas </td><td>Latin America and the Caribbean </td><td>41,979 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Northern America </td><td>22,162 </td></tr><tr><td>Asia </td><td>Central Asia </td><td>1,030 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>South-eastern Asia </td><td>10,325 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Southern Asia </td><td>22,318 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Eastern Asia </td><td>26,942 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Western Asia </td><td>13,307 </td></tr><tr><td>Europe </td><td>Northern Europe </td><td>15,935 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Southern Europe </td><td>32,115 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Western Europe </td><td>21,346 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Eastern Europe </td><td>18,505 </td></tr><tr><td>Oceania </td><td>Australia and New Zealand </td><td>5,932 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Micronesia </td><td>20 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Melanesia </td><td>80 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Polynesia </td><td>36 </td></tr></tbody></table>

Upon analysis, a noticeable geographical imbalance in the distribution of researchers across continents was evident based on the regional classifications employed in this study. Three key adjustments were proposed to address this disparity. The first involved the consolidation of all regions within Oceania into a single entity due to the minimal number of records in some areas, which did not warrant separate categorisation. The same was performed for Central Asia, who was incorporated with Eastern Asia. The third adjustment pertained to the Latin America and Caribbean region, where the number of researcher IDs disproportionately represented the region's geographic and scientific system diversity. Consequently, a division was proposed along the intermediate regional lines, effectively segregating Central America and the Caribbean from South America. This subdivision balanced the number of records detailed in Table 2.&#x20;

Table 2. Adjusted distribution of ORCID IDs by region.

<table><thead><tr><th width="160">Continent</th><th width="366">Region</th><th>ORCID IDs</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Africa </td><td>Northern Africa </td><td>4,753 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Sub-Saharan Africa </td><td>4,666 </td></tr><tr><td>Americas</td><td>Central America and the Caribbean </td><td>7,847 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Northern America  </td><td>22,162 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>South America </td><td>34,791 </td></tr><tr><td>Asia </td><td>South-eastern Asia </td><td>10,325 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Southern Asia </td><td>22,318 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Eastern and Central Asia </td><td>27,972 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Western Asia </td><td>13,307 </td></tr><tr><td>Europe </td><td>Northern Europe </td><td>15,935 </td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Southern Europe </td><td>32,115 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Western Europe </td><td>21,346 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Eastern Europe </td><td>18,505 </td></tr><tr><td>Oceania </td><td>Oceania </td><td>6,013 </td></tr></tbody></table>

Despite these adjustments, regional disparities in the number of researchers persisted. To mitigate this, a calculated approximation of the necessary sample sizes from each region was determined to optimally represent their respective research communities. This calculation was informed by data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (concerning researchers in R\&D per million people, in FTE) and the United Nations Statistics Division (Standard Country for Statistical Use). Utilising the most recent data available for each country, the sample size for each group was calculated based on the Cochran formula, commonly employed for determining sample sizes in surveys and experiments. The calculation was predicated on a 95% confidence level and a presumed population proportion of 0.5, aiming to maximize sample size within a 5% margin of error.&#x20;

Table 3 shows the number of available ORCID IDs in the database and Researchers per region, adding the results of the sampling process in three calculations. The first is the number of respondents needed to represent that research community. The second is the number of e-mails sent and the last one is the response rate needed to reach the desired number of responses.&#x20;

Table 3. Sample size and response rate calculations.&#x20;

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Responses/Dashboard12?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" fullWidth="false" %}


# Normalisation options

As discussed in the previous section, the "Towards Responsible Publishing" survey was distributed electronically to researchers across the globe, aiming for wide distribution to capture diverse perspectives from various regions. However, due to differences between regions in the size of the researcher population, the number of public ORCID records, and the response rates, the number of respondents varies significantly, going from 224 in Oceania to 1318 in Western Europe.

