preliminary report final - university of toronto t …...mellon foundation, 2008 annual report, p....

S U R V E Y O F U N I V E R S I T Y O F T O R O N T O

F A C U L T Y A W A R E N E S S , A T T I T U D E S A N D

P R A C T I C E S R E G A R D I N G S C H O L A R L Y

C O M M U N I C A T I O N :

A P R E L I M I N A R Y R E P O R T

Prepared by

Gale Moore, PhD

Senior Fellow & former Director, KMDI (2003-2008) Member, Graduate Faculty, Department of Sociology

Member, Tri-campus Working Group on Scholarly Communication, UTL

February 2011

The proper citation for this publication is: Moore, Gale. 2011. Survey of University of Toronto Faculty Awareness, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Scholarly Communication: A Preliminary Report. Toronto: University of Toronto. 185 p. Retrieved [DATE] from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/26446

Author’s email: gale[dot]moore[at]utoronto[dot]ca

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons

Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/

Photo credit cover: torontocitylife http://www.flickr.com/photos/torontocitylife/3321347004/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/torontocitylife/3321347004/

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/26446

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''D'

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

Scholarly communication covers a range of activities including the dissemination of the results of scholarly research. These activities are fundamental to the development of scholarly careers, and to the production of metrics that establish university rankings in international league tables.

While scholars are central, they are only one part of a scholarly communication ecosystem that includes publishers, librarians, and university administrators, as well as scholarly societies, associations, funding agencies and others. Scholarly communication as a set of activities and practices is constantly changing – in some periods more rapidly than others and in some fields or disciplines more quickly than in others.

Today, the economic, social and cultural landscape is being transformed by the turn to the digital that is evident in phrases such as the networked information society or the digital economy. How does this turn affect scholars and other members of the scholarly communication ecosystem on which so much depends? How aware are scholars of the opportunities and challenges posed by the networked environment in which they are situated, and the implications for their activities and those of others in the system? Are they aware of how the activities of others in the ecosystem affect them?

A survey of University of Toronto faculty was conducted in 2010 to enquire into these issues.1

1 The final sampling frame consisted of 3053 faculty members. 497 faculty members completed the survey giving a response rate of 16.3%.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''E'

The research had three main objectives: • to collect evidence regarding the current practices of University of Toronto

faculty with regard to scholarly communication – primarily scholarly publishing and dissemination

• to obtain evidence of the awareness of the faculty, and their attitudes toward the changes in practices and forms that are occurring with the turn to the digital

• to stimulate conversation on these topics among faculty within departments, faculties and academic units across the university, as well as with other members of the scholarly communication ecosystem.

The survey has five sections that ask about i) current practices ii) scholarly publishing, including copyright and peer review iii) newer practices relating to open access, subject or institutional repositories, policies and mandates iv) costs associated with scholarly communication and iv) local services.

Detailed findings, including faculty comments are in 5.0. A number of broad themes (below) that emerged out of the detailed findings are used to organize the Summary of findings (4.0). The summary also includes comparisons with the results from a 2006 survey of faculty at the University of California.

• *()/' )12"3.&' 2;1#12.%#,F1.,(+' ()' .;%' :%+%#13' -.1.%' ()' .;%' -2;(31#3&' 2(=="+,21.,(+!

-&-.%='$1#,%-'@&'7,-2,?3,+%'1+7'#1+G'H!%%'0,:-I'CJAK''

!

• <(+$%+.,(+13' ?#12.,2%-' 5,.;' #%:1#7' .(' -2;(31#3&' ?"@3,-;,+:' 1+7' 7,--%=,+1.,(+' 1#%'

2(+),#=%7'1+7'2(+.,+"%'.('7(=,+1.%6'5;,3%'13.%#+1.%'?#12.,2%-'1#%'13-(',+'%$,7%+2%''

'

• 9%?".1.,(+13')12.(#-'L',+23"7,+:'#%17%#-;,?M1"7,%+2%6'?%%#'#%$,%56'1+7'#%?".1.,(+'()'

.;%'$%+"%'L'#1+G';,:;%-.',+'7%2,7,+:'5;%#%')12"3.&'-"@=,.'5(#G')(#'?"@3,21.,(+'

'

• *()/')12"3.&'1#%'2(==,..%7'.('?%%#'#%$,%5'1+7'1#%'12.,$%'2(+.#,@".(#-'

'

• <"##%+.'.%+"#%6'=%#,.'1+7'?#(=(.,(+'?#(2%--%-'#%N%+)(#2%'.#17,.,(+13'?#12.,2%-6'5,.;'

-(=%'%$,7%+2%'.;1.'7,:,.13')(#=-'()'-2;(31#-;,?'1#%'%=%#:,+:!

!

• 8"@3,-;%#O-'2(+.#12.-'1+7'2(?&#,:;.'1#%'1'P@312G'@(QO')(#'.;%'=1R(#,.&'()')12"3.&'

'

• 451#%+%--' ()' S?%+' 422%--' ,-' $%#&' ;,:;' 1+7' .;%' ?#,+2,?3%' ,-' -.#(+:3&' -"??(#.%7I'

*+7%#-.1+7,+:'()' .;%'7,))%#%+.'(?%+'122%--'(?.,(+-' ,-'=(#%' 3,=,.%7'1+7'?#12.,2%' ,-'

-;1?%7'@&'7,-2,?3,+1#&'+(#=-'

'

• /;%#%' ,-' 3,..3%' 151#%+%--' (#' "-%' ()' 7,:,.13' ?"@3,-;,+:6' 7,--%=,+1.,(+' (#' 2"#1.(#,13'

-%#$,2%-'())%#%7'@&'.;%'*+,$%#-,.&'

'

• *()/')12"3.&'12#(--'.;%'7,-2,?3,+%-'1#%'%Q?%#,%+2,+:'2;1#:%-'1+7')%%-'1--(2,1.%7'5,.;'

?"@3,21.,(+''

'

• 012"3.&' 1#%' ,+.%#%-.%7' ,+' ,--"%-' #%31.%7' .(' -2;(31#3&' 2(=="+,21.,(+T' =1+&' 1#%'

"+151#%'()'#%2%+.'7%$%3(?=%+.-6'@".'1'2(#%'()')12"3.&'1#%'12.,$%3&'%+:1:%7''

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''U'

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

"#"$%&'("!)%**+,-.................................................................................................... /!

0.1!'2&,34%$&'32 .........................................................................................................5!

6.1!7+$89,3%24........................................................................................................... :!

/.1!*"&;343<39- ...................................................................................................... 0/!

=.1!)%**+,-!3>!>'24'29) ......................................................................................... 0=!

?.1!4"&+'<"4!>'24'29)................................................................................................ 65!

!"#$%%&'(()*+%,(-&+.&)/ ..............................................................................................................28!

!"0$%%/&123-(34%,'53./1.*67%.*&3'8.*6%&2,4(.61+7%-*8%,))(%()9.): ............................61!

!"%;$%%2,)*%-&&)//7%(),2/.+2(.)/7%<-*8-+)/ .........................................................................97!

!"=$%%&2/+/ .....................................................................................................................................120!

!"!$%%>.*-3%?')/+.2*/ .................................................................................................................130!

+$823@<"49"*"2&) ...............................................................................................0=/!

+73%&!&;"!+%&;3, .................................................................................................. 0==!

+AA"24'#!+B!+,&'$<"!32!)$;3<+,<-!$3**%2'$+&'32 ...................................... 0=?!

+AA"24'#!7B!)%,("-!4")'92!C!*"&;343<39-......................................................0=:!

+AA"24'#!$B!)%,("-!'2)&,%*"2& ...........................................................................0?:!

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''V'

1 . 0 I N T R O D U C T I O N

Scholarly communications covers a broad range of activities, including the discovery, collection, organization, evaluation, interpretation, and preservation of primary and other sources of

information, and the publication and dissemination of scholarly research.

... Mellon Foundation, 2008 Annual Report, p. 30.

This is a preliminary report on the results of a 2010 survey of the University of Toronto faculty on their awareness, attitudes and practices regarding scholarly communication.

The research had three main objectives:

i) to collect evidence regarding the current practices of University of Toronto faculty with regard to scholarly communication – primarily scholarly publishing and dissemination

ii) to obtain evidence of the awareness of the faculty, and their attitudes toward the changes in practices and forms that are occurring in publishing and dissemination with the turn to the digital

iii) to stimulate conversation on these topics among faculty within departments, faculties and academic units across the university, as well as with other members of the scholarly communication ecosystem.

This report is primarily descriptive. It begins in 2.0 with a brief introduction to the field of scholarly communication and situates the current interest in this area. 3.0 briefly describes the methodology.2 4.0 provides a summary organized by a set of broad themes that emerged from the detailed findings included as 5.0.3

This study has benefited from access to a survey of faculty carried out at the University of California in 2006. This allows for some comparative analysis. As there has been a great deal of activity in the ecosystem over this period, it is also an opportunity to see if there is increased awareness of these issues reflected in the 2010 data from a Canadian research intensive public institution.

Future research at the level of the discipline or field is required to understand the ways in which the norms, practices and culture of any individual field are evolving. This high-level view does, however, raise awareness of the diversity of experiences and approaches to scholarly communication that are taking place across the academy. The preliminary results are being made available in the hope that they may be useful in providing a focus for further discussion.

2 A detailed discussion of the survey design and methodology, and its limitations is included as Appendix B.

3 Section 5.0 includes the frequency distribution of the responses to each question, and a breakdown by broad disciplinary category and academic rank. Observations are included for each table as well as charts and a summary of faculty comments. This is a first step toward understanding the current awareness, attitudes and practices of University of Toronto faculty on these issues.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''W'

2 . 0 B A C K G R O U N D

Scholarly communication is the system through which research and other scholarly writings are created, evaluated for quality, disseminated to the scholarly community, and

preserved for future use.

Association of College and Research Libraries, 20034

Scholarly communication covers a range of activities, including the publication and dissemination of the results of scholarly research. As well, these activities are fundamental to the development of scholarly careers, and to the production of metrics that establish a university’s rank in international league tables.

While scholars are central, they are only one part of a scholarly communication ecosystem that includes publishers, librarians, university administrators as well as scholarly societies, associations, funding agencies and others. Today, as the economic, social and cultural landscape is being transformed by the turn to the digital that is evident in phrases such as the networked information society or the digital economy, it is timely to ask how does this turn affect scholars and other members of the scholarly communication ecosystem on which so much depends. How aware are scholars of the opportunities and challenges posed by the digital, networked environment in which they are situated, and the implications for their activities and those of others in the system? Are they aware of how the activities of others in the ecosystem affect them?

This essay provides a brief introduction to why the subject of scholarly communication5 has taken on new importance in recent years, and situates this current interest as it has emerged out of a series of events in the late 1980s.

It is important to state explicitly at the outset that calling attention ‘to’ the digital is not, de facto, to advocate either ‘for’ or ‘against’ the digital or the new practices that are enabled. Rather, it is to suggest that this turn is potentially as disruptive for scholars and others in the scholarly communication ecosystem as it has been for content creators and distributors in other areas, for example the music industry and more recently the newspaper industry. It is not these technologies per se that are disruptive but the reconfiguration of the social relations that they enable in the particular social system in which they are embedded.

Scholarly communication as a set of activities and practices is constantly changing – in some periods more rapidly than others, and in some fields or disciplines more quickly than others.6

4 Retrieved Jan. 13, 2011 from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/whitepapers/principlesstrategies.cfm

5 Scholarly communication is an established field of research and scholarship. Examples of work in this area include for example, Diana Crane (1972) Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities; Becher and Trowler’s Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines (1989, 2001); Michael Gibbons et al., The New Production of Knowledge (1994), and more recently Michèle Lamont’s How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (2009). There is also a literature on specific aspects of scholarly communication, for example, Blaise Cronin’s The Citation Process (1984); The Scholar's Courtesy (1995); and The Hand of Science (2005).

6 For example, with the rise of the scientific journal in the 18th century, older forms of establishing priority claims disappeared, including the anagram and the practice of depositing sealed letters with learned societies. Then when the costs of distributing scientific journals became a major issue for many

http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/whitepapers/principlesstrategies.cfm

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''X'

There are scholars working today who began their careers writing in longhand or on a typewriter. Some will recall the IBM Selectric; the typewriter introduced in 1961 with inter-changeable typing balls that readily accommodated writing in a number of different languages or the inclusion of mathematical symbols. This significantly improved the writing experience for those who had already made the transition from writing longhand to the typewriter – arguably the more difficult transition. In the 1980s, the word processor replaced the typewriter, and the convenience of being able to manipulate and store what at the time seemed like large quantities of text, improved the process of writing and revising for many scholars.

There were advances in communication systems and networks – the most notable example being the internet.7 With the creation of the World Wide Web (WWW), a system of hypertext documents by Tim Berners-Lee in 1989 accessible over the internet, and the launch of the Mosaic browser in 1993 the WWW became openly accessible to millions of non-technical users across the globe.

Access to scholarly research improved. The electronic capture and later dissemination of journals and books, with improved tools for search and discovery were gradually, and relatively smoothly, integrated into academic work practices. As access became increasingly distributed, the opening hours of the library were no longer a limiting factor. Scholars adapted quite readily to these changes that helped them to become more productive as they adopted these new tools.

The cost of these improvements was, however, largely invisible to scholars, as universities, specifically libraries, paid the bill. The first evidence of a crisis emerged in the late 1980s when research libraries around the world could no longer keep up with the increasing cost of providing access to the expanding and expensive scientific journals. In addition to the already high cost of the subscriptions to the paper copies there were now added millions of dollars in licensing fees to provide access to the electronic versions of the journals and indexes. This would not only affect scientists, but all scholars since despite what were often massive cancellations of scientific journal subscriptions, there were fewer funds available for the purchase of monographs so important in the humanities and social sciences.

It was this issue that would become known as the serials crisis (ARL, 1989) that sparked action. For over one hundred years, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL)8 had collected data on many aspects of their members’ activities, including expenditures on collections.9 By 1986/87 evidence showed that not only were serials’ prices out of control, but that “the number of monographs purchased fell 20 percent between 1985/86 and 1987/88” (Case, 2009, 383). The latest version of ARL’s graph is included below as Figure 2.1.

of the societies involved, the development of a major system of research libraries to support the acquisition, organization and dissemination of this vast production resolved the problem for much of the 20th century (Meadows, Chapter 2, 1974). Subsequent demand for more rapid dissemination led to new models of dissemination and access such as Physical Review Letters that emerged in the 1960s as a separate publication for what has previously been Letters to the Editor. And, in 1991, arXiv http://arxiv.org/ an openly accessible archive of e-prints created initially for the field of physics was established.

7 There is an ongoing debate in the literature on whether the term internet should be capitalized.

8 The University of Toronto Library is a member of ARL.

9 ARL Statistics http://www.arl.org/stats/annualsurveys/arlstats/

http://www.arl.org/stats/annualsurveys/arlstats/

http://arxiv.org/

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''Y'

What happened next is summarized in a paper written by a former director of ARL’s Office of Scholarly Communication, Mary M. Case. The chronology of events that follows is drawn from that paper, unless otherwise indicated (Case, 2009, 381-395).

! 1988: A report by Economic Consulting Services, Inc. commissioned to study why serials’ prices seemed so out of control notes that, “based on its data, if a publisher were breaking even in 1973, it would be making a profit of between 40 and 137 percent in 1987” (383).

! 1989: Andrew W. Mellon Foundation becomes interested in the issue and how “the development of new information technologies might radically change scholarly communication and the research library’s role in that process” (383). In 1992 the final report entitled University Libraries and Scholarly Communication is published for Mellon by ARL.

! 1990: ARL creates what is today known as the Office of Scholarly Communication.

! 1992: The Association of American Universities (AAU) partners with ARL bringing the issue to the attention of university presidents and chancellors.

>DEFGH!6.0B!*HIDJK!LMKMEGJNO!JKI!PHGDJQ!HRNHKIDSFGHP!DK!+,<!QDTGJGDHPU!0VW5X611W01!

1994: Stevan Harnad, Canada Research Chair in Cognitive Science at UQAM, and professor of psychology at University of Southampton proposes the idea of author self-archiving.11

! 1998: ARL launches Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC).12 Part of SPARC’s mandate was to encourage not-for profit publishers to enter into competition with the commercial STM (scientific, technical & medical) publishers. SPARC is “able to prove that it is possible to deliver high-quality peer-reviewed print or electronic journals far more cost-effectively than is done by most commercial and some

not-for-profit publishers” (386).

10 http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat08.pdf

11 Self-archiving is the posting in a digital archive, repository or library of an author’s final version of a refereed paper accepted for publication.

12 Retrieved Jan. 13, 2011 from http://www.arl.org/sparc/

YMML!SM!611Z!SM!GHJI!SHRS!

http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat08.pdf

http://www.arl.org/sparc/

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CB'

! 2000: National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US launches PubMed Central – a digital repository – in response to lobbying from a group of scientists to make their work more publicly accessible.

! 2002: Support grows for what has become known as open access, and in 2002 the Budapest Open Access Declaration advocates a two-tier approach to open access – self-archiving and the publication of open access journals. These would later become known as Green OA and Gold OA.

! 2005: Passage of legislation in the US that first encourages (2005) and later requires (2008) NIH grant recipients to deposit their work in publicly accessible repositories.

! 2006: SPARC and ARL, with support from the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), re-launch the Create Change web site13 to provide librarians, faculty and administrators with current information, perspectives, and tools that will enable them to play an active role in advancing scholarly information exchange in the networked environment.

! 2007: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) adopt a policy “to improve access to research outputs funded by CIHR, and to increase the diffusion of research results.”14

! 2008: Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences vote to “require deposit of their work in Harvard’s institutional repository and retention of enabling rights” (388).

! 2009: The publication of The University’s Role in the Dissemination of Research and Scholarship – A Call to Action, a report that was came out of “a roundtable of provosts, chief research officers, chief information officers, senior faculty, and library and press directors to identify actions that should be taken to expand the dissemination of the full range of products of the university community’s research and scholarship” (388), that was co-sponsored by the AAU, ARL, the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI).

! October 2009: The re-launch of eScholarship at the University of California (UC) eScholarship15 provides “a suite of open access, scholarly publishing services and research tools that enable departments, research units, publishing programs, and individual scholars associated with the University of California to have direct control over the creation and dissemination of the full range of their scholarship”.

The emphasis in this chronology is on events taking place in the United States. However, the University of Toronto is a member of many of these associations, and has at times played an active role. It is important to note that the activities in the US and Canada are indicative of activities taking place around the world, particularly in Europe.

My objective is not to advocate, but to raise awareness of some of the issues and activities that have shaped and are continuing to shape the way the scholarly communication system is evolving.

13 http://www.createchange.org/

14 Retrieved Jan. 20, 2011 from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/32005.html

15 http://escholarship.org/about_escholarship.html

http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/32005.html

http://escholarship.org/about_escholarship.html

http://www.createchange.org/

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CC'

It is important to be aware that the interests of the groups who comprise the ecosystem, while interdependent, are diverse and often not the same. We have seen how the music industry and lives of musicians were recently transformed as high fidelity digital copies of music, and other media became easy and inexpensive to create and disseminate. The publishing industry now is facing challenges with the turn to the digital and there are important differences among publishers in terms of their ability to respond. The scholarly society, university presses, and some of the trade publishers that are especially critical in the humanities and the social sciences, are struggling. In some cases they are finding ways to transform themselves and survive, while in other cases they are not (Gold, 2010). Many of the large commercial journal publishers, on the other hand, where costs to the university are the highest, are corporate multinationals with the resources to explore new models and services.

The library and research associations such as ARL and SPARC, funding agencies, universities as well as individual scholars, scholarly associations and various types of publishers are continuing to focus attention on the opportunities and challenges in a digital era. Questions continue to be asked about how long the current system can be supported, and more positively, how this might change. The technical and material conditions of the digital offer up a set of possibilities, but the particular practices that emerge, the different ways of understanding the opportunities and the challenges are social and institutional. How can scholars for whom publication is so critical assure that best practices in each discipline, field or area of scholarship and research are preserved, while at the same time support innovation?

Scholars as creators of content are in a much better position than professional authors and musicians. First and foremost, faculty are salaried, and the majority, are not dependent on generating income directly from the sale of their scholarly work.16 Second, it is the scholars who create the artifacts – books, journal articles, and other media, on which both they and their institutions are evaluated. And, it is scholars who do the peer review. The outputs of scholarly communication and publishing play a central role not only in tenure and promotion but are input into the metrics whereby the institutions themselves are evaluated. Scholars have, if they chose to exercise it, power to address these issues and to experiment with new practices in ways that creators in other fields typically do not. Individually, this may not be the case. Faculty – especially junior or pre-tenure faculty, need to publish in the venues recognized by their chairs, deans and tenure and promotion committees, and even tenured faculty increasingly need to secure funding from agencies to continue the research for which they became scholars in the first place. But scholarly societies are also part of this ecosystem and have an important role in the conversations and debates about what constitutes legitimate scholarship in any discipline or field, and in evaluating and re-evaluating the nature of the new claims put forward as the field evolves. The results of these deliberations are extra-institutional and if and when they become part of the disciplinary norm and culture, they are accepted locally.

Christine Borgman in her book Scholarship in a Digital Age notes: “Scholars are in a perpetual rush to publish and to obtain funding for their research projects. …The amount of time or effort that scholars devote to information management is unlikely to increase substantially, short of a radical change in the incentive structure” (Borgman, 2007, 249). If this is true for managing of information and data, is this

16 Scholars who have a creative practice in addition to their funded research and scholarly writing face additional challenges similar to creators outside the academy.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CA'

true also for scholarly communication? And if so, what are the incentives for experimentation and evaluation? How might this change?

While scholars are key members of the scholarly communication ecosystem, they are not alone. All faculty in their roles as researchers, scholars and teachers will all be affected by the ways in which the system evolves.

What is at risk? What might be lost? What might be gained? And, who will decide?

Are scholars paying enough attention?

'

Z,@3,(:#1?;&'

ARL Serials Prices Project & the Association of Research Libraries. 1989. Report of the ARL Serials Prices Project. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.

ARL Statistics 2007–2008. 2009. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved Jan. 13, 2011 from http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat08.pdf

Becher, Tony & Paul R. Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. 2d ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Borgman, Christine L. 2007. Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Policy on Access to Research Outputs. Retrieved Jan. 13, 2011 from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/34846.html

Case, Mary M. 2009. Scholarly Communication: ARL as a catalyst for change. portal: Libraries and the Academy 9 (3): 381-395.

Crane, Diana. 1972. Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cronin, Blaise. 1984. The Citation Process: The Role and Significance of Citations in Scientific Communication. London: Taylor Graham.

Cronin, Blaise. 1995. The Scholar's Courtesy: The Role of Acknowledgement in the Primary Communication Process. London: Taylor Graham.

Cronin, Blaise. 2005. The Hand of Science: Academic Writing and its Rewards. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Gibbons, Michael et al. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.

Gold, Sarah. 2010. Facing the Facts: University Presses in the Digital Age. PW, June 10, 2010. Retrieved Jan. 7, 2011 from http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/trade-shows-events/article/43600-facing-the-facts-university-presses-in-the-digital-age.html

Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Meadows, A.J. 1974. Communication in Science. London: Butterworths.

The University’s Role in the Dissemination of Research and Scholarship – A Call to Action. Association of American Universities, Association of Research Libraries, The Coalition for Networked Information and National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, Feb. 2009. Retrieved Jan. 13, 2011 from http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/disseminating-research-feb09.pdf

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/trade-shows-events/article/43600-facing-the-facts-university-presses-in-the-digital-age.html


http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/disseminating-research-feb09.pdf

http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat08.pdf

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CD'

3 . 0 M E T H O D O L O G Y

An invitation was sent to faculty on June 29, 2010 inviting them to participate in a web-based survey. A follow-up request sent on July 19th-20th, and a final reminder was sent on Sept. 8, 2010. The survey closed on Sept. 30, 2010.

The population included tenured/tenured track members of the professoriate and lecturers/senior lecturers with full-time appointments at the University of Toronto.17

The final sampling frame consisted of 3053 faculty members. 497 faculty members completed the survey giving a response rate of 16.3%.

Based on the results of earlier surveys of university faculty and the literature on scholarly communication, it was anticipated that responses to the survey would vary according to discipline and rank. A question asking for academic rank was included in the preliminary set of survey questions. The issue of discipline is more complex and details of the approach taken to categorize respondents into four broad disciplinary categories – Humanities (HUMS), Social Sciences (SOCSCI), Life, Health and Medical Sciences (LHMSCI) and Physical Sciences & Engineering (PHYSCI&E) is included in Appendix B. To mitigate the chance of miscategorization, faculty were assigned to these four categories based on triangulation of three questions relating to discipline, including one that asked about norms in terms of the disciplines or field in which they currently disseminate their work.

See Appendix B for further details on all aspects of the survey design and methodology.

17 Access to University of Toronto faculty, librarians, staff or students for research purposes requires permission from the Office of the Vice-Provost, Faculty & Academic Life. Approval was received on March 26, 2010 for the survey, but it was not possible to get access to official data on faculty appointments that would permit drawing a simple random sample, stratified by academic rank and academic division. An alternate plan for the construction of the sampling frame was developed using a variety of unofficial sources, and compared with the official data available. See Appendix B for details.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CE'

4 . 0 S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S

As I've said many times, the future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed.

William Gibson NPR Talk of the Nation

The Science in Science Fiction

30 November 1999 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1067220

This section is organized around a series of broad themes that emerged out of the detailed findings (5.0), and include comparisons with the results from a survey carried out at the University of California in 2006.18

*()/')12"3.&'2;1#12.%#,F1.,(+'()'.;%':%+%#13'-.1.%'()'.;%'-2;(31#3&'

2(=="+,21.,(+'-&-.%='$1#,%-'@&'7,-2,?3,+%'1+7'#1+GCY''

When asked to choose one statement out of three alternatives to characterize the general state of scholarly communication in their field, a third of UofT faculty choose the option that their field is experimenting with a number of new ideas and forms of dissemination, and another third say there is considerable resistance to change. Twenty-two percent (22%) choose the statement that the system works fine as it is and just over ten percent (11%) elect to comment rather than to choose one of the options. UofT faculty in the physical sciences and engineering (38%) are most likely to select the option that the system works fine as it is, and faculty in the humanities (12%) are the least likely to select this. Consistent with this finding, UofT faculty in the humanities are also the most likely to choose the statement that they are experimenting with new forms (39%) and most likely to agree that there is considerable resistance to change (38%). Approximately a third of faculty in the social sciences and the life, health, and medical sciences choose these two options while only one quarter of physical sciences and engineering faculty select them.

Professors (37%) and associate professors (34%) are the most likely to choose the statement that the field is experimenting with a number of new ideas and forms compared with assistant professors (20%). Almost half (46%) of assistant professors select the statement that there is considerable resistance to change as best characterizing the general state of the scholarly communication system in their field. Approximately twenty percent (20%) of the faculty in each rank select the option that the system works fine as it is.

While the findings cannot be compared directly with the UC Survey20 faculty in the arts and humanities at UC were the most likely to say that substantial changes need

18 University of California. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication: Survey Findings from the University of California. Prepared for the University of California, Office of Scholarly Communication and the California Digital Library eScholarship Program in association with Greenhouse Associates. August 2007. In this section this will be referred to as the UC Survey. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2011 from http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/responses/materials/OSC-survey-full-20070828.pdf

19 See Section 5.5, Q24.

20 This was the first question in the UC Survey and the last in the UofT Survey. The question was the same but the response options were different. The UC Survey options were: a) no changes need to be made b) some minor changes need to be made c) substantial changes need to be made and d) no opinion.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1067220

http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/responses/materials/OSC-survey-full-20070828.pdf

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CU'

to be made, and were the least likely to say that no changes need to be made compared with faculty in the life and medical sciences, the physical sciences, and the social sciences.21

<(+$%+.,(+13'?#12.,2%-'5,.;'#%:1#7'.('-2;(31#3&'?"@3,-;,+:'1+7'7,--%=,+1.,(+'1#%'2(+),#=%7'1+7'2(+.,+"%'.('7(=,+1.%6'5;,3%'13.%#+1.%'?#12.,2%-'1#%'13-(',+'%$,7%+2%'' Traditional practices22

Our findings support the accepted notion that monograph and book publishing is most frequent in the humanities and social sciences, where almost half of the faculty have published at least one monograph in the last five years, compared with fifteen to twenty percent of scientists. Scientists, on the other hand, are major contributors to peer-reviewed journals – one hundred percent of life, health and medical scientists have published at least one journal article in the past five years, and two-thirds have published more than ten. Close to sixty percent (58%) of physical scientists and engineers have also published more than ten articles. While faculty in the humanities and social sciences actively publish in refereed journals, only ten to twenty percent have published more than ten articles. These findings align with the UC Survey that found that faculty “overwhelmingly rely on traditional forms of publishing, such as peer-reviewed journals and monographs”.23

Norms in terms of authorship/co-authorship are also in line with conventional understanding. Almost half of the faculty in the humanities (47%) say that none of their publications are co-authored while over eighty-five percent of faculty in both the sciences say that the majority of their publications are co-authored as do forty percent (40%) of social scientists.

When considering where to submit work for publication two-thirds of humanists say that it’s important or very important that a paper issue or print volume is produced. Over half (55%) of social scientists agree while sixty to seventy percent of faculty in both disciplinary categories of the sciences say that this is not important.

Digital media forms and practices24

When it comes to newer digital media formats such as scholarly websites, departmental and personal websites, or multi-media artifacts, at least one third of faculty in each of the broad disciplinary categories are disseminating their work in these ways.

When considering where to submit work for publication, having a digital version available is an important or very important factor for the majority of faculty in each of the broad disciplinary categories. However, approximately two-thirds of scientists also say it is important or very important to be able to submit their manuscript online compared with approximately one third (32%) of faculty in the humanities and close to forty percent (39%) in the social sciences.

21 UC Survey, p. 11.

22 See Section 5.1: Q1, Q2, Q3.

23 UC Survey, p. 4.

24 See Section 5.1: Q1, Q3.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CV'

Community engagement25

Faculty members are active in disseminating the results of research and scholarship to the community. Over sixty percent (60%) have presented work in the media in the last five years and almost twenty percent (20%) have had work in an adjudicated competition, exhibition or installation. There was recognition in the free-form comments of the importance of knowledge translation or knowledge mobilization to UofT scholars at this time as well as the role of community-based education.

Faculty are not, however, very active in writing for the higher education community. Over three quarters of the faculty – with the exception of social scientists (62%) have not published an article in a magazine or periodical directed to members of the university community in the last five years.26

9%?".1.,(+13')12.(#-'L',+23"7,+:'#%17%#-;,?M1"7,%+2%6'?%%#'#%$,%56'1+7'#%?".1.,(+'()'.;%'$%+"%'L'#1+G';,:;%-.',+'7%2,7,+:'5;%#%')12"3.&'-"@=,.'5(#G')(#'?"@3,21.,(+'

Readership/audience, the quality of the peer review, and the reputation of the journal title, are each ranked as very important by more than half the UofT faculty overall. 27

It is not surprising that in the competitive environment of a high-ranking research university, reputation is rated highly. The ability to target a specific audience or known readership28 is the single most important factor for faculty when considering where to submit their work, and ninety-eight percent (98%) of all faculty members say this is important or very important.29 Broad dissemination of work is rated less highly. Only ten percent (10%) say that the ability to self-archive30 a work is very important in deciding where to submit work, but there is evidence of change as two thirds say that having the full text accessible online to anyone who finds it is an important or very important factor in considering where to submit their work.

Ninety-three percent (93%) of all faculty responding rate the quality of peer review as important or very important.

Across the broad disciplinary categories over two thirds of faculty say the reputation of the journal title is very important and over ninety-six percent (96%) say it is important or very important. Three-quarters (75%) or more of faculty in each of the

25 See Section 5.1: Q1.

26 This question was included as magazines such as The Chronicle of Higher Education regularly feature articles and commentary by scholars, university administrators and others on topical issues, including scholarly communication.


28 Alma Swan in a personal communication alerted me to the potential importance of this factor.

29 The Ithaka Faculty Survey [Schonfeld, Roger C., & Ross Housewright. 2009. Faculty Survey 2009: Key Strategic Insights for Libraries, Publishers, and Societies, April 7, 2010. Retrieved June 2010 from http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/faculty-surveys-2000-2009/faculty-survey-2009 ] also notes that “over years and across disciplines the single important factor in selecting where to publish is consistently readership within one’s own discipline, with over 80% of faculty rating this as very important”, p.25.

30 Self-archiving is the posting to a digital archive, repository or library of an author’s final version of a refereed paper accepted for publication.

http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/faculty-surveys-2000-2009/faculty-survey-2009

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CW'

broad disciplinary categories rate the journal impact factor – one measure of the reputation of a journal title–as important or very important. In the life, health and medical sciences, for example, this rises to eighty-nine percent (89%). Faculty in the humanities (67%) and social sciences (53%) also rate the reputation of the book or journal publisher as being very important.

Rank makes a difference. Assistant professors are the most likely to say that the quality of the peer review and the reputation of the journal title are important or very important. They are, however, also the most likely to say that the ability to retain some of their rights in terms of copyright is not important. Sixty-four percent (64%) say that the weight of the publication venue in tenure and promotion considerations is their department is very important. A similar percentage (65%) of assistant professors in the UC Survey say this.31 Not unexpectedly, full professors in both studies are the most likely to rate this factor as not important.

*()/')12"3.&'1#%'2(==,..%7'.('?%%#'#%$,%5'1+7'1#%'12.,$%'2(+.#,@".(#-''

Ninety-eight percent (98%) of faculty say that they are happy to review for journals /conferences that they value, and a similar percentage say that this is part of their responsibility as a member of the community. Almost three quarters (73%) say the traditional peer process is working well for them and this varies minimally across the broad disciplinary categories. Associate professors (75%) and professors (78%) are more likely than assistant professors (67%) to agree or strongly agree that traditional processes are working well for them.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of faculty responding agree or strongly agree that there are serious problems with the peer review system today. Yet, ninety percent (90%) say that they are not aware of any experiments underway in their discipline to explore questions of peer review. The ten percent (10%) who report that experiments are underway are somewhat unevenly distributed across broad disciplinary categories – twelve to fourteen percent (12%-14%) are in each of the broadly defined scientific disciplinary categories, eight percent (8%) in the social sciences and five percent (5%) in the humanities. The rich and detailed comments on the initiatives and experiments underway, including specific examples of innovation, suggest that there are a small number of faculty in each of the broad disciplinary categories who are active in exploring ways to improve this valued system.

A question was included about one newer form of peer review – open peer review – and whether this approach would result in high quality peer reviews. This elicited a great number of comments both pro and con as well as examples from different fields of the ways that this is currently being operationalized.

<"##%+.'.%+"#%6'=%#,.'1+7'?#(=(.,(+'?#(2%--%-'#%N%+)(#2%'.#17,.,(+13'?#12.,2%-6'5,.;'-(=%'%$,7%+2%'.;1.'7,:,.13')(#=-'()'-2;(31#-;,?'1#%'%=%#:,+:

Overall, faculty are divided on whether the existing tenure, merit and promotion processes in their department or faculty operate to re-enforce traditional practices compared with encouraging new practices.32 Almost half (47%) of all faculty agree or strongly agree that existing practices lead them to prefer print publication rather than electronic only forms, but thirty-six percent (36%) disagree or strongly disagree. Similarly while forty-one percent (41%) agree or strongly agree that the existing



!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CX'

processes cause them to forego using alternative forms of dissemination, forty-three percent (43%) disagree or strongly disagree. The results in the UC Study show a similar division of opinion on these two statements, although in the UC study over half of the faculty respond to these questions in the affirmative.33

However, on the question of whether the existing processes encourage new forms of high quality (peer-reviewed) scholarly communication, there are fewer UofT faculty who respond affirmatively – thirty percent (30%) compared with forty-five percent (45%) who disagree or strongly disagree. Faculty are also divided on the question of whether existing tenure, merit and promotion processes are keeping up with the evolution of scholarly communication – thirty-six percent (36%) respond in the affirmative and forty percent (40%) disagree or strongly disagree. Again these parallel the findings at UC, but UC faculty are not as positive, with less than a quarter (21%) agreeing that the current processes encourage new forms of high quality scholarly communication, and over half (56%) disagreeing that the processes are keeping up with the evolution of scholarly communication.34 It is several years since the UC Survey and the difference may reflect the increased coverage and awareness of these issues among scholars more generally.