Because of that, you can choose to see the survey results on this website according to their absolute numbers - showing the unweighted count of responses and providing a straightforward representation of the data - or choose between two types of normalisation inspired by the bicameral legislative system seen in many countries. In such systems, there are typically two houses of representation:

**House of Representatives:** The number of representatives is usually proportional to the population of individual states or provinces. The idea is that these representatives will equally represent the voices of each citizen. Our normalisation approach to guarantee a proportional voice for each researcher globally is to weigh the number of responses according to the size of the researcher population in each region, using estimates from UNESCO, as seen in the following table:

Table 4. Researcher population (in full-time equivalent) estimates by region.&#x20;

<table data-full-width="true"><thead><tr><th>Continent </th><th>Region</th><th align="right">Researcher population</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Africa </td><td>Northern Africa </td><td align="right">189.000 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Sub-Saharan Africa </td><td align="right">93.000</td></tr><tr><td>Americas </td><td>Central America and the Caribbean </td><td align="right">53.000 </td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Northern America </td><td align="right">1.705.000</td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>South America </td><td align="right">286.000</td></tr><tr><td>Asia </td><td>South-eastern Asia </td><td align="right">422.000</td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Southern Asia </td><td align="right">615.000 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Eastern and Central Asia </td><td align="right">3.641.000 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Western Asia </td><td align="right">272.000 </td></tr><tr><td>Europe </td><td>Northern Europe </td><td align="right">567.000 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Southern Europe </td><td align="right">454.000 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Western Europe </td><td align="right">1.092.000 </td></tr><tr><td>  </td><td>Eastern Europe </td><td align="right">725.000 </td></tr><tr><td>Oceania </td><td>Oceania </td><td align="right">147.000 </td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: <http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=3685>, weighted by population

**Senate:** Each state or province has the same number of senators regardless of population, ensuring their voices can be heard equally. Our approach is to normalise the data per region so that the size of the research population or the response rate of a region does not influence the results, allowing for a view of the results where every region has equal weight.&#x20;

Users can filter and detail visualisations from different perspectives, whether they select to view results with or without normalisation or the method chosen. This allows them to see the viewpoints of each region or continent as they see fit.<br>


# Demographic information

### Question 1

#### What is your primary field of research?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Fields/Dashboard132?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}

***

### Question 2

#### Which of the following best describes the organisation you are affiliated with?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Organisation/Dashboard133?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}

***

### Question  3

#### Please indicate the country where your organisation is located. If you are not affiliated with an organisation, please provide your location.

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Map/Dashboard13?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}

***

### Question  4

#### How many years of research experience do you have?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Experience/Dashboard134?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}

***

### Question  5

#### What best describes your gender?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Gender/Dashboard135?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}


# Recent publishing experience

### Question 6

#### How many of the following have you published in the past three years, approximately?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Publications/Dashboard136?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}


# Reaching relevant audiences and determining what research is pertinent

### Question 7

#### As an author, how useful do you think the following methods are in helping your research reach its intended audience?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Authorview/Dashboard137?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}

***

### Question 8

#### What other ways do you use to help your research reach its intended audience?

This was an open question with responses highlighting a diverse range of methods researchers use to ensure their work reaches its intended audience. While traditional academic publishing remains crucial, researchers increasingly rely on digital platforms, social media, and direct engagement with both academic and non-academic audiences. The use of multimedia, clear communication strategies, and strategic collaborations further enhance the visibility and impact of research.

We can divide the strategies mentioned in two groups:

<details>

<summary>Key methods researchers use</summary>

1. **Institutional Repositories and Academic Platforms:**
   * Utilising university and research institute repositories and web pages for sharing research.
   * Leveraging platforms such as Google Scholar, ResearchGate, SciProfiles, and Academia.edu for broader visibility.
2. **Media and Public Engagement:**
   * Engaging with the media to popularise research findings through interviews, articles, and reports.
   * Promoting research on personal blogs or websites.
   * Creating and sharing content on YouTube, podcasts, and other multimedia platforms.
3. **Presentations and Events:**
   * Presenting at conferences, seminars, workshops, public lectures, and keynote addresses to reach targeted audiences.
   * Organising workshops and seminars with target audiences, such as industry professionals and educators.
4. **Collaboration:**
   * Collaborating with other researchers and industry partners for broader impact.
5. **Content Creation and Online Visibility:**
   * Contributing to blogs and non-academic publications to reach a wider audience.
   * Utilising SEO techniques to improve the online visibility of research publications.
   * Writing accessible and clear abstracts and titles.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Unique and notable responses</summary>

1. **Using Specific Platforms and Tools:**
   * Depositing research on platforms like NASA ADS and CERN Inspires for specific fields such as Physics and Astronomy.
   * Publishing associated code and data on platforms like GitHub and Zenodo to facilitate reproducibility and further research.
2. **Personal Touch and Networking:**
   * Including research links in email signatures.
   * Building and maintaining personal research portfolios and websites.
3. **Industry and Policy Engagement:**
   * Creating executive summaries and policy briefs for stakeholders.
   * Collaborating with government agencies and NGOs for direct application of research findings.

</details>

***

### Question 9

#### As a reader, it may not be possible to read all the research that could be of relevance to you. You may want to focus your attention on the highest-quality research. In your opinion, how effective are the following criteria to identify high-quality research?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Readerview/Dashboard1310?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}

***

### Question 10

#### Do you use any other criteria to identify high-quality research? 

In this open question, respondents confirmed that traditional metrics like impact factor and citation counts are commonly used to identify high-quality research. However, they also rely on a broader set of criteria to identify high-quality research. Methodological rigor, practical impact, ethical considerations, and recommendations from peers are among the most valued factors. Personal judgment and critical reading continue to be crucial in evaluating the quality of research.

Details from the answers are available below.

<details>

<summary>Key methods researchers use</summary>

1. **Methodological Rigor and Reproducibility:**
   * Sound methodology and reproducibility by other researchers.
   * Completeness of the study and detailed methodology.
   * Quality of Statistical Analysis
2. **Contribution to the Field:**
   * A significant contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
   * Novelty and innovation in research.
3. **Clarity and Coherence:**
   * Well-written and logically organised research.
   * Quality of figures, text, and overall presentation.
4. **Ethical Considerations:**
   * Adherence to ethical guidelines and standards.
5. **Recommendations and Peer Feedback:**
   * Recommendations from trusted colleagues or experts in the field.
   * Discussions at conferences or on social media.
6. **Practical Impact and Implementation:**
   * Research adopted in practice or policy.
   * Practical applicability and real-world impact.
7. **Community and Public Engagement:**
   * Media coverage and public discussions about the research.
   * Involvement in public policy or societal debates.
8. **Quality of References and Citations:**
   * Comprehensive and relevant references.
   * Citation context and appropriateness.
   * Cross-referencing with other high-quality research.

</details>


# The efficiency of the publishing system, with a particular focus on peer review processes

### Question 11

#### In your experience, what is the average duration from submission to publication in a journal, including resubmissions? (in months)

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Time/Dashboard1312?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}

***

### Question 12

#### How satisfied are you with the speed of the journal publication process in your field of research?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Timeperception/Dashboard1311?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}

***

### Question  13

#### Preprint publishing can be used to expedite the dissemination of scientific knowledge. How effective do you think preprints are in the following areas?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Preprinteffectiveness/Dashboard139?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}


# Questions for respondents who have published preprints

Questions 14 and 15 show only answers from respondents who have published at least one preprint in the past three years.