UofT faculty in the humanities are the most likely to say in response to each of these statements that the current processes re-enforce traditional practices, and half disagree or strong disagree that tenure, merit and promotion processes are keeping up with the evolution of scholarly communication.

Forty-five percent (45%) of all professors say the processes are keeping up with the evolution of scholarly communication compared with one quarter (25%) of assistant professors.

When asked explicitly about whether scholars in their field are re-evaluating what constitutes a research contribution as new forms of digital production emerge,35 more than half (55%) of faculty overall, say they are not re-evaluating this. However, over forty percent (40%) say this is happening or that they are discussing it. This finding is consistent across the broad disciplinary categories, but not across ranks. Three quarters (74%) of assistant professors say this is not happening compared with approximately half of associate professors (57%) and professors (47%). Those commenting note that they are encouraged to follow traditional expectations and one respondent observed that any variation from traditional practices is seen as supplementary as contributions to the field are expected to be in book or journal format.

8"@3,-;%#O-'2(+.#12.-'1+7'2(?&#,:;.'1#%'1'P@312G'@(QO')(#'.;%'=1R(#,.&'()')12"3.&''

Publishers dominate the relationship36

Overall, ninety-three percent (93%) of faculty accept the publisher’s copyright terms even when they examine the contract, and thirty-two percent (32%) don’t examine it

33 UC Survey, p. 45, 48.

34 UC Survey, p. 50, 53.


36 See Section 5.2: Q6, Q6a, Q7.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CY'

at all; but sign it as received. Only seven percent (7%) have modified the terms of a contract before signing. This is the same percentage reported in the UC Survey.37

Of those who have requested modification two thirds have replaced the publisher’s contract terms with their own compared with over half (55%) of the UC Survey respondents. UC faculty are more likely to report the use of an addendum – forty-eight percent (48%) compared with thirty-nine percent (39%) of UofT faculty. 38

Attitudes and practices vary widely across the academy, in part, reflecting the differences between monograph, book and journal article publishing. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of faculty in the humanities, where monograph publishing is common, respond that it is important or very important to retain some rights for published works compared with thirty-five to forty percent of faculty in the sciences where the majority of publications are refereed journal articles or conference proceedings.39

UofT faculty in the humanities are also the most likely to modify the copyright terms in a publisher’s contract, and report in the open-ended comments that an agent or lawyer may negotiate a book contract on their behalf. In the sciences where the focus is on the refereed journal article or conference paper, faculty are less concerned about copyright issues, but there are differences between faculty in the life, health and medical sciences and those in the physical sciences and engineering. Faculty in the latter group of disciplines are the least concerned about the issue of copyright. This may be, at least in part, because a number of key journals and conference proceedings are published by societies, such as the ACM or IEEE, and the authors retain copyright. In other areas of the physical sciences, faculty report self-archiving is the norm, and copyright is not an issue. The importance of a journal’s impact factor in terms of where papers are submitted is higher in the life and health sciences than in the physical sciences and engineering, so it is possible that more of these faculty members are working with contracts from commercial publishers.

When asked specifically about publishing in journals, it is clear that publishers dominate the contractual relationship with scholars. Overall, ninety-five percent (95%) of faculty have not refused to sign a publication contract because of a concern about the copyright terms. This doesn’t vary by rank or broad disciplinary category. Once again this is similar to the UC Study where four percent (4%) had refused40 compared with five percent (5%) at UofT.

Faculty don’t negotiate

Why don’t faculty negotiate with publishers in cases where they would prefer to retain some rights?41 In both the UofT and UC surveys the highest response is that they haven’t thought about it – forty-nine percent (49%) at UofT and thirty-nine percent (39%) at UC.42 Sixty-four percent (64%) of UofT faculty in both the scientific categories say they haven’t thought about it – perhaps in part because many already retain copyright. Twenty-three percent (23%) in the humanities say they don’t have




40 UC Survey, p.64.


42 UC Survey p. 63.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''AB'

the knowledge to negotiate, and fourteen to seventeen percent (14-17%) of faculty in the humanities and social sciences said need to publish and are concerned that negotiation could led the publisher to refuse the work. Nineteen percent (19%) of assistant professors said this is why they don’t negotiate compared with three percent (3%) of professors whose primary reasons are that they haven’t thought about it (47%) or that it’s too much trouble (22%). A number of faculty commented that they didn’t know that it was possible to negotiate.

When asked what would help faculty negotiate contracts or to modify the copyright terms,43 the two factors selected most frequently are: i) having precise instructions and examples of how to do it (72%), and ii) advice and support of the institution (63%). Forty percent (40%) also say it would be helpful if they knew they would not be penalized for refusing to sign the standard contract.

In terms of activities faculty themselves would be willing to undertake,44 the two statements selected most frequently were that they would be willing: i) to encourage their societies to make their copyright policy more author-friendly, and ii) to change their contract from granting exclusive rights to the publisher to granting non-exclusive rights to the publisher. This question was modified from the UC Survey where faculty were asked to pick the single most important factor from a more limited set. In this case having precise instruction and examples of how to do it was also chosen most frequently (42%).45

On the question of whether transferring copyright to a publisher may limit faculty’s ability to use or re-use the materials in various ways,46 forty to fifty percent (40-50%) are concerned about traditional types of re-use in teaching or for an anthology, for example, and thirty-eight percent (38%) have not thought about a future need or that they might want to create a derivative work. Once again, faculty in the humanities are most concerned about these issues.

The UC Survey had included a question47 that asked to what degree faculty adhere to all copyright terms in their publication contracts. Nineteen percent (19%) they adhered from time to time and forty-eight percent (48%) say they weren’t sure or didn’t pay attention. While I chose not to include this question, several faculty wrote comments expressing their frustration with the current system given it is material that they have created. The reality as one respondent noted is that ignoring copyright limitations for use of materials faculty produce seems to be a broad cultural trend.

Scholars’ management of copyright48

Despite the findings above, fifty-eight percent (58%) of all faculty responding agree or strongly agree that scholars’ management of copyright is an important factor in the evolution of scholarly communication, but only forty-one percent (41%) feel that it’s an important factor in their own scholarly publishing. The UC study shows



45 UC Survey p. 71.




!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''AC'

similar results,49 and concludes that the “the disconnect between attitude and behavior is acute with regard to copyright.”50

Attitudes toward copyright vary across the disciplines. UofT faculty in the humanities are the most likely to respond positively to these statements and those in the physical sciences and engineering are the least likely.

Significantly, two thirds of all faculty say that this is a topic colleagues need to discuss which compares with sixty percent (60%) in the UC study.51 The majority of UofT faculty in each of the broad disciplinary categories either agree or strongly agree with this – eighty percent (80%) of faculty in the humanities and social sciences and fifty-seven percent (57%) of respondents in each of the sciences. Associate professors are the most likely to agree that there is need for discussion; similar again to the findings in the UC study.

451#%+%--'()'S?%+'422%--',-';,:;'1+7'.;%'?#,+2,?3%',-'-.#(+:3&'-"??(#.%7I'*+7%#-.1+7,+:'()'.;%'7,))%#%+.'(?%+'122%--'(?.,(+-',-'=(#%'3,=,.%7'1+7'?#12.,2%',-'-;1?%7'@&'7,-2,?3,+1#&'+(#=-'

Open Access52

Eighty-three (83%) of all faculty have heard of Open Access (OA). In the life health and medical sciences this rises to ninety-six percent (96%).

Over half (57%) of UofT faculty who have heard of OA have made their work available open access – twenty-eight percent (28%) have published in an OA journal, nineteen percent (19%) have self-archived their work and ten percent (10%) have done both.

Such activity is highest in the sciences. Approximately seventy percent (70%) in both the sciences compared with less than half of social scientists and faculty in the humanities have published their work OA. Within the scientific categories, self-archiving is the major form of OA in the physical sciences and engineering and publishing in an OA journal dominates in the life, health and medical sciences.

Among faculty aware of OA, over eighty percent (80%) in the sciences say they are aware of OA journals that are being published in their field, compared with sixty-three percent (63%) of social scientists and forty-four percent (44%) of faculty in the humanities.

Eighty-four percent (84%) who have heard of OA agree or strongly agree with the principle of free access for all to the results of publicly funded research is important to them; eighty-one percent (81%) say that making their work openly accessible to everyone with access to the internet– not only those whose universities can afford the licensing fees – is a benefit to them, and sixty-nine percent (69%) say that OA is likely to lead to an increase in the number of citations to their work. These results largely hold across the broad disciplinary categories.

This issue generated a large number of comments. Disciplinary practices and norms around publishing and dissemination appear to shape the way open access in taken

49 UC Survey, p. 55, 57.

50 UC Survey, p. 6.


52 See Section 5.3: Q15, 15a, 15b, 15c.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''AA'

up, as well as the perception of the relevance of each of the options. For example, physical sciences and engineering faculty are more likely to have retained copyright, thereby removing one of the obstacles for authors wanting to self-archive. As well, some faculty comment that they deposit to arXiv – one of the first subject repositories – and that this is a practice accepted in their field. In the life, health and medical sciences, by comparison publishing in an OA journal is the preferred option. It is somewhat surprising that the frequency of self-archiving is not higher in the life, health and medical sciences, given the policies in place by CIHR and NIH. It may be that the impact of these policies is not yet being felt or it may be that depositing an article is not understood to be the same thing as self-archiving; an issue for OA advocates to consider.

There continues to be uncertainty and misunderstandings about what constitutes open access and about the quality of works published open access. The majority of the comments focused on OA journals, or Gold OA; many implying this is what they perceive constitutes open access. The concerns raised include the quality of OA journals noting that these are often considered to be of a lower standard than other journals in the field; 53 issues associated with peer review in particularly issues of quality, for example, concern that the OA journals in some scholars’ field do not meet traditional tenure standards. There is also concern about the costs associated with publishing OA.54 Others cited lack of time, lack of understanding or lack of interest in the subject given competing demands.

Faculty familiar with OA are divided on whether open access will dramatically change scholarly communication in their discipline or field in the next two years55 – forty-one percent (41%) agree, thirty-six (36%) disagree and twenty-three (23%) say they don’t know. This is similar to what was found in the UC Survey where forty-three percent (43%) agreed, forty percent (40%) disagreed and eighteen percent (18%) said that they didn’t know.56

Institutional or subject repositories

When asked specifically about T-Space, UofT’s institutional research repository57 established in 2003, fifty-seven percent (57%) of faculty say that they have not heard of it. This is consistent across disciplinary categories. Of those who have heard of it,

53 The quality of OA journals varies, as does the quality of society and commercial journals. There are numerous examples of high quality OA journals. Two examples that started at the University of Toronto are: TE: Theoretical Economics http://econtheory.org/ and JMIR: the Journal of Medical Internet Research http://www.jmir.org/ which has an impact factor of 3.9 (2009).

54 There are several business models for OA and experiments continue. Some commercial publishers now offer open access journals, e.g., Springer Open or hybrid OA journals, and the majority now permit authors to make their work open access either immediately or after an embargo of generally six to twelve months. The majority of the comments and concern focused on the article cost (visible) that is paid by the author, or his/her institution with OA. Some faculty objected to the fact that the issue of business models was raised at all. There was no mention of the largely invisible costs paid by libraries to provide access to the commercially produced literature. In a later question on the need for greater transparency in terms of the costs of publishing and disseminating scholarly books and journals, only six percent (6%) disagreed or strongly disagreed (Q20).

55 See Section 5.3: Q15c.

56 UC Survey, p 75.

57 See Section 5.3: Q16, 16a.

http://econtheory.org/

http://www.jmir.org

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''AD'

15% say they have deposited work there.58 This is consistent with the baseline rate reported in the literature. Specific comments on the UofT repository, T-Space, noted that it was not easy to find, nor was it easy to use. The written comments on Green OA or self-archiving referred largely to subject repositories, such as arXiv, and not to institutional or research repositories such as T-Space.

Policies and mandates59

At the institutional level, policies or mandates that enable or require faculty to place their work in a publicly accessible online repository are now in place. These initiatives first originated in the UK, Europe and Australia in 2004. Today, a number of universities and funding agencies (e.g., CIHR) have established policies or mandates that would enable or require faculty to routinely grant to the university or agency a limited, non-exclusive license to place the work in a publicly accessible online repository such as T-Space. Seventy percent (70%) of UofT faculty respond that they have not heard of these initiatives, yet two thirds (67%) say that this is an idea that UofT should evaluate. The majority of the seventy comments on this question were positive, and a variety of reasons were offered as to why UofT should evaluate this issue, including demonstrating leadership given that comparator institutions such as Harvard and Stanford have engaged. One respondent called for research on the success of existing policies or mandates at other institutions as an important part of an evaluation if UofT is to explore these options.

/;%#%',-'3,..3%'151#%+%--'(#'"-%'()'7,:,.13'?"@3,-;,+:6'7,--%=,+1.,(+'(#'2"#1.(#,13'-%#$,2%-'())%#%7'@&'.;%'*+,$%#-,.&VB'

Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the faculty have not heard of the School of Graduate Studies Electronic Theses and Dissertation (ETD) deposit policy that since 2009 requires that all theses be submitted to T-Space.61

In addition, despite a variety of outreach activities, approximately eighty percent of faculty are not aware of the various publishing and dissemination services offered by the University Library, including journal publishing software and conference management software. Over sixty percent (60%) haven’t heard of the curatorial services for audio and visual materials or data.

The 2007 UC study had similarly concluded that “Outreach on scholarly communication issues and services has not yet reached the majority of faculty”.62

'

58 30% say they don’t know if they have materials in T-Space. This may be because some units have staff dedicated entering items for faculty.

59 See Section 5.3: Q17, 18.


61 This replaces the earlier deposit requirement through the National Library of Canada and University

Microfilms.

62 UC Survey, p. 7. In late 2009 UC re-launched eScholarship, a publishing service and research platform http://escholarship.org/

http://escholarship.org/

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''AE'

*()/')12"3.&'12#(--'.;%'7,-2,?3,+%-'1#%'%Q?%#,%+2,+:'2;1#:%-'1+7')%%-'1--(2,1.%7'

5,.;'?"@3,21.,(+'

Maintaining the scholarly communication system5/

Half of the faculty have paid charges or fees as part of the publication process. While faculty in the life, health and medical sciences (79%) pay most frequently, sixty-three percent (63%) in the physical sciences and engineering, forty-five percent (45%) in the humanities and twenty-two percent (22%) of social science faculty have faced various publishing charges. The nature of the charges varies by disciplinary group and faculty in the humanities report growing concern about the rising cost of images. For those who have paid charges, their research grants are the most frequent source of funds (84%) to pay these, but one quarter (26%) of the faculty have paid these fees out of their own pocket.

When asked who faculty think should be responsible for the costs associated with maintaining the scholarly communication system the most frequent choices were publishers (54%), funders (57%) and the university library (45%). On this question as well, many of the comments indicated that faculty feel they didn’t have enough information to provide an informed answer.

Faculty responsibility64

Eight-seven percent (87%) of faculty agree or strongly agree that scholars need to play a greater role in shaping the future of scholarly communication; eighty-five percent (85%) believe that there are new opportunities in the digital era to simultaneously reduce costs and increase access to the scholarly literature; eighty-four percent (84%) say that new business models should be explored. This rises to ninety percent (90%) in the life, health and medical sciences. Eighty percent (80%) agree that there is need for greater transparency in terms of the costs of publishing and disseminating scholarly books and journals.

Faculty are more reluctant to call for reform of the scholarly communication system. Sixty-four (64%) respond in the affirmative while thirteen percent (13%) disagree or strongly disagree, and almost one-quarter (24%) say they don’t know. There is little variation by rank or across the broad disciplinary categories.

012"3.&'1#%',+.%#%-.%7',+',--"%-'#%31.%7'.('-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+T'=1+&'1#%'"+151#%'()'#%2%+.'7%$%3(?=%+.-6'@".'1'2(#%'()')12"3.&'1#%'12.,$%3&'%+:1:%7'''Throughout the survey faculty repeatedly say that they are unaware that conversations and initiatives related to scholarly communication are underway either in their field or at the University of Toronto. Some express surprise about what they don’t know. The number and richness of the comments reveal that the lack of awareness is troubling to many, while at the same time the enthusiasm of those engaged in exploring new models is evident.

The range and diversity of experiments and initiatives underway across the disciplines and the presence of a core group of faculty within each of the broad disciplinary categories suggests there is a base from which to begin a conversation. The next step is to find effective ways and the appropriate incentives for faculty to

63 See Section 5.4: Q19, Q19a, Q21.


!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''AU'

share information within disciplines and across ranks, and across the university. There is the potential for leadership – to work toward improving the system while safeguarding the valued and effective aspects of current practice. Some of this work may best be done through scholarly societies and associations. Faculty leadership and attention to these issues also has the potential to mitigate risks coming from other parts of the system, where the motivation for change may emerge out of a different set of interests; some of which are commercial.65

When asked how best they could be kept informed about developments in scholarly communication, faculty identified departmental and faculty meetings (53%) and the University of Toronto Bulletin (54%) as the most effective sources.

The UC Survey included in their summary of findings the suggestion that senior faculty may be the most fertile targets for innovation in scholarly communication. The argument that “… senior faculty are free from tenure concerns, they appear more willing to experiment, more willing to change behavior, and more willing to participate in new initiatives” 66 is plausible. While there is no single question directly on this in either survey, the questions relating to change in the UofT survey suggest that it is professors and associate professors generally who respond more positively to change than assistant professors. This may, however, reflect the uncertainty of the pre-tenure state, as there is also evidence that assistant professors are the most likely to say that there is resistance to change in the system overall. As assistant professors are increasingly likely to be digitally literate, this may represent a generation gap or digital divide shaped by the engagement with new forms of digital media knowledge production that are not yet accepted by the field, and for which there are not yet standards for evaluation. These are questions that this project can’t answer, and are a worthy topic for future research.

65 The issue is not the commercial relationship per se, but rather questions of transparency for the expenditure of what are often public funds.

66 UC Survey, p. 8.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''AV'

5 . 0 D E T A I L E D F I N D I N G S

This section includes the frequency distribution of the responses for each of the survey questions, including cross tabulations by broad discipline and by rank.67, 68 Descriptions of some of the patterns observed69 are included.

The results are included in the spirit of fostering conversation and debate.70 The number and richness of the comments offered by faculty suggest that many are interested or concerned about the issues raised while others are concerned that they are not aware of, or part of, the conversations taking place about scholarly communication in many fields today.

It is not new to point out that there is diversity in the practices, norms and preferred forms of scholarly publication and dissemination across the university. In addition, the assignment of each of the respondents to one of four broad disciplinary categories may frequently mask what is unique to a discipline or to specific fields within disciplines, and to an interdisciplinary academic unit. It does, however, provide an evidentiary basis from which to begin. A closer look at the survey results, in particular the comments, also help make a case for the need for further research in individual disciplines or fields. The findings show that there is a core group of faculty distributed across the broad disciplinary categories that are actively engaged in various ways with these issues. Perhaps they will be encouraged to bring these forward for discussion and debate.

The survey instrument is included as Appendix C for reference.

The survey is comprised of five sections on various aspects of scholarly communication with an emphasis on scholarly publishing and dissemination.

Section 1 enquires into the nature of scholarly communication practices to get a baseline of current activities, including: the ways in which work is disseminated; norms around authorship; importance of various factors in considering where work should be submitted; the extent to which existing tenure, merit and promotion practices are perceived to shape or be shaped by these practices, and lastly, whether scholars are re-evaluating the nature of what constitutes a research contribution for purposes of tenure, merit and promotion as new digital forms and formats emerge.

Section 2 asks about publishers’ contracts, copyright and peer review which all scholars’ experience today. Evidence of attention, or the lack of it, to the apparatus of traditional publishing helps situate faculty awareness, attitudes and practices with respect to the newer forms of production, dissemination and practice enabled by digital technologies.

67 The data for the lecturer/senior lecturer rank are included, but are not using in any comparison across the ranks as the achieved sample for this rank is known not to be representative of these ranks overall. See Appendix B for details.

68 To improve readability percentages are reported as whole numbers in the text. The data, rounded to one place after the decimal are included in the tables. Columns may not add to 100.0% due to rounding error and are reported as 100%.

69 A comparison of the achieved sample with the aggregate official data available suggests the sample is reasonably representative of the faculty overall (Appendix B). However, the sampling frame is not official population data and statistical tests are not employed.

70 For a detailed discussion of the methodology and methodological issues see Appendix B.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''AW'

Section 3 asks specifically about three areas – open access, research/subject /institutional repositories and funder/university mandates and policies. With widespread access to digital publishing and communication technologies, and to the

internet, alternate ways to publish, disseminate and curate scholarship are emerging. These ideas are not only about changes in format or practices, but bring to the fore larger questions about the nature of scholarship and the role and responsibilities of academic institutions in an increasingly digital age.

Section 4 recognizes that costs are associated with all forms of scholarly communication, and asks faculty about their experience with charges such as page charges or charges for photographic or illustrative materials that exist in many fields today, and how they pay them. The last questions in this section ask who should be responsibility for the costs associated with operating and managing the scholarly communication system.

Section 5 asks two questions specific to the University of Toronto. The first is about awareness of services offered by the School of Graduate Studies and the University Library. The second is about what faculty feel would be the most effective ways that they could keep up to date with changes taking place. The final question in the survey asks faculty to characterize the general state of the scholarly communication system in the field(s) where they primarily disseminate their research.

Abbreviations used for the four broad disciplinary categories

Humanities – HUMS

Social Sciences – SOCSCI

Life, Health and Medical Sciences – LHMSCI

Physical Sciences & Engineering – PHYSCI&E

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''AX'

'UIC>''<*99[\/'894</]<[!'

This section enquires into the nature of current scholarly communication practices to get an overview of activities, including, the ways in which work is disseminated; norms around authorship; importance of various factors in considering where work should be submitted; the extent to which existing tenure, merit and promotion practices are perceived to shape or be shaped by these practices, and lastly, whether scholars are re-evaluating the nature of what constitutes a research contribution for purposes of tenure, merit and promotion as new digital forms and formats emerge.

^'C>'9%)3%2.,+:'(+'.;%'?1-.'U'&%1#-6'?3%1-%',+7,21.%'133'.;%'51&-',+'5;,2;'&("';1$%'

7,--%=,+1.%7'&("#'5(#G6'1+7'%-.,=1.%'.;%'+"=@%#'()',.%=-',+'%12;'21.%:(#&!

!

/1@3%'UICIB>'

' \(+%'CNU'

,.%=-'

VNCB'

,.%=-'

_(#%''

.;1+'CB'

,.%=-'

&MSJQ!!!

,HPNMKPHP'

CI'8"@3,-;%7'1'=(+(:#1?;' ?V.?Z! /:.=Z! 0./Z! 0.WZ! /W?!

AI'[7,.%7'1'2(33%2.,(+'()'(#,:,+13'=1.%#,13' ??./Z! =/.6Z! 0.0Z! 1.?Z! /W1!

DI'<(+.#,@".%7'1'2;1?.%#'.('1+'%7,.%7'@((G' 05./Z! 55.?Z! 0/.VZ! /./Z! =?=!

EI'8"@3,-;%7'1+'1#.,23%',+'1'?%%#N#%$,%5%7'R("#+13' ?.?Z! /:./Z! 0V.6Z! /W.0Z! =:?!

UI'8"@3,-;%7'1'?%%#N#%$,%5%7'2(+)%#%+2%'?1?%#',+'1'

2(+)%#%+2%'?#(2%%7,+:-'6=.WZ! =V./Z! V.1Z! 0:.1Z! =06!

VI'8"@3,-;%7'1+'1#.,23%',+'1'=1:1F,+%'(#'?%#,(7,213'#%17'

@&'=%=@%#-'()'.;%'"+,$%#-,.&'2(=="+,.&6'%I:I6'

!"#$%&'()*$+*,&-")#*./0'12&$%'

:6.5Z! 6?./Z! 0./Z! 1.WZ! /:5!

WI'8#%-%+.%7'=&'#%-%1#2;',+'.;%'=%7,1' /W.1Z! ?1.?Z! ?.VZ! ?.5Z! =1W!

XI'<#%1.%7'1'-2;(31#3&'(#'1#2;,$13'5%@-,.%' 51.0Z! /:./Z! 0.WZ! 1.WZ! /W5!

YI'<#%1.%7'1'3%1#+,+:'(@R%2.'(#'(.;%#'="3.,N=%7,1'

#%-("#2%'.;1.'21+'@%'"-%7'1+7'#%N"-%7'5?.=Z! /0.VZ! 6.0Z! 1.?Z! /W6!

CBI'`17'5(#G',+'1+'17R"7,21.%7'2(=?%.,.,(+6'%Q;,@,.,(+6'

(#',+-.1331.,(+'W0.6Z! 0?.:Z! 0.:Z! 0.=Z! /56!

CCI'8(-.%7'1'R("#+13'1#.,23%'(+'1'?%#-(+13'(#'

7%?1#.=%+.13'5%@'-,.%'?0.WZ! 65./Z! V.WZ! 06./Z! =11!

CAI'a1$%'1')(#=13'?#%-%+.1.,(+'1.'1'2(+)%#%+2%' 0.VZ! 6?.?Z! 65.0Z! =5.?Z! =:0!

CDI'b1-',+$,.%7'.(':,$%'1':"%-.'3%2."#%6'(#'G%&+(.%'1'

2(+)%#%+2%'?.1Z! =?.6Z! 66.1Z! 6:.WZ! =51!

'

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Overall, traditional forms of peer-reviewed publication, including monographs, books and refereed articles are preferred. Almost forty percent of faculty have published at least one monograph over the past five years (37%); forty-five percent (45%) have edited at least one collection of original work and eighty-four percent (84%) have contributed at least one chapter to an edited collection.

Ninety-five percent (95%) of faculty have published at least one refereed journal article and thirty-eight percent (38%) have published more than ten peer-reviewed articles over the last five years. Seventy-five percent (75%) have published at least one peer-reviewed conference paper.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''AY'

Virtually all faculty responding to the survey have given at least one formal presentation at a conference (98%) and almost half (47%) have given more than ten presentations in the last five years. Ninety-five percent (95%)of faculty have been invited to give at least one guest lecture or to keynote a conference in the past five years.

In terms of digital media forms of dissemination, more than half of the faculty respond they are not disseminating their work this way – fifty-two percent (52%) report they have not posted an article on personal or departmental website, sixty percent (60%) have not created a scholarly or archival website, and sixty-five percent (65%) have not created a multi-media resource or learning object71 in the past five years. Conversely, almost half (48%) have posted one or more journal articles on a personal or departmental website, forty percent (40%) have created one or more scholarly websites, and just over one third (35%) have created at least one learning object or other multimedia object in the past five years.

University of Toronto faculty members are active in disseminating their research to the broader community through the media. Over sixty percent (62%) have presented their research at least once in the past five years. Other forms of engagement with the community are emerging with several faculty commenting on this. Five faculty members explicitly note the importance of knowledge translation and mobilization in making research results accessible to the broader community.

Outputs of creative professional practice are recognized for tenure and promotion in fields such as architecture, music, and visual studies. Almost twenty percent (19%) of faculty responding to the survey have had one or more works in an adjudicated competition, exhibition or installation in the past five years.

Disseminating work or contributing to academic debates by publishing in magazines or periodicals read by members of the university community such as The Chronicle of Higher Education or the Canadian magazine Academic Matters, is not a priority. Three quarters (73%) of the faculty have not contributed to this type of publication and a small number (<10) have contributed six or more articles in the past five years.

In the free-form comments, faculty point to other ways in which they disseminate their work. These include, for example, scholarly reviews for government, textbooks, working papers, contract and consulting reports and other types of creative works such as books of poetry (Table 5.1.0).

Figure 5.1 below illustrates visually the ways in which faculty disseminate their work and the percentage of items in each category.

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

71 A learning object is “any digital resource that can be reused to support learning" (Wiley, D. A. 2000. Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved January 15, 2011 from the World Wide Web: http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc . The online version of this work is an example of a new model of dissemination. See http://reusability.org/read/

http://reusability.org/read/

http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''DB'

0,:"#%'UIC>''`(5'#%-%1#2;',-'7,--%=,+1.%7'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G'

Sorting the responses by broad discipline and by faculty rank illustrates how the overall pattern varies within these categories.

3212)4)%2*56 The publication of monographs is most frequently reported in the humanities and social sciences. Approximately half of the faculty in the humanities (55%) and social sciences (48%) have published one to five monographs in the past five years. This falls to less than a quarter of faculty in the life, health and medical sciences (23%) and sixteen percent (16%) in the physical sciences and engineering. A small number of faculty (7.4%) in the life health and medical sciences report having published more than six items (Table 5.1.1a).

/1@3%'UICIC1>'8"@3,-;%7'1'=(+(:#1?;'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%''

' `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

\(+%' EEIYf' UBIBf' VYIWf' XAIUf'

CNU' UUICf' EWIXf' AAIYf' CUIXf'

VNCB' BIBf' BIBf' DIWf' CIXf'

gCB' BIBf' AIAf' DIWf' BIBf'

!CBBf'HWXK' CBBf'HCDXK' CBBf'HCBYK' CBBf'HUWK'

YMML!SM!611Z!

SM!GHJI!SHRS

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''DC'

Approximately one half of the professors responding (48%) have published at least one monograph in the past five years. This compares with forty-two percent (42%)of associate professors and thirty-one percent (31%) of assistant professors.72 Two assistant professors – one in the life, health and medical sciences and the other in the social sciences report publishing more than ten monographs; the highest number across the ranks (Table 5.1.1b).

/1@3%'UICIC@>''8"@3,-;%7'1'=(+(:#1?;'@&'#1+G''''

' d%2."#%#M!#d%2."#%#' 4--,-.''8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

\(+%' XUIBf' VYIEf' UXIUf' UCIYf'

CNU' CUIBf' AWICf' DXICf' EUICf'

VNCB' BIBf' CIAf' CIWf' CIAf'

gCB' BIBf' AIEf' CIWf' CIYf'

!CBBf'HABK' CBBf'HXUK' CBBf'HCCXK' CBBf'HCVAK'

3212)4)%2*76 A similar pattern was observed for the publication of edited collections. Almost two thirds (66%) of faculty in the humanities and half (50%) of those in the social sciences have edited at least one collection over the last five years. Approximately one-third of faculty in the life, health and medical sciences (33%) and in the physical sciences and engineering (27%) have edited at least one collection of original material in the past five years. In the life, health and medical sciences a small number of faculty (5%) report having edited six or more collections of original material in the past five years. This is not observed in any other of the broad disciplinary categories (Table 5.1.2a).

/1@3%'UICIA1>'[7,.%7'1'2(33%2.,(+'()'(#,:,+13'=1.%#,13'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%''

' `*_!'' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

\(+%' DDIXf' UBIEf' VWIBf' WAIYf'

CNU' VVIAf' EYIVf' AWIEf' AWICf'

VNCB' BIBf' BIBf' DIXf' BIBf'

gCB' BIBf' BIBf' CIYf' BIBf'

!CBBf'HWEK' CBBf'HCDWK' CBBf'HCBVK' CBBf'HUYK'

72 Note: As amount of publication and time in a career are expected to correlate, it is not unexpected to

find that assistant professors normally score lower in terms of the number of publications or works in

any category. As well, not all assistant professors may have been members of the faculty for five years.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''DA'

Almost sixty percent of professors (57%) are most likely to have edited one or more collections of original material over the past five years, followed by approximately forty percent of associate professors (43%) and a quarter of assistant professors (25%) (Table 5.1.2b).

/1@3%'UICIA@>''[7,.%7'1'2(33%2.,(+'()'(#,:,+13'=1.%#,13'@&'#1+G'

' d%2."#%#M!#d%2."#%#' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

\(+%' VUIAf' WUIBf' UWICf' EDIBf'

CNU' DEIXf' ADIXf' ECICf' UUIAf'

VNCB' BIBf' CIDf' BIYf' CIAf'

gCB' BIBf' BIBf' BIYf' BIVf'

!CBBf'HADK' CBBf'HXBK' CBBf'HCCAK' CBBf'HCVUK'

3212)4)%2*86! The majority of faculty members across the broad disciplinary categories have contributed a chapter to one or more edited books over the past five years. The number is highest in the humanities (94%) and social sciences (89%), and decreases to seventy-nine percent (79%) in the life, health and medical sciences and sixty-three percent (63%) in the physical sciences and engineering (Table 5.1.2a).

/1@3%'UICID1>'<(+.#,@".%7'1'2;1?.%#'.('1+'%7,.%7'@((G'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%!!

' `*_!'' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

\(+%' UIVf' CBIXf' ABIVf' DVIXf'

CNU' WCIYf' WBICf' VAIWf' UXIXf'

VNCB' CYICf' CUIVf' CCIYf' EIEf'

gCB' DIEf' DIVf' EIXf' BIBf'

!CBBf'HXYK' CBBf'HCVWK' CBBf'HCAVK' CBBf'HVXK'

Approximately ninety percent of professors (90%) and associate professors (88%) have contributed at least one chapter to an edited book over the past five years compared with sixty-nine percent (69%) of assistant professors (Table 5.1.3b).

/1@3%'UICID@>'<(+.#,@".%7'1'2;1?.%#'.('1+'%7,.%7'@((G'@&'#1+G''

' d%2."#%#M!#d%2."#%#' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

\(+%' DYICf' DCICf' CAIEf' YIXf'

CNU' VBIYf' UXIYf' WDIBf' VVIAf'

VNCB' BIBf' WIXf' CAIEf' CYICf'

gCB' BIBf' AIAf' AIAf' EIYf'

!CBBf'HADK' CBBf'HYBK' CBBf'HCDWK' CBBf'HABEK'

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''DD'

!.1.%=%+.'E> One hundred percent of faculty in the life, health and medical sciences have published at least one article in a peer-reviewed journal over the part five years, and two thirds have published more than ten. The pattern is similar, albeit the percentages are slightly lower, in the physical sciences and engineering. The pattern is different in the social sciences and humanities. The majority of faculty in these disciplines have published one to five articles in a peer-reviewed journal, 52% and 64% respectively. Less than one quarter in the humanities (23%) and less than half in the social sciences (43%), have published six or more articles in this period (Table 5.1.4a).

!

/1@3%'UICIE1>'8"@3,-;%7'1+'1#.,23%',+'1'?%%#N#%$,%5%7'R("#+13'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%''

' `*_!'' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

\(+%' CDIAf' UIYf' BIBf' UIDf'

CNU' VDIWf' UCIUf' CEIXf' CEIUf'

VNCB' CEIDf' ABIWf' CYIDf' AAIEf'

gCB' XIXf' ACIYf' VUIYf' UWIYf'

!CBBf'HYCK' CBBf'HCVYK' CBBf'HCDUK' CBBf'HWVK'

Forty-five percent (45%) of professors report they have published ten or more articles, compared with thirty-seven percent (37%) of associate professors and just over thirty percent of assistant professors (32%). However, almost half of the assistant professors (48%) report they have published one to five items in this period (Table 5.1.4b).

/1@3%'UICIE@>'8"@3,-;%7'1+'1#.,23%',+'1'?%%#N#%$,%5%7'R("#+13'@&'#1+G''

' d%2."#%#M!#d%2."#%#' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

\(+%' DEIVf' EICf' DIVf' DIXf'

CNU' UDIXf' EXIBf' DEIUf' DAICf'

VNCB' DIXf' CVIDf' AEIUf' CXIYf'

gCB' WIWf' DCIVf' DWIEf' EUIDf'

!CBBf'HAVK' CBBf'HYXK' CBBf'HCDYK' CBBf'HACAK'

!

3212)4)%2*96' Almost ninety percent (88%) of faculty members in the physical sciences and engineering have published at least one peer-reviewed conference paper in the last five years and almost forty percent (39%) have published more than ten papers over the last five years. Over eighty percent (81%) of faculty in the humanities have published at least one refereed conference paper in this period, and nine percent (9%) have published more than six papers. Sixty-five percent (65%) of faculty in the social sciences and over three quarters of faculty in the life, health and medical sciences (76%) have published at least one conference paper (Table 5.1.5a).