### Question  14

#### As an author, do you use preprints to invite early feedback on your research (where feedback may be provided by email or on preprint servers, peer review platforms, social media, etc.)?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Earlyfeedback/Dashboard1313?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}

***

### Question  15

#### How useful do you find feedback on your preprints?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Feedbackuse/Dashboard138?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}


# Preprinting and open reviews by journals

The following questions consider respondents opinions on the adoption of preprinting and open peer review by traditional journals

***

### Question  16

#### To accelerate the dissemination of research, a journal could publish an article as a preprint at the start of the peer review process. When the journal receives revised versions of the article during peer review, it could update the preprint. Would you support this way of accelerating the dissemination of research?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Journalpreprint/Dashboard1314?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}

***

### Question  17

#### In addition to publishing intermediary versions of an article as a preprint, a journal could also publish the peer review reports for these versions. This gives readers of the preprint information about its strengths and weaknesses. Review reports would be published regardless of whether the journal accepts or rejects the article. Would you support this way of informing readers?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Journalreviews/Dashboard1315?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}

***

### Question  18

#### Feel free to use this space to share thoughts regarding preprinting or the disclosure of peer review reports within journals.&#x20;

The responses to this open question provided a range of opinions on preprinting and the disclosure of peer review reports within journals. Overall, the perspectives on preprinting and open peer review are mixed, with strong arguments for transparency, community engagement, and early dissemination, but significant concerns regarding quality, increased workload, potential for plagiarism, and negative impacts on careers and the peer review process. Here's a summary highlighting both positive and negative perspectives:

<details>

<summary>Positive perspectives</summary>

* **Transparency and Quality Improvement**:
  * "Disclosure of peer review reports will increase the quality of reviews and prevent reviewers from pushing their agenda."
  * "It will increase the quality of the review process and provide a more comprehensive view of the strengths and weaknesses of the research."
* **Community Engagement and Early Feedback**:
  * "Preprints can attract researchers with similar interests."
  * "A preprint might encourage relevant feedback to improve a text."
* **Accessibility and Dissemination**:
  * "Preprints make research available quickly to the community."
  * "Since preprints can be accessed by anyone, this is one measure that can overcome the current situation in which the research available differs depending on the affiliation."
* **Learning and Training**:
  * "An additional bonus of sharing the pre-print with the peer review reports is that junior researchers could read the peer reviews and thus learn to be better reviewers themselves."

</details>

<details>

<summary>Negative perspectives</summary>

* **Quality and Credibility Concerns**:
  * "Preprinting will generate more low-quality material."
  * "A preprint is not an actual proved work by peer review process and it might lead to wrong results before it's approved."
* **Increased Workload and Burden**:
  * "This would add to the workload of the editorial board, who are already overwhelmed."
* **Fear of Plagiarism and Idea Theft**:
  * "I would be reluctant to do so due to the high opportunity for my work to be plagiarized or someone using my ideas which would then lead to my ideas not being considered novel anymore."
  * "Others may read my pre-print and publish first in some cases."
* **Bias and Unfair Criticism**:
  * "Reviews can be very harsh and done by incompetent reviewers."
  * "Some reviews may be abusively aggressive or make comments out of the point."
* **Impact on Careers and Reputations**:
  * "Publishing reviews could discourage submissions by other authors."
  * "If the comments are rough and the paper is rejected, I would not like review reports to be visible. This could be damaging to my career."
* **Confusion and Information Overload**:
  * "Adding even more versions into circulation will just increase the level of noise in the system, and make it harder to find the material I'm looking for."
  * "Having various versions being 'published' may lead to confusion...particularly if these early versions get cited."

</details>

***


# Recognition and rewards

### Question 19

#### Do you feel that the researcher recognition and reward mechanisms take into account emerging publishing methods, like preprints?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Preprintrecognition/Dashboard1316?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}

***

### Question 20

#### How likely are the following issues to negatively impact your career development?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Negativeimpact/Dashboard1317?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}

***

### Question 21

#### How important do you consider preprints for timely recognition of research in your field?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Timelyrecognition/Dashboard1318?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}


# Recent peer review experience

### Question 22

#### How many times have you performed peer review in the past three years, for publishing purposes, including journal articles, books, and conference proceedings?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Reviews/Dashboard1319?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}