'

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''DE'

/1@3%'UICIU1>'8"@3,-;%7'1'?%%#N#%$,%5%7'2(+)%#%+2%'?1?%#',+'1'2(+)%#%+2%'?#(2%%7,+:-'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%''

' `*_!'' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

\(+%' CXIVf' DUIBf' ADIVf' CAIUf'

CNU' WAIYf' UAIEf' ECIUf' DEIWf'

VNCB' UIWf' WIBf' CBIVf' CDIYf'

gCB' AIYf' UIVf' AEIEf' DXIYf'

!CBBf'HWBK' CBBf'HCEDK' CBBf'HCADK' CBBf'HWAK'

Approximately half (45-51%) of the faculty in each rank have published at least one peer-reviewed conference paper in the last five years (Table 5.1.5b).

/1@3%'UICIU@>'8"@3,-;%7'1'?%%#N#%$,%5%7'2(+)%#%+2%'?1?%#',+'1'2(+)%#%+2%'?#(2%%7,+:-'@&'#1+G''

' d%2."#%#M!#d%2."#%#' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

\(+%' AWIDf' AVIAf' AXIUf' ACIDf'

CNU' VXIAf' EVIEf' EEIWf' UCIEf'

VNCB' EIUf' CEIDf' XICf' WIWf'

gCB' BIBf' CDICf' CXIWf' CYIWf'

! CBBf'HAAK' CBBf'HXEK' CBBf'HCADK' CBBf'HCXDK'

*

3212)4)%2*:6 Faculty across the broad disciplinary categories have limited interest in publishing in the magazines or journals that report on higher education. Interest is highest among social scientists with over one third (35%) having published one to five articles in the last five years and lowest among the physical scientists and engineering faculty where eighty-six percent (86%) have not published an article in a magazine or periodical in the higher education press in the past five years (Table 5.1.6a).

/1@3%'UICIV1>'8"@3,-;%7'1+'1#.,23%',+'1'=1:1F,+%'(#'?%#,(7,213'#%17'@&'=%=@%#-'()'.;%'"+,$%#-,.&'2(=="+,.&'

@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%''

' `*_!'' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

\(+%' WUIEf' VAI(f' WWIYf' XVIBf'

CNU' ADICf' DUIBf' ABIEf' CAIDf'

VNCB' BIBf' AIAf' CIXf' BIBf'

gCB' CIUf' BIWf' BIBf' CIXf'

!CBBf'HVUK' CBBf'HCDWK' CBBf'HCCDK' CBBf'HUWK'

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''DU'

Assistant professors are the least likely to have published an article in this type of magazine (Table 5.1.6b).

/1@3%'UICIV@>'8"@3,-;%7'1+'1#.,23%',+'1'=1:1F,+%'(#'?%#,(7,213'#%17'@&'=%=@%#-'()'.;%'"+,$%#-,.&'2(=="+,.&'

@&'#1+G''

' d%2."#%#M!#d%2."#%#' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

\(+%' WWIDf' XEIXf' VXICf' VYICf'

CNU' AAIWf' CDIYf' DBICf' AWIXf'

VNCB' BIBf' CIDf' BIYf' CIYf'

gCB' BIBf' BIBf' BIYf' CIAf'

!CBBf'HAAK' CBBf'HWYK' CBBf'HCCDK' CBBf'HCVAK'

'

!.1.%=%+.'W> Faculty in the physical sciences and engineering engage less with the media than faculty in the other broad disciplinary categories. Sixty-four percent (64%) report they have not presented their research in the media in the past five years, while more than half of the faculty in each of the other broad disciplinary categories have presented at least once. Faculty in the social sciences (70%) and in the life, health and medical sciences (67%) are the most active overall (Table 5.1.7a).

/1@3%'UICIW1>'8#%-%+.%7'=&'#%-%1#2;',+'.;%'=%7,1'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%''

' `*_!'' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

\(+%' EBIBf' AYIVf' DAIXf' VDIUf'

CNU' UXIVf' UEIVf' UAIYf' DBIAf'

VNCB' CIEf' WIYf' XIEf' CIVf'

gCB' BIBf' WIYf' UIYf' EIXf'

!CBBf'HWBK' CBBf'HCUAK' CBBf'HCCYK' CBBf'HVDK'

Professors (69%)are more likely than associate professors (62%) or assistant professors (51%) to have presented their work in the media in the past five years (Table 5.1.7b).

/1@3%'UICIW@>'8#%-%+.%7'=&'#%-%1#2;',+'.;%'=%7,1'@&'#1+G'

' d%2."#%#M!#d%2."#%#' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

\(+%' UBIBf' EYIEf' DXIBf' DBIWf'

CNU' EUIXf' EDIWf' UCIAf' UEIBf'

VNCB' EIAf' EIVf' UIBf' WIEf'

gCB' BIBf' AIDf' UIXf' XIBf'

!CBBf'HAEK' CBBf'HXWK' CBBf'HCACK' CBBf'HCWVK'

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''DV'

3212)4)%2*;: Over forty percent (41-47%) of the faculty across the broad disciplinary categories with the exception of life and health science where it is closer to one third (32%) have created at least one scholarly or archival website in the past five years (Table 5.1.8a).

/1@3%'UICIX1>'<#%1.%7'1'-2;(31#3&'(#'1#2;,$13'5%@-,.%'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' `*_!'' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

\(+%' UXIAf' UXIVf' VWIXf' UDIDf'

CNU' EBIDf' EBIBf' AXIWf' ECIWf'

VNCB' BIBf' CIEf' DIUf' CIWf'

gCB' CIUf' BIBf' BIBf' DIDf'

!CBBf'HVWK' CBBf'HCEBK' CBBf'HCCUK' CBBf'HVBK'

!

Over forty percent of associate professors (42%) and professors (43%) have created at least one scholarly site in the past five years compared with one third (33%) of assistant professors (Table 5.1.8b).

/1@3%'UICIX@>'<#%1.%7'1'-2;(31#3&'(#'1#2;,$13'5%@-,.%'@&'#1+G'

' d%2."#%#M!#d%2."#%#' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

\(+%' VYIVf' VWICf' UWIVf' UWICf'

CNU' DBIEf' DCIWf' EBIWf' DXIWf'

VNCB' BIBf' CIAf' CIWf' AIUf'

gCB' BIBf' BIBf' BIBf' CIXf'

!CBBf'HADK' CBBf'HXAK' CBBf'HCCXK' CBBf'HCVDK'

!

3212)4)%2*<6 Approximately one third of faculty in each of the broad disciplinary categories has created a learning object or other multimedia resource (Table 5.1.9a).

/1@3%'UICIY1>'<#%1.%7'1'3%1#+,+:'(@R%2.'(#'(.;%#'="3.,N=%7,1'#%-("#2%'.;1.'21+'@%'"-%7'1+7'#%N"-%7'@&'

@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' `*_!'' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

\(+%' VUIDf' VWIAf' VDIXf' VWIYf'

CNU' DDIDf' DBIVf' DCIYIf' DBIEf'

VNCB' BIBf' AIAf' DIEf' CIXf'

gCB' CIEf' BIBf' BIYf' BIBf'

!CBBf'HWAK' CBBf'HCDEK' CBBf'HCCVK' CBBf'HUVK'

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''DW'

Associate professors (40%) report the creation of these media more frequently overall than either assistant professors (30%) or professors (31%). While not a representative sample, forty-six percent (46%) of lecturers/senior lecturers have created a learning object or other multi-media resource in the past five years (Table 5.1.9b).

/1@3%'UICIY@>'<#%1.%7'1'3%1#+,+:'(@R%2.'(#'(.;%#'="3.,N=%7,1'#%-("#2%'.;1.'21+'@%'"-%7'1+7'#%N"-%7'@&'#1+G'

' d%2."#%#M!#d%2."#%#' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

\(+%' UEIAf' VYIYf' UYIXf' VYIBf'

CNU' EUIXf' AXIYf' DVIXf' AWIXf'

VNCB' BIBf' BIBf' AIVf' DIAf'

gCB' BIBf' CIAf' BIYf' BIBf'

!CBBf'HAEK' CBBf'HXDK' CBBf'HCCWK' CBBf'HCUXK'

!

3212)4)%2*5=6 Twenty percent (20%) of faculty in the humanities and twenty-seven

percent (27%) of faculty in the life, health and medical sciences have had at least one piece of work in an adjudicated competition, exhibition or installation in the past five years compared with seventeen percent (17%) in the social sciences and six percent (6%) in the physical sciences and engineering (Table 5.1.10a).

/1@3%'UICICB1>'`17'5(#G',+'1+'17R"7,21.%7'2(=?%.,.,(+6'%Q;,@,.,(+6'(#',+-.1331.,(+'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' `*_!'' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

\(+%' WYIWf' XAIYf' WDIBf' YEIEf'

CNU' CXIXf' CVIDf' CXIYf' UIVf'

VNCB' BIBf' BIXf' EIUf' BIBf'

gCB' CIVf' IBIBf' DIVf' BIBf'

!CBBf'HVEK' CBBf'HCAYK' CBBf'HCCCK' CBBf'HUEK'

One quarter of associate professors (25%) have disseminated their work in this way in the past five years compared with professors (15%) and assistant professors (14%) (Table 5.1.10b).

/1@3%'UICICB@>'`17'5(#G',+'1+'17R"7,21.%7'2(=?%.,.,(+6'%Q;,@,.,(+6'(#',+-.1331.,(+'@&'#1+G'

' d%2."#%#M!#d%2."#%#' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

\(+%' WAIWf' XUIWf' WUIBf' XEIXf'

CNU' AAIWf' CEIDf' CYIVf' CAIVf'

VNCB' EIUf' BIBf' DIVf' BIWf'

gCB' BIBf' BIBf' CIXf' AIBf'

!CBBf'HAAK' CBBf'HWWK' CBBf'HCCAK' CBBf'HCUCK'

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''DX'

3212)4)%2*556 Two thirds of faculty in the physical sciences and engineering (66%), over half the faculty in the social sciences (54%), and close to forty percent of the faculty in the life, health and medical sciences (38%) and the humanities (37%) have posted one or more journal articles on a personal or departmental web site. Physical scientists and engineers are the most active overall with almost one third (31%) reporting that they have posted more than ten articles on departmental or personal websites in the past five years (Table 5.1.11a).

/1@3%'UICICC1>'8(-.%7'1'R("#+13'1#.,23%'(+'1'?%#-(+13'(#'7%?1#.=%+.13'5%@'-,.%'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' `*_!'' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

\(+%' VAIYf' EUIYf' VAICf' DDIYf'

CNU' AEIDf' DCIXf' ACIVf' AAIVf'

VNCB' 'AIYf' CEIAf' VIYf' CAIYf'

gCB' CBIBf' XICf' YIUf' DBIVf'

!CBBf'HWBK' CBBf'HCEXK' CBBf'HCCVK' CBBf'HVAK'

Approximately half the of the faculty use a personal or departmental website to disseminate their work. Seventeen percent (17%) of professors report they have posted more than ten articles, compared with nine percent (9%) of associate and assistant professors (Table 5.1.1b).

/1@3%'UICIC@>'8(-.%7'1'R("#+13'1#.,23%'(+'1'?%#-(+13'(#'7%?1#.=%+.13'5%@'-,.%'@&'#1+G'

' d%2."#%#M!#d%2."#%#' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

\(+%' WBIXf' UCIAf' UBIEf' UBIDf'

CNU' CVIWf' DDIWf' AWIVf' AAIXf'

VNCB' EIAf' UIXf' CDIBf' CBIAf'

gCB' XIDf' YIDf' XIYf' CVIXf'

!CBBf'HAEK' CBBf'HXVK' CBBf'HCADK' CBBf'HCVWK'

*

3212)4)%2*57: Approximately half of the faculty in the physical sciences and engineering (55%), and the life, health and medical sciences (50%) report they have given more than ten presentations in the last five years. The numbers are slightly lower in the social sciences (45%) and the humanities (37%) (Table 5.1.12a).

/1@3%'UICICA1>'a1$%'1')(#=13'?#%-%+.1.,(+'1.'1'2(+)%#%+2%'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' `*_!'' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

\(+%' BIBf' CIAf' AIDf' UIDf'

CNU' AEIEf' AVIUf' AVIWf' AAIEf'

VNCB' DXIYf' AWIVf' ACIEf' CWICf'

gCB' DVIWf' EEIWf' EYIVf' UUIDf'

!CBBf'HYBK' CBBf'HCWBK' CBBf'HCDCK' CBBf'HWVK'

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''DY'

There is limited variation by rank (Table 5.1.12b).

/1@3%'UICICA@>'a1$%'1')(#=13'?#%-%+.1.,(+'1.'1'2(+)%#%+2%'@&'#1+G'

' d%2."#%#M!#d%2."#%#' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

\(+%' WIEf' CIBf' IWf' AIEf'

CNU' DDIDf' AWIXf' ACIXf' AUIYf'

VNCB' AYIVf' ACIVf' DCIBf' AEIEf'

gCB' AYIVf' EYIUf' EVIUf' EWIDf'

!CBBf'HAWK' CBBf'HYWK' CBBf'HCEAK' CBBf'HABUK'

!

3212)4)%2*586 There is some variation across the broad disciplinary categories in terms of invitations to give presentations. Almost forty percent of life, health and medical science faculty (38%) have had more than ten invitations in the past five years to give a guest lecture or keynote a conference compared with approximately one quarter of faculty members in the other broad disciplinary categories (Table 5.1.13a).

/1@3%'UICICD1>'b1-',+$,.%7'.(':,$%'1':"%-.'3%2."#%'(#'G%&+(.%'1'2(+)%#%+2%'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' `*_!'' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

\(+%' DIUf' WIDf' DIXf' EICf'

CNU' UUIDf' EWIDf' DXIDf' EAIUf'

VNCB' CXIXf' ACIXf' ABIDf' DBICf'

gCB' AAIEf' ADIVf' DWIVf' ADIDf'

!CBBf'HXUK' CBBf'HCVUK' CBBf'HCDDK' CBBf'HWDK'

!

Almost all professors (97%) have been invited to give a guest lecture or keynote a conference at least once in the past five years. The number of faculty receiving one or more invitations increases across the ranks (Table 5.1.13b).

/1@3%'UICICD@>'b1-',+$,.%7'.(':,$%'1':"%-.'3%2."#%'(#'G%&+(.%'1'2(+)%#%+2%'@&'#1+G'

' d%2."#%#M!#d%2."#%#' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

\(+%' CCICf' WIAf' UICf' DIBf'

CNU' VDIBf' VBIXf' EUIDf' DUIAf'

VNCB' WIEf' CDIEf' ACIYf' AXICf'

gCB' CXIUf' CXIVf' AWIWf' DDIWf'

!CBBf'HAWK' CBBf'HYWK' CBBf'HCDWK' CBBf'HCYYK'

'

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''EB'

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-'

There are other ways to disseminate one's work that are not listed here (and are not always recognized by the university) - performances, reports, teaching, etc. I write for a category not reflected above, magazines in print and online for the generally educated reader. I return research results directly to the community in a variety of forms, including presentations, workshops, pamphlets, handouts, posters, etc. as a component of a community-based research model. The list does not include professional journals read by members of the larger community, e.g., performing arts, but not peer-reviewed. Dissemination of research can also include convening public events/symposia for multiple audiences. Major contract reports on scholarly topics.

^A>'b;1.',-'.;%'+(#=',+'.%#=-'()'1".;(#-;,?'5;%+'&("'?"@3,-;M7,--%=,+1.%'&("#'5(#Gh'''

/@A@BC%DE@'!

/1@3%'UIAIB>'

'

' 9%-?(+-%''

/;%'=1R(#,.&'()'=&'?"@3,21.,(+-M5(#G-'1#%'2(N1".;(#%7' !?/.WZ!!!!!!!!![65/\!

!(=%'()'=&'?"@3,21.,(+-M5(#G-'1#%'2(N1".;(#%7' !/0./Z!!!!!!!!!![0?/\!

\(+%'()'=&'?"@3,21.,(+-M5(#G-'1#%'2(N1".;(#%7' 06.VZ!!!!!!!!!![!5/\!

S.;%#'H?3%1-%'-?%2,)&K>' !!6.1Z!!!!!!!!!![!01\!

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CBBf''''''''''HEXYK*

'

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Eighty-five percent (85%) of the faculty report that their publications are co-authored at least some of the time (5.2.0).

'

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G''

There are major variations across the broad disciplinary categories. Almost half of the humanities faculty (47%) and fifteen percent (15%) of the social scientists report that none of their publications are co-authored. There are no scientists who report this. The vast majority of life, health and medical scientists (89%) and the physical scientists and engineering faculty (86%) report that the majority of their publications are co-authored (5.2.1a).

'

!

!

'

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''EC'

/1@3%'UIAIC1>''4".;(#-;,?'+(#='@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' `*_!'' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

/;%'=1R(#,.&'()'=&'

?"@3,21.,(+-M5(#G-'1#%'2(N1".;(#%7'/.6Z! =1.1Z! WW.?Z! W?.:Z!

!(=%'()'=&'?"@3,21.,(+-M5(#G-'1#%'

2(N1".;(#%7'=W.VZ! =?.0Z! 00.?Z! 0=./Z!

\(+%'()'=&'?"@3,21.,(+-M5(#G-'1#%'

2(N1".;(#%7'=5.WZ! 0=.VZ! 1.1Z! 1.1Z!

S.;%#'0.0Z! 1.1Z! 1.1Z! !!!!!!!1.1Z!

!011Z![V=\! 011Z![0:?\! 011Z![0/V\! 011Z![::\!

Over fifty percent (54-58%) of faculty report that the majority of their publications are co-authored. Ten percent (10%) of professors report that none of their publications are co-authored while sixteen percent (16%) of associate professors and eighteen percent (18%) of assistant professors say that none of their publications are co-authored (Table 5.2.1b).

/1@3%'UIAIC@>'4".;(#-;,?'+(#='@&'#1+G'

' d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'

8#()%--(#'

8#()%--(#'

/;%'=1R(#,.&'()'=&'

?"@3,21.,(+-M5(#G-'1#%'2(N1".;(#%7'AVIYf' ?W.=Z! ?/.?Z! ?5.1Z!

!(=%'()'=&'?"@3,21.,(+-M5(#G-'1#%'

2(N1".;(#%7'EAIDf' 6/.WZ! /1.5Z! //.VZ!

\(+%'()'=&'?"@3,21.,(+-M5(#G-'1#%'

2(N1".;(#%7'AVIYf' 0:.WZ! 05.1Z! 01.0Z!

S.;%#'DIXf' 1.1Z! 1.1Z! !!!!!!!!!1.1Z!

!CBBf'HAVK' 011Z![010\! 011Z![0==\! 011Z![60W\!

'

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-'

One faculty member observed that specific types of publications such as encyclopedia articles are co-authored, and another that edited collections are often co-edited. Several say that while some publications are co-authored, it is extremely rare and not the norm, e.g., one co-authored piece in the last forty. Another pointed out that students are listed as co-authors, and a senior scholar pointed out that in his/her field that this changes as one advances – the more advanced you are, the more permissible it is to have co-authored articles, but this would not really be acceptable for junior scholars. One faculty member pointed out that co-authorship is a problematic concept in fields where traditional publication is not the only, and sometimes not even the primary, method of creation and dissemination of knowledge.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''EA'

^D>'b;%+'2(+-,7%#,+:'5;%#%'.('-"@=,.'&("#'5(#G')(#'?"@3,21.,(+6';(5',=?(#.1+.'.('

&("'1#%'%12;'()'.;%')(33(5,+:')12.(#- '

/1@3%'UIDIB>'

' i%#&',=?(#.1+.' ]=?(#.1+.'\(.'

,=?(#.1+.'

9%-?(+-%'

<("+.'

CI'9%?".1.,(+'()'.;%'@((G'(#'R("#+13'

?"@3,-;%#'=5.VZ! /W.0Z! 0?.1Z! =:/!

AI'9%?".1.,(+'()'.;%'R("#+13'.,.3%' :0.VZ! 6=.VZ! /.6Z! =:=!

DI'Z%,+:'1@3%'.('-"@=,.'=&'=1+"-2#,?.'

(+3,+%'0?.?Z! /=.WZ! =V.:Z! =5?!

EI'^"13,.&'()'.;%'?%%#'#%$,%5' ?1.0Z! =/./Z! 5.5Z! =5V!

UI'b%,:;.'()'.;%'?"@3,21.,(+'$%+"%',+'

.%+"#%'1+7'?#(=(.,(+'2(+-,7%#1.,(+-',+'

=&'7%?1#.=%+.M)12"3.&'

/6.WZ! /V.:Z! 6:.?Z! =55!

VI'9%17%#-;,?M1"7,%+2%' 5/.0Z! /=.5Z! 6./Z! =:=!

WI'j("#+13',=?12.')12.(#' /0.WZ! ?1.6Z! 0W.1Z! =55!

XI'!?%%7'()'?"@3,21.,(+' 61.VZ! 51./Z! 0W.WZ! =5V!

YI'4'?1?%#',--"%'(#'?#,+.'$(3"=%',-'

?#(7"2%7'01.1Z! /W.6Z! ?0.WZ! =5V!

CBI'4'7,:,.13'$%#-,(+',-'1$1,31@3%' 6W.=Z! ==.6Z! 6:.=Z! =5W!

CCI'/;%')"33N.%Q.',-'122%--,@3%'(+3,+%'.('

1+&(+%'5;('),+7-',.'60.:Z! ==.?Z! //.WZ! =5?!

CAI'_&'1@,3,.&'.('#%.1,+'-(=%'()'.;%'#,:;.-'

H,I%I6'2(?&#,:;.K'00./Z! /=./Z! ?=.=Z! =5V!

CDI'/;%'1@,3,.&'.('-%3)N1#2;,$%k'=&'5(#G' 01.=Z! 6V.6Z! 51.=Z! =56!

* )HQ]^JG_OD`DKE!DP!SOH!NMPSDKE!DK!J!IDEDSJQ!JG_OD`HU!GHNMPDSMGa!MG!QDTGJGa!M]!JK!JFSOMGbP!]DKJQ!`HGPDMK!M]!J!GH]HGHHI!

NJNHG![NMPS^NGDKS\!J__HNSHI!]MG!NFTQD_JSDMK.%

'

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Overall, three factors dominate– the reputation of the journal title, readership /audience and the quality of peer review – are each ranked as ‘very important’ by more than half of the respondents. Over ninety percent say these factors are ‘Important’ or ‘Very important’.

Six factors are considered to be either ‘Very important’ or ‘Important’ by more than eighty percent of the faculty. These include in descending order i) readership /audience (98%) ii) reputation of the journal title (96%) iii) quality of the peer review (93%) iv) reputation of the book or journal publisher (85%) v) journal impact factor (82%) and vi) speed of publication (81%).

Half or more (50-60%) of the respondents rate as ‘Not important’ four of the factors: i) the ability to self-archive work (60%) ii) the ability to retain some of the rights (54%) iii) that a paper issue or print volume is produced (52%) and iv) being able to submit a manuscript online (50%) (Table 5.3.0).

The importance assigned to each of these statements is represented visually in Figure 5.2 below.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''ED'

0,:"#%'UIA>']=?(#.1+2%'()')12.(#-'2(+-,7%#%7'5;%+'-"@=,..,+:'5(#G')(#'?"@3,21.,(+'

!

<(==%+.-'

The most important factor is the appropriateness of the book or journal to the content of the work: is the article relevant to the theme of the larger publication, and vice versa? Of the choices in the list, "readership/audience" comes the closest to capturing this, but it's a bit vague; for me, the question is whether the work will be seen by people who will be interested in it, rather than simply how many people will see it. Reputation of a book publisher would be important. I don't think I consider the reputation of a journal publisher, as opposed to the reputation of the journal itself, and in most cases I'm not even very aware of the publisher of a journal. Many of these questions are moot as all publication venues provide digital/full-text accessible versions and online submission - it is the standard. ,… More useful quotes here depending on final formulation

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G'

*

3212)4)%2*56 The reputation of the publisher is ‘Very important’ for faculty in the humanities with two-thirds of faculty choosing this option compared with approximately one third of faculty in the physical sciences and engineering (32%) and in the life, health and medical sciences (34%). However, as observed previously in Q1, faculty in the sciences publish primarily in journals, and it is the journal title rather than the publisher that is deemed important (Table 5.3.1a).

/1@3%'UIDIC1>'9%?".1.,(+'()'.;%'@((G'(#'R("#+13'?"@3,-;%#'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 55.:Z! ?6.VZ! /=.0Z! /6.=Z!

]=?(#.1+.' /6./Z! /?.VZ! =/.1Z! =1.WZ!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' 0.0Z! 00.6Z! 6/.1Z! 65.WZ!

!011Z![V/\! 011Z![0:1\! 011Z![0/?\! 011Z![:0\!

YMML!SM!611Z!!!

SM!GHJI!SHRS

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''EE'

There is some variation across the ranks, with more assistant professors reporting that the reputation of the publisher is ‘Not important’ when considering where to submit work for publication (Table 5.3.1b).

/1@3%'UIDIC@>''9%?".1.,(+'()'.;%'@((G'(#'R("#+13'?"@3,-;%#'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' ==.1Z! =/.WZ! =5.VZ! =W.WZ!

]=?(#.1+.' =W.1Z! /5.?Z! =0./Z! /?.=Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' W.1Z! 0V.WZ! 00.VZ! 0?.WZ!

!011Z![6?\! 011Z![V5\! 011Z![0=/\! 011Z![61V\!

3212)4)%2*76 When the question is about the reputation of the journal title rather than the reputation of the publisher, almost all (96-99%) of faculty across the broad disciplinary categories say that this is either ‘Very important’ or ‘Important’. More than three-quarters of social scientists (77%) and physical sciences and engineering faculty (76%) say that the reputation of the journal title is ‘Very important’, and two-thirds of the faculty in the humanities (67%) and in the life, health and medical sciences faculty (67%) say this (Table 5.3.2a).

/1@3%'DIDIA1>''9%?".1.,(+'()'.;%'R("#+13'.,.3%'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 5:.1Z! :5.WZ! 55.:Z! :5./Z!

]=?(#.1+.' /1.WZ! 61.6Z! 6W.VZ! 66.=Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' 6.6Z! /.1Z! =.=Z! 0./Z!

!011Z![V0\! 011Z![05W\! 011Z![0/?\! 011Z![:5\!

All assistant professors say that the reputation of the journal title is ‘Very important’ or ‘Important’ when considering where to submit work (Table 5. 3.2b).

/1@3%'UIDIA@>'9%?".1.,(+'()'.;%'R("#+13'.,.3%'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' ?1.1Z! ::.0Z! :6.VZ! :0.:Z!

]=?(#.1+.' =5.6Z! 66.VZ! 6=./Z! 6/.5Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' /.WZ! 1.1Z! 6.VZ! =.:Z!

!011Z![65\! 011Z![V5\! 011Z![0=1\! 011Z![606\!

!

*

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''EU'

3212)4)%2*86 In terms of being able to submit work online, over sixty percent of faculty in the humanities (68%) and social sciences (61%) say that this is ‘Not important’, compared with one third of the scientists – 34% of life, health and medical sciences and 32% of physical sciences and engineering faculty (Table 5.3.3a).

/1@3%'UIDID1>''Z%,+:'1@3%'.('-"@=,.'=&'=1+"-2#,?.'(+3,+%'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' =.?Z! W.5Z! 65.:Z! 61.1Z!

]=?(#.1+.' 6:./Z! /1.0Z! /V./Z! =W.1Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' 5W.6Z! 50./Z! /=.0Z! /6.1Z!

!011Z![WW\! 011Z![05/\! 011Z![0/?\! 011Z![:?\!

! !

Almost one quarter of assistant professors (24%) say that being able to submit their manuscript online is ‘Very important’ compared with approximately fifteen percent of associate professors (16%) and professors (12%) (Table 5.3.3b).

/1@3%'UIDID@>'Z%,+:'1@3%'.('-"@=,.'=&'=1+"-2#,?.'(+3,+%'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' W.1Z! 6=.1Z! 0?.WZ! 06.6Z!

]=?(#.1+.' =W.1Z! /:.?Z! //.WZ! /6.:Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' ==.1Z! /W.?Z! ?1.=Z! ??.0Z!

!011Z![6?\! 011Z![V5\! 011Z![0/V\! 011Z![61?\!

!

3212)4)%2*>6 The quality of the peer review is ranked as ‘Important’ or ‘Very important’ by almost all (90-98%) faculty regardless of the broad disciplinary category. However, fewer scientists rate this as ‘Not important’ – one percent (1%) in the physical sciences and engineering faculty and four percent (4%) of life, health and medical sciences compared with eight percent (8%) of faculty in the humanities and ten percent (10%) of social scientists (Table 5.3.4a).

/1@3%'UIDIE1>'^"13,.&'()'.;%'?%%#'#%$,%5'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' ==.5Z! =/.=Z! ?5.=Z! 51.WZ!

]=?(#.1+.' =:.WZ! =5.=Z! /V.WZ! /:.WZ!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' :.5Z! 01.6Z! /.WZ! 0.=Z!

!011Z![V6\! 011Z![055\! 011Z![0//\! 011Z![:=\!

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''EV'

Associate professors and professors are the most likely to rate the quality of the peer review as ‘Not important’ – nine percent (9%) and seven percent (7%) respectively, compared with only two percent (2%) of assistant professors (Table 5.3.4b).

/1@3%'UIDIE@>'^"13,.&'()'.;%'?%%#'#%$,%5'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 6/.0Z! ?=.5Z! =W.VZ! ?6.6Z!

]=?(#.1+.' :/.0Z! =/./Z! =0.WZ! =1.?Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' /.WZ! 6.0Z! V.6Z! :./Z!

! 011Z![65\! 011Z![V:\! 011Z![0=0\! 011Z![61?\!

!

3212)4)%2*96 Faculty in the life, health and medical sciences are the least likely to say that the weight of the publication venue in terms of tenure and promotion considerations is ‘Not important’ – just over twenty percent (21%) compared with faculty in the humanities where one third say that it’s ‘Not important’ (Table 5.3.5a).

/1@3%'UIDIU1>'b%,:;.'()'.;%'?"@3,21.,(+'$%+"%',+'.%+"#%'1+7'?#(=(.,(+'2(+-,7%#1.,(+-',+'=&'

7%?1#.=%+.M)12"3.&'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 6:.6Z! /W.:Z! /?./Z! 6/.1Z!

]=?(#.1+.' =1.6Z! /6.?Z! =/.5Z! =:./Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' /6.5Z! 6W.WZ! 60.0Z! 6V.:Z!

!011Z![V6\! 011Z![05/\! 011Z![0//\! 011Z![:=\!

Almost two thirds (64%) of assistant professors say that the venue in terms of promotion and tenure is ‘Very important’ compared with nineteen percent (19%) of professors. Sixteen percent (16%) of associate professors and forty-four percent (44%) of professors say this is ‘Not important’ compared with nine percent (9%) of assistant professors (Table 5.3.5b).

/1@3%'UIDIU@>'b%,:;.'()'.;%'?"@3,21.,(+'$%+"%',+'.%+"#%'1+7'?#(=(.,(+'2(+-,7%#1.,(+-',+'=&'

7%?1#.=%+.M)12"3.&'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 0?.=Z! 5/.?Z! /=.?Z! 0V./Z!

]=?(#.1+.' ?/.WZ! 6:.0Z! =V./Z! /:.0Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' /1.WZ! V.=Z! 05.6Z! =/.5Z!

!011Z![65\! 011Z![V5\! 011Z![0=6\! 011Z![616\!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''EW'

3212)4)%2*:6 The importance of readership or audience in determining where a work would be submitted is rated either as ‘Important’ or ‘Very important’ by almost all faculty responding, regardless of broad disciplinary category (Table 5.3.6a).

/1@3%'UIDIV1>'9%17%#-;,?M1"7,%+2%'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' ??.=Z! 5/.:Z! 5?.VZ! 5?./Z!

]=?(#.1+.' =1.6Z! //./Z! /=.0Z! /6.1Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' =./Z! /.1Z! 1.1Z! 6.:Z!

!011Z![V6\! 011Z![05W\! 011Z![0/?\! 011Z![:?\!

Assistant professors (5%) are somewhat more likely to say this is ‘Not important’ (Table 5.3.6b).

/1@3%'UIDIV@>'9%17%#-;,?M1"7,%+2%'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' ==.1Z! 51.WZ! 51.5Z! 5W.0Z!

]=?(#.1+.' ?5.1Z! /=.1Z! /:./Z! /1.?Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' 1.1Z! ?.6Z! 6.0Z! 0.=Z!

!011Z![6?\! 011Z![V:\! 011Z![0=6\! 011Z![601\!

!

3212)4)%2*?> Almost ninety percent (89%) of scientists in the life, health and medical sciences rate the journal impact factor73 as ‘Important’ or ‘Very important’. One quarter (25%) of humanists say it is ‘Not important’ (Table 5.3.7a).

/1@3%'UIDIW1>'j("#+13',=?12.')12.(#'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 61.6Z! /6.?Z! =1.=Z! 6W.=Z!

]=?(#.1+.' ??.0Z! =W.?Z! =W.?Z! ?=.0Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' 6=.:Z! 0V.1Z! 00.1Z! 0:.5Z!

!011Z![WV\! 011Z![05/\! 011Z![0/5\! 011Z![:=\!

73 The concept of a journal impact factor that could serve as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field originated with ISI publisher Eugene Garfield, and is now owned by Thomson Reuters. There is considerable research today on developing new metrics (e.g., H-index) on the grounds that many journals are excluded from the commercial publisher’s index, and that it has been incorrectly used as a proxy for impact at the level of the article or the author.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''EX'

While almost one quarter of professors (23%) rate the journal impact factor as ‘Not important’, over eighty-five percent of associate professors (87%) and assistant professors (88%) rate this as ‘Important’ or ‘Very important’ (Table 5.3.7b).

/1@3%'UIDIW@>'j("#+13',=?12.')12.(#'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 6=.1Z! /W.0Z! /1./Z! /1.:Z!

]=?(#.1+.' ?6.1Z! =V.?Z! ?5./Z! =5.1Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' 6=.1Z! 06.=Z! 0/.=Z! 6/./Z!

!011Z![6?\! 011Z![V:\! 011Z![0=6\! 011Z![616\!

!

3212)4)%2*;6!!Speed of publication is rated as one of the most important factors, overall, especially in the sciences. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of life, health and medical scientists and eighty-three percent (83%) of faculty in the physical sciences and engineering say this factor is ‘Important’ or ‘Very important’ (Table 5.3.8a).

/1@3%'UIDIX1>'!?%%7'()'?"@3,21.,(+'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 0:.5Z! 05.?Z! 6/.1Z! 6V./Z!

]=?(#.1+.' ?/.WZ! 5/.=Z! 5?.VZ! ?/./Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' 6W.5Z! 61.0Z! 00.0Z! 0:./Z!

!011Z![V0\! 011Z![05=\! 011Z![0/?\! 011Z![:?\!

Assistant professors (26%) and are the most likely to say that speed is ‘Very important’ compared with approximately twenty percent of associate professors (18%) and professors (20%) (Table 5.3.8b).

/1@3%'UIDIX@>'!?%%7'()'?"@3,21.,(+'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 6W.1Z! 6?.WZ! 0W./Z! 0V.?Z!

]=?(#.1+.' ==.1Z! 51.WZ! ?:.:Z! 5/.VZ!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' 6W.1Z! 0/.=Z! 6/.VZ! 05.5Z!

!011Z![6?\! 011Z![V:\! 011Z![0=6\! 011Z![61?\!

!

*

*

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''EY'

3212)4)%2*<$!!The importance of having a paper issue or print volume is rated most highly by faculty in the humanities. One quarter say that it is ‘Very important’ (24%) compared with almost ten percent of social scientists (9%) and five percent (5%)of scientists. Almost three-quarters (72%) of physical scientists and engineers say that having a paper issue or print volume is ‘Not important’ (Table 5.3.9a).

/1@3%'UIDIY1>'4'?1?%#',--"%'(#'?#,+.'$(3"=%',-'?#(7"2%7'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 6/.VZ! V.0Z! =.?Z! ?.=Z!

]=?(#.1+.' =6.=Z! =5.0Z! /=./Z! 6/.1Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' //.:Z! ==.WZ! 50.6Z! :0.5Z!

!011Z![V6\! 011Z![05?\! 011Z![0/=\! 011Z![:=\!

!

Over half of all professors (53%) rate having a paper issue or print volume as ‘Important’ or ‘Very important’ compared with forty-seven percent (47%) of associate professors and thirty-eight percent (38%) of assistant professors (Table 5.3.9b).