# Efficiency of peer review and effort recognition

The following questions apply only to those respondents who have performed peer review in the past three years

### Question 23

#### Do you feel that the amount of peer review requests you receive is

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Peerreviewrequests/Dashboard1320?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}

***

### Question 24

#### Do you feel the current researcher recognition and reward mechanisms motivate you to undertake peer review?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Peerreviewrecognition/Dashboard1322?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}

***

### Question 25

#### To what extent would the following practices encourage you to participate more actively in peer review?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Peerreviewmotivation/Dashboard1323?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}

***

### Question 26

#### Publishing peer review reports may help to improve the efficiency of peer review. For example, if a journal rejects an article that is then submitted to a different journal, the latter journal may reuse (parts of) the previous review reports in its decision-making, thereby reducing the need to find new reviewers. As a reviewer, would you support the publication of your peer review reports?

{% embed url="<https://public.tableau.com/views/cOAlitionSSurvey-Openingpeerreview/Dashboard1324?:display_count=n&:language=en-GB&:origin=viz_share_link&:sid=&publish=yes>" %}


# Final thoughts

### Question 27

#### As we come to the end of this survey, we invite you to share any final thoughts or opinions you may have on the topics covered. This is your opportunity to highlight any issues not sufficiently addressed by previous questions and to offer insights you believe are significant for understanding these issues.&#x20;

With the final open question, respondents had the possibility to express different perspectives not only on the "Towards Responsible Publishing" proposal, but also regarding preprinting, open peer review and other relevant aspects of scholarly publishing. Overall, there is broad support for the guiding principles proposed by cOAlition S to address the need for more responsible publishing practices:

1. Authors are responsible for the dissemination of their findings.
2. All scholarly outputs are shared immediately and openly.
3. Quality control processes are community-based and open, to ensure trustworthiness of research findings.
4. All scholarly outputs are eligible for consideration in research assessment.
5. Stakeholders commit to support the sustainability and diversity of the scholar-led publishing ecosystem.

However, responses also highlight significant concerns and reservations that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of these principles.

### **Principle 1**

#### **Authors are responsible for the dissemination of their findings.**

Many respondents expressed a strong belief in the authors' responsibility to disseminate their findings. Two main approaches can be seen in the answers, the first being non-profit and scholar-led publishing models. Respondents suggested that these models could offer a more equitable and sustainable approach to academic publishing.&#x20;

> "The single best way to improve both access to published work, keeping its cost down, and ensuring quality is through non-profit journals operated by the research community itself. This means creating incentives for researchers to volunteer their time as editors, reviewers, proof readers, content management system operators, and the like."

The second approach for authors to be responsible for the dissemination of their findings is preprinting, which has gotten support as a means for making research immediately accessible to a wider audience, even if aligned with the traditional journal publishing.

> "We do not need a system of only open access. Subscription that permits preprinting and open access can go hand-in-hand."

> "It is important for the scientific community to build and control their own reviewing and publishing infrastructure, because it allows the empirical study of what works best."

Furthermore, many respondents highlighted barriers that hinder authors from effectively disseminating their work. High publication costs were frequently mentioned as a significant obstacle. Another concern was the protectionism of supervisors and collaborators, making it difficult to share preprints.

> "It is very difficult for us to publish due to the cost of it. Always asking for waivers."  "I have been working under supervisors... and it is an uphill battle to push for sharing information before the completion of the peer-review process."

### **Principle 2**&#x20;

#### **All scholarly outputs are shared immediately and openly.**

Several respondents highlighted the problems of the current publishing system, supporting the immediate and open sharing of scholarly outputs through preprints, noting that it enhances accessibility and transparency. However, challenges such as the need for proper recognition and rewards have been listed as obstacles.

> "Something has to be done about the cost of publishing open science and the lag time of review."