/1@3%'UIDIY@>'4'?1?%#',--"%'(#'?#,+.'$(3"=%',-'?#(7"2%7'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 61.1Z! 5./Z! :.VZ! 06.1Z!

]=?(#.1+.' =1.1Z! /0.5Z! /W.5Z! =1.:Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' =1.1Z! 56.0Z! ?/.5Z! =:.=Z!

!011Z![6?\! 011Z![V?\! 011Z![0=1\! 011Z![61V\!

*

3212)4)%2*5=6 A similar pattern is observed when the question is about the importance of a digital version being available. Approximately twenty percent of physical science and engineering faculty (23%) and faculty in the life, health and medical sciences (19%) say that this is ‘Not important’ compared with approximately one third of faculty in the humanities (30%) and social sciences (34%) who say this factor is ‘Not important’ (Table 5.3.10a).

/1@3%'UIDICB1>'4'7,:,.13'$%#-,(+',-'1$1,31@3%'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 0:.=Z! 0V.?Z! /V./Z! =0.0Z!

]=?(#.1+.' ?6.6Z! =5./Z! =6.6Z! /?.5Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' /1.=Z! /=.0Z! 0W.?Z! 6/./Z!

!011Z![V6\! 011Z![05=\! 011Z![0/?\! 011Z![:/\!

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''UB'

There is limited variation across the ranks, but approximately three quarters of assistant professors (74%) and associate professors (77%) say this is ‘Important’ or

‘Very important’ compared with seventy percent (70%) of professors (Table 5.3.10b). !

/1@3%'UIDICB@>'4'7,:,.13'$%#-,(+',-'1$1,31@3%'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 6W.1Z! /0./Z! 6=.WZ! 6V.5Z!

]=?(#.1+.' /6.1Z! =6.:Z! ?0.WZ! =0./Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' =1.1Z! 65.1Z! 6/.=Z! 6V.0Z!

!011Z![6?\! 011Z![V5\! 011Z![0=0\! 011Z![615\!

*

3212)4)%2*556 Over forty percent of faculty in the humanities (45%) say that it is ‘Not important’ to have full-text accessible online to anyone who finds the work. Over one third of social scientists (35%) and faculty in the physical sciences and engineering (38%), and less than one quarter of life, health and medical scientists (23%) say that it’s ‘Not important’ (Table Appendix3.11b).

/1@3%'UIIDCC1>'/;%')"33N.%Q.',-'122%--,@3%'(+3,+%'.('1+&(+%'5;('),+7-',.'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 0?.:Z! 61.6Z! 6:.=Z! 61./Z!

]=?(#.1+.' /V./Z! ==.WZ! =V.5Z! =0.VZ!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' ==.VZ! /?.1Z! 6/.1Z! /:.WZ!

!011Z![WV\! 011Z![05/\! 011Z![0/?\! 011Z![:=\!

There is limited variation by rank, but more assistant (36%) and associate professors (36%) than professors (30%) said that this is ‘Not important’ (Table 5.3.11b).

/1@3%'UIDICC@>'/;%')"33N.%Q.',-'122%--,@3%'(+3,+%'.('1+&(+%'5;('),+7-',.'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 06.1Z! 0W.VZ! 61.5Z! 6?.1Z!

]=?(#.1+.' =W.1Z! =?./Z! =/./Z! ==.5Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' =1.1Z! /?.WZ! /5.6Z! /1.=Z!

!011Z![6?\! 011Z![V?\! 011Z![0=0\! 011Z![61=\!

!

!

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''UC'

3212)4)%2*57$ The importance of the ability to retain some rights for published works is highest in the humanities and lowest in the physical sciences. Almost sixty percent of faculty in the humanities (59%) said that this is ‘Important’ or ‘Very important’ compared with thirty-five percent (35%) of physical scientists and engineering faculty (Table 5.3.12a).

/1@3%'UIDICA1>'_&'1@,3,.&'.('#%.1,+'-(=%'()'.;%'#,:;.-'H,I%I6'2(?&#,:;.K'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 0:.6Z! 0/.?Z! ?.6Z! V./Z!

]=?(#.1+.' =0.VZ! /=.=Z! /=./Z! 6?./Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' =1.VZ! ?6.0Z! 51.=Z! 5?./Z!

!011Z![V/\! 011Z![05/\! 011Z![0/=\! 011Z![:?\!

!

Two-thirds of assistant professors (66%) say that their ability to retain some of the rights is ‘Not important’ compared with approximately half of associate professors (51%) and professors (54%) who respond this way (Table 5.3.12b).

/1@3%'UIDICA@>'_&'1@,3,.&'.('#%.1,+'-(=%'()'.;%'#,:;.-'H,I%I6'2(?&#,:;.K'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 6W.1Z! W./Z! V.VZ! 00.:Z!

]=?(#.1+.' =1.1Z! 65.1Z! /V.=Z! /=.1Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' /6.1Z! 5?.5Z! ?1.:Z! ?=.=Z!

!011Z![6?\! 011Z![V5\! 011Z![0=6\! 011Z![615\!

!

3212)4)%2*58B More than half of the physical scientists and engineering faculty members (51%) say that it is’ Important’ or ‘Very important’ to be able to self-archive their work while seventy percent (70%) of faculty in the humanities say that this is ‘Not important’ (Table 5.3.13a).

/1@3%'UIDICD1>'/;%'1@,3,.&'.('-%3)N1#2;,$%'=&'5(#G'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 06.6Z! W.1Z! ?./Z! 60.5Z!

]=?(#.1+.' 0:.WZ! //./Z! /0.WZ! 6V.:Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' :1.1Z! ?W.5Z! 56.VZ! =W.5Z!

!011Z![V1\! 011Z![056\! 011Z![0/6\! 011Z![:=\!

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''UA'

Over ten percent of associate professors (12%) and professors (12%) rate the ability to self-archive their work as ‘Very important’ compared with four percent (4%) of assistant professors (Table 5.3.13b).

/1@3%'UIDICD@>'/;%'1@,3,.&'.('-%3)N1#2;,$%'=&'5(#G'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

i%#&',=?(#.1+.' 05.1Z! =.6Z! 00.?Z! 00.WZ!

]=?(#.1+.' /5.1Z! /6.5Z! 6:./Z! 6W.0Z!

\(.',=?(#.1+.' =W.1Z! 5/.6Z! 50.6Z! 51.0Z!

!011Z![6?\! 011Z![V?\! 011Z![0/V\! 011Z![61/\!

^E>'/('5;1.'%Q.%+.'7('&("'1:#%%'(#'7,-1:#%%'.;1.'.;%'%Q,-.,+:'.%+"#%6'=%#,.'1+7'

?#(=(.,(+'?#(2%--%-',+'&("#'7%?1#.=%+.M)12"3.&III '

/1@3%'UIEIB>'

'!.#(+:3&'

1:#%%'4:#%%' c,-1:#%%'

!.#(+:3&'

7,-1:#%%'

]'7(+l.'

G+(5'

9%-?(+-%'

<("+.'

CI'3%17'=%'?"@3,-;',+'?#,+.'

?"@3,21.,(+-6'#1.;%#'.;1+'

%3%2.#(+,2N(+3&')(#=-'()'

7,--%=,+1.,(+'

0W.6Z!! 6V.6Z! 6?.1Z! 00.6Z!! 05./Z!! =:6!

AI'21"-%'=%'.(')(#%:('"-,+:'

13.%#+1.,$%')(#=-'()'

7,--%=,+1.,(+'

0?.:Z!! 6?.0Z! /6.:Z!! 01.=Z!! 05.0Z!! =:0!

DI'%+2("#1:%'+%5')(#=-'()'

;,:;Nm"13,.&'H?%%#N#%$,%5%7K'

-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'

=.=Z!! 6?.?Z! /6.0Z!! 06.=Z!! 6?.?Z!! =:=!

EI'1#%'G%%?,+:'"?'5,.;'.;%'

%$(3".,(+'()'-2;(31#3&'

2(=="+,21.,(+'

?./Z!! /1.WZ!! 6:.6Z!! 0/.0Z!! 6/.5Z!! =:=!

!

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Approximately half of the faculty (47%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that existing tenure, merit and promotion processes lead them to publish in print publications rather than electronic-only forms, and views are divided on whether the existing processes cause faculty to forego using alternative form of dissemination – forty-0ne percent (41%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ while forty-three percent (43%) ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’.

Thirty percent (30%) of faculty ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that existing practices encourage new forms of high-quality scholarly communication, while forty-five percent (45%) ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ that this is the case.

Faculty are also divided on the question of whether the existing processes in their department or faculty are keeping up with the evolution of scholarly communication

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''UD'

– forty percent (40%) ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ that this is the case while thirty-six percent (36%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’.

More than sixteen percent of the faculty responding say that they ‘Don’t know’ in response to the first two statements, and approximately one quarter respond that they ‘Don’t know’ to the last two statements (Table 5.4.0).

Figure 5.3 illustrates this visually.

'

0,:"#%'UID>''8%#2%,$%7',=?12.'()'.%+"#%'1+7'?#(=(.,(+'(+'?"@3,-;,+:'?#12.,2%-'

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G'

3212)4)%2*5: The majority of faculty in the humanities (61%) and social sciences (58%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that existing tenure, merit and promotion process in their department or faculty lead them to publish in print publications rather than those that are exclusively digital while approximately one third of faculty in the life, health and medical sciences (35%) and in the physical sciences and engineering (33%), say that this is the case. One third of faculty in the humanities (34%) and close to one quarter of faculty in the social sciences (23%) say that they ‘Strongly agree’ with this statement. In the sciences, less than ten percent say this –nine percent (9%) of physical sciences and engineering faculty and six percent (6%) of life, health and medical scientists ‘Strongly agree’ that existing tenure, merit and promotion process in their department lead them to publish in print publications rather than those that are exclusively digital.

There is little variation in the percentage reporting that they ‘Don’t know’ across the broad disciplinary categories (Table 5.4.1a).

'

YMML!SM!

611Z!

!SM!GHJI!SHRS

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''UE'

/1@3%'UIEIC1>'d%17'=%'?"@3,-;',+'?#,+.'?"@3,21.,(+-6'#1.;%#'.;1+'%3%2.#(+,2N(+3&')(#=-'()'7,--%=,+1.,(+'@&'

@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' /=.=Z! 6/.=Z! 5.1Z! V./Z!

4:#%%' 65.VZ! /=.0Z! 6W.5Z! 6=.1Z!

c,-1:#%%' 0W./Z! 0W.1Z! //.0Z! /6.1Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'?.=Z! :.6Z! 0:./Z! 0:./Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'0?.0Z! 0:.=Z! 0?.1Z! 0:./Z!

!011Z![V/\! 011Z![05:\! 011Z![0//\! 011Z![:?\!

Associate professors (56%) are most like to ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that current processes lead them to publish in print publications rather than electronic-only forms.

Almost one quarter of assistant professors (23%) say they ‘Don’t’ know’ compared with thirteen percent (13%) of associate professors and professors (Table 5.4.1b).

/1@3%'UIEIC@>'d%17'=%'?"@3,-;',+'?#,+.'?"@3,21.,(+-6'#1.;%#'.;1+'%3%2.#(+,2N(+3&')(#=-'()'7,--%=,+1.,(+'@&'

#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' W./Z! 0:.?Z! 6/.5Z! 0?.VZ!

4:#%%' 05.:Z! 6?.WZ! /0.VZ! /1.=Z!

c,-1:#%%' 6V.6Z! 61.5Z! 66.VZ! 6W.1Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'=.6Z! 0/.=Z! V.1Z! 06.5Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'=0.:Z! 66.:Z! 06.?Z! 0/.1Z!

!011Z![6=\! 011Z![V:\! 011Z![0==\! 011Z![61:\!

*

3212)4)%2*76!!In response to the statement that existing tenure, merit and promotion practices in their department or faculty cause them to forego using alternative forms of dissemination, almost half of the faculty in the humanities (49%) and the social sciences (48%) say that they either ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ with this statement. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of life, health and medical scientists say that they ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ compared with less than one quarter (23%) of faculty in the physical sciences and engineering (Table 5.4.2a).

!

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''UU'

/1@3%'UIEIA1>'<1"-%'=%'.(')(#%:('"-,+:'13.%#+1.,$%')(#=-'()'7,--%=,+1.,(+'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' /0.0Z! 0V.5Z! :.?Z! =.1Z!

4:#%%' 0:.WZ! 6W.1Z! /1.5Z! 0W.:Z!

c,-1:#%%' 65.:Z! /0.?Z! /6.0Z! =6.:Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%':.WZ! W.VZ! 0/.=Z! 06.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'05.:Z! 00.VZ! 05.=Z! 66.:Z!

!011Z![V1\! 011Z![05W\! 011Z![0/=\! 011Z![:?\!

!

Over half of professors (52%) ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ with the statement that existing tenure, merit and promotion process in their academic unit cause them to forego using alternative forms of dissemination compared with just over one third of associate professors (36%) and assistant professors (35%) who ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ with this statement.

One quarter of assistant professors respond that they ‘Don’t know’ compared with just over ten percent of associate professors (12%) and of professors (14%) (Table 5.4.2b).

/1@3%'UIEIA@>''<1"-%'=%'.(')(#%:('"-,+:'13.%#+1.,$%')(#=-'()'7,--%=,+1.,(+'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' 06.1Z! 0:.?Z! 60.0Z! 00.5Z!

4:#%%' 06.1Z! 66.:Z! /6.=Z! 66.:Z!

c,-1:#%%' ==.1Z! 65.WZ! 6/.6Z! =1.5Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'W.1Z! W.6Z! 00./Z! 00.0Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'6=.1Z! 6=.:Z! 06.1Z! 0=.1Z!

!011Z![6?\! 011Z![V:\! 011Z![0=6\! 011Z![61:\!

!

3212)4)%2*8: Faculty in the humanities (51%) are somewhat more likely to ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ with the statement that existing processes in their department or faculty encourage new forms of high-quality (peer-reviewed) scholarly communication than are their colleagues in the other broad disciplinary categories where less than half (41-46%) say this is the case.

Twenty percent or more of faculty across the broad disciplinary categories respond that they ‘Don’t know’ (Table 5.4.3a).!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''UV'

/1@3%'UIEID1>'[+2("#1:%'+%5')(#=-'()';,:;Nm"13,.&'H?%%#N#%$,%5%7K'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'@&'@#(17'

7,-2,?3,+%!

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' /.6Z! 5.?Z! =.?Z! 0.=Z!

4:#%%' 60.?Z! 6/.:Z! /6.0Z! 6/.1Z!

c,-1:#%%' /0.6Z! 6V.5Z! /?.WZ! /6.=Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'0V.=Z! 06.=Z! 01.=Z! W.0Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'6=.:Z! 6:.WZ! 0:.6Z! /?.0Z!

!011Z![V/\! 011Z![05V\! 011Z![0/=\! 011Z![:=\!

Approximately one third of professors (32%) and associate professors (30%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that existing processes encourage new forms of scholarly communication compared with just over one quarter of assistant professors (26%).

Twenty to twenty-five percent of faculty in each rank say that they ‘Don’t know’ (Table 5.4.3b).

/1@3%'UIEID@>'[+2("#1:%'+%5')(#=-'()';,:;Nm"13,.&'H?%%#N#%$,%5%7K'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' 1.1Z! 5.0Z! =.VZ! /.WZ!

4:#%%' 65.0Z! 0V.=Z! 6?.6Z! 6W.5Z!

c,-1:#%%' /1.=Z! 6V.5Z! /:.WZ! 6V.?Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 0:./Z! 0/./Z! 00.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'=/.?Z! 6:.5Z! 0W.VZ! 6:.0Z!

!011Z![6/\! 011Z![VW\! 011Z![0=/\! 011Z![601\!

!

3212)4)%2*>6 Half of the respondents in the humanities ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ that the tenure, merit and promotion processes are keeping up with the evolution of scholarly communication. This compares with less than forty percent of faculty members in the other broad disciplinary categories – physical sciences and engineering (35%), life, health and medical scientists (39%) and social sciences (39%), who ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ with this statement.

Approximately twenty to thirty percent in each of the broad disciplinary categories respond that they ‘Don’t know’ (Table 5.4.4a).

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''UW'

/1@3%'UIEIE1>''4#%'G%%?,+:'"?'5,.;'.;%'%$(3".,(+'()'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%!

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' /.6Z! =.WZ! W.0Z! =.1Z!

4:#%%' 6V.1Z! 6W.0Z! /1.=Z! =1.1Z!

c,-1:#%%' 6W.1Z! 65./Z! 65.:Z! 6W.1Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'60.?Z! 06.5Z! 00.VZ! 5.:Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'0W./Z! 6W.0Z! 6/.1Z! 60./Z!

!011Z![V/\! 011Z![05:\! 011Z![0/?\! 011Z![:?\!

!

There is considerable variation across the academic ranks in response to the statement that existing tenure, merit and promotion processes in the department or faculty are keeping up to date with the evolution of scholarly communication. Forty- five percent (45%) of professors either ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that these processes are keeping up with the evolution of scholarly communication while forty-eight percent (48%) of associate professors and forty-four percent (44%) of assistant professors ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ that this is the case.

Over thirty percent of assistant professors (32%) respond that they ‘Don’t know’ compared with approximately twenty percent of professors (20%) and associate professors (22%) (Table 5.4.4b).

/1@3%'UIEIE@>''4#%'G%%?,+:'"?'5,.;'.;%'%$(3".,(+'()'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' 1.1Z! =.0Z! ?.5Z! 5.6Z!

4:#%%' =/.?Z! 61.=Z! 6=./Z! /W.WZ!

c,-1:#%%' 0/.1Z! 6:.5Z! /0.VZ! 6?.=Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'W.:Z! 05./Z! 05.1Z! 01.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'/=.WZ! /0.5Z! 66.6Z! 0V.5Z!

!011Z![6/\! 011Z![VW\! 011Z![0==\! 011Z![61V\!

'

!%3%2.%7'<(==%+.-'

Evaluation procedures haven't kept up with new forms of dissemination, some of which get quicker and more dissemination and discussion. This doesn't affect me at my career stage, but it is a problem that urgently needs to be addressed. … there is NO discussion of these important questions in the departmental culture—there hasn't been one in the ten years I've been at U of T, despite the lively discussions happening in the field … more broadly. I am not sure why conversations about publishing and venues never come up, but they don't. There's nothing explicit

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''UX'

in our department that says print is better than on-line, but that's the implicit assumption—and perhaps it's not accurate. It would be worth having a structured conversation about it, with some specific guidelines put in place to guide faculty, especially junior ones.

There seems to be an assumption in these questions that the university should “keep up with the evolution of scholarly communication” whatever those may be. I myself am happy with the existing forms of communication although I wish that access to scholarly journals was easier/free for universities and research institutes in developing countries.

In terms of publications this is the case. However, there is the category of creative professional development which allows for digital transmission.

Process is not good at determining merit outside of traditional peer review and publishing. Academics are late adopters; traditional mode of publishing in print is obsolete. Publication standards embraced for promotion purposes clash with research and publication culture of granting agencies of my sub-specialization.

^U>'b,.;'+%5')(#=-'()'7,:,.13'?#(7"2.,(+'%=%#:,+:6'1#%'-2;(31#-',+'&("#'),%37'#%N

%$13"1.,+:'5;1.'2(+-.,.".%-'1'#%-%1#2;'2(+.#,@".,(+')(#'?"#?(-%-'()'.%+"#%6'=%#,.'1+7'

?#(=(.,(+h'[Q1=?3%-'=,:;.',+23"7%>'.;%'2(+.#,@".,(+'()'%Q%2".1@3%'2(7%'.('1'

2(331@(#1.,$%'71.1@1-%',+':%+(=,2-6'.;%'7%-,:+'()'1'-%#,("-':1=%',+'%7"21.,(+6'1'7,:,.13'

,+.%#12.,$%'=(7%3'()'1';,-.(#,2'-,.%6'%.2.!!/@A@BC%DE@''

/1@3%'UIUI(>'

' 9%-?(+-%'8%#2%+.' 9%-?(+-%'<("+.'

e%-6'.;,-',-'13#%17&';1??%+,+:' 0:.5Z! W0!

e%-6'5%'1#%'.13G,+:'1@(".',.' 6:.6Z! 06?!

\(' ??.0Z! 6?/!

! VV.VZ! =?V!

'

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

More than half (55%) of all faculty responding say that scholars in their field are not re-evaluating or talking about what constitutes a research contribution for purposes of tenure, merit and promotion as new forms of digital production emerge (Table 5.5.0).

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G''

There is limited variation in the pattern across the broad disciplinary categories. Social scientists (58%) are slightly more likely to say that a re-evaluation of what constitutes a research contribution is not already happening or under discussion in their department or faculty than are faculty in the other broad disciplinary categories (Table 5.5.1a).

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''UY'

/1@3%'UIUIC1>''9%N%$13"1.,(+'()'5;1.'2(+-.,.".%-'1'#%-%1#2;'2(+.#,@".,(+'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

e%-6'.;,-',-'13#%17&'

;1??%+,+:'05.:Z! 05./Z! 0V.:Z! 0V.=Z!

e%-6'5%'1#%'.13G,+:'

1@(".',.'/1.1Z! 6?./Z! 65.1Z! 6:.WZ!

\(' ?/./Z! ?W.=Z! ?=./Z! ?6.WZ!

!011Z![V1\! 011Z![055\! 011Z![06:\! 011Z![:6\!

Almost three quarters of assistant professors (74%) compared with closer to half of associate professors (57%) and professors (47%) feel that a re-evaluation of what constitutes a research contribution for purposes of tenure, merit and promotion is not taking place (Table 5.5.1b).

/1@3%'UIUIC@>''9%N%$13"1.,(+'()'5;1.'2(+-.,.".%-'1'#%-%1#2;'2(+.#,@".,(+'@&'#1+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

e%-6'.;,-',-'13#%17&'

;1??%+,+:'66.:Z! ?.=Z! 0W.=Z! 66.6Z!

e%-6'5%'1#%'.13G,+:'

1@(".',.'=?.?Z! 61.=Z! 6=.0Z! /1.?Z!

\(' /0.WZ! :=.6Z! ?:.=Z! =:./Z!

!011Z![66\! 011Z![V/\! 011Z![0=0\! 011Z![61/\!

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-''

This question elicited over fifty comments. The majority are a variation on I don’t know, I haven’t thought about it. A number say that the question isn’t applicable in their field. Several are critical of existing processes. Others point out that there is a general resistance to change. …dogged fixation on traditional criteria in light of a clear shift in practice

Or, that the status quo obtains.

I have been told repeatedly that only top-tier publications really ‘count’.

Another acknowledges that there is a ‘cost’ associated with the production of non-traditional forms.

A [scholar] up for promotion who’s created a website or other forms of knowledge would still be expected to have made contributions to the field in book/journal format.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''VB'

One faculty member suggests that the issue is one of quality, not form.

I don't believe any of these factors is important in our tenure schemes. We look at substance: where, what and how much a faculty member publishes in any of the accepted, high-quality peer reviewed media.

Several faculty say that a conversation is underway:

…but with far too little urgency. Very few people are talking about this, but the conversation exists and hopefully will become more robust.

The discussion is in its very beginning; although it’s happening, it’s slow to realize in a meaningful way.

I have the feeling that the creation of useful databases lead to tenure evaluation questions as to how to rank this versus a peer reviewed paper.

Another suggests that there is uncertainty about the value placed on new forms.

I am the developer of a piece of software used by much of the community. I list this [for PTR] but have no idea if the committee cares.

The role of scholarly communities was noted.

It’s happening in the field, but most emphatically not at UofT I found these questions hard to answer, because in most cases it depends. For example, my department is excellent at keeping up with new forms of electronic and open access publication, but our *field* as a whole has not readily embraced alternative forms of peer review. It's hard to separate the department's tenure/promotion processes from the norms of the field as a whole. A very small number of people do talk about this in my field, but very few, and the issue has not reached the level of administrative policy change at all.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''VC'

UIA>''!<`Sd49de'8*Zd]!`]\a6']\<d*c]\a'<S8e9]a`/6'4\c'8[[9'9[i][b'

This section asks about publishers’ contracts, copyright and peer review which all scholars

working today experience.

c5B!;Md!IM!aMF!JNNGMJ_O!SOH!_MNaGDEOS!SHGLP!DK!aMFG!NFTQD_JSDMK!_MKSGJ_SPe!!

/@A@BC%DE@!!

/1@3%'UIVIB>'

'9%-?(+-%'

8%#2%+.'

9%-?(+-%'

<("+.'

]'7(+l.'%Q1=,+%'.;%'2(?&#,:;.'.%#=-'()'.;%'2(+.#12.'NN']'R"-.'-,:+',.'1-',-I' /6.0Z! 0?6!

]'%Q1=,+%'.;%'2(?&#,:;.'.%#=-'()'.;%'2(+.#12.'1+7'"-"133&'-,:+',.'1-',-I' 51.:Z! 6W:!

]'=(7,)&'.;%'2(?&#,:;.'.%#=-'()'.;%'2(+.#12.'@%)(#%'-,:+,+:I' :.6Z! /=!

! 011.1Z! =:/!

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Over ninety percent (93%) of faculty members usually sign the contract offered by the publisher as it is, and over thirty percent (32%) don’t examine the copyright terms in the contract before signing it (Table 5.6.0).

This is represented visually in Figure 5.4 below.

!

0,:"#%'UIE>'4??#(12;'.('2(?&#,:;.' ' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

!

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

YMML!SM!611Z!

SM!GHJI!SHRS!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''VA'

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G'

Faculty in the humanities (16%) are the most likely to say that they have modified the copyright terms before signing the contract. Eight percent (8%) of social scientists have modified the copyright terms and scientists also report doing this – three percent (3%) of life, health and medical scientists and one faculty member in the physical sciences and engineering (Table 5.6.1a).

0,:"#%'UIVIC>''4??#(12;'.('2(?&#,:;.'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

]'7(+l.'%Q1=,+%'.;%'2(?&#,:;.'.%#=-'()'

.;%'2(+.#12.'L']'R"-.'-,:+',.'1-',-I'

6?.WZ! 6=.VZ! =0.WZ! /W.=Z!

]'%Q1=,+%'.;%'2(?&#,:;.'.%#=-'()'.;%'

2(+.#12.'1+7'"-"133&'-,:+',.'1-',-I'

?W.0Z! 55.VZ! ??.6Z! 51./Z!

]'=(7,)&'.;%'2(?&#,:;.'.%#=-'()'.;%'

2(+.#12.'@%)(#%'-,:+,+:I'

05.0Z! W./Z! /.1Z! 0.=Z!

! 011Z![V/\! 011Z![05V\! 011Z![0/=\! 011Z![:/\!

Of the less than ten percent reporting that they have modified the copyright terms of

the contract before signing it, all are professors (7%) or associate professors (10%)

However, eighteen percent (18%) of the lecturer/senior lecturers responding say they

have modified the copyright right terms of a publisher’s contract before signing it. As

noted earlier this faculty rank has not been included in the comparisons as it is known

that those responding are not representative of this faculty rank overall (Table 5.6.1b).

0,:"#%'UIVIC@>''4??#(12;'.('2(?&#,:;.'@&'#1+G'

! <H_SFGHGf)G<H_S! +PPS!AGM]HPPMG! +PPM_!AGM]HPPMG! AGM]HPPMG!

]'7(+l.'%Q1=,+%'.;%'2(?&#,:;.'.%#=-'

()'.;%'2(+.#12.'L']'R"-.'-,:+',.'1-',-I'

0W.6Z! /W.0Z! /1.0Z! /6.6Z!

]'%Q1=,+%'.;%'2(?&#,:;.'.%#=-'()'.;%'

2(+.#12.'1+7'"-"133&'-,:+',.'1-',-I'

5/.5Z! 51.WZ! 51.0Z! 51.:Z!

]'=(7,)&'.;%'2(?&#,:;.'.%#=-'()'.;%'

2(+.#12.'@%)(#%'-,:+,+:I

0W.6Z! 0.1Z! V.WZ! :.0Z!

! 011Z![66\!! 011Z![V:\! 011Z![0=/\! 011Z[600\!

The next question was presented only to the seven percent (7%) of those who

indicated that they had modified their contract before signing it.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''VD'

^V1>']+'5;1.'51&-';1$%'&("'=(7,),%7'.;%'.%#=-',+'&("#'2(+.#12.-'5,.;'?"@3,-;%#-h'

3)()'2*1((*2"12*1@@(A'

/1@3%'UIV1IB>'

' 9%-?(+-%'

8%#2%+.'

9%-?(+-%'<("+.'

]';1$%'#%?312%7'.;%'?"@3,-;%#O-'2(+.#12."13'.%#=-'5,.;'=&'(5+I' 5:.:Z! 60!

]';1$%'1..12;%7'1+'177%+7"='-"2;'1-'.;%'!849<'4".;(#'

477%+7"=IWE'

/W.:Z! 06!

]';1$%'#%?312%7'.;%'%+.,#%'1:#%%=%+.'5,.;'(+%'()'=&'2;((-,+:I' V.:Z! /!

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

'Within this small number of cases, the most frequent way faculty say that they modify the contract is to replace the publisher’s terms with their terms. Just over two thirds (68%) of those who have modified their contract have done it in this way. Sixty percent (60%) are from the humanities, one third (35%) are from the social sciences and there is one faculty member from the life, health and medical sciences who reports having done this.

The use of an addendum was also selected by close to forty percent (39%) of the respondents. Over half of those who report using an author addendum are social scientists (58%), one quarter are from the humanities and just over fifteen percent (15%) are from the life, health and medical sciences. One assistant professor reported using an author addendum; the others are either associate professors or professors.

Only three faculty members, all social scientists – two professors and one associate professor – report that they have replaced the publisher’s agreement with one of their choice (Table 5.6a.0).

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-'

Almost one third of the respondents commented on this question, with about half noting that the changes they had requested were minor. Others noted that their requests were refused. Two faculty members in the humanities mentioned the use of intermediaries—lawyers and agents, for example. Another mentioned that s/he preferred to keep translation rights. A faculty member in the physical sciences and engineering noted that it was standard for authors to keep copyright in the international community in which s/he publishes. This diversity is expected and points to the need for further research at the level of the department, faculty or academic unit to better understand these differences.

74 Traditional publishing agreements often require that authors grant exclusive rights to the publisher. The SPARC Canadian Author Addendum enables authors to secure a more balanced agreement by retaining select rights, such as the rights to reproduce, reuse, and publicly present the articles they publish for non-commercial purposes. It helps Canadian researchers to comply with granting council public access policies, such as the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Policy on Access to Research Outputs. The Canadian Addendum reflects Canadian copyright law and is an adaptation of the original U.S. version of the SPARC Author Addendum. It is available in both French and English. See http://www.carl-abrc.ca/projects/author/author-e.html

http://www.carl-abrc.ca/projects/author/author-e.html

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''VE'

^W>'4#%'.;%#%',+-.1+2%-',+'5;,2;'&("';1$%'#%)"-%7'.('-,:+'1'?"@3,21.,(+'2(+.#12.'

@%21"-%'()'2(+2%#+'1@(".'.;%'2(?&#,:;.'.%#=-6'.;%#%@&')(#%:(,+:'.;%'(??(#."+,.&'.('

?"@3,-;',+'.;1.'R("#+13h'!

/1@3%'UIW>'

'9%-?(+-%'

8%#2%+.'9%-?(+-%'<("+.'

e%-' ?./Z! 6?!

\(' V=.:Z! =?0!

! 011.1Z! =:5!

'

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

This question asked specifically about journal publishing, and ninety-five percent (95%) have not refused to sign a contract because of concern about the copyright terms (Table 5.7.0).

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G'

This result is similar across the broad disciplinary categories (Table 5.7.1a).

/1@3%'UIWIC1>'9%)"-%7'.('-,:+'1'?"@3,21.,(+'2(+.#12.'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

e%-'=./Z! :.0Z! =.=Z! =.1Z!

\('V?.:Z! V6.VZ! V?.5Z! V5.1Z!

!011Z![V/\! 011Z![05W\! 011Z![0/5\! 011Z![:?\!

!

Six percent (6%) of professors say they have refused to sign the contract required by a journal, and ninety-seven percent (97%) of assistant professors have not refused (Table 5.7.1b).

/1@3%'UIWIC@>''9%)"-%7'.('-,:+'1'?"@3,21.,(+'2(+.#12.'@&'91+G'

! d%2."#%#M!#d%2.' 4--.'8#()%--(#' 4--(2'8#()%--(#' 8#()%--(#'

e%-'06.?Z! /.0Z! =.6Z! 5.0Z!

\('W:.?Z! V5.VZ! V?.WZ! V/.VZ!

!011Z![6=\! 011Z![V5\! 011Z![0=6\! 011Z![60=\!

'

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-''

The twenty-five comments received on this question support the idea that there are a variety of practices with respect to contracts for journal publishing.

The norm [in my field] is for the author to retain the copyright and this is acceptable.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''VU'

In my field, the journals all have the standard copyright forms with reasonable terms. Therefore, as far as I know, everyone just signs it as it is. Nearly all our publications are in venues covered by the ACM or IEEE which have generous self-archiving provisions. Hence, the issue hasn't arisen for me.

Everywhere I have looked at to publish allows astro/ph75 submission, either explicitly, or implicitly.

Awareness of these issues is increasing.

Not yet - I plan to in the future, and to modify more copyright agreements. But I am starting to pay attention, because I want to be able to self-archive. I've only just started being aware about this. I have decided not to submit papers to [name of journal] because of the journal's onerous copyright policy, imposed by the UT Press. I plan to apply for funding to enable open access for my work and so I may retain copyright of the material and more easily use my work in teaching.

…but now that you ask about it I wish that I had given provisions with my signature.

Several say that publishers hold the balance of power.

The balance of power is clearly with the publisher. Also, I publish in order to get my ideas known, and also of course to get promotions and tenure, not to control my image (like an artist or performer), so the issue of copyright just isn't very crucial to me.

The publishers have all the power, and it is therefore very difficult to refuse publication due to unfair terms. I don't feel I have much bargaining power, frankly. Also in my experience presses are usually fine about me republishing my own work elsewhere if asked.

Others have taken a stand.

I refused an invitation to contribute to a major new encyclopedia in my field because a publisher will own all rights (Elsevier). As a full professor I can do this. I let the editors and publisher know why. I don't submit papers to journals with restrictive copyright agreements.

Some publishers may not have a formal contract agreement. I'm cudgeling my brains to think when if ever I have had a formal contract with a journal, beyond a letter of acceptance.

75 astro/ph is part of the subject repository, arXiv for papers on astrophysics. See http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph

http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''VV'

^X>']+'21-%-'5;%#%'&("'5("37'?#%)%#'.('#%.1,+'-(=%'#,:;.-'@".'7('+(.'+%:(.,1.%'5,.;'

?"@3,-;%#-'.('7('-(6'5;1.',-'.;%'=(-.',=?(#.1+.')12.(#'.;1.'?#%$%+.-'&("')#(='7(,+:'

.;,-h!!/@A@BC%DE@!!

/1@3%'UIXIB>'

' 9%-?(+-%'8%#2%+.' 9%-?(+-%'<("+.'

].O-'.(('="2;'.#("@3%'.('+%:(.,1.%'5,.;'.;%'?"@3,-;%#I' 0?.5Z! :0!

]'7(+O.';1$%'.;%'G+(53%7:%'.('+%:(.,1.%I' 0/.5Z! 56!

]'+%%7'.('?"@3,-;',+'.;%'R("#+13'.(':%.'.%+"#%6'=%#,.'

,+2#%1-%-6'(#'?#(=(.,(+'1+7']'1='2(+2%#+%7'.;1.'#1,-,+:'

.;,-',--"%'2("37'3%17'.;%'?"@3,-;%#'.('#%)"-%'.('?"@3,-;'=&'

5(#GI'

06./Z! ?5!

]';1$%+O.'.;(":;.'1@(".'.;,-',--"%I' =W.?Z! 660!

S.;%#'H?3%1-%'-?%2,)&K>' 01.0Z! =5!

! 011.1Z! =?5!

'

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

When faculty are asked why they do not negotiate to retain some rights even when they would prefer to do so, almost half (49%) respond that they have not thought about this issue. Approximately fifteen percent choose each of the other options (Table 5.8.0). This is represented visually in Figure 5.5 below.

'

0,:"#%'UIU>'b;&'#,:;.-'1#%+O.'#%.1,+%7''

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'

1+7'91+G'

Social scientists (20%) are most likely to say that they don’t negotiate because it’s to much trouble and faculty in the life, medical and health sciences (11%) are the least likely to say this.

Fourteen percent (14%) of faculty overall feel they don’t have the knowledge to negotiate. Almost one quarter of faculty in the

humanities (23%) say this. This may reflect the emphasis on book publishing where contracts can be long and detailed. Six percent (6%) of faculty in the physical sciences and engineering select this option as their main reason for not negotiating.

Faculty in the social sciences (17%) and humanities (14%) are more concerned than are faculty in either of the sciences that raising the issue with a publisher could lead to a refusal.

YMML!SM!

611Z!SM!GHJI!

SHRS!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''VW'

Sixty-four percent (64%) of scientists report that they haven’t thought about this issue compared with thirty-nine percent (39%) of social scientists and thirty-two percent (32%) of faculty in the humanities. This may once again point to the fact that faculty in the humanities, and to some extent in the social sciences, publish books, collections or monographs more frequently than faculty in the sciences (Table 5.8.1a).

/1@3%'UIXIC1>'b;&'#,:;.-'1#%+O.'#%.1,+%7'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

].O-'.(('="2;'.#("@3%'.('+%:(.,1.%'5,.;'

.;%'?"@3,-;%#'0=.0Z! 61./Z! 01.WZ! 0?./Z!

]'7(+O.';1$%'.;%'G+(53%7:%'.('

+%:(.,1.%I'66.WZ! 06.:Z! 00.?Z! ?.5Z!

]'+%%7'.('?"@3,-;',+'.;%'R("#+13'.(':%.'

.%+"#%6'=%#,.',+2#%1-%-6'(#'?#(=(.,(+'

1+7']'1='2(+2%#+%7'.;1.'#1,-,+:'.;,-'

,--"%'2("37'3%17'.;%'?"@3,-;%#'.('#%)"-%'

.('?"@3,-;'=&'5(#G'

0=.0Z! 0:.0Z! W.?Z! 5.VZ!

]';1$%+O.'.;(":;.'1@(".'.;,-',--"%'/0.?Z! /V.6Z! 5/.WZ! 5/.VZ!

S.;%#'0:.=Z! 01.WZ! ?.=Z! W./Z!

!011Z![V6\! 011Z[0?W\! 011Z[0/1\! 011Z![:6\!

Sixty percent (60%) of assistant professors haven’t thought about this issue compared with less than half of professors (47%) and associate professors (43%). This may again reflect the fact that assistant professors are likely to have had less experience with publishing. It also, however, suggests the potential need for support or discussion of these issues with more experienced colleagues (Table 5.8.1b).

/1@3%'UIXIC@>'b;&'#,:;.-'1#%+O.'#%.1,+%7'@&'#1+G'

! <H_SFGHGf)G<H_S! +PPS!

AGM]HPPMG!

+PPM_!

AGM]HPPMG!

AGM]HPPMG!

].O-'.(('="2;'.#("@3%'.('+%:(.,1.%'5,.;'

.;%'?"@3,-;%#'W.:Z! /./Z! 0?.VZ! 60.:Z!

]'7(+O.';1$%'.;%'G+(53%7:%'.('+%:(.,1.%'0/.1Z! V.WZ! 0:.=Z! 06.WZ!

]'+%%7'.('?"@3,-;',+'.;%'R("#+13'.(':%.'

.%+"#%6'=%#,.',+2#%1-%-6'(#'?#(=(.,(+'

1+7']'1='2(+2%#+%7'.;1.'#1,-,+:'.;,-',--"%'

2("37'3%17'.;%'?"@3,-;%#'.('#%)"-%'.('

?"@3,-;'=&'5(#GI'

0:.=Z! 0W.?Z! 61./Z! /.=Z!

]';1$%+O.'.;(":;.'1@(".'.;,-',--"%'=:.WZ! ?V.WZ! =6.WZ! =:./Z!

3SOHG!0/.1Z! W.:Z! /.5Z! 0=.WZ!

!011Z![6/\! 011Z[V6\! 011Z[0/W\! 011Z[61/\!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''VX'

Selected comments from the ten percent of faculty who chose ‘Other’ are below.

Many said that this is not, or has not yet, been an issue for them.

It doesn't apply. I am not prevented.

I can usually simply change publisher/venue for my work if I don't like a publisher's policy.

I always negotiate if the terms seem unfavourable.

The standard terms in my field are reasonable, i.e. nothing to disagree with.

Still others say they don’t have the knowledge, or that time is an issue, or that they would prefer to be able to choose a combination of the reasons suggested. One pre-tenure member of faculty explained it this way.

I would rather check the first three options to this question. Not only do I need to publish to get tenure, I don’t know my rights in terms of negotiating; how to negotiate; or if negotiating is worth the trouble (i.e., I don’t really know what I would gain by retaining copyright rights).

An associate professor commented:

It’s not that I haven't thought about it. It just doesn't feel consequential (fire not burning me now). A bit of "too much trouble" - but not in terms of negotiating with the publisher - rather, in terms of educating myself, and instilling myself with the "felt value" that it should be important. Too overwhelmed with just getting the writing done. I know who is going to read it - the people in my field. I don't know who is not going to read it. I should care about them, etc. but I don't, really. Or I can't, at least not yet.

Some of the faculty responding assume that rights are not negotiable, while others have tried and failed.

I didn't realize rights were negotiable.

I assume that publishers' copyright policies are not negotiable, and that by submitting a work for consideration, I am undertaking to accept the publisher's stated terms.

I do not negotiate because, having attempted to do so, the publishers refuse to cooperate.

You need leverage to negotiate, that is not a given.

Not all publishers seem to understand these issues either according to one respondent.

Some commercial publishers are entirely inflexible, while some small scholarly journals do not even know who owns what rights, so this is a highly variable situation.

Other comments point to the lack of commercial value of much scholarly writing and the view that authors should not be bound. This takes several forms.

My work has little (if any) commercial value, and so in practice, I can get away with doing what I want with it, even if the contract formally says otherwise. (Ignoring copyright limitations seems to be a broad cultural trend, so I don't think I'm alone here...) In any case, the contracts seem to know this, and allow for stuff I would do anyway….

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''VY'

I don't care much about copyrights and patents: my salary and research is mostly from tax dollars, in turn, my research finding should be made freely available to the public.

I no longer need to worry about tenure and promotion, and am happy for my work to be accessible for free to anyone intellectually curious enough to want to read it.

It doesn't matter. It should have nothing to do with anything. Abolish copyright.

A faculty member whose work includes a creative component,76 provides a reminder that practices vary by field.

The question is posed in such a way that it does not account for the use of agents in trade publications, a matter particularly important to those like myself who have a creative component to their scholarly profile.

^Y>'/('5;1.'%Q.%+.'7('&("'1:#%%'(#'7,-1:#%%'.;1.'-2;(31#-l'=1+1:%=%+.'()'2(?&#,:;.'

,-III'

!

/1@3%'UIYIB'

'!.#(+:3&'

1:#%%'4:#%%' c,-1:#%%'

!.#(+:3&'

7,-1:#%%'

]'7(+l.'

G+(5'

9%-?(+-%'

<("+.'

0.!JK!DLNMGSJKS!]J_SMG!DK!SOH!

H`MQFSDMK!M]!P_OMQJGQa!

_MLLFKD_JSDMKe!

0?.:Z! =6.5Z! 0/.1Z! /./Z! 6?.=Z! 011Z![=51\!

6.!JK!DLNMGSJKS!]J_SMG!DK!La!MdK!

P_OMQJGQa!NFTQDPODKEe!00.6Z! 6V.WZ! /6.VZ! W./Z! 0:.WZ! 011Z![=?5\!

/.!J!SMND_!_MQQHJEFHP!KHHI!SM!

IDP_FPPe!66.=Z! ==./Z! V.VZ! 6.1Z! 60.?Z! 011Z![=?5\!

'

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Overall, over half of all faculty responding (58%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that management of copyright is an important factor in the evolution of scholarly communication, while only forty-one percent (41%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that it is important to their own scholarly publishing. Two-thirds feel that this is a topic that colleagues need to discuss; ten percent (10%) ‘Disagree’, and two percent (2%) ‘Strongly disagree’. As with the previous question, a large number of faculty report that they ‘Don’t know’ – in this case almost twenty percent choose this option (Table 5.9.0).

Figure 5.6 shows this visually.

76 This aspect of scholarly communication is less well understood, and highlights the need for more exploratory field research at the level of discipline/field or area. The increasing inter/multi/ transdisciplinary nature of practice in many fields is another example of where further research would add to understanding of the practices within an area as well as the variation across fields. Harley, D. et al.’s multi-year project Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines carried out at The Center for Studies in Higher Education (CHSE) at Berkeley is one example. Retrieved Dec. 2010 from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''WB'

0,:"#%'UIV>'4..,."7%-'1@(".'-2;(31#-O'=1+1:%=%+.'()'2(?&#,:;.

Z&'Z#(17'

c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'

91+G'

3212)4)%2*56!

Faculty

members in the humanities are most likely to ‘Strongly agree’ with each of these three statements. Seventy-two percent (72%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that scholars’ management of copyright is an important factor

in the evolution of scholarly communication compared with fifty-nine percent (59%) of social scientists, and approximately half of those in the sciences – forty-nine percent (49%) in the life, health and medical sciences and fifty-three percent (54%) in the physical sciences and engineering (Table 5.9.1a).

/1@3%'UIYIC1']=?(#.1+.',+'%$(3".,(+'()'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'6/./Z! 0W.VZ! V.6Z! V.:Z!

4:#%%'=W.VZ! /V.5Z! =1.1Z! ==.=Z!

c,-1:#%%'W.VZ! 00.5Z! 0=.5Z! 0V.=Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'0.0Z! /.1Z! /.WZ! ?.5Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'0:.WZ! 65.WZ! /6./Z! 61.WZ!

!011Z![V1\! 011Z![05=\! 011Z![0/1\! 011Z![:6\!

!

YMML!SM!

611Z!SM!

GHJI!SHRS!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''WC'

Almost half of assistant professors (47%) say they ‘Don’t know’ compared with approximately twenty percent of associate professors (20%) and professors (21%) (Table 5.9.1b).

/1@3%'UIYIC@>']=?(#.1+.',+'%$(3".,(+'()'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'@&'#1+G'


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'6:./Z! 00.:Z! 0:./Z! 0?.0Z!

4:#%%'?V.0Z! /=.1Z! =V.5Z! =1.1Z!

c,-1:#%%'=.?Z! 5.=Z! 01.WZ! 0W.?Z!

!.#(+:3&'c,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 0.0Z! 6.6Z! ?.=Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'V.0Z! =5.WZ! 61.0Z! 60.1Z!

!011Z![66\! 011Z![V=\! 011Z![0/V\! !!011Z![61?\!

*

3212)4)%2*76 When asked about how important a factor scholars’ management of copyright is in their own publishing the results are different, and divided along disciplinary lines. Half of faculty in the humanities (50%) either ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ with this statement while over half of the physical science and engineering faculty (54%) ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ (Table 5.9.2a).

/1@3%'UIYIA1>''4+',=?(#.1+.')12.(#',+'=&'(5+'-2;(31#3&'?"@3,-;,+:'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!'' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'0W.6Z! 0=.0Z! 5.6Z! =.6Z!

4:#%%'/0.WZ! /0.VZ! 6:.:Z! 65.WZ!

c,-1:#%%'6:./Z! /6.?Z! 6W.?Z! =:.VZ!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'?.:Z! :.=Z! 06./Z! :.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'0:.1Z! 0=.0Z! 6?.=Z! 0=.0Z!

!011Z![WW\! 011Z![05/\! 011Z![0/1\! 011Z![:0\!

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''WA'

On this statement as well, assistant professors are more likely to say that they ‘Don’t know’ (36%) compared with associate professors (16%) and professors (11%) (Table Appendix.9.2b).

/1@3%'UIYIA@>''4+',=?(#.1+.')12.(#',+'=&'(5+'-2;(31#3&'?"@3,-;,+:'@&'#1+G'


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'/0.WZ! 5.=Z! 0=.5Z! W.VZ!

4:#%%'=1.VZ! 6:.:Z! /0.=Z! 6W.5Z!

c,-1:#%%'0/.5Z! 65.5Z! 6V.6Z! =1.=Z!

!.#(+:3&'c,-1:#%%'1.1Z! /.6Z! W.WZ! 00./Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'0/.5Z! /5.6Z! 05.0Z! 01.WZ!

!011Z![66\! 011Z![V=\! 011Z![0/:\! 011Z![61/\!

3212)4)%2*86 Overall three quarter of the faculty responding ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that this is a topic colleagues need to discuss. Eighty percent (80%) of faculty in the humanities respond this way, seventy percent (70%) of social scientists and over half of life, health and medical scientists (58%) and faculty in physical sciences and engineering (57%) say that this is a topic colleagues need to discuss (Table 5.9.3a).

/1@3%'UIYID1>''4'.(?,2'2(33%1:"%-'+%%7'.('7,-2"--'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'/0.=Z! 66./Z! 0V.WZ! 0?.VZ!

4:#%%'=W.WZ! =:.5Z! /W.6Z! =1.5Z!

c,-1:#%%'=.:Z! V.1Z! V.VZ! 0W.WZ!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 0.WZ! /.0Z! 6.VZ!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'0?.0Z! 0V./Z! 6V.1Z! 60.:Z!

2g=?6!011Z![W5\! 011Z![055\! 011Z![0/0\! 011Z![5V\!

Three quarters of associate professors (76%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that this is a topic that needs discussion compared with sixty percent of assistant professors (62%) and professors (61%).

Almost one-third of assistant professors (32%) respond that they ‘Don’t know’ compared with close to twenty percent of associate professors (18%) and professors (20%) (Table 5.9.3b).

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''WD'

/1@3%'UIYID@>''4'.(?,2'2(33%1:"%-'+%%7'.('7,-2"--'@&'#1+G


)SGMKEQa!+EGHH!?6.6Z! 05.WZ! 65.:Z! 0W.:Z!

+EGHH!/1.=Z! ==.6Z! =W.VZ! =6.VZ!

4DPJEGHH!1.1Z! ?./Z! ?.6Z! 05./Z!

)SGMKEQa!4DPJEGHH!1.1Z! 6.0Z! 0.?Z! 6.?Z!

'!IMKbS!hKMd!0:.=Z! /0.5Z! 0:.WZ! 0V.:Z!

!011Z![6/\! 011Z![V?\! 011Z![0/?\! 011Z![61/\!

^CB>'4#%'&("'2(+2%#+%7'.;1.'.#1+-)%##,+:'2(?&#,:;.'.('1'?"@3,-;%#'=1&'3,=,.'&("#'1@,3,.&'

.(III'

/1@3%'UICBIB>'

' <(+2%#+%7'\(.'

2(+2%#+%7'

]';1$%+l.'

.;(":;.'

1@(".',.'

9%-?(+-%'<("+.'

0.!NFS!SOH!LJSHGDJQP!MK!J!IHNJGSLHKSJQ!dHT!!!

PDSH!MG!DK!JK!DKPSDSFSDMKJQ!GHNMPDSMGae!=:./Z! /=./Z! 0W.?Z! 011Z![=??\!

6.!FPH!SOH!LJSHGDJQP!DK!J!_QJPP!SOJS!aMF!MG!

MSOHGP!JGH!SHJ_ODKE!dDSOMFS!JPhDKE!]MG!

NHGLDPPDMK!]GML!SOH!NFTQDPOHGe!

=1.:Z! =/.5Z! 0?.5Z! 011Z![=?=\!

/.!LJhH!SOH!LJSHGDJQP!J`JDQJTQH!]MG!_MFGPH!

NJ_hP!dDSOMFS!JPhDKE!]MG!NHGLDPPDMK!]GML!

SOH!NFTQDPOHGe!

?1.VZ! /6.:Z! 05.=Z! 011Z![=?6\!

=.!FPH!MG!PFTLDS!SOH!LJSHGDJQP!SM!JK!

JKSOMQMEae!=1.=Z! 6V.0Z! /1.=Z! 011Z![=?1\!

?.!_GHJSH!J!IHGD`JSD`H!dMGh!TJPHI!MK!SOH!

LJSHGDJQU!H.E.U!J!LFQSD^LHIDJ!dMGhe!/1.?Z! /0.6Z! /W./Z! 011Z![=?6\!

'

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Overall, approximately half of the faculty are concerned that transferring copyright to a publisher may limit their ability to put their materials on a departmental website or in an institutional repository (47%), or to make material available for course packs without asking for permission (51%). Approximately forty percent are concerned that this may limit their ability to use their materials in class without asking for permission from the publisher (41%), or that this could limit their ability to submit their materials to an anthology (40%).

Over fifteen percent haven’t thought about these issues, a figure that rises to almost forty percent (38%) when the question is about creating a derivative work based on previously published materials. This is a newer area of scholarly production which may, in part, explain this, but twenty-nine percent (29%) also say that they have not

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''WE'

thought about the implications of transferring copyright to a publisher when they might want to contribute previously published work to an anthology; a format that has a long history, at least in the humanities and social sciences (Table 5.10.0).


0,:"#%'UIW>''<(+2%#+-'1@(".'3,=,.1.,(+-'#%-"3.,+:')#(='.#1+-)%#'()'2(?&#,:;.'.('1'?"@3,-;%#'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G'

3212)4)%2*56 Faculty in the humanities are the most concerned that transferring copyright to a publisher may limit their ability to put materials on a departmental or in an institutional repository. Sixty-three percent (63%) say this. Close to forty percent of faculty in each of the other broad disciplinary categories say they are’ Not concerned’ compared with seventeen percent (17%) of faculty in the humanities (Table 5.10.1a).

/1@3%'UICBIC1>''8".'=1.%#,13-'(+'1'7%?1#.=%+.13'5%@'-,.%M,+-.,.".,(+13'#%?(-,.(#&'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

<(+2%#+%7'56.?Z! =0.?Z! =0.0Z! ?6.VZ!

\(.'2(+2%#+%7'0:.1Z! /5.1Z! /V.?Z! =0.=Z!

]';1$%+O.'.;(":;.'

1@(".',.'61.?Z! 66.5Z! 0V.=Z! ?.:Z!

!011Z![WW\! 011Z![05=\! 011Z![06V\! 011Z![:1\!

YMML!SM!

611Z!SM!

GHJI!SHRS

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''WU'

No clear pattern emerges on this question in terms of rank. In general professors are the least concerned that transferring copyright to a publisher will limit their ability to put materials on a department web site or in an institutional repository (Table 5.10.1b).

/1@3%'UICBIC@>''8".'=1.%#,13-'(+'1'7%?1#.=%+.13'5%@'-,.%M,+-.,.".,(+13'#%?(-,.(#&'@&'#1+G'


<(+2%#+%7'5W.6Z! =?.6Z! ?=./Z! =0.1Z!

\(.'2(+2%#+%7'0/.5Z! /0.6Z! 6:.VZ! =6.?Z!

]';1$%+O.'.;(":;.'

1@(".',.'0W.6Z! 6/.:Z! 0:.VZ! 05.?Z!

!011Z![66\! 011Z![V/\! 011Z![0=1\! 011Z![611\!

!

3212)4)%2*76!Faculty in the humanities are somewhat more concerned that transferring copyright to the publisher may limit their ability to use their materials in class compared with faculty in the other broad disciplinary categories (Table 5.10.2a).

/1@3%'UICBIA1>''*-%'.;%'=1.%#,13-',+'1'231--'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%''

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

<(+2%#+%7'=:.:Z! /V.5Z! /?.6Z! =6.VZ!

\(.'2(+2%#+%7'/=.0Z! ==.?Z! =:.:Z! =:.0Z!

]';1$%+O.'.;(":;.'

1@(".',.'0W.6Z! 0?.VZ! 0:.6Z! 01.1Z!

!011Z![WW\! 011Z![05=\! 011Z![06W\! 011Z![:1\!

!

There is minimal variation by rank (Table 5.10.2b).

/1@3%'UICBIA@>'*-%'.;%'=1.%#,13-',+'1'231--'@&'#1+G'


<(+2%#+%7'5/.5Z! /:.5Z! =6.0Z! /W.:Z!

\(.'2(+2%#+%7'0W.6Z! =?.6Z! =6.0Z! =5.:Z!

]';1$%+O.'.;(":;.'

1@(".',.'0W.6Z! 0:.6Z! 0?.:Z! 0=.5Z!

!011Z![66\! 011Z![V/\! 011Z![0=1\! 011Z![0VV\!

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''WV'

3212)4)%2*86!Faculty in the humanities are also the most concerned that transferring copyright to a publisher may limit their ability to make materials available in course packs (56%). Half of social scientists say that they are concerned, while just less than half of faculty in the life, health and medical sciences (48%) and physical sciences and engineering (47%) say they are concerned (Table 5.10. 3a).!

/1@3%'UICBID1>''_1G%'.;%'=1.%#,13-'1$1,31@3%')(#'2("#-%'?12G-'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

<(+2%#+%7'?5./Z! ?1./Z! =W.=Z! =:.0Z!

\(.'2(+2%#+%7'65.=Z! //.:Z! /6.WZ! =1.1Z!

]';1$%+O.'.;(":;.'

1@(".',.'0:.6Z! 05.1Z! 0W.WZ! 06.VZ!

!011Z![W:\! 011Z![05/\! 011Z![06W\! 011Z![:1\!

!

Associate professors are slightly more concerned (55%) than professors (47%) and assistant professors (50%) that transferring copyright to a publisher may limit their ability to make materials available in course packs without asking permission.

Twenty percent (20%) of assistant professors say they have not thought about this compared with seventeen percent (17%) of associate professors and fourteen percent (14%) of professors (Table 5.10.3b).

/1@3%'UICBID@>''_1G%'.;%'=1.%#,13-'1$1,31@3%')(#'2("#-%'?12G-'@&'#1+G''


<(+2%#+%7'5W.6Z! =V.?Z! ?=.:Z! =:.1Z!

\(.'2(+2%#+%7'0W.6Z! /1.0Z! 6W.0Z! /W.VZ!

]';1$%+O.'.;(":;.'

1@(".',.'0/.5Z! 61.=Z! 0:./Z! 0=.0Z!

!011Z![66\! 011Z![V/\! 011Z![0/V\! 011Z![0VW\!

'

3212)4)%2*>6'Faculty in the humanities (59%) and social sciences (45%) are the most concerned that transferring copyright to a publisher may limit their ability to submit materials to an anthology.

Thirty to forty percent of faculty in the physical sciences and engineering (31%) and in the life, health and medical sciences (45%) haven’t thought about this issue (Table 5.10.4a).

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''WW'

/1@3%'UICBIE1>''*-%'(#'-"@=,.'.;%'=1.%#,13-'.('1+'1+.;(3(:&'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

<(+2%#+%7'?W.WZ! =?.=Z! 6W.0Z! 6:.0Z!

\(.'2(+2%#+%7'61.1Z! /1.:Z! 6:./Z! =0.=Z!

]';1$%+O.'.;(":;.'

1@(".',.'60.6Z! 6/.VZ! ==.?Z! /0.=Z!

!011Z![W?\! 011Z![05/\! 011Z![06W\! 011Z![:1\!

Almost half (46%) of assistant professors say that they haven’t thought about how transferring copyright might affect their ability to use or submit the materials to an anthology compared with thirty percent (30%) of associate professors and almost one quarter of professors (24%) (Table 5.10.4b).

/1@3%'UICBIE@>''*-%'(#'-"@=,.'.;%'=1.%#,13-'.('1+'1+.;(3(:&'@&'#1+G''


<(+2%#+%7'51.1Z! /?.?Z! ==.5Z! /:.VZ!

\(.'2(+2%#+%7'61.1Z! 0W./Z! 6?.6Z! /:.VZ!

]';1$%+O.'.;(":;.'

1@(".',.'61.1Z! =5.6Z! /1.6Z! 6=.6Z!

!011Z![61\! 011Z![V/\! 011Z![0/V\! 011Z![0VW\!

!

3212)4)%2*96!!Forty-one percent (41%) of faculty in the humanities are concerned that transferring copyright to a publisher may limit their ability to make derivative works compared with twenty-six to twenty-nine (26-29%) percent of faculty in the other broad disciplinary categories (Table 5.10.5a).

/1@3%'UICBIU1>'<#%1.%'1'7%#,$1.,$%'5(#G'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

<(+2%#+%7'=1.:Z! 6W.:Z! 6W.0Z! 6?.:Z!

\(.'2(+2%#+%7'6:.VZ! /0.:Z! 6W.VZ! /:.0Z!

]';1$%+O.'.;(":;.'

1@(".',.'/0.=Z! /V.5Z! =/.1Z! /:.0Z!

!011Z![W5\! 011Z![05=\! 011Z![06W\! 011Z![:1\!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''WX'

Almost half of assistant professors (48%) haven’t thought about this issue compared with thirty to forty percent of professors (33%) and associate professors (42%). The high level of concern expressed by lecturers may reflect the use of derivative works in teaching, but further research is needed to determine this (Table 5.10.5b).

/1@3%'UICBIU@>'<#%1.%'1'7%#,$1.,$%'5(#G'@&'#1+G''


<(+2%#+%7'5W.6Z! 6=.:Z! //.WZ! 65.WZ!

\(.'2(+2%#+%7'0/.5Z! 65.VZ! 6/.:Z! =1.=Z!

]';1$%+O.'.;(":;.'

1@(".',.'0W.6Z! =W.=Z! =6.=Z! /6.WZ!

!011Z![66\! 011Z![V/\! 011Z![0/V\! 011Z![0VW\!

'

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-'

More than thirty faculty commented on this question. Many of the comments suggest that faculty are not overly concerned about transferring rights to a publisher. In some cases this is because authors traditionally retain rights in the field in which they publish so it is not an issue:

This is an antiquated question. I retain copyright when publishing.

Or, faculty believe they should be able to use their own materials.

Free dissemination is the cornerstone of scientific information. Bringing commerce into the free flow of scientific communication is only a barrier to science. I have always operated under the belief that published materials can always be accessed through journals online which makes assigning materials not a problem.

We are comfortable with rules to not disseminate journal papers but use links instead. For teaching we have excellent service of access through academic library - thus providing access.

Now that you mention it... I think copyright agreements I've signed usually allow me to do all these things. But I don't pay very close attention… The amount of money involved is so low, the amount of bad press they would generate so high, and the probability that they would even know about it so distant, that the likelihood that they would in practice limit my use of materials is insignificant (what an awful sentence!). A possible exception is an anthology, where there could be a publisher vs publisher fight. Yikes! Better start managing my copyrights better...

Others report that publishers have been cooperative.

I would be concerned if the latter four events were to take place. However, in my experience, this hasn't been the case. Any publisher I've dealt with (primarily academic) has always respected those conditions, even when my contract with them has signed away copyright. Copyright becomes more of a problem and more of an issue because of the need to satisfy publishers that it's been obtained e.g. trying to

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''WY'

track down publishers from the late 19th century, getting permission to use materials for which archives don't have copyright clearances, and so on. We have had no trouble reproducing published works or parts thereof in theses and book chapters (usually just figures or tables). Publishers have been very responsive in giving us permission to reproduce material for these purposes.

Some publishers are also concerned. There has been one instance in which copyright became an issue for me. I had a journal article accepted recently, and now would like to reprint it in modified form as a book chapter. This has been an issue because the book editor is afraid of violating copyright (or committing self-plagiarism), but I think I have resolved the issue by substantially modifying the original article. I suspect that this is one way that copyright becomes relevant to many people in the social sciences.

Others are aware of new practices and are concerned about the experience of trying to create derivative works. For example,

I'm extremely concerned about this. In the past I've wanted to create a multimedia form for one of my books, but my contract keeps all the rights for the publisher, and yet they refuse to do it and are not supportive of my doing it.

^CC>'b;1.')12.(#-'5("37';%3?'&("'.;%'=(-.',+'+%:(.,1.,+:'(#'=(7,)&,+:'.;%'2(?&#,:;.'

.%#=-'()'1'?"@3,21.,(+'2(+.#12.h'/@A@BC%FG%CD%CHI@@'!

/1@3%'UICCIB>'

' 9%-?(+-%'8%#2%+.' 9%-?(+-%'

<("+.'

])']';17'?#%2,-%',+-.#"2.,(+-6'1+7'%Q1=?3%-'()';(5'.('7(',.I' :6.0Z! /1?!

])']';17'.;%'17$,2%'1+7'-"??(#.'()'=&',+-.,.".,(+I' 5/.5Z! 65V!

])']';17'.;%'17$,2%'1+7'-"??(#.'()'=&')"+7%#I' 0?.WZ! !5:!

])']'G+%5']'5("37'+(.'@%'?%+13,F%7')(#'#%)"-,+:'.('-,:+'.;%'

-.1+71#7'2(+.#12.I'

/V.?Z! 05:!

S.;%#'H?3%1-%'-?%2,)&K>' V.6Z! /V!

'

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

The top three factors that faculty feel would help in negotiating or modifying copyright terms of a contacts are: i) if they had precise instructions and examples of how to do it (72%) ii) if they had the advice and support of their institution (63%) and iii) if they knew they would not be penalized for refusing to sign the standard contract (39%) (Table 5.11.0).


!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''XB'

0,:"#%'UIX> 012.(#-'.;1.'5("37';%3?'+%:(.,1.,+:'(#'=(7,)&,+:'1'?"@3,21.,(+'2(+.#12.''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

'

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-''

Thirty-one faculty members commented on this question. The majority of comments were along the lines of: this is not an issue; I haven’t thought about it; I don’t know enough to comment; it is not relevant in my case; or I don’t have time to consider it.

Concrete suggestions included:

Information about the previous track record of the publisher (i.e., about accepting modified publication contracts). … even just making it a clear option.

I don't want to deal with each publisher as an individual; would rather university or faculty union negotiate for us collectively.

If there was an individual trained in the area in our faculty or University who would take us through this it would be helpful. Otherwise, no time!

YMML!SM!611Z!

SM!GHJI!SHRS

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''XC'

^CA>'b;,2;'()'.;%')(33(5,+:'12.,$,.,%-'5("37'&("'@%'5,33,+:'.('"+7%#.1G%h'''

/@A@BC%JAA%CHJC%JGGAK

!

/1@3%'UICAIB>

'9%-?(+-%'

8%#2%+.'

9%-?(+-%'

<("+.'

CI]'5("37'@%'5,33,+:'.('%+2("#1:%'.;%'?"@3,21.,(+'@(1#7-'()'.;%'

-(2,%.,%-M1--(2,1.,(+-'.('5;,2;']'@%3(+:'.('=1G%'.;%,#'2(?&#,:;.'?(3,2&'=(#%'

1".;(#N)#,%+73&I'

?=.VZ! 6/=!

AI]'5("37'@%'5,33,+:'.('%+2("#1:%'.;%'-(2,%.,%-M1--(2,1.,(+-'.('5;,2;']'@%3(+:'.('

-%%G'13.%#+1.,$%'-("#2%-'()'#%$%+"%6'#1.;%#'.;1+'#%3&,+:'(+'-"@-2#,?.,(+')%%-'.('

-"??(#.'-(2,%.&'12.,$,.,%-I'

66.0Z! V=!

DIZ%)(#%'-,:+,+:'1'?"@3,-;,+:'2(+.#12.6']'5("37'@%'5,33,+:'.('-.#,G%(".'1+7'=(7,)&'

,.-'31+:"1:%'.('2;1+:%'.;%'2(+.#12.')#(=':#1+.,+:'n%Q23"-,$%n'#,:;.-'.('.;%'

?"@3,-;%#'.(':#1+.,+:'n+(+N'%Q23"-,$%n'#,:;.-'.('.;%'?"@3,-;%#I'

=5.:Z! 0VV!

EI]'5("37'@%'5,33,+:'.('-"@=,.'=&'-2;(31#3&'(".?".'-(3%3&'.('?"@3,-;%#-'5;('#%m",#%'

(+3&'.;%'#,:;.'()'),#-.'?"@3,21.,(+'1+7'+('(.;%#'#,:;.I'/=.1Z! 0=?!

UI]'5("37'@%'5,33,+:'.('%+2("#1:%'?"@3,-;%#-'.('%Q?%#,=%+.'5,.;'@"-,+%--'=(7%3-'

,+'(#7%#'.('#%7"2%'(#'%3,=,+1.%'@1##,%#-6',+23"7,+:'-"@-2#,?.,(+'2(-.-6'.('#%17%#-I'/5.VZ! 0?:!

VI\(+%'()'.;%'1@($%' 0V.1Z! W0!

WI'S.;%#'H?3%1-%'-?%2,)&K>' W.6Z! /?!

! 011Z! =65!

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

The two activities that faculty say that they would be most willing to undertake with respect to copyright are: i) to encourage the boards of societies or organisations to which they belong to make their copyright policies more author friendly (55%), and ii) to modify the language of a publishers contact to grant "non- exclusive" rights to the publisher, rather than "exclusive" rights to the publisher (47%). Almost twenty percent (19%) of those responding choose the option ‘None of the above’.


0,:"#%'UIY>'42.,$,.,%-')12"3.&'5("37'@%'5,33,+:'.('"+7%#.1G%'

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-

This is not an issue for many, and for reasons similar to those expressed in the earlier questions on copyright. This is either because there isn’t any interest in these issues or because they have never come up. In some cases faculty observe that the field had

already solved the problem as the following comment illustrates:

YMML!SM!611Z!

SM!GHJI!SHRS

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''XA'

The publication boards of journals, conferences, societies/associations are already very author-friendly in my field.

Once again there are several comments that the respondents don’t understand the issues well enough to be able to comment.

I would be willing to do all of those things if I knew more about how to do them.

Another drew attention to the diversity among publishers:

It is very, very important to take into consideration the differences between large commercial book and journal publishers and small independent journals and publishers in developing policy.

And the need for a more collective approach:

The problem is that we cannot stay on top of it and require some kind of collective negotiating on our part. The profit motive of the publishing industry will find new ways to obtain manuscripts.

I would be willing to show my contract to a university representative and have them negotiate on my behalf with the publisher to retain some of my rights.

One faculty member spoke directly to the challenge of change and the disconnect between attitude and behaviour.

I would be willing to consider such things. Not to do them. It’s a long process. It involves me changing, as well as them. I don't tend to change.

And the need to be pragmatic:

I need to publish at the best journals possible and that is my only goal.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''XD'

The last two questions in this section ask about peer review.77 The first asks about attitudes toward current practices, and the second about whether there is evidence of experimentation taking place.

^CD>'/('5;1.'%Q.%+.'7('&("'1:#%%'(#'7,-1:#%%'5,.;'.;%')(33(5,+:h'''

!

/1@3%'UICDIB>'

4+-5%#'S?.,(+-'!.#(+:3&'

4:#%%'4:#%%' c,-1:#%%'

!.#(+:3&'

7,-1:#%%'

]'7(+l.'

G+(5'

9%-?(+-%'

<("+.'

CI']'1=';1??&'.('@%'1'#%$,%5%#')(#'

R("#+13-M2(+)%#%+2%-'(#'?#%--%-'

.;1.']'$13"%I'

51.5Z! /:.VZ! 1.VZ! 1.1Z! 1.:Z! 011Z![=?=\!

AI'!%#$,+:'1-'1'#%$,%5%#',-'?1#.'()'=&'

#%-?(+-,@,3,.&'1-'1'=%=@%#'()'.;%'

2(=="+,.&I'

:1.VZ! 6:.WZ! 0.0Z! 1.1Z! 1.6Z! 011Z!=?=\!

DI']'1='#%2%,$,+:'.(('=1+&'#%m"%-.-'

.('#%$,%5'?1?%#-'.(71&I'0V.?Z! /0./Z! =?.6Z! /.5Z! 1.=Z! 011Z![==:\!

EI'/;%#%'1#%'.(('=1+&'(.;%#'

7%=1+7-'(+'=&'.,=%'.('

2(+.#,@".%'.('.;%'#%$,%5'?#(2%--I'

5.:Z! 6:.0Z! ?6.5Z! 06.WZ! 1.VZ! 011Z![==:\!

UI'/;%#%'1#%'.(('=1+&':#17"1.%'

-."7%+.-'7(,+:'?%%#'#%$,%5',+'=&'

),%37I'

/.0Z! W.?Z! =6.6Z! 00.6Z! /?.1Z! 011Z![==W\!

VI'/;%'.#17,.,(+13'?%%#'#%$,%5'

?#(2%--',-'5(#G,+:'5%33')(#'=%I'00.WZ! 50.VZ! 0V.6Z! 6.1Z! ?.0Z! 011Z![==V\!

WI'S?%+'?%%#'#%$,%5'-&-.%=-'5;%#%'

@(.;'1".;(#-'1+7'#%$,%5%#-'1#%'

,7%+.,),%7'#%-"3.',+';,:;'m"13,.&'

?%%#'#%$,%5-',+'=&'),%37I'

/.WZ! 06.?Z! 6?.:Z! 0?.=Z! =6.?Z! 011Z![==:\!

XI'/;%#%'1#%'-%#,("-'?#(@3%=-'5,.;'

.;%'?%%#'#%$,%5'-&-.%='.(71&I'W.0Z! 6V.1Z! =0.0Z! :.1Z! 0=.WZ! 011Z![==?\!

'

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Virtually all faculty ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that they are happy to be a reviewer for journals, conferences or presses that they value (99%), and that serving as a reviewer is part of their responsibility as a member of the academic community (99%).

Almost three quarters (74%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that the traditional peer review process is working well for them while thirty-seven percent (37%) say that there are serious problems with the peer review system today (Table 5.13.0).

A visual representation of these results is below (Figure 5.10).

77 For a recent discussion of peer review see Harley, Diane, Krzys Acord, Sophia and Sarah Earl-Novell. April 2010. Peer Review in Academic Promotion and Publishing: Its Meaning, Locus, and Future. Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education (CSHE) (Research and Occasional Papers Series) Retrieved Jan. 13, 2011 from http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/publications.php?id=357

http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/publications.php?id=357

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''XE'

0,:"#%'UICB: 42.,(+-'1+7'1..,."7%-'1--(2,1.%7'5,.;'?%%#'#%$,%5

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G

3212)4)%2*56 There is limited variation in the response to these questions by broad disciplinary category (Tables 5.13.1a).

/1@3%'UICDIC1>']'1=';1??&'.('@%'1'#%$,%5%#')(#'R("#+13-M2(+)%#%+2%-'(#'?#%--%-'.;1.']'$13"%'@&'@#(17'

7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'55./Z! 50.6Z! 50.5Z! ?6.0Z!

4:#%%'/0.?Z! /W.6Z! /5.WZ! =?.0Z!

c,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 1.5Z! 0.5Z! 0.=Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 1.1Z! 1.1Z! 1.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'6.6Z! 1.1Z! 1.1Z! 0.=Z!

!011Z![WV\! 011Z![05?\! 011Z![06?\! 011Z![:0\!

!

YMML!SM!611Z!

SM!GHJI!SHRS!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''XU'

Assistant professors (69%) are the most likely to ‘Strongly agree’ that they are happy to be a reviewer for publications that they value. Across the ranks almost no one ‘Disagrees’ or ‘Strongly disagrees’. And unlike the previous questions there are almost no faculty who say that they ‘Don’t know’ (Table 5.13.1b).

/1@3%'UICDIC@>']'1=';1??&'.('@%'1'#%$,%5%#')(#'R("#+13-M2(+)%#%+2%-'(#'?#%--%-'.;1.']'$13"%'@&'#1+G'


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'=1.VZ! 5W.?Z! 50.6Z! ?W.WZ!

4:#%%'?=.?Z! /1./Z! /5.:Z! =1.6Z!

c,-1:#%%'=.?Z! 1.1Z! 0.=Z! 1.?Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 1.1Z! 1.1Z! 1.1Z.!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'1.1Z! 0.0Z! 1.:Z! 1.?Z!

!011Z![66\! 011Z![WV\! 011Z![0/V\! 011Z![61=\!

!

3212)4)%2*7B!There is limited variation in the response to the statement that serving as a reviewer is part of faculty responsibility as a member of the community. Faculty in the life, health and medical sciences (75%) and the social sciences (73%) are the most likely to report that they ‘Strongly agree’ that this is part of their responsibility (Table 5.13.2a).

!

/1@3%'UICDIA1>'!%#$,+:'1-'1'#%$,%5%#',-'?1#.'()'=&'#%-?(+-,@,3,.&'1-'1'=%=@%#'()'.;%'2(=="+,.&'@&'@#(17'

7,-2,?3,+%'

!

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'56.VZ! :/./Z! :?.6Z! 5:.5Z!

4:#%%'/6.5Z! 65.0Z! 6=.1Z! /6.=Z!

c,-1:#%%'/.=Z! 1.5Z! 1.WZ! 1.1Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 1.1Z! 1.1Z! 1.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'0.0Z! 1.1Z! 1.1Z! 1.1Z!

!011Z![WV\! 011Z![05?\! 011Z![06?\! 011Z![:0\!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''XV'

There is limited variation by rank on the statement that serving as a reviewer is part of their responsibility as a member of the community. Here again, almost no one ‘Disagrees’ or ‘Strongly disagrees’ or says that they ‘Don’t know’ (Table 5.13.2b).

/1@3%'UICDIA@>'!%#$,+:'1-'1'#%$,%5%#',-'?1#.'()'=&'#%-?(+-,@,3,.&'1-'1'=%=@%#'()'.;%'2(=="+,.&'@&'#1+G'


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'?1.1Z! :=.6Z! 5V.0Z! :/.1Z!

4:#%%'?1.1Z! 66.?Z! 6V.?Z! 65.?Z!

c,-1:#%%'1.1Z! /.=Z! 1.:Z! 1.?Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 1.1Z! 1.1Z! 1.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'1.1Z! 1.1Z! 1.:Z! 1.1Z!

!011Z![66\! 011Z![WV\! 011Z![0/V\! 011Z![61=\!

!

3212)4)%2*86 Overall, just over half (51%) of the faculty responding say that they ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ with the statement that they are receiving too many requests to review papers today. This seems to affect scientists the most with almost seventy percent of faculty in both of the life, health and medical sciences (69%) and the physical sciences and engineering (63%) responding that this is the case. Half of the social scientists (50%) and twenty-nine percent (29%) of faculty in the humanities also ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that this is the case. The preference for the publication of refereed journal articles in the sciences, and to some extent the social sciences may explain the variation here (Table 5.13.3a).

/1@3%'UICDID1>']'1='#%2%,$,+:'.(('=1+&'#%m"%-.-'.('#%$,%5'?1?%#-'.(71&'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%''

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'01.?Z! 0:.WZ! 6/.=Z! 6:.0Z!

4:#%%'0W.5Z! /6.?Z! /=.:Z! /?.:Z!

c,-1:#%%'51.?Z! =W.?Z! /:.VZ! /=./Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'V./Z! 0.6Z! /.6Z! 6.VZ!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'0.6Z! 1.1Z! 1.WZ! 1.1Z!

!011Z![W5\! 011Z![05/\! 011Z![06=\! 011Z![:1\!

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''XW'

Sixty percent (60%) of professors and over half of associate professors (53%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ with this statement compared with thirty percent (30%) of assistant professors (Table 5.13.3b).

/1@3%'UICDID@>']'1='#%2%,$,+:'.(('=1+&'#%m"%-.-'.('#%$,%5'?1?%#-'.(71&'@&'#1+G'!


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'V.0Z! V.1Z! 0V.1Z! 6?.5Z!

4:#%%'/0.WZ! 60./Z! //.5Z! /=.6Z!

c,-1:#%%'?V.0Z! ?W.=Z! =5.:Z! /5.:Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 01.0Z! .:Z! /.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'1.1Z! 0.0Z! 1.1Z! .?Z!

!011Z![66\! 011Z![WV\! 011Z![0/:\! 011Z![0VV\!

3212)4)%2*>6 Despite the responses to the previous statement regarding the high number of requests to review papers that faculty receive, they are willing to make time for peer review. The majority of faculty across the broad disciplinary categories ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ that there are too many other demands on their time to contribute to the review process (Table 5.13.4a).

!

/1@3%'UICDIE1>'/;%#%'1#%'.(('=1+&'(.;%#'7%=1+7-'(+'=&'.,=%'.('2(+.#,@".%'.('.;%'#%$,%5'?#(2%--'@&'@#(17'

7,-2,?3,+%''

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'?.:Z! 5.6Z! ?.5Z! 00./Z!

4:#%%'6/.1Z! 6/.5Z! 6V.1Z! //.WZ!

c,-1:#%%'??.6Z! ?5.?Z! ?1.1Z! =:.VZ!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'0=.VZ! 0/.:Z! 0/.:Z! ?.5Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'0.0Z! 1.1Z! 0.5Z! 0.=Z!

!011Z![W:\! 011Z![050\! 011Z![06=\! 011Z![:0\!

!

There is limited variation by rank on the statement that there are too many other demands on my time to contribute to the review process. More associate professors say they ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ with this statement – thirty-eight percent (38%) compared with approximately one third of assistant professors (34%) and professors (31%) (Table 5.13.4b).

'

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''XX'

/1@3%'UICDIE@>'/;%#%'1#%'.(('=1+&'(.;%#'7%=1+7-'(+'=&'.,=%'.('2(+.#,@".%'.('.;%'#%$,%5'?#(2%--'@&'#1+G'


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'V.0Z! /.=Z! :.=Z! :.?Z!

4:#%%'6:./Z! /1./Z! /1.=Z! 6/.=Z!

c,-1:#%%'5/.5Z! ?6.WZ! ?/./Z! ?1.:Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 00.6Z! W.VZ! 0:.=Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'1.1Z! 6.6Z! 1.1Z! 0.1Z!

!011Z![66\! 011Z![WV\! 011Z![0/?\! 011Z![610\!

!

3212)4)%2*96 Approximately one-third of faculty in each of the broad disciplinary categories said that they ‘Don’t know’ if that there are too many graduate students doing peer review in their field (Table 5.13.5a).

/1@3%'UICDIU1>'/;%#%'1#%'.(('=1+&':#17"1.%'-."7%+.-'7(,+:'?%%#'#%$,%5',+'=&'),%37'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%''

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'6./Z! /.:Z! /.6Z! 6.WZ!

4:#%%'?.:Z! W.5Z! 06.0Z! ?.5Z!

c,-1:#%%'/V.0Z! =/.6Z! =0.0Z! =/.:Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'0=.VZ! W.5Z! 00./Z! 06.:Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'/:.VZ! /?.WZ! /6./Z! /?.6Z!

!011Z![W:\! 011Z![056\! 011Z![06=\! 011Z![:0\!

There is no variation across the ranks in terms of faculty saying that they ‘Don’t know’ if there are too many graduate student doing peer review in their field (Table 5.13.5b).

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''XY'

/1@3%'UICDIU@>'/;%#%'1#%'.(('=1+&':#17"1.%'-."7%+.-'7(,+:'?%%#'#%$,%5',+'=&'),%37'@&'#1+G''


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'1.1Z! 6./Z! /.5Z! /.?Z!

4:#%%'0/.5Z! W.1Z! W.:Z! W.1Z!

c,-1:#%%'66.:Z! =6.1Z! ==.6Z! =/.1Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'=.?Z! 0/.5Z! W.:Z! 06.?Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'?V.0Z! /=.0Z! /=.WZ! //.1Z!

!011Z![66\! 011Z![WW\! 011![0/W\! 011Z![611\!

!

3212)4)%2*:6 Almost three quarters of all faculty members ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that the traditional peer review process is working well for them. There is minimal variation across the broad disciplinary categories (Table 5.13.6a).

/1@3%'UICDIV1>'/;%'.#17,.,(+13'?%%#'#%$,%5'?#(2%--',-'5(#G,+:'5%33')(#'=%'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%''

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'61.?Z! V.VZ! 06.VZ! =.6Z!

4:#%%'??.:Z! 50.0Z! 51.?Z! :/.?Z!

c,-1:#%%'0=.WZ! 66.6Z! 0V.=Z! 05.VZ!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 6.?Z! /.6Z! 0.=Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'V.0Z! =./Z! =.1Z! =.6Z!

!011Z![WW\! 011Z![056\! 011Z![06=\! 011Z![:0\!

Two thirds of assistant professors (67%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that the traditional peer review process is working well for them compared with three-quarters or more of associate professors (75%) and professors (78%) (Table 5.13.6b).

/1@3%'UICDIV@>'/;%'.#17,.,(+13'?%%#'#%$,%5'?#(2%--',-'5(#G,+:'5%33')(#'=%'@&'#1+G'


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'=.?Z! 5.WZ! W.1Z! 0:.=Z!

4:#%%'?1.1Z! 51.6Z! 5:.=Z! 51.6Z!

c,-1:#%%'/5.=Z! 66.:Z! 0V.5Z! 0?.=Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! =.?Z! 0.=Z! 0.?Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'V.0Z! ?.:Z! /.5Z! ?.?Z!

!011Z![66\! 011Z![WW\! 011Z![0/W\! 011Z![610\!

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''YB'

3212)4)%2*?6 Forty-three percent (43%) of faculty overall say they ‘Don’t know’ if open peer reviews systems result in high quality reviews, and there is limited variation across the broad disciplinary categories with the exception of faculty in the physical sciences and engineering where fifty-two percent (52%) say that they ‘Don’t know’. This practice is relatively new and a number of comments are included below that address this point (Table 5.13.7a).

/1@3%'UICDIW1>'S?%+'?%%#'#%$,%5'-&-.%=-'5;%#%'@(.;'1".;(#-'1+7'#%$,%5%#-'1#%',7%+.,),%7'#%-"3.',+';,:;'

m"13,.&'?%%#'#%$,%5-',+'=&'),%37'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%''

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

)SGMKEQa!+EGHH!6./Z! ?.1Z! =.WZ! 0.=Z!

+EGHH!06.WZ! 00.6Z! 0:.5Z! =.6Z!

4DPJEGHH!6V.0Z! 6W.1Z! 61.1Z! 65.WZ!

)SGMKEQa!IDPJEGHH!0?.0Z! 0?.?Z! 05.1Z! 0?.?Z!

'!IMKbS!hKMd!=1.:Z! =1.=Z! =0.5Z! ?6.0Z!

!011Z![W5\! 011Z![050\! 011Z![06?\! 011Z![:0\!

!

Over half of assistant professors (54%) are most likely to report that they ‘Don’t know’ whether open peer review systems where authors and reviewers are identified result in high quality reviews compared with close to forty percent of associate professors (41%) and professors (37%).

Twenty percent (20%) of professors ‘Strongly disagree’ that that fully open peer review systems result in high quality reviews. Forty eight percent (48%) ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ that open peer review systems result in high quality reviews in their field compared with thirty-seven percent (37%) of associate and assistant professors (Table 5.13.7b).

'

/1@3%'UICDIW@>'S?%+'?%%#'#%$,%5'-&-.%=-'5;%#%'@(.;'1".;(#-'1+7'#%$,%5%#-'1#%',7%+.,),%7'#%-"3.',+';,:;'

m"13,.&'?%%#'#%$,%5-',+'=&'),%37'@&'#1+G''


)SGMKEQa!+EGHH!1.1Z! 0.0Z! ?.0Z! =.?Z!

+EGHH!0W.6Z! :.VZ! 05.VZ! 00.1Z!

4DPJEGHH!66.:Z! 6?.WZ! 66.WZ! 6W.1Z!

)SGMKEQa!IDPJEGHH!1.1Z! 00.6Z! 0=.1Z! 61.1Z!

'!IMKbS!hKMd!?V.0Z! ?/.VZ! =0.6Z! /5.?Z!

!011Z![66\! 011Z![WV\! 011Z![0/5\! 011Z![611\!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''YC'

3212)4)%2*;6 Faculty are divided both within and across categories on this statement. Over forty percent of faculty in the physical science and engineering (41%) and in the life, health and medical sciences (43%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that there are serious problems with the peer review system today compared with approximately thirty percent of the faculty in the humanities (29%) and one quarter of faculty in the social sciences (25%).*

However, approximately half of the faculty in each of the categories ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ that this is the case (Table 5.13.8a).

/1@3%'UICDIX1>'/;%#%'1#%'-%#,("-'?#(@3%=-'5,.;'.;%'?%%#'#%$,%5'-&-.%='.(71&'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'?.VZ! V./Z! W.VZ! ?.5Z!

4:#%%'6/.?Z! 65.0Z! //.VZ! /?.6Z!

c,-1:#%%'/W.WZ! /V.WZ! =6.:Z! =6./Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'V.=Z! 5.WZ! W.0Z! 6.WZ!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'66.=Z! 0W.1Z! 5.?Z! 0=.0Z!

!011Z![W?\! 011Z![050\! 011Z![06=\! 011Z![:0\!

!

! !

There is a difference of option within each of the ranks on this statement. Forty-three percent (43%) of assistant professors ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that there are serious problems with the peer review system today while forty-four percent (44%) ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of associate professors and thirty-five percent (35%) of professors ‘agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that there are serious problems compared with approximately half of professors (54%) and associate professors (47%) who ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ (Table 5.13.8b).

/1@3%'UICDIX@>'/;%#%'1#%'-%#,("-'?#(@3%=-'5,.;'.;%'?%%#'#%$,%5'-&-.%='.(71&'@&'#1+G'


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'V.0Z! W.1Z! :.?Z! W.?Z!

4:#%%'6:./Z! /?.6Z! 6V.0Z! 65.=Z!

c,-1:#%%'0W.6Z! =/.6Z! =0.1Z! =6.WZ!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 0.0Z! 5.1Z! 01.VZ!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'=?.?Z! 06.?Z! 05.=Z! 00.=Z!

!011Z![66\! 011Z![WW\! 011Z![0/=\! 011Z![610\!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''YA'

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-'

Fifty-eight comments were received on this question. The majority of comments were positive about the system overall, but many issues were raised and examples were provided that show where the system does not appear to be working well.

9HKHGJQ!!

Sure, there are problems. But any alternatives I can visualize would have more. Expecting any system to run without problems and abuses that need correction, on an ongoing basis, is like buying a car and expecting never to have to take it in for repairs and service. Double blind review is the only way to escape from systemic gender and institutional biases that infected scholarly publishing a generation ago.

Even though I have too many demands on my time, I do agree to do 10 to 12 peer reviews or articles and/or grant proposals per year. It is my scholarly responsibility to do so and is also a good ongoing learning process for me.

I really wanted a neutral response mode for the last question. I think there are problems, largely due to volume of reviewing workload, turnaround time, variable standards of review. But I hesitate to call these "serious".

Ultimately someone has to review your work, and I'd prefer that it be blind peer review. It has challenges of getting good people to review sometimes, but it is still the best system available. The industry pushes quantity over quality too much, and it would be better for everyone if we had an awards system more based on quality.

,H`DHdHGP!Diminishing pool of qualified reviewers. Often authors can surmise who is reviewing their manuscripts. There is no accountability for reviewers who do not read papers carefully and who provide inaccurate comments. In many instances, reviewers do not have expertise in the research area/topic of a paper, and provide useless comments, and Editors behave just like a post office. I think that there are problem with peer review that are getting worse and should be addressed. In my field, reviewers have become extremely demanding—often making unreasonable demands—and editors do not step in and I think that they should. I think the quality of reviews has deteriorated somewhat, as people don't take the time to carefully read papers. The field has grown so quickly that we are all overwhelmed. Also as an associate editor for a journal, it is sometimes difficult to find reviewers. However, I don't have a solution to the problem!

&DLH!

The traditional peer review process takes too long. I have one paper that took 3 years in the peer review process (another 2 years). Yes. I'm not sure about "today" but peer review tends to be a rather herd-like process, encouraging conformity and favouring ideological soul-mates. The standards applied in any case look inward, not outward. Frankly, in most fields there is too much, not too little publication.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''YD'

Peer review is very, very spotty. It is not uncommon for: - reviewers to take forever to read the paper (I'm guilty) - reviewers to push their own scientific prejudices on controversial topics and reject things they don't like - reviewers to give only a cursory look, and let through stuff that is simply not correct.

The biggest problem, though, is the absolutely massive number of basically irrelevant papers which flood the journals. There needs to be some better tiering of papers (like a user rating system of some sort).

3NHK!GH`DHdP!

Open peer review may work well for tenured faculty but many of my untenured colleagues have expressed concerns about it.

Sometimes I get useful reviews and sometimes not. The one time a reviewer signed the review (it was mostly negative) I appreciated it because it supported a useful dialogue.

I haven't heard of any journals in my field that have an open peer review system, but I would not submit my work to such a journal and would not agree to review for it.

…this doesn't happen in my field, but if it did, I think it would result in better reviews. The problem in our field being so broad, is that we often get reviewers who are not specialist in the topic and they just don't get the message. The quality of the reviews is often poor, even for highly reputable journals and we have to put up a real fight to either get an alternative reviewer or to appeal to the editor's wisdom. Neither route has been particularly successful. We usually end up submitting to another journal (not necessarily lower impact, usually comparable, sometimes even higher) that we might have initially considered to be less topically congruent. In 95% of the cases, we would be successful by submitting elsewhere.

Open peer review in my field leads to severe discrimination.

I have never had the identity of the peer reviewer available to me (either for manuscripts, grants or abstracts) but I believe this would be a better system.

I think there should be movement towards a double blind peer review system rather than an open system. The current norm is to have the reviewers anonymous but the authors are known.

'KKM`JSDMK!JKI!KMK^SGJIDSDMKJQ!]MGLP!

The problem with the peer review process, from my perspective, is that it is less a quality control mechanism than it is an isomorphism mechanism...papers are rewarded for looking like others' papers, not necessarily for being on high quality.

People don't have time to do high quality reviews. Our field relies primarily on conference publications, and because of the high number of reviews needed in quick turnaround time, the quality of reviewing is poor and the resulting quality of publication is not as good as it should be. The field is more conservative because it's easier to accept incremental, derivative results.

The main problem I am aware of is that non-traditional forms of work are not peer-reviewed, e.g. digital projects, and therefore they are not taken seriously.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''YE'

^CE>'4#%'&("'151#%'()'1+&'%Q?%#,=%+.-'"+7%#51&',+'&("#'7,-2,?3,+%M),%37'.;1.'%Q?3(#%'

m"%-.,(+-'()'?%%#'#%$,%5h'!

/1@3%'UICEIB>'

'9%-?(+-%'

8%#2%+.'

9%-?(+-%'

<("+.'

e%-' 01.0Z! =?!

\(' WV.VZ! =16!

! 011.1Z! ==:!

'

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Ninety percent (90%) of faculty respond that there are no experiments underway in their field to explore questions of peer review.

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G'

There are more experiments that explore questions of peer review underway in the sciences (12-14%) than in the social sciences (8%) or the humanities (6%) (Table 5.14.1a).

/1@3%'UICEIC>'[Q?%#,=%+.-'"+7%#51&',+'&("#'7,-2,?3,+%M),%37'.;1.'%Q?3(#%'m"%-.,(+-'()'?%%#'#%$,%5'@&'@#(17'

7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

e%-'?.WZ! W.1Z! 06.0Z! 0=.0Z!

\('V=.6Z! V6.1Z! W:.VZ! W?.VZ!

!011Z![W5\! 011Z![056\! 011Z![06=\! 011Z![:0\!

!

Over ten percent of assistant professors (11%) and professors (12%) say that they are aware of experiments underway to explore questions of peer review compared with seven percent (7%) of associate professors (Table 5.14.1b).

/1@3%'UICEIC@>'[Q?%#,=%+.-'"+7%#51&',+'&("#'7,-2,?3,+%M),%37'.;1.'%Q?3(#%'m"%-.,(+-'()'?%%#'#%$,%5'@&'#1+G'


e%-'0?.1Z! 00.6Z! 5.?Z! 00.?Z!

\('W?.1Z! WW.WZ! V/.?Z! WW.?Z!

!011Z![61\! 011Z![WV\! 011Z![0/W\! 011Z![611\!

'

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''YU'

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-'

Close to forty faculty commented on this question, and a number provided very detailed descriptions of the changes underway. A core of the UofT faculty, and the scholarly associations to which they belong are engaging in conversations, doing research, and conducting more formal evaluations and experiments.

The editors of major medical journal have gotten together to evaluate the peer review process.

The Modern Language Association of America has several online reports at: http://www.mla.org/guidelines_evaluation_digital http://www.mla.org/cse_guidelines - d0e354 http://www.mla.org/tenure_promotion

Some new journals have innovative peer review process, Frontiers in Neuroscience, for example.

Don't know if it’s an experiment, but this year the large annual conference "AERA" took graduate students off the eligibility for reviewing. Don't know how that worked out for them.

In journals with guest editors for special issues one I know has a single peer review system where the editorial board reviews all submissions blind. So the reviewers are known and the authors are not. This speeds up the process of review very much and gives each article a more careful assessment with the possibility of more useful feedback and more active and informed requests for changes etc. Please see http://www.nature.com/emboj/about/process.html A transparent editorial process! Excerpt: The EMBO Journal.

Starting with manuscripts submitted in 2009, The EMBO Journal is publishing online a ‘Review Process File’ (RPF) alongside published papers. This file contains the timeline and correspondence relevant to the processing of the manuscript at the Journal, showing the process openly. Importantly, the RPF contains all pertinent communication regarding the manuscript between the corresponding author and the editorial office, including the referees' comments, decision letters and responses from authors. Referees remain anonymous as we think this is important to ensure a good reviewing process. Confidential comments provided to the editor also remain so. Authors are given the option of not participating in this initiative while we are evaluating the functioning of the transparent editorial process. Our first statistics and analyses on the uptake effects of the new process are encouraging.

The Society of Experimental Social Psychology and the Society of Personality and Social Psychology listservs are debating this issue and have committees exploring the peer review process. Some online journals give explicit points for reviews that are used when you submit.

Discussion of 'pubcreds' system giving credits for reviewing then used for submitting papers.

There were a number of comments specifically on open peer review.

One of our conferences tried an open peer review several years ago, and it made no difference to the process compared to blind peer review.

I have reviewed papers for journals that use an open review system, and frequently encounter reviews where reviewers waive anonymity (even for rejections).

http://www.mla.org/guidelines_evaluation_digital

http://www.mla.org/cse_guidelines%23d0e354%20

http://www.nature.com/emboj/about/process.html

http://www.mla.org/tenure_promotion

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''YV'

I've experimented myself with open review, using a blog-style threaded discussion to solicit reviews for papers submitted to a workshop. It was remarkably successful, and let to very interesting discussions of the papers.

Papers have been submitted changing the institution, gender, etc. of the authors to look at rejection rates. They have had an influence.

Some journals are experimenting with open vs. blind reviews, open vs. blind authorship, open vs. blind editing, etc.

I believe Nature was exploring the idea of identifying reviewers.

Some life-science journals are posting reviewers comments and authors rebuttals.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''YW'

UI'D>''S8[\'4<<[!!6'9[8S!]/S9][!6'_4\c4/[!'

!With widespread access to digital publishing and communication technologies and to the internet, alternate ways to publish, disseminate and curate scholarship are emerging. This section asks specifically about three areas – open access,78 research/subject/institutional repositories, and funder/university mandates and/or policies. These bring to the fore larger questions about the nature of scholarship and the role and responsibilities of academic institutions in an increasingly digital age.

^CU>'`1$%'&("';%1#7'()'S?%+'422%--'HS4Kh''

!

/1@3%'UICUIB>'

'9%-?(+-%'

8%#2%+.'9%-?(+-%'<("+.'

e%-' W/.1Z! /:5!

\(' 0:.1Z! ::!

! 011.1Z! =?/!

'

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Over eighty percent of faculty (83%) have heard of open access (OA) (Table 5.15.0).

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G'

Almost all faculty in the life, health and medical scientists (96%) say that they are aware of OA. Over eighty percent in the social sciences (84%), almost three quarters of faculty in the humanities (74%) and seventy percent of faculty in the physical sciences and engineering (70%) have also heard of OA (Table 5.15.1a).

/1@3%'UICUIC1>''`%1#7'()'S4'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

e%-' :/.VZ! W/.?Z! V5.1Z! :1.=Z!

\(' 65.0Z! 05.?Z! =.1Z! 6V.5Z!

! 011Z![WW\! 011Z[05=\! 011Z[065\! 011Z[:0\!

Associate professors are the most likely to have heard of OA with close to ninety percent (88%) responding in the affirmative (Table 5.15.1b).

'

78 Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. What makes it possible is the internet and the consent of the author or copyright-holder. In most fields, scholarly journals do not pay authors, who can therefore consent to OA without losing revenue. OA is entirely compatible with peer review, and all the major OA initiatives for scientific and scholarly literature insist on its importance. Peter Suber. A Very Brief Introduction to Open Access. Retrieved June 2011 from http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/brief.htm

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/brief.htm

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''YX'

/1@3%'UICDIC@>'`%1#7'()'S4'@&'#1+G'

' <H_SFGHGf)G<H_S! +PPS!AGM]HPPMG! +PPM_!AGM]HPPMG! AGM]HPPMG!

e%-' :6.:Z! W1.VZ! W:.VZ! W0.:Z!

\(' 6:./Z! 0V.0Z! 06.0Z! 0W./Z!

! 011Z[66\! 011Z[WV\! 011Z[0=1\! 011Z[616\!

Those who responded that they had heard of open access were asked a secondary set of three questions.

^CU1>'`1$%'&("'=17%'1+&'()'&("#'?"@3,21.,(+-'1$1,31@3%'(+'1+'(?%+'122%--'@1-,-h'''

/@A@BC%DE@''

/1@3%'UICU1IB>'

'9%-?(+-%'

8%#2%+.'

9%-?(+-%'

<("+.'

e%-6'.;#(":;'-%3)N1#2;,$,+:' 0W.VZ! :0!

e%-6'.;#(":;'?"@3,-;,+:',+'1+'S4'R("#+13' 6W.1Z! 01?!

e%-6'@(.;'.;#(":;'-%3)N1#2;,$,+:'1+7'?"@3,-;,+:',+'S4'

R("#+13-'01.0Z! /W!

\(' =6.VZ! 050!

! 011Z! /:?!

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

More than half (57%) of those who have heard of OA have made their publications available on an open access basis, either by publishing in an OA journal (28%), through self-archiving (19%), or both (10%) (Table 5.15a.0).


0,:"#%'UICC>''_17%'?"@3,21.,(+-'1$1,31@3%'S4'

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'

91+G!

Sixty-five to seventy-five percent (65-75%) of faculty in the sciences have made their work open access compared with less than half of social scientists (48%) and faculty in the humanities (47%) who have made their work available in this way.

Publishing in an OA journal

(48%), is higher than self-

archiving (7.5%) in the life, health and medical sciences

YMML!SM!611Z!

SM!GHJI!SHRS

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''YY'

while self-archiving (36%) is reported more frequently than publishing in an OA journal (22%) in the physical sciences and engineering. Physical scientists and engineering faculty also report that they both self-archive and publish in OA journals more frequently than faculty in the other broad disciplinary groups – sixteen percent (16%) compared with ten percent or less in the other disciplines (Table 5.15a.1a).

/1@3%'UICU1IC1>''_17%'8"@3,21.,(+'S4'Z&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

e%-6'.;#(":;'-%3)N

1#2;,$,+:'

0V.:Z! 66.5Z! :.?Z! /5.1Z!

e%-6'.;#(":;'

?"@3,-;,+:',+'1+'

S4'R("#+13'

0V.:Z! 05.0Z! =:.?Z! 66.1Z!

e%-6'@(.;'.;#(":;'

-%3)N1#2;,$,+:'1+7'

?"@3,-;,+:',+'S4'

R("#+13-'

:.5Z! V.?Z! 01.1Z! 05.1Z!

\(' ?/.1Z! ?0.WZ! /?.1Z! 65.1Z!

! 011Z![55\! 011Z[0/:\! 011Z[061\! 011Z[?1\!

!

Professors are somewhat more likely to make their publications OA (62%) than either associate professors (54%) or assistant professors (50%) (Table 5.15a.1b).

/1@3%'UICU1IC@>'_17%'?"@3,21.,(+'S4'@&'#1+G'


e%-6'.;#(":;'-%3)N

1#2;,$,+:'

/?./Z! 0V.=Z! 0:.VZ! 0:.:Z!

e%-6'.;#(":;'

?"@3,-;,+:',+'1+'

S4'R("#+13'

0:.5Z! 6?.1Z! 6W.?Z! 6V.VZ!

e%-6'@(.;'.;#(":;'

-%3)N1#2;,$,+:'1+7'

?"@3,-;,+:',+'S4'

R("#+13-'

?.VZ! ?.5Z! W.0Z! 0=.1Z!

\(' =0.6Z! ?1.1Z! =?.?Z! /W.=Z!

! 011Z![0:\! 011Z[:6\! 011Z[06/\! 011Z[05=\!

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-'

Ninety-one faculty members commented on this question. Many of the comments relate in one way or another to the issue of change.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CBB'

First, there is the weight of tradition.

Journals of high reputation in our field (or fields) have been established for many years and are not OA status journals.

I like the journals that I currently submit to and they are not OA. No OA journals are that well respected in my field as of yet. The journals I want to publish in are not open access. Now that I have tenure I would consider publishing on an open access basis, but I would do so on a limited basis because at this point in time open access journals are not very prestigious in my field. Publishing my work in tier 1 / high-impact (paper) peer-reviewed journals remains the gold standard in my field; I have not paid much attention to the OA issue.

And, there is the concern that publishing OA might not meet tenure standards.

I have been in pre-tenure and felt compelled to make every publication 'count'.

Hasn't occurred to me; my intended audience looks to traditional publications for research publication; wouldn't meet tenure standards

I feel that I need to publish in well-recognized, top-tiered journals with high impact factors in order to gain tenure.

It would not serve my graduate students well because people are vetted by journal rank not by content.

Others say they have either little understanding of what is involved and/or they don’t have the time or any incentive to actively pursue the issue.

No knowledge of how to do it; little inclination at present.

I've only just looked into this. Most of the stuff I'd like to make available is through publishers that I can't find the practices of - or is too recent to archive myself.

I really don’t understand what I’m allowed to do with respect to self-archiving.

The opportunity/ invitation was never made clear to me.

I have not been made fully aware of open access as part of the publishing process.

I don't really understand how the system works. Also, maybe I don't care very much, since I assume that most people who need to see my research have access to JSTOR or other similar databases.

There were several comments concerned about cost of open access or the adequacy of the peer review process.79

Open access will be used when possible, but it is a significant cost burden which the University is not willing to share.

Worry about the rigour of peer review process at these journals.

79 The issue of cost is complex as there are a number of options. Many independent open access journals have some form of author-pay model or a grant or subsidy to produce the publication. Some commercial publishers have now started offering an open access option that means that the author pays a fee and the publisher does not embargo the article; a frequent practice with commercial publishers. See SHERPA/RoMEO Publisher Copyright Policies & Self-archiving http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ for a directory of publisher policies. There is generally no fee associated with self-archiving of an author’s postprint in a subject or institutional repository such as PubMed Central Canada http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/or UofT’s T-Space https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/

http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CBC'

Too expensive as an option in standard journals, though I do publish in some non-commercial journals that do have open access.

Finally, there were those who indicated that this was not an option in their field, and others who had tried to publish in an OA journal and had work rejected. Several say they are considering it.

At the time of my last manuscript submission, there were no OA journals relevant to my manuscript. However, the scope of OA journals has now expanded such that I would strongly consider submitting work to an OA journal.

Quality of most OA journals and/or the good ones are hyper-competitive or outside my area. Will in the future. Just haven't done it yet.

^CU@>'4#%'&("'151#%'()'5;%.;%#'.;%#%'1#%'(?%+'122%--'HS4K'R("#+13-'@%,+:'?"@3,-;%7',+'

&("#'),%37h'!

/1@3%'UICU@IB>'

' 9%-?(+-%'8%#2%+.' 9%-?(+-%'<("+.'

-HP! 5V.WZ! 6?=!

2M! /1.6Z! 001!

! 011.1Z! /5=!

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Seventy percent (70%) of those who have heard of open access say that they are aware of OA journals being published in their field.

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G'''

Over eighty percent of faculty in the life, health and medical sciences (86%) and in the physical sciences and engineering (81%) are aware of open access journals being published in their field. Over sixty percent (63%) of social scientists and over forty percent (44%) of faculty members in the humanities say there are open access journals being published in their field (Table 5.15b1.1a).

/1@3%'UICU@IC1>''451#%'()'S4'j("#+13-'@%,+:'?"@3,-;%7',+'.;%,#'),%37'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

e%-' ==.=Z! 5/.6Z! W5./Z! W0./Z!

\(' ??.5Z! /5.WZ! 0/.:Z! 0W.WZ!

! 011Z![5/\! 011Z[0//\! 011Z[00:\! 011Z[=W\!

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CBA'

Three quarters of professors are aware of OA journals that are being published in their field as are approximately two thirds of associate professors (69%) and assistant professors (67%)(Table 5.15b.1b).!

/1@3%'UICU@IC@>'451#%'()'S4'R("#+13-'@%,+:'?"@3,-;%7',+'.;%,#'),%37'@&'#1+G'


e%-'' =1.1Z! 5:.0Z! 5W.5Z! :=.?Z!

\(' 51.1Z! /6.VZ! /0.=Z! 6?.?Z!

! 011Z![0?\! 011Z[:1\! 011Z[00W\! 011Z[050\!

^CU2>'/('5;1.'%Q.%+.'7('&("'1:#%%'(#'7,-1:#%%'5,.;'.;%')(33(5,+:'-.1.%=%+.-h''

!

/1@3%'UICU2IB>'

'!.#(+:3&'

1:#%%'4:#%%' c,-1:#%%'

!.#(+:3&'

7,-1:#%%'

]'7(+l.'

G+(5'

9%-?(+-%'

<("+.'

CI'S?%+'122%--'5,33'7#1=1.,2133&'

2;1+:%'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+',+'

=&'7,-2,?3,+%'(#'),%37',+'.;%'+%Q.'.5('

&%1#-I'

W.5Z! /6.?Z! /0.:Z! =.5Z! 66.5Z!

!

011Z!

[/:6\!

AI'_1G,+:'=&'5(#G'(?%+3&'

122%--,@3%'.('%$%#&(+%'5,.;'122%--'

.('.;%',+.%#+%.'L'+(.'(+3&'.('.;(-%'

5;(-%'"+,$%#-,.,%-'21+'1))(#7'.;%'

3,2%+-,+:')%%-'L',-'1'@%+%),.'.('=%I'

/6.6Z! =W.WZ! 5.:Z! 1./Z! 06.0Z!

!

!

011Z!

[/:/\!

DI'S?%+'122%--',-'3,G%3&'.('3%17'.('1+'

,+2#%1-%',+'.;%'+"=@%#'()'2,.1.,(+-'

.('=&'5(#GI'

6/.?Z! =?.?Z! 06.1Z! 1.?Z! 0W.=Z!

!

011Z!

[/:=\!

EI'/;%'?#,+2,?3%'()')#%%'122%--')(#'133'

.('.;%'#%-"3.-'()'?"@3,23&')"+7%7'

#%-%1#2;',-',=?(#.1+.'.('=%I'

//.?Z! ?1.=Z! 5.:Z! 1.WZ! W.5Z!

011Z!

[/:/\!

!

UI'S?%+'122%--'.;#%1.%+-'

2(==%#2,13'?"@3,-;%#-',+'=&'),%37I'5.:Z! /=.VZ! 6/.6Z! 6.=Z! /6.WZ!

011Z!

[/:?\!

VI'S?%+'122%--'.;#%1.%+-'.;%'

-"#$,$13'()'=&'-2;(31#3&'-(2,%.&H,%-KI'/.1Z! W.VZ! =W.:Z! 06.0Z! 6:.=Z!

011Z!

[/:6\!

WI'd,@#1#&'-"@-2#,?.,(+-'1#%'1'2#,.,213'

-("#2%'()'#%$%+"%')(#'-2;(31#3&'

-(2,%.,%-M1--(2,1.,(+-I'

W.1Z! =0./Z! 06.0Z! 6.=Z! /5.6Z!

011Z!

[/:/\!

'

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

More than eighty percent of the faculty members responding say they ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ with the statements that: i) the principle of free access for all to the results of publicly funded research is important to them (84%) and ii) making their work openly accessible to everyone with access to the internet – not only to those whose universities can afford the licensing fees – is a benefit to them (81%).

Almost seventy percent (69%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that open access is likely to lead to an increase in the number of citations to their work, and almost twenty percent (18%) say they ‘Don’t know’.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CBD'

Faculty are divided on the question of whether open access will dramatically change scholarly communication in their discipline or field in the next two years – forty-one percent (41%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ while thirty-six percent (36%) ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’. Almost one quarter (23%) say they ‘Don’t know’.

Overall, forty-two percent (42%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that OA is a threat to commercial publishers in their field, but just over one quarter (26%) ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ that this is the case, and one third say they ‘Don’t know’.

Over sixty percent (61%)’Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ that open access threatens the survival of scholarly societies; twelve percent (12%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ and more than one quarter (27%) say that they ‘Don’t know.

Just under half (49%) of faculty ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that library subscriptions are critical source of revenue for scholarly societies, but thirty-six percent (36%) say that they ‘Don’t know’ (Table 5.15c.0).

'

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'J'91+G'

3212)4)%2*5: On the question of whether open access will dramatically change

scholarly communication in their field or discipline, close to half of all faculty in the

humanities (49%) and in the life, health and medical sciences (49%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that this is the case. Approximately one third of faculty in the social sciences (34%) and physical sciences and engineering (30%) respond in the affirmative (Table 5.15c.1a).

'

/1@3%'UICU2IC1>'S?%+'122%--'5,33'7#1=1.,2133&'2;1+:%'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+',+'=&'7,-2,?3,+%'(#'),%37',+'

.;%'+%Q.'.5('&%1#-'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'01.WZ! V.1Z! :.=Z! 5.1Z!

4:#%%'/W.?Z! 6=.WZ! =0./Z! 6=.1Z!

c,-1:#%%'65.6Z! /1.0Z! /0.=Z! ==.1Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 5.1Z! 6.?Z! 06.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'6=.5Z! /1.0Z! 0:.=Z! 0=.1Z!

!011Z![5?\! 011Z![0//\!! 011Z![060\! 011Z![?1\!

There is minimal variation by rank when ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly agree’ are combined. Between twenty and twenty-five percent of faculty say that they ‘Don’t know’ (Table 5.15c.1b).

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CBE'

/1@3%'UICU2IC@>'S?%+'122%--'5,33'7#1=1.,2133&'2;1+:%'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+',+'=&'7,-2,?3,+%'(#'),%37',+'

.;%'+%Q.'.5('&%1#-'@&'#1+G'


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'06.?Z! ?.:Z! :.=Z! 01./Z!

4:#%%'6?.1Z! /=./Z! //.VZ! /0.?Z!

c,-1:#%%'6?.1Z! /1.1Z! /6.6Z! /6.:Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'5./Z! ?.:Z! 6.?Z! ?.?Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'/0./Z! 6=./Z! 6=.1Z! 61.1Z!

!011Z![05\! 011Z![:1\! 011Z![060\! 011Z![05?\!

*

3212)4)%2*76 Three quarters or more of faculty in each of the broad disciplinary categories ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that making their work openly accessible to everyone with access to the internet – not only to those whose universities can afford the licensing fees – is a benefit to them. In the life, health and medical sciences this rises to eighty-six percent (86%) (Table 5.15c.2a).

/1@3%'UICU2IA1>'_1G,+:'=&'5(#G'(?%+3&'122%--,@3%'.('%$%#&(+%'5,.;'122%--'.('.;%',+.%#+%.'L'+(.'(+3&'.('

.;(-%'5;(-%'"+,$%#-,.,%-'21+'1))(#7'.;%'3,2%+-,+:')%%-'L',-'1'@%+%),.'.('=%'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'/5.=Z! /6.WZ! /0.=Z! 65.?Z!

4:#%%'=1.VZ! =:.WZ! ?=.=Z! =V.1Z!

c,-1:#%%'5.0Z! 5.:Z! ?.1Z! 06.6Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 1.1Z! 1.WZ! 1.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'05.:Z! 06.:Z! W./Z! 06.6Z!

!011Z![55\! 011Z![0/=\! 011Z![060\! 011Z![=V\!

!

There is limited variation across the ranks on this statement, although slightly more professors (83%) and associate professors (82%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that making their work openly accessible to everyone with access to the internet is a benefit to them compared with just under three quarters of assistant professors (73%) (Table 5.15c.2b).

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CBU'

/1@3%'UICU2IA@>'_1G,+:'=&'5(#G'(?%+3&'122%--,@3%'.('%$%#&(+%'5,.;'122%--'.('.;%',+.%#+%.'L'+(.'(+3&'.('

.;(-%'5;(-%'"+,$%#-,.,%-'21+'1))(#7'.;%'3,2%+-,+:')%%-'L',-'1'@%+%),.'.('=%'@&'#1+G


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'/0./Z! /6.VZ! //.VZ! /1.:Z!

4:#%%'?5./Z! =0.=Z! =:.VZ! ?0.WZ!

c,-1:#%%'5./Z! W.5Z! ?.1Z! :.6Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 1.1Z! 1.1Z! 1.5Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'5./Z! 0:.0Z! 0/.6Z! V.5Z!

!011Z![05\! 011Z![:1\! 011Z![060\! 011Z![055\!

3212)4)%2*86 When asked to evaluate a related statement about whether they perceive OA will lead to an increase in the number of citations to their own work, approximately sixty-five to seventy percent (65-70%) of faculty in each of the broad disciplinary categories ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’. Faculty in the physical sciences and engineering are the most likely to ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ (22%) compared with closer to ten percent of faculty in the other broad categories. Fifteen to twenty percent (15-20%) say they ‘Don’t know’ whether open access is likely to lead to an increase in the number of citations to their work (Table 5.15c.3a).

/1@3%'UICU2ID1>'S?%+'122%--',-'3,G%3&'.('3%17'.('1+',+2#%1-%',+'.;%'+"=@%#'()'2,.1.,(+-'.('=&'5(#G'@&'@#(17'

7,-2,?3,+%

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'6:./Z! 6?.VZ! 6=.1Z! 01.6Z!

4:#%%'=/.VZ! =?.VZ! =6.0Z! ?/.0Z!

c,-1:#%%':.5Z! 00.VZ! 00.5Z! 61.=Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 1.1Z! 1.WZ! 6.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'60.6Z! 05./Z! 60.?Z! 0=./Z!

!011Z![55\! 011Z![0/?\! 011Z![060\! 011Z![=V\!

!

Three quarters of associate professors either ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that open access is likely to lead to an increase in the number of citations, compared with approximately sixty-five percent of assistant professors (66%) and associate professors (65%) (Table 5.15c.3b).

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CBV'

/1@3%'UICU2ID@>'S?%+'122%--',-'3,G%3&'.('3%17'.('1+',+2#%1-%',+'.;%'+"=@%#'()'2,.1.,(+-'.('=&'5(#G'@&'#1+G


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'0W.WZ! 60.=Z! 6:.1Z! 66./Z!

4:#%%'?5./Z! =?.:Z! =W.=Z! =6.6Z!

c,-1:#%%'5./Z! 01.1Z! :.=Z! 05.VZ!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.MZ! 1.MZ! 1.MZ! 0.6Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'0W.WZ! 66.VZ! 0:.6Z! 0:.?Z!

!011Z![05\! 011Z![:1\! 011Z![066\! 011Z![055\!

3212)4)%2*>6 Almost ninety percent (88%) of faculty in the life, health and medical sciences ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that the principle of free access for all to the results of publicly funded research is important to them. This compares with three quarters or more of faculty in each of the other disciplinary categories (Table 5.15c.4a).80

/1@3%'UICU2IE1>'/;%'?#,+2,?3%'()')#%%'122%--')(#'133'.('.;%'#%-"3.-'()'?"@3,23&')"+7%7'#%-%1#2;',-',=?(#.1+.'.('

=%'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'//./Z! /?.WZ! //.VZ! 65.?Z!

4:#%%'=/.VZ! =:.1Z! ?=.?Z! ?:.0Z!

c,-1:#%%'V.0Z! W.6Z! =.0Z! 5.0Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 1.:Z! 1.WZ! 6.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'0/.5Z! W.6Z! 5.5Z! W.6Z!

!011Z![55\! 011Z![0/=\! 011Z![060\! 011Z![=V\!

!

While support for this statement is high across the ranks, more than twice as many assistant professors (14%) say they ‘Don’t know’ if the principle of free access for all to the results of publicly funded research is important to them compared with associate professors (7%) and professors (7%) (Table 5.15c.4b).

80 Note: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has a policy on Access to Research Outputs http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/32005.html


!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CBW'

/1@3%'UICU2IE@>'/;%'?#,+2,?3%'()')#%%'122%--')(#'133'.('.;%'#%-"3.-'()'?"@3,23&')"+7%7'#%-%1#2;',-',=?(#.1+.'.('

=%'@&'#1+G'


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'6?.1Z! 6W.5Z! =0./Z! /1.:Z!

4:#%%'56.?Z! ?1.1Z! =/.WZ! ?=.6Z!

c,-1:#%%'1.1Z! ?.:Z! 5.5Z! :.WZ!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 0.=Z! 1.WZ! 1.5Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'06.?Z! 0=./Z! :.=Z! 5.5Z!

Kg/:/!011Z![05\! 011Z![:1\! 011Z![060\! 011Z![055\!

3212)4)%2*96 There is some variation across the disciplines, but forty percent or more of faculty in each of the broad disciplinary categories ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that open access threatens commercial publishers in their field – forty two percent (42%) of faculty in the humanities and social sciences; thirty-nine percent (39%) of faculty in the life, health and medical sciences, and forty-six percent (46%) of those in the physical sciences and engineering.

Faculty in the humanities the most likely to say that they ‘Don’t know’ whether OA threatens commercial publishers in their field (41%), and physical scientists and engineering faculty are the least likely to say that they ‘Don’t know’ (28%) (Table 5.15c.5a).

/1@3%'UICU2IU1>'S?%+'122%--'.;#%1.%+-'2(==%#2,13'?"@3,-;%#-',+'=&'),%37'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%':.5Z! 5.:Z! =.0Z! 01.1Z!

4:#%%'/=.WZ! /?.5Z! /=.:Z! /5.1Z!

c,-1:#%%'01.5Z! 6/.:Z! 6W.0Z! 6=.1Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'5.0Z! 6.6Z! 1.WZ! 6.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'=1.VZ! /0.VZ! /6.6Z! 6W.1Z!

!011Z![55\! 011Z![0/?\! 011Z![060\! 011Z![?1\!

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CBX'

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of assistant professors say they ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that open access threatens commercial publishers in their field compared with approximately forty-five percent of associate professors (45%) and professors (43%). Approximately one third in each of the ranks say that they ‘Don’t know’ (Table 5.15c.5b).

/1@3%'UICU2IU@>'S?%+'122%--'.;#%1.%+-'2(==%#2,13'?"@3,-;%#-',+'=&'),%37'@&'#1+G'


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'1.1Z! W.5Z! =.0Z! W.=Z!

4:#%%'0W.WZ! 6W.5Z! =0.1Z! /=.:Z!

c,-1:#%%'/:.?Z! 6?.:Z! 0W.1Z! 6=.5Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 6.VZ! 6.?Z! 6.=Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'=/.WZ! /=./Z! /=./Z! 6V.VZ!

!011Z![05\! 011Z![:1\! 011Z![066\! 011Z![05:\!

*

3212)4)%2*:6 There is limited variation across the disciplinary categories on whether open access threatens the survival of scholarly societies, but the majority in each case ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’ that this is the case – forty-nine percent (49%) of social scientists, fifty-four percent (54%) of faculty in the humanities and in the life, health and medical sciences, and sixty-five percent (65%) of physical scientists and engineering faculty. Approximately twenty to thirty percent say they ‘Don’t know’ (Table 5.15c.6a).

/1@3%'UICU2IV1>'S?%+'122%--'.;#%1.%+-'.;%'-"#$,$13'()'=&'-2;(31#3&'-(2,%.&H,%-K'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'V.6Z! 0.?Z! 6.?Z! 1.1Z!

4:#%%'01.WZ! :.=Z! :.?Z! 0=./Z!

c,-1:#%%'/5.VZ! =W.0Z! ??.WZ! ==.VZ!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'05.VZ! 01.=Z! W./Z! 61.=Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'65.6Z! /6.5Z! 6?.WZ! 61.=Z!

!011Z![5?\! 011Z![0/?\! 011Z![061\! 011Z![=V\!

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CBY'

There is little variation by rank, and more than one quarter of the faculty in each rank say that they ‘Don’t know’ (Table 5.15c.6b).

/1@3%'UICU2IV@>'S?%+'122%--'.;#%1.%+-'.;%'-"#$,$13'()'=&'-2;(31#3&'-(2,%.&H,%-K'@&'#1+G'


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'1.1Z! =./Z! 0.:Z! /.5Z!

4:#%%'5.:Z! :.0Z! V.0Z! V.5Z!

c,-1:#%%'?/./Z! ?0.=Z! ?6.VZ! ==.1Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'5.:Z! 01.1Z! 5.5Z! 0:.?Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'//./Z! 6:.0Z! 6V.WZ! 6?./Z!

Kg/:6!011Z![0?\! 011Z![:1\! 011Z![060\! 011Z![055\!

!

3212)4)%2*?6 Faculty in the humanities (58%) are most likely to ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that library subscriptions are a critical source of revenue for scholarly societies/associations compared with forty-six to forty-eight percent (46-48%) of faculty in the other broad disciplinary categories.

One third or more in each of the disciplinary categories say that they ‘Don’t know’ if library subscriptions are a critical source of revenue for their scholarly societies/associations (Table 5.15c.7a).

'

/1@3%'UICU2IW1>'d,@#1#&'-"@-2#,?.,(+-'1#%'1'2#,.,213'-("#2%'()'#%$%+"%')(#'-2;(31#3&'-(2,%.,%-M1--(2,1.,(+-'@&'

@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'01.WZ! 01.=Z! ?.WZ! =.1Z!

4:#%%'=:.=Z! /:./Z! =6.0Z! =6.1Z!

c,-1:#%%'=.5Z! 0=.6Z! 06.=Z! 05.1Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'=.5Z! 0.?Z! 1.WZ! 5.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'/6./Z! /5.5Z! /W.WZ! /6.1Z!

!011Z![5?\! 011Z![0/=\! 011Z![060\! 011Z![?1\!

!

Approximately half of the faculty in each rank ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that library subscriptions are a critical source of revenue for their scholarly societies/associations. Assistant professors (44%) and associate professors (38%) are more likely to say that they ‘Don’t know’ than professors (30%) (Table 5.15c.7b).

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CCB'

/1@3%'UICU2IW@>'d,@#1#&'-"@-2#,?.,(+-'1#%'1'2#,.,213'-("#2%'()'#%$%+"%')(#'-2;(31#3&'-(2,%.,%-M1--(2,1.,(+-'@&'

#1+G'


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'5./Z! =./Z! =.6Z! 06.5Z!

4:#%%'6?.1Z! =6.VZ! ==.6Z! =1.0Z!

c,-1:#%%'0W.WZ! :.0Z! 00.:Z! 0/.WZ!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 0.=Z! 0.:Z! /.5Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'?1.1Z! ==./Z! /W./Z! 6V.VZ!

!011Z![05\! 011Z![:1\! 011Z![061\! 011Z![05:\!

'

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-'

There were twenty-five comments on this question. Several faculty suggest that open access is now the norm in their field, in particular, self-archiving. These are most often faculty in the physical sciences and engineering.

Many of the comments address the issue of change, the costs –both economic and in

terms of time, the complexity of the current environment, and the issue of quality.

I feel that there is much inertia favoring long established journals. I see both sides on this model. There is no question revenues from old models of publishing are drying out. There are several publishers who are both open access publishers, and commercial ones (e.g. BioMed Central). It depends...open access will do all of these good things if more people come to publish and read open access journals. It is a virtuous or vicious cycle. Unfortunately, the system of promotion and review vis-a-vis journal impact scores and recognized sources is able to run the open access initiatives into the ground, marginalizing much of the work that appears there.... self fulfilling prophesy where many of those outlets then become poor quality. Professional societies with journals gain a lot from library subscriptions no doubt, but they would survive in an open access environment. I am painfully aware of how limited the options are for scholarly publication in [a humanities discipline] and how many subsidies (not just SSHRC) are entailed in journal and monograph publication. I don't see how presses/journals can survive if they can't charge money for their publications.

And other commented on the principle of access itself.

It's not clear that scholars in my discipline will be rushing to embrace OA. Moreover, I suspect that putting my work on an OA site will do little to entice those outside the academy to read it: I find that giving public talks, both in person and in the media, encourages the latter group to read my work. While I agree with the principle of free access to my work, I don't think that in the abstract it's very

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CCC'

meaningful when the education that's produced it is becoming prohibitively expensive for a number of students. I find it odd that we're being encouraged to discuss OA at a time when our institutions are in danger of excluding more and more students. And there are very few commercial publishers in my field. I'm not sure if making my work more accessible would benefit me personally, but I do believe it would benefit scholars in developing countries and that faculty and students in a university community, regardless of where that university community is located, should have access to scholarly work. Whether that work should be available to anyone with access to the internet is something I am less sure about.

^CV>'`1$%'&("';%1#7'()'.;%'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.(O-'#%-%1#2;'#%?(-,.(#&XC6''

/N!?12%h'!

/1@3%'UICVIB>'

' 9%-?(+-%'8%#2%+.' 9%-?(+-%'<("+.'

e%-' =6.WZ! 0V6!

\(' ?:.6Z! 6?:!

! 011.1Z! ==V!

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

The majority of faculty (57%) have not heard of the UofT’s research repository, T-Space that was established by the UTLibrary in 2003 (Table 5.16.0).

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G''

There is some variation by broad discipline with close to two-thirds of faculty in the life, health and medical sciences faculty (65%) saying they haven’t heard of T-Space compared with fifty to fifty-five percent (50-55%) in the other broad disciplinary categories (Table 5.16.1a).

/1@3%'UICVIC1>''`%1#7'()'.;%'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.(O-'#%-%1#2;'#%?(-,.(#&6'/N!?12%'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

e%-' =:.:Z! =?.:Z! /?.6Z! =6.VZ!

\(' ?6./Z! ?=./Z! 5=.WZ! ?:.0Z!

! 011Z![WW\! 011Z![056\! 011Z![06?\! 011Z![:1\!

!

Just over half of associate professors have heard of T-Space (51%) while approximately sixty percent of assistant professors (60%) and professors (59%) have not heard of T-Space (Table 5.16.1b).

81 A repository is a digital collection of publicly accessible research outputs from an institution, discipline or community.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CCA'

/1@3%'UICVIC@'`%1#7'()'.;%'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.(O-'#%-%1#2;'#%?(-,.(#&6'/N!?12%'@&'#1+G'


e%-' 0W.6Z! /V.WZ! ?0.0Z! =0.0Z!

\(' W0.WZ! 51.6Z! =W.VZ! ?W.VZ!

! 011Z![66\! 011Z[WW\! 011Z[0/:\! 011Z[616\!

The next three questions were only asked only of those who said they had heard of T-Space.

^CV1>']-'1+&'()'&("#'5(#G',+'/N!?12%h'

!

/1@3%'UICV1IB>'

' 9%-?(+-%'8%#2%+.' 9%-?(+-%'<("+.'

e%-' 0=.VZ! 6V!

\(' ??.6Z! 01:!

]'7(+O.'G+(5' 6V.VZ! ?W!

! 011.1Z! 0V=!!

!

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Fifteen percent (15%) of the faculty who have heard of T-Space have work in the repository, and thirty percent (30%) report that they don’t know if there work is there.82 Over half of the faculty (55%) who have heard of T-Space do not have any of their work in the repository (Table 5.16a.0).

Z&'Z#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G''

Sixteen percent (16%) of physical scientists and engineering faculty and eighteen percent (18%) of life, health and medical scientists say they have work in T-Space compared with fourteen percent (14%) of social scientists and twelve percent (12%) of faculty in the humanities (Table 5.16a.1a).

/1@3%'UICV1IC1'''b(#G',+'/N!?12%'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

! ! ! ! !

e%-' 00.5Z! 0/.:Z! 0:.WZ! 05.0Z!

\(' :6.0Z! ?:.?Z! =1.1Z! ?0.5Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5' 05./Z! 6W.WZ! =6.6Z! /6./Z!

! 011.1Z![=/\! 011.1Z![:/\! 011.1Z![=?\! 011.1Z![/0\!

!

82 One reason faculty might not know if they have work in T-Space is that in some academic units staff have been assigned to enter faculty work in T-Space.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CCD'

Twenty percent (20%) of professors have deposited work in T-Space compared with approximately ten percent of assistant professors (11%) and associate professors (10%) (Table 5.16a.1b).

/1@3%'UICV1IC@>'b(#G',+'/N!?12%'@&'#1+G''


! ! ! ! !

e%-' 6?.1Z! 00.=Z! V.VZ! 61.6Z!

\(' :?.1Z! ?=./Z! 5/.=Z! =:.5Z!

]'7(+O.O'G+(5'' 1.1Z! /=.=Z! 65.WZ! /6.0Z!

! 011.1Z![=\! 011.1Z[/?\! 011.1Z[:0\! 011.1Z[W=\!

^CV@>'b;1.'1#%'.;%'=1,+'#%1-(+-'.;1.'&("'2(+.#,@".%'&("#'-2;(31#3&'5(#G'.('

'/N!?12%h''/@A@BC%FG%CD%CHI@@%I@JLDEL''

/1@3%'UICV@IB>'

'9%-?(+-%'

8%#2%+.'9%-?(+-%'<("+.'

].',+2#%1-%-'%Q?(-"#%'()'=&'?#%$,("-3&'?"@3,-;%7'5(#G'H%I:I6'?(-.N

?#,+.-KI'??.5Z! /1!

].'?#($,7%-'%Q?(-"#%')(#'5(#G'+(.'?#%$,("-3&'?"@3,-;%7'H%I:I6'-%=,+1#'

?1?%#-6'5(#G,+:'?1?%#-KI'6V.5Z! 05!

].'@#(17%+-'.;%'7,--%=,+1.,(+'()'1217%=,2'#%-%1#2;':%+%#133&I' ?/.:Z! 6V!

].',-'.;%'+(#=',+'=&'1217%=,2'7%?1#.=%+.M)12"3.&M"+,.I' V./Z! ?!

].',+2#%1-%-'1+'1217%=,2',+-.,.".,(+-l'1@,3,.&'.('+%:(.,1.%'5,.;'

2(==%#2,13'?"@3,-;%#-I':.=Z! =!

].',+2#%1-%-'=&'(5+'2(==%#2,13'?"@3,-;,+:'(??(#."+,.,%-I' 1.1Z! 1!

].',+2#%1-%-'=&'?#(=(.,(+6'1+7'.%+"#%'?#(-?%2.-I' :.=Z! =!

S.;%#'H?3%1-%'-?%2,)&K>' 6:.WZ! 0?!

S@-%#$1.,(+-

The three most frequent reasons for contributing work to T-Space are that: i) it increases exposure of previously-published work (56%) ii) it broadens the dissemination of academic research generally (54%) and iii) it provides exposure for work not previously published (30%).

Over one quarter (28%) of the respondents also selected ‘Other’ (Table 5.16b.0). The reasons given included:

My paper was published in T-space along with other papers presented in a conference I took part in.

These were theses works from my students.

Under discussion for publication of large databases and other work I would like to make available to the scholarly community.'

'

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CCE'


0,:"#%'UICA>''9%1-(+-'.('2(+.#,@".%'5(#G-'.('/N!?12%'

^CV2>'`1$%'&("'%$%#'2(=%'12#(--'2,.1.,(+-'.(',.%=-',+'/N!?12%',+'.;%'?#(2%--'()'

7(,+:'&("#'#%-%1#2;h''!

/1@3%'UICV2IB>'

4+-5%#'S?.,(+-' 9%-?(+-%'8%#2%+.' 9%-?(+-%'<("+.'

e%-' :.0Z! 0/!

\(' V6.VZ! 0:1!

! 011.1Z! 0W/!

!

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Less than ten percent (7%) of faculty who have heard of T-Space report that they have come across citations to items in T-Space in the process of doing their

research83

(Table 5.16c.0).

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G'

More than twice as many faculty in the humanities (10%) and social sciences (7%) than in the sciences (5% and 3%) report they have found citations in T-Space in the process of doing research (Table 5.16c.1a).

83 If an item is found through a search on Google, for example, it may not be evident that the item is from T-Space as there are potentially two URLs associated with the item. One URL, known as the handle, does not include the name T-Space.

!

YMML!SM!611Z!!

SM!GHJI!SHRS

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CCU'

/1@3%'UICV2IC1>'<(=%'12#(--'2,.1.,(+'.(',.%=-',+'/N!?12%',+'.;%'?#(2%--'()'7(,+:'#%-%1#2;'@&'@#(17'

7,-2,?3,+%

' `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

e%-' 01./Z! :.0Z! =.:Z! /.=Z!

\(' WV.:Z! V6.VZ! V?./Z! V5.5Z!

! 011Z![/V\! 011Z![:1\! 011.1Z![=/\! 011.1Z![6V\!

There is minor variation across the ranks (Table 5.16c.1b).

/1@3%'UICV2IC@>'<(=%'12#(--'2,.1.,(+'.(',.%=-',+'/N!?12%',+'.;%'?#(2%--'()'7(,+:'#%-%1#2;'@&'#1+G'


e%-' 6?.1Z! ?.VZ! :.?Z! 5.=Z!

\(' :?.1Z! V=.0Z! V6.?Z! V/.5Z!

! 011Z![=\! 011.1Z![/=\! 011.1Z![5:\! 011.1Z![:W\!

A number of universities and funders have passed mandates or policies84 for faculty to routinely grant to the University a limited, non-exclusive license to place their scholarly publications in a non-commercial publicly accessible online repository.

^CW>'/('5;1.'%Q.%+.6'1#%'&("'151#%'()'.;%-%'.&?%-'()'=1+71.%-'1+7'?(3,2,%-h''

!

/1@3%'UICWIB'

'9%-?(+-%'

8%#2%+.'9%-?(+-%'<("+.'

\(.'151#%' 5V.WZ! /0=!

451#%6'@".'7(+l.'G+(5'="2;'1@(".'.;%=' 6/.WZ! 01:!

o+(53%7:%1@3%' ?./Z! 6=!

4='12.,$%3&',+$(3$%7',+'.;,-',--"%' 0.0Z! ?!

! 011Z! =?1!

'

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Overall, seventy percent (70%) of faculty are not aware of policies or mandates for faculty to routinely grant to the University a limited, non-exclusive license to place their scholarly publications in a non-commercial publicly accessible online

84 Harvard and Stanford are among the universities whose faculty have passed policies or mandates to routinely grant a limited, non-exclusive license to place their scholarly publications in a non-commercial publicly accessible online repository. University College London has implemented an open access policy whereby research is placed online in the university’s institutional repository, and freely accessible to all. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the U.S. National Institutes of Health are among the funders who have a policy or a mandate to assure that publicly funded research is accessible.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CCV'

repository. At the same time there is a small core of faculty (6%) who are knowledgeable or actively involved in this issue (Table 5.17.0).

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G'

The number of respondents is small, but of those that say are ‘knowledgeable’ or ‘actively involved’, more are in the humanities (7%) or social sciences (6%) than in the life, health and medical sciences (5%) or the physical sciences and engineering (3%) (Table 5.17.1a).

/1@3%'UICWIC1>''451#%'()'=1+71.%-'1+7'?(3,2,%-'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

\(.'151#%' :6.:Z! 5V.WZ! 5W.WZ! 5V.1Z!

451#%6'@".'7(+l.'G+(5'="2;'1@(".'.;%=' 61.?Z! 60.5Z! 65.=Z! 6W.6Z!

o+(53%7:%1@3%' 5.WZ! 5.6Z! =.WZ! 6.WZ!

4='12.,$%3&',+$(3$%7',+'.;,-',--"%' 1.1Z! 6.?Z! 1.1Z! 1.1Z!

! 011.1Z[WW\! 011.1Z![056\! 011.1Z[06?\! 011.1Z[:0\!

More professors are likely to say they are ‘knowledgeable’ or ‘actively involved in the issue’ (8%) than associate professors (6%) or assistant professors (5%) (Table 5.17.1b).

/1@3%'UICWIC@>'451#%'()'=1+71.%-'1+7'?(3,2,%-'@&'#1+G'


\(.'151#%' ?V.0Z! :?.1Z! :/.VZ! 5?.WZ!

451#%6'@".'7(+l.'G+(5'="2;'1@(".'

.;%='

/5.=Z! 61.?Z! 61./Z! 65.6Z!

o+(53%7:%1@3%' 1.1Z! =.?Z! =./Z! 5.VZ!

4='12.,$%3&',+$(3$%7',+'.;,-',--"%' =.?Z! 1.1Z! 0.=Z! 0.1Z!

! 011.1Z![66\! 011.1Z[WW\! 011.1Z![0/W\! 011.1Z[616\!

^CX>'c(%-'.;,-'-%%='3,G%',-'1+',7%1'.;1.'*()/'-;("37'%$13"1.%h'/@A@BC%DE@'

! !

/1@3%'UICXIB>'

' 9%-?(+-%'8%#2%+.' 9%-?(+-%'<("+.'

!.#(+:3&'1:#%%' 0V.5Z! WW!

4:#%%' =:.:Z! 60=!

c,-1:#%%' 6.VZ! 0/!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%' 0.5Z! :!

]'7(+l.'G+(5' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!6W./Z! 06:!

! 011Z! ==V!

'

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CCW'

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Two thirds (67%) of faculty ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that this is an idea the University of Toronto should evaluate. Over one quarter (28%) say that they ‘Don’t know’ (Table 5.18.0).


0,:"#%'UICD>''4+',7%1'*()/'-;("37'%$13"1.%h''

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G!

There is general agreement across the broad disciplinary categories that this is an idea UofT should evaluate – sixty-three percent (63%) of social scientists, sixty-six percent (66%) of physical sciences and engineering faculty, sixty-eight percent (68%) of faculty in the humanities, and seventy-eight percent (78%) of faculty in the life health and medical sciences. One quarter to one third of faculty respond that they ‘Don’t know’ to this question, and there are few that ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly disagree’; less than six percent (6%) (Table 5.18.1a).

/1@3%'UICXIC1>'4+']7%1'*()/'-;("37'%$13"1.%'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'0W.6Z! 6/.5Z! 0?.0Z! 61.1Z!

4:#%%'?1.1Z! /V.0Z! ?:.0Z! =?.:Z!

c,-1:#%%'/.=Z! 6.?Z! 0.5Z! ?.:Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'6./Z! 0.VZ! 0.5Z! 1.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'65.0Z! /6.VZ! 6=.5Z! 6W.5Z!

!011Z![WW\! 011Z![050\! 011Z![065\! 011Z![:1\!

YMML!SM!611Z!!

SM!GHJI!SHRS

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CCX'

Almost seventy percent of professors (69%) and associate professors (68%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that this is an idea that UofT should evaluate. Forty percent (40%) of assistant professors say they ‘Don’t know’ compared with just over one quarter of associate professors and professors (Table 5.18.1b).

/1@3%'UICXIC@>'4+']7%1'*()/'-;("37'%$13"1.%'@&'#1+G''


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%'66.:Z! 0/.WZ! 6/.:Z! 0W.VZ!

4:#%%'?V.0Z! =/.:Z! ==.5Z! ?1.6Z!

c,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 0.0Z! 6.VZ! =.1Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%'1.1Z! 0.0Z! 0.=Z! 6.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5'0W.6Z! =1.6Z! 6:./Z! 6=.VZ!

! 011Z![66\! 011Z![W:\! 011Z![0/V\! 011Z![610\!

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-'

The majority of the seventy comments were very positive about making research accessible and several thought it would enhance the University of Toronto’s profile. A section of these comments are included below.

We have an obligation to make our knowledge accessible to the public that funds us. I think this would help promote scholarly work by university faculty and demonstrate the university's commitment to promoting its faculty's work as well as making such work more accessible. It is valuable to make research available, and doing so would also enhance UofT's profile. If it is a benefit to the university to have access to their faculty's work, then the university should have it. Since this is clearly a trend among leading research universities, the UofT should keep abreast of it.

Others noted it was already happening; one faculty member commented:

I already deposit in the NIH repository, so UofT is also a good idea

Several suggested that it might help with securing author’s rights:

The availability of this research in a permanent archive is a huge benefit for the author, and this kind of mandate would put the onus on institutions to press for permission from publishers.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CCY'

And many, while supporting the notion of making research more accessible, wanted to be sure this did not jeopardize relationships with publishers or lead to the collapse of the system of scholarly publishing

I'm for it unless it would mean that journals would (routinely) bar me or others from publishing in their journals if the University had such a policy. But if Harvard and Stanford can get away with it, it seems to me that we should be able to as well. I like the idea of access to scholarly research in principle. I guess I'd like more details about how it actually works. Also, there is after all another issue: publishers have to be able to make money in order for them to be willing to publish scholarly research. If they can't make any money from licensing, the whole system of scholarly publication will collapse. The problem is similar to that affecting the music and movie businesses as a result of online downloading of entertainment materials.

Issues of integrity and transparency are a concern.

Integrity of scientific publications is threatened by some publication practices. Transparency is absolutely crucial, particularly in some areas such as medical sciences.

As with other questions, many felt they didn’t know enough to comment, and recognized the need for more research and discussion.

The U of T needs to evaluate whether or not departmental-level mandates, such as those at Harvard, are achieving their objective (to make wide-scale open access a reality). All debate is useful, surely - and as previous responses will have shown, I should know more than I do about what my own institution is planning or making possible.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CAB'

UIE>''<S!/!'

This section recognizes that costs are associated with all forms of scholarly communication, and asks faculty about their experience with charges such as page charges or charges for photographic or illustrative material that exist in many fields today, and how they pay them. The last questions in this section ask who should be responsibility for the costs associated with operating and managing the scholarly communication system.

^CY>'`1$%'&("'%$%#'?1,7'?1:%'2;1#:%-'(#'(.;%#'2;1#:%-6'%I:I6')(#',33"-.#1.,(+-6'.(';1$%'

&("#'?%%#N#%$,%5%7'1#.,23%'(#'@((G'?"@3,-;%7h'!

/1@3%'UICYIB>'

' 9%-?(+-%'8%#2%+.'9%-?(+-%'

<("+.'

e%-' =V./Z! 66/!

\(' ?1.:Z! 66V!

! 011.1Z! =?6!

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Faculty members are almost equally divided between those who have paid page charges or other charges and those who have not (Table 5.19.0).

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G''

There is variation across the broad disciplinary categories. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of faculty in the life, health and medical scientists have paid charges in the process of getting a work published as have over sixty percent of the physical sciences and engineering faculty (63%). Less than half of faculty members in the humanities (44%) have paid charges as part of the publication process, and only twenty-one percent (21%) of social scientists say they have paid to have a peer-reviewed article or book published (Table 5.19.1a).

!

/1@3%'UICYIC1>''`1$%'?1,7'?1:%'2;1#:%-'(#'(.;%#'2;1#:%-'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

e%-' ==.VZ! 66.0Z.! :W.5Z! 56.VZ!

\(' ??.0Z! ::.VZ! 60.=Z! /:.0Z!

! 011Z![WV\! 011Z![05/\! 011Z![065\! 011Z![:1\!

!

Professors (54%) are more likely to have paid publication charges than assistant or associate professors (46%). Once again, this likely correlates with the longer period of time that most professors have been publishing (Table 5.16.1b).

'

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CAC'

/1@3%'UICYIC@>'`1$%'?1,7'?1:%'2;1#:%-'(#'(.;%#'2;1#:%-'@&'#1+G''


e%-' =1.VZ! =?.?Z! =5.1Z! ?=.6Z!

\(' ?V.0Z! ?=.?Z! ?=.1Z! =?.WZ!

! 011Z![66\! 011Z[WW\! 011Z[0/V\! 011Z[61/\!

The next question was asked only if the faculty member had paid charges.

^CY1>'b;%#%'7('&("':%.'.;%')"+7-'.('?1&'.;%-%'2;1#:%-h'/@A@BC%JAA%CHJC%JGGAK'

'

/1@3%'UICY1IB>'

'9%-?(+-%'

8%#2%+.'9%-?(+-%'<("+.'

0#(='=&'#%-%1#2;':#1+.' W/.WZ! 0W5!

_&'7%?1#.=%+.M)12"3.&'?1&-'.;%-%'2;1#:%-' 06.6Z! 6:!

]'?1&'.;%='=&-%3)' 6?.:Z! ?:!

S.;%#'H?3%1-%'-?%2,)&K>' ?.1Z! 00!

! 011.1Z! 666!

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

For those who have paid charges, research grants are identified as the major source of funds, with eighty-four percent (84%) selecting this as one of the options. Just over a quarter (26%) indicate that they pay these charges themselves. A small number – just over ten percent (12%) – report that they have received funds from their department or faculty.

This is represented visual below in Figure 5.14.

0,:"#%'UICE>''!("#2%'()')"+7-'

Five percent (5%) chose ‘Other’ to describe the source of their funds. The sources mentioned include: outside grants, self-funded research, and other funding agencies. In some cases someone else paid the charges – e.g., a former supervisor, a colleague whose university has an open access mandate, a US government agency where the current faculty member was working, or the publisher of a conference proceedings in which

the work was included.

'

YMML!SM!611Z!SM!GHJI!SHRS!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CAA'

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-'

Faculty from across the broad disciplinary categories all experience these charges.

This is one of the great challenges facing art historians today.

I find such charges to be a strong deterrent to writing certain types of articles. I frequently try to seek out publishers that have the most liberal policies and lowest charges for illustrations. I worked previously at another institution that provided funds for faculty to help with publication costs. For conference proceedings, it used to be common in my field to pay a fee for additional pages (there's a strict page limit on papers accepted for publication). I've occasionally paid for one or two extra pages, but haven't done this for many years now.

Costs can be very high. … I always use images as evidence, so the fees can mount up. For example, recently I had to pay nearly 300 pounds for one 1863 anthropological photograph from a British archive. That's the high end. Other recent costs have been $125 from Conde Nast for each of five images. It was very annoying as there was not clear disclosure of the page charges up front. But since the article was co-authored with my master’s student, I felt it would hurt him if I decided not to have the paper published in that journal after it was already accepted. I have not published in some ideal places because I did not have the funds to pay the charges. This is a significant expense on my grants.

A strong case could be made for the library to pay charges for open access journals, as it saves them subscription costs at the other end.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CAD'

!

^AB>'!2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'2(-.-'=(+%&I'/;%#%'5,33'@%'2(-.-'1--(2,1.%7'5,.;'%$%#&'

(?.,(+I'/('5;1.'%Q.%+.'7('&("'1:#%%'(#'7,-1:#%%'5,.;'.;%')(33(5,+:'-.1.%=%+.-'1@(".'

-2;(31#3&'?"@3,-;,+:h''!

/1@3%'UIABIB>'

4+-5%#'S?.,(+-'!.#(+:3&'

1:#%%'4:#%%' c,-1:#%%'

!.#(+:3&'

7,-1:#%%'

]'

7(+l.'

G+(5'

9%-?(+-%'

<("+.'

CI/;%#%'1#%'+%5'(??(#."+,.,%-',+'.;%'

7,:,.13'%#1'.('-,="3.1+%("-3&'#%7"2%'

2(-.-'1+7',+2#%1-%'122%--'.('.;%'

-2;(31#3&'3,.%#1."#%I'

/=.:Z! ?1.1Z! 6.VZ! 1.:Z! 00.:Z! 011Z![===\!

AI/;%#%',-'+%%7')(#':#%1.%#'

.#1+-?1#%+2&',+'.%#=-'()'.;%'2(-.-'()'

?"@3,-;,+:'1+7'7,--%=,+1.,+:'-2;(31#3&'

@((G-'1+7'R("#+13-I'

6?.:Z! ?=.=Z! ?.=Z! 1.?Z! 0=.1Z! 011Z![==/\!

DI\%5'@"-,+%--'=(7%3-')(#'-2;(31#3&'

2(=="+,21.,(+'-;("37'@%'%Q?3(#%7I'65.1Z! ?:.?Z! 0.5Z! 1.VZ! 0=.1Z! 011Z![==6\!

EI!2;(31#-'+%%7'.('?31&'1':#%1.%#'#(3%',+'

-;1?,+:'.;%')"."#%'()'-2;(31#3&'

2(=="+,21.,(+I'

65.:Z! 51.=Z! 6.:Z! 1.:Z! V.?Z! 011Z![==6\!

UI/;%#%',-'+%%7'.('#%)(#='.;%'-2;(31#3&'

2(=="+,21.,(+'-&-.%=I'0W.5Z! =?.0Z! V.6Z! 6.WZ! 6=.=Z! 011Z![=/?\!

!

This is represented visually in Figure 5.15 below.

0,:"#%'UICU>'!2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'1+7'2(-.-'

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

Eight-seven percent (87%) of faculty ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ that scholars need to play a greater role in shaping the future of scholarly communication.

More than eighty percent (80%) of faculty overall ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ with each of the statements with the exception of the statement on the need to reform the

scholarly communication system. In this case, closer to two-thirds (64%) ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly agree’ and one quarter say that they ‘Don’t know’ (Table 5.20.0).

'

YMML!SM!

611Z!SM!

GHJI!SHRS!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CAE'

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G'

With this set of statements there is little variation by broad disciplinary category or by rank on any of the statements. With few exceptions, there is a fairly high degree of uncertainty around these statements as approximately ten to fifteen percent (10-15%) in each disciplinary category and rank respond that they ‘Don’t know’ to the first four statements and twenty to twenty-five percent (20-25%) say that they ‘Don’t know’ if here is need to reform the scholarly communication system.

The cross tabulations for each statement are included for completeness.

/1@3%'UIABIC1>'/;%#%'1#%'+%5'(??(#."+,.,%-',+'.;%'7,:,.13'%#1'.('-,="3.1+%("-3&'#%7"2%'2(-.-'1+7',+2#%1-%'

122%--'.('.;%'-2;(31#3&'3,.%#1."#%'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' ;%*)! )3$)$'! <;*)$'! A;-)$'C"!

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' /V.WZ! /=.6Z! 6W.5Z! /W.1Z!

4:#%%' =6.1Z! =W.=Z! ?5./Z! ?/.?Z!

c,-1:#%%' /.=Z! 6.5Z! 6.=Z! =.6Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%' 0.0Z! 1.5Z! 1.WZ! 1.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5' 0/.5Z! 0=.6Z! 00.VZ! =.6Z!

! 011Z![WW\! 011Z![0??\! 011Z![065\! 011Z![:0\!

!

/1@3%'UIABIC@>'/;%#%'1#%'+%5'(??(#."+,.,%-',+'.;%'7,:,.13'%#1'.('-,="3.1+%("-3&'#%7"2%'2(-.-'1+7',+2#%1-%'

122%--'.('.;%'-2;(31#3&'3,.%#1."#%'@&'#1+G'


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' 0V.1Z! /?.5Z! /:.=Z! /=.1Z!

4:#%%' 55.:Z! =V.=Z! =W.6Z! =V.:Z!

c,-1:#%%' =.WZ! 0.0Z! =./Z! 6.?Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%' 1.1Z! 0.0Z! 1.:Z! 1.?Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5' V.?Z! 06.5Z! V.=Z! 0/.6Z!

! 011Z![60\! 011Z[W:\! 011Z[0/V\! 011Z[0V:\!

!

/1@3%'UIABIA1>'/;%#%',-'+%%7')(#':#%1.%#'.#1+-?1#%+2&',+'.%#=-'()'.;%'2(-.-'()'?"@3,-;,+:'1+7'7,--%=,+1.,+:'

-2;(31#3&'@((G-'1+7'R("#+13-'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' ;%*)! )3$)$'! <;*)$'! A;-)$'C"!

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' 6?.1Z! 65.1Z! 6?.=Z! 6?.=Z!

4:#%%' ?5.WZ! ?=.?Z! ??.5Z! =V./Z!

c,-1:#%%' =.?Z! ?.6Z! =.WZ! W.?Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%' 6./Z! 1.1Z! 1.1Z! 1.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5' 00.=Z! 0=./Z! 0=./Z! 05.VZ!

! 011Z![WW\! 011Z![0?=\! 011Z![065\! 011Z![:0\!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CAU'

/1@3%'UIABIA@>'/;%#%',-'+%%7')(#':#%1.%#'.#1+-?1#%+2&',+'.%#=-'()'.;%'2(-.-'()'?"@3,-;,+:'1+7'7,--%=,+1.,+:'''

-2;(31#3&'@((G-'1+7'R("#+13-'@&'#1+G


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' 6/.WZ! 60.WZ! 65.5Z! 6:.1Z!

4:#%%' ?6.=Z! 5/.6Z! ?0.0Z! ?/.0Z!

c,-1:#%%' 1.1Z! ?.:Z! /.5Z! :.0Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%' 1.1Z! 1.1Z! 1.:Z! 1.?Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5' 6/.WZ! V.6Z! 0W.1Z! 06.6Z!

! 011Z![60\! 011Z[W:\! 011Z[0/V\! 011Z[0V5\!

!

'

/1@3%'UIABID1>'\%5'@"-,+%--'=(7%3-')(#'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'-;("37'@%'%Q?3(#%7'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' ;%*)! )3$)$'! <;*)$'! A;-)$'C"!

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' 6?.1Z! 6V.:Z! 6?.5Z! 61.1Z!

4:#%%' ?/.=Z! ?=.6Z! 5/.6Z! ?W.5Z!

c,-1:#%%' 1.1Z! 6.5Z! 1.WZ! 6.VZ!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%' 6./Z! 1.1Z! 0.5Z! 1.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5' 0V./Z! 0/.?Z! W.WZ! 0W.5Z!

! 011Z![WW\! 011Z![0??\! 011Z![06?\! 011Z![:1\!

!

/1@3%'UIABID@>'\%5'@"-,+%--'=(7%3-')(#'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'-;("37'@%'%Q?3(#%7'@&'#1+G'


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' 6/.WZ! 0V.?Z! /1.6Z! 65.6Z!

4:#%%' :0.=Z! 56.0Z! ?/.6Z! ?5.VZ!

c,-1:#%%' 1.1Z! 0.0Z! 6.6Z! 0.?Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%' 1.1Z! 0.0Z! 1.:Z! 0.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5' =.WZ! 05.0Z! 0/.:Z! 0=.=Z!

! 011Z![60\! 011Z[W:\! 011Z[0/V\! 011Z[0V?\!

'

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CAV'

/1@3%'UIABIE1>'!2;(31#-'+%%7'.('?31&'1':#%1.%#'#(3%',+'-;1?,+:'.;%')"."#%'()'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'@&'

@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' ;%*)! )3$)$'! <;*)$'! A;-)$'C"!

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' /0.WZ! 6=.:Z! 6?.5Z! 65.WZ!

4:#%%' ?V.0Z! ?W.=Z! 56.=Z! 56.1Z!

c,-1:#%%' 0.0Z! =.?Z! /.6Z! 1.1Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%' 1.1Z! 1.5Z! 0.5Z! 1.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5' W.1Z! 00.:Z! :.6Z! 00./Z!

! 011Z![WW\! 011Z![0?=\! 011Z![06?\! 011Z![:0\!

'

/1@3%'UIABIE@>'!2;(31#-'+%%7'.('?31&'1':#%1.%#'#(3%',+'-;1?,+:'.;%')"."#%'()'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'@&'

#1+G'


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' //./Z! 6/.1Z! /1.6Z! 6?.0Z!

4:#%%' 55.:Z! 51.VZ! ?5.WZ! 56.0Z!

c,-1:#%%' 1.1Z! 6./Z! /.5Z! 6.5Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%' 1.1Z! 0.0Z! 1.1Z! 0.1Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5' 1.1Z! 06.5Z! V.=Z! V.6Z!

! 011Z![60\! 011Z[W:\! 011Z[0/V\! 011Z[0V?\!

'

'

/1@3%'UIABIU1>'/;%#%',-'+%%7'.('#%)(#='.;%'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'-&-.%='@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' ;%*)! )3$)$'! <;*)$'! A;-)$'C"!

!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' 61.:Z! 60.6Z! 0:.0Z! 06.VZ!

4:#%%' =0.=Z! /V.:Z! ?6.1Z! ?1.1Z!

c,-1:#%%' 06.5Z! :.VZ! :./Z! 01.1Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%' 0.0Z! 0./Z! 5.?Z! 0.=Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5' 6=.0Z! 6V.WZ! 0:.0Z! 6?.:Z!

! 011Z![W:\! 011Z![0?0\! 011Z![06/\! 011Z![:1\!

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CAW'

/1@3%'UIABIU@>'/;%#%',-'+%%7'.('#%)(#='.;%'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'-&-.%='@&'#1+G'


!.#(+:3&'4:#%%' 6?.1Z! 0=./Z! 61./Z! 0W.:Z!

4:#%%' /1.1Z! ?1.1Z! =5.=Z! =/.?Z!

c,-1:#%%' 1.1Z! 5.1Z! 06./Z! V./Z!

!.#(+:3&'7,-1:#%%' 1.1Z! 6.=Z! 6.VZ! /.0Z!

]'7(+O.'G+(5' =?.1Z! 6:.=Z! 0W.0Z! 6?.=Z!

! 011Z![61\! 011Z[W=\! 011Z[0/W\! 011Z[0V/\!

'

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-'

Several faculty members raised the concern that the real need for reform is on the supply side, that is, the need to reduce the volume of publication.

The connection to tenure was also noted here.

If [there is] reform, one of the most important questions/concerns: connection to/streamlining with tenure/promotion requirements.

Others were concerned that digital technologies are moving more work to the desk of faulty, or that:

Dedicated and knowledgeable scholarly publishers, editors etc. are being squeezed out of the market that is what is happening. Larger and larger companies take over, who care for profit but not for scholarship. The internet will not bring back knowledgeable editors to the academic presses, and the general level will go down as people begin to “publish” on their own. It is easy to see already.

On the other hand, the potential of digital media was also noted.

It seems terrifically sad that the scholarly world is so far behind the possibilities in new media. The problem seems to lie in a lack of faculty leadership in creating a conversation about these new venues, and their relative 'worth' within the peer reviewing world.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CAX'

^AC>'b;('7('&("'.;,+G'-;("37'@%'#%-?(+-,@3%')(#'.;%'2(-.-'1--(2,1.%7'5,.;'=1,+.1,+,+:'

.;%'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'-&-.%=h'/@A@BC%JAA%CHJC%JGGAK'!

/1@3%'UIACIB>'

'9%-?(+-%'

8%#2%+.'9%-?(+-%'<("+.'

8"@3,-;%#-' ?=.6Z! 6/1!

/;(-%'5;(')"+7'.;%'#%-%1#2;' ?:./Z! 6=/!

/;%'"+,$%#-,.&'-;("37'%-.1@3,-;'1'-?%2,13')"+7' /W.6Z! 056!

/;%'"+,$%#-,.&'3,@#1#&'.;#(":;',+-.,.".,(+13'-"@-2#,?.,(+-'1+7'3,2%+-,+:'

1:#%%=%+.-'H,I%I6'2"##%+.'=(7%3K'==.WZ! 0V1!

e("#'7%?1#.=%+.M)12"3.&' 06.?Z! ?/!

e("6'.;%'1".;(#' 00./Z! =W!

e("6'.;%'#%17%#' 0:.1Z! :6!

433'()'.;%'1@($%' 0V.0Z! W0!

S.;%#'H?3%1-%'-?%2,)&K>' 5.0Z! 65!

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

The most frequently selected options were funders (57%), publishers (54%), the

university library (45%) and a special fund from the university (38%).

Eleven percent (11%) agree that they as authors have responsibility while seventeen percent (17%) feel that they, as readers, should be responsible. Almost twenty percent

(19%) of the respondents select the option that all members of the scholarly

communication system listed in the table should be responsible (Table 5.21.0).

Figure 5.16 represents this visually.

0,:"#%'UICV>''9%-?(+-,@,3,.&')(#'2(-.-'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

YMML!SM!

611Z!SM!GHJI!

SHRS!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CAY'

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-''

There were twenty-three comments on this question.

One cluster of responses pointed to the lack of knowledge or lack of information on the topic – Very difficult question. I really don’t know and I don’t have enough information to take a position. Another said: I expect a mixed model involving all of the above might be appropriate, but I haven’t read enough on the issue.

Another set of responses clusters around the suggestion that government or federal funding agencies should be responsible.

In principle, research grants should cover the costs. However, there are several problems with this in practice. Often, publications are only accepted after the grant ends, and the costs need to be covered from another grant. Or some scholars may have limited grant support. If the funder or university want to have articles accessible to all there should be a mechanism that pays for the article processing fees as they can be expensive. Publication is an essential part of research, and should be covered as part of the research funding. As the University is a significant enabler of the research, they should also consider it a priority to fund its research, on a discipline by discipline basis.

There were a large number of comments on various forms of open access publishing. One respondent suggested the role of professional associations combined with government support could help take journals open access. Another mentions arXiv85

as a possible funding model. Others point to the cost of publishing in open access journals, whether small scholarly journals or commercial publishers who offer an open access option.86

It depends on the publishing model – with OA, unlikely the publisher can continue to bear costs.

One scholar pointed to disciplinary differences and noted that it is difficult to assess in disciplines where the standard forms of publication and dissemination are different – for example a field in which creative practice is a significant component.

Another said that it’s too chaotic to speculate. Lastly, one scholar turned to the supply side argument providing an alternate way to think about managing costs.

I’m inclined to hope that there would be less publication if real costs were a consideration.

85 ArXiv.org provides open access to 650,202 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics. See http://arxiv.org/

86 It is worth noting that no system is without costs. The cost of publishing in an open access journal or in a commercial publisher’s journal with an open access option is at the front end and borne by the author or the author’s institution. The material is then free to access. Without fees, the cost is borne by libraries through subscriptions and licenses that cost millions of dollars a year to maintain.

http://arxiv.org/

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CDB'

UIU>''0]\4d'^*[!/]S\!'

This section asks two questions specific to the University of Toronto. The first is about awareness of a number of services offered by the University Library and the School of Graduate Studies. The second is about the most effective ways faculty feel that they could keep up to date with changes taking place. The final question in the survey asks faculty to characterize the general state of the scholarly communication system in the field(s) where they primarily disseminate their research.

^AA>'/;%'*()/'())%#-'=1+&'7,))%#%+.'7,--%=,+1.,(+'-%#$,2%-'.('.;%'1217%=,2'

2(=="+,.&I'b;,2;'()'.;%'-.1.%=%+.-'@%3(5'@%-.'2;1#12.%#,F%-'&("#'3%$%3'()'151#%+%--'

1@(".'%12;'()'.;%-%'-%#$,2%-h'''

/1@3%'UIAAIB>'

'

]';1$%+l.'

;%1#7'()'

.;,-'

]l$%';%1#7'()'.;,-'@".'

]'7(+l.'"+7%#-.1+7',.'

]'

=(+,.(#'

.;,-'

]l='

12.,$%3&'

,+$(3$%7'

,+'.;,-'

9%-?(+-%'

<("+.'

j("#+13'8"@3,-;,+:'!().51#%6'

%I:I6'Sj!>'S?%+'j("#+13'!&-.%=':5./Z! 0=./Z! ?./Z! =.0Z! 011Z![=/=\!

<(+)%#%+2%'_1+1:%=%+.'

!().51#%6'%I:I6'S<!>'S?%+'

<(+)%#%+2%'!&-.%='

W1.VZ! 06.=Z=! /.=Z! /.6Z! 011Z![=/?\!

Z((G'?"@3,-;,+:'-().51#%6'%I:I6'

S?%+'_(+(:#1?;'8#%--'W6.:Z! 06.?Z! /.6Z! 0.5Z! 011Z![=//\!

`(-.,+:'1+7'1#2;,$,+:'-%#$,2%-'

)(#'1"7,(M$,-"13'=1.%#,13-'55.=Z! 66.1Z! :.=Z! =.6Z! 011Z![=/0\!

c1.1'-%#$,2%-'1+7'71.1'1#2;,$,+:' 50.VZ! 6=./Z! :.VZ! ?.WZ! 011Z![=6W\!

!2;((3'()'a#17"1.%'!."7,%-O'

[3%2.#(+,2'/;%-%-'J'c,--%#.1.,(+'

H[/cK'7%?(-,.XW'

/W.VZ! //./Z! 0V./Z! W.?Z! 011Z![=6=\!

!

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

More than three quarters of the faculty (76%) have not heard of software made available by the University Library for publishing a journal88, and over eighty percent

have not heard of the conference management software (81%) 89 or book publishing

software (83%).90

Over ninety percent of all the faculty responding to the survey

87 In the Fall of 2007, the School of Graduate Studies launched Phase One of an electronic theses & dissertation (ETD) submission project which allowed both masters and doctoral students to choose between electronic or paper submission of their theses. Access to ETDs is provided through T-Space, the University of Toronto’s digital research repository. In Phase 2, which commenced on September 1 2009, all final copies of theses, both doctoral and master's, must now be submitted electronically. Retrieved from the UofT SGS Website Jan. 24, 2011: http://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/adminsupport/memos/2009-10_Decanal_Memos/002.htm

88 Over twenty-five journals are currently hosted at the University Library and published using OJS software http://jps.library.utoronto.ca/. OJS, OCS and Open Monograph Press software are part of the PKP Project http://pkp.sfu.ca/in which UofT participates.

89 Open Conference System is at: http://ocs.library.utoronto.ca

90 Open Monograph Press is the most experimental of the three projects. It has been the subject of a number of seminars at UofT, and a release of the software is expected soon.

http://jps.library.utoronto.ca/

http://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/adminsupport/memos/2009-10_Decanal_Memos/002.htm

http://ocs.library.utoronto.ca

http://pkp.sfu.ca/

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CDC'

either ‘Haven’t heard of’ or ‘Don’t understand’ these digital publishing, dissemination and curatorial services.

There is slightly greater awareness of the hosting and archival services for audio and visual materials91, but two-thirds (66%) of the faculty ‘Haven’t heard of this’ and sixty-two percent (62%) ‘Haven’t heard of’ the data services and data archiving92 currently available through the library (Table 5.5.22.0).

The School of Graduate Studies mandated deposit of master’s and doctoral theses in 2009. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of faculty aren’t aware of this and another third (33%) have ‘Heard of it but don’t understand it’ (Table 5.22.0).


'

0,:"#%'UICW>''451#%+%--'()'*()/'7,:,.13'-%#$,2%-'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G''

There is limited variation across the broad disciplinary categories in terms of awareness of the journal publishing software although faculty in the physical sciences and engineering are the least likely to have heard of this with ninety-seven percent (97%) saying that they either ‘Haven’t heard of it’ or that they’ve ‘Heard of it but don’t understand it’.

Approximately five percent of faculty in the humanities (5%), social sciences (6%) and life, health and medical sciences (5%) are actively involved with the journal publishing services (Table 5.22.1a).

91 For further information on these digital media services contact [email protected]

92 At the Robarts Library see the Map & Data Library – http://datalib.chass.utoronto.ca/ or at UTM Library see: GIS & Data Services – http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/library/gisdata/gisresources.html

YMML!SM!611Z!!

SM!GHJI!SHRS

mailto://[email protected]

http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/library/gisdata/gisresources.html

http://datalib.chass.utoronto.ca/

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CDA'

/1@3%'UIAAIC1>'j("#+13'?"@3,-;,+:'-().51#%6'%I:I6'Sj!>'S?%+'j("#+13'!&-.%='@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%

' `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

]';1$%+l.';%1#7'()'.;,-' :5.:Z! :/.6Z! :=.5Z! W?.:Z!

]l$%';%1#7'()'.;,-'@".']'7(+l.'

"+7%#-.1+7',.'

00.5Z! 0?.1Z! 0:.6Z! 00.=Z!

]'=(+,.(#'.;,-' ?.WZ! :.6Z! /./Z! 6.VZ!

]l='12.,$%3&',+$(3$%7',+'.;,-' ?.WZ! =.5Z! =.VZ! 1.1Z!

' 011Z![W5\! 011Z![0?/\! 011Z![066\! 011Z![:1\!

!

Assistant professors are the least likely to monitor this (1%) compared with associate professors (7%) or professors (5%). Five percent or less of faculty across the ranks say they are actively involved. The actual number of faculty involved is very small, yet they are fairly evenly distributed across the ranks (Table 5.22.1b).

/1@3%'UIAAIC@>'j("#+13'?"@3,-;,+:'-().51#%6'%I:I6'Sj!>'S?%+'j("#+13'!&-.%='@&'#1+G'

' <H_SFGHGf)G<H_S! +PPS!

AGM]HPPMG!

+PPM_!

AGM]HPPMG!

AGM]HPPMG!

]';1$%+l.';%1#7'()'.;,-' 50.VZ! W6.5Z! :1.:Z! :W.VZ!

]l$%';%1#7'()'.;,-'@".']'7(+l.'"+7%#-.1+7'

,.'

6/.WZ! 00.5Z! 0W.1Z! 00.VZ!

]'=(+,.(#'.;,-' 0=./Z! 0.6Z! 5.WZ! ?.6Z!

]l='12.,$%3&',+$(3$%7',+'.;,-' 1.1Z! =.:Z! =.?Z! =.0Z!

' 011Z![60\! 011Z[W5\! 011Z![0//\! 011Z![0V=\!

Almost one quarter of the social scientists (26%) responding are aware the conference management software compared with approximately fifteen percent (15%) of faculty in the other disciplinary categories. Scholars in the humanities are most likely to be monitoring this service, and social scientists are most actively involved (5%) with this service (Table 5.22.2a).

/1@3%'UIAAIA1>'<(+)%#%+2%'=1+1:%=%+.'-().51#%6'%I:I6'S<!>'S?%+'<(+)%#%+2%'!&-.%='@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%

' `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

]';1$%+l.';%1#7'()'.;,-' W=.VZ! :/.VZ! W=.5Z! W?.:Z!

]l$%';%1#7'()'.;,-'@".']'7(+l.'"+7%#-.1+7',.' :.1Z! 0:.5Z! V.WZ! 06.VZ!

]'=(+,.(#'.;,-' :.1Z! /./Z! 6.=Z! 1.1Z!

]l='12.,$%3&',+$(3$%7',+'.;,-' 0.6Z! ?.6Z! /./Z! 0.=Z!

! 011Z[W5\! 011Z[0?/\! 011Z[06/\! 011Z[:1\!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CDD'


/1@3%'UIAAIA@>'<(+)%#%+2%'=1+1:%=%+.'-().51#%6'%I:I6'S<!>'S?%+'<(+)%#%+2%'!&-.%='@&'#1+G

' <H_SFGHGf)G<H_S! +PPS!AGM]HPPMG! +PPM_!

AGM]HPPMG!

AGM]HPPMG!

]';1$%+l.';%1#7'()'.;,-' 50.VZ! W5.6Z! W6.1Z! :V.VZ!

]l$%';%1#7'()'.;,-'@".']'7(+l.'

"+7%#-.1+7',.'

6W.5Z! V.6Z! 06.WZ! 00.VZ!

]'=(+,.(#'.;,-' V.?Z! 6./Z! /.1Z! /.5Z!

]l='12.,$%3&',+$(3$%7',+'.;,-' 1.1Z! 6./Z! 6./Z! =.5Z!

! 011Z![60\! 011Z[W:\! 011Z[0//\! 011Z![0V=\!

Book publishing software, specifically Open Monograph Press is still largely an R&D project. A small number of faculty in the humanities (5%) and social sciences (4%) say they are monitoring this. There are no faculty in the physical sciences and engineering who either monitor this service or say that they are actively involved (Table 5.22.3a).

/1@3%'UIAAID1>'Z((G'?"@3,-;,+:'-().51#%6'%I:I6'S?%+'_(+(:#1?;'8#%--'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' ;%*)! )3$)$'! <;*)$'! A;-)$'C"!

]';1$%+l.';%1#7'()'.;,-' W?.VZ! :V.:Z! W0./Z! WW.=Z!

]l$%';%1#7'()'.;,-'@".']'7(+l.'

"+7%#-.1+7',.'

W.6Z! 0=.=Z! 0/.WZ! 00.5Z!

]'=(+,.(#'.;,-' =.:Z! /.VZ! 6.=Z! 1.1Z!

]l='12.,$%3&',+$(3$%7',+'.;,-' 0.6Z! 6.1Z! 6.=Z! 1.1Z!

' 011Z![W?\! 011Z![0?/\! 011Z![06/\! 011Z[5V\!

There is some variation across the ranks. Nineteen percent (19%) of professors compared with fifteen percent (15%) of associate professors and fourteen percent (14%) of assistant professors say they have heard of the book publishing software service, monitor it or are involved in it (Table 5.22.3).

/1@3%'UIAAID@>'Z((G'?"@3,-;,+:'-().51#%6'%I:I6'S?%+'_(+(:#1?;'8#%--'@&'#1+G''


AGM]HPPMG!

+PPM_!

AGM]HPPMG!

AGM]HPPMG!

]';1$%+l.';%1#7'()'.;,-' :0.=Z! W5.6Z! W=.WZ! W1.WZ!

]l$%';%1#7'()'.;,-'@".']'7(+l.'"+7%#-.1+7',.' 0=./Z! 01./Z! 00.=Z! 0=.1Z!

]'=(+,.(#'.;,-' 0=./Z! 6./Z! 6./Z! /.0Z!

]l='12.,$%3&',+$(3$%7',+'.;,-' 1.1Z! 0.0Z! 0.?Z! 6.0Z!

' 011Z![60\! 011Z![W:\! 011Z![0/6\! 011Z[0V/\!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CDE'

Fifteen percent (15%) of faculty in the humanities and sixteen percent (16%) in the social sciences say that they either monitor the hosting and archiving services for audio/visual materials or are ‘Actively involved in this’. This compares with seven percent (7%) of faculty in the life, health and medical sciences and six percent (6%) of physical sciences and engineering faculty who are engaged here (Table 5.22.4a).

/1@3%'UIAAIE1>'`(-.,+:'1+7'1#2;,$,+:'-%#$,2%-')(#'1"7,(M$,-"13'=1.%#,13-'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

! ;%*)! )3$)$'! <;*)$'! A;-)$'C"!

'!OJ`HKiS!OHJGI!M]!SODP! ?:.5Z! 50.6Z! :?.=Z! :/.VZ!

'i`H!OHJGI!M]!SODP!TFS!'!IMKiS!FKIHGPSJKI!

DS!

6W.6Z! 66.=Z! 0W.1Z! 61./Z!

'!LMKDSMG!SODP! V.=Z! 01.?Z! 6.?Z! ?.WZ!

'iL!J_SD`HQa!DK`MQ`HI!DK!SODP! =.:Z! ?.VZ! =.0Z! 1.1Z!

' 011Z![W?\! 011Z![0?6\! 011Z![066\! 011Z[5V\!


/1@3%'UIAAIE@>'`(-.,+:'1+7'1#2;,$,+:'-%#$,2%-')(#'1"7,(M$,-"13'=1.%#,13-'@&'#1+G'


AGM]HPPMG!

+PPM_!

AGM]HPPMG!

AGM]HPPMG!

'!OJ`HKiS!OHJGI!M]!SODP! =?.?Z! 5V.=Z! 5?.6Z! 5W.6Z!

'i`H!OHJGI!M]!SODP!TFS!'!IMKiS!FKIHGPSJKI!DS! /5.=Z! 0W.WZ! 6?.1Z! 0V.WZ!

'!LMKDSMG!SODP! 0/.5Z! :.0Z! ?./Z! W./Z!

'iL!J_SD`HQa!DK`MQ`HI!DK!SODP! =.?Z! =.:Z! =.?Z! /.5Z!

' 011Z![66\! 011Z![W?\! 011Z![0/6\! 011Z[0V6\!

!

In this case as well, faculty in the humanities and social sciences are more active than the scientists in monitoring or being ‘Actively involved’ with data services and data archiving – fifteen percent (15%) of faculty in the humanities and eighteen percent (18%) in social sciences are engaged compared with eleven percent (11%) in the life, health and medical sciences and seven percent (7%) in the physical sciences and engineering. Note again that the cell sizes are small (Table 5.22.5a).

/1@3%'UIAAIU1>'c1.1'-%#$,2%-'1+7'1#2;,$,+:*@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%*

' `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

]';1$%+l.';%1#7'()'.;,-' 51.1Z! ?1.:Z! 5V.:Z! :?.1Z!

]l$%';%1#7'()'.;,-'@".']'7(+l.'

"+7%#-.1+7',.'

6=.:Z! /0./Z! 0V.:Z! 0:.5Z!

]'=(+,.(#'.;,-' V.=Z! 01.1Z! ?.:Z! =.=Z!

]l='12.,$%3&',+$(3$%7',+'.;,-' ?.VZ! W.1Z! =.VZ! 6.VZ!

' 011Z![W?\! 011Z![0?1\! 011Z![066\! 011Z[5W\!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CDU'

There is minimal variation by rank in terms of the data services and data archiving but fourteen percent (14%) of associate professors and professors say they are monitoring or ‘Actively involved’ with data services and archiving compared with eleven percent (11%) of assistant