> "If the turnaround time for publication was much shorter, or if the preprint was highly valued, it would be much more rewarding to complete an article, because your research would be out there immediately."

Concerns were raised about the quality and ethics of preprints, particularly the risk of disseminating unvetted or flawed research. In that sense, it is clear that many see only the publish part of the publish-review-curate model, which justifies some resistance to adopting or transitioning to new publishing practices.

> "Increasing accessibility via open publication is great, however preprints aren't necessarily the way to go about it. We still need peer-review to catch errors and bad research."

### **Principle 3**

#### **Quality control processes are community-based and open, to ensure trustworthiness of research findings.**

There was support for community-based and open quality control processes, with some respondents highlighting the potential for increased accountability and transparency.&#x20;

> "While preprints and open access can enhance accessibility and transparency, it's crucial to maintain rigorous peer review and quality standards to ensure the reliability and credibility of published research."

> "The peer-review process can be slow but invaluable, and preprints are geared towards rapid and prompt dissemination but are susceptible to abuse and may become harbingers of fabricated data and unsound Science! Striking a balance will be the genius."

Some respondents were skeptical about open peer review, citing concerns about bias, retaliation, and the potential for superficial reviews.&#x20;

> "I would strongly discourage you to publish the reviews in any form... It will offer nothing to the reader of the final paper."&#x20;

> "If reviews were open, the process becomes corrupted. For example, \[a publisher I reviewed for] publishes whatever is submitted... I said 'not publishable', but they sent it to someone else who accepted it."

However, others reconized the value of open peer review, while sometimes acknowledging the challenges they could represent.

> &#x20;"In theory, I like the idea of publishing review reports. I think it would increase quality and care of reviews. however, I wouldn't accept more review requests, as I would feel I needed to put even more time into writing publishable (and quoteable) texts."&#x20;

> "Publishing non-anonymous peer reviews will invite new challenges in research publication process... But on the contrary, it is one definitive way of making the review process transparent and the reviewers more accountable."

### **Principle 4**

#### **All scholarly outputs are eligible for consideration in research assessment.**

Respondents generally agreed that all scholarly outputs, including preprints, should be considered in research assessments to provide a more comprehensive view of a researcher's contributions.&#x20;

> "I generally feel that faster publication turnaround, and/or valuing preprints more strongly, would motivate researchers to write preprints themselves more quickly."

> "Definitely, this entire system needs to be improved, through more innovative and effective ways of evaluating article content, also including and considering the anonymous or non-anonymous work of reviewers. I understand that the more transparent, inclusive and equitable the process for the actors involved, the better its results will be and, consequently, the faster science will advance as a whole."

However, there was some concern that preprints and non-traditional outputs might not be adequately recognised or valued by institutions and funding agencies.&#x20;

> "While sharing a preprint of my research can be good for that field, it doesn't count in my employers system. As an extreme example, solely sharing preprints and self-published final products while never publishing in the traditional sense would leave me with 0% research time in my contract."

### **Principle 5**

#### **Stakeholders commit to support the sustainability and diversity of the scholar-led publishing ecosystem.**

Some respondents expressed skepticism about the feasibility and effectiveness of entirely scholar-led models, especially given the current dominance of large commercial publishers. Another concern was the risk of predatory behavior in an open access model.

> "The publishing industry is too controlled by the financial interests of publishers. We need more independent publishing channels with an equally high reputation."&#x20;

> "The lure of financial gains from APC may endue the proliferation of predatory journals and should be addressed."

Many recognise the value of the publish-review-curate model and of open access as a whole. However, there is concern regarding how to operationalise the proposed advancements.

> "The topics we've covered, such as preprints, peer review, open access, and dissemination of research findings, all contribute to the evolving landscape of scholarly communication."

> "Addressing this issue requires exploring alternative publishing models, such as open access initiatives or collective funding mechanisms, to ensure that knowledge remains accessible to all who seek it."

> "I believe, there's much space here, whereas the cost for funding institutions wouldn't go up (they already provide a lot of money for OA and this would shift to paying reviewers); some money could be devoted for hosting purposes, editing and management, and the remainder could be provided as pay incentive to the reviewers."


# Research team and acknowledgements

The survey results presented in this interactive dashboard integrate the report ​​‘Towards Responsible Publishing’—Stakeholder consultation findings. Research Consulting and the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) conducted the study on behalf of cOAlition S.

In addition, the following information is available:

* Report and Executive Summary: [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11243942](https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.5281%2Fzenodo.11243942\&data=05%7C02%7Ca.l.brasil.varandas.pinto%40cwts.leidenuniv.nl%7C4717a4199086410cb70708dc9b35a7ce%7Cca2a7f76dbd74ec091086b3d524fb7c8%7C0%7C0%7C638555901962517336%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C\&sdata=EPdZSWaQitYfbvUf%2BjWdh2a26MmRIyj1iQSU0ljH08Q%3D\&reserved=0)
* Online researcher survey questionnaire\
  <https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11244210>&#x20;
* Online researcher survey dataset\
  <https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11244247>&#x20;
* Structured organisational feedback responses

  <https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11244266>&#x20;

A Kudos page with more project information is available at [https://doi.org/10.26303/m1s7-9b04](https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.26303%2Fm1s7-9b04\&data=05%7C02%7Ca.l.brasil.varandas.pinto%40cwts.leidenuniv.nl%7C4717a4199086410cb70708dc9b35a7ce%7Cca2a7f76dbd74ec091086b3d524fb7c8%7C0%7C0%7C638555901962505330%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C\&sdata=d1FnwRx3%2BDoXtKRHlhB2oKnQnyc%2F97wNiEX7L71kK1E%3D\&reserved=0)

### Research team

#### Research Consulting

Andrea Chiarelli, Ellie Cox, Rob Johnson&#x20;

[www.research-consulting.com](http://www.research-consulting.com/)&#x20;

#### Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University

André Brasil, Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner, Andrea Reyes Elizondo, Ludo Waltman

<https://www.cwts.nl/>&#x20;

#### Sheffield University

Stephen Pinfield&#x20;

<https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/is> &#x20;

### Acknowledgements

This project would not have been possible without the review, input, and critical advice we received from a broad range of individuals and organisations. In particular, we thank:

cOAlition S’ project group for the support provided over the course of this work, including: Bodo Stern (Chief of Strategic Initiatives, Howard Hughes Medical CentreInstitute; Chair of the TRP Steering Group, cOAlition S), Maria Karatzia (Communications Officer, cOAlition S), Nora Papp-Le Roy (Programme Manager, cOAlition S) and Robert Kiley (Head of Strategy, cOAlition S).&#x20;

The project Steering Group for the insightful advice and commentary provided on our interim findings at multiple project milestones, including (in alphabetical order): Ashley Farley (Program Officer of Knowledge and Research Services, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), Bregt Saenen (Senior Policy Officer, Science Europe), Johan Rooryck (Executive Director, cOAlition S), Jeroen Sondervan (Programme Leader in Open Scholarly Communications, NWO), Marte Qvenild (Senior Advisor, Research Council of Norway), Katharina Rieck (Open Science Manager, Austrian Science Fund), and Zoée Ancion (Open Science Policy, French National Research Agency).&#x20;

Our associates Joy Owango (Founding Director, Training Centre in Communication) and Lin Zhang (Professor of Information Management, Wuhan University) for their critical review of our findings as well as for the discussion of international implications of the TRP proposal.&#x20;

The members of the research community and other stakeholders who generously volunteered their time, both anonymously, via online surveys, and as part of our focus groups.&#x20;

{% hint style="warning" %}
We highlight that participation in the study by all respondents (regardless of the work package) does not imply their endorsement of the report’s findings or any commitment to the cOAlition S ‘Towards Responsible Publishing’ principles.
{% endhint %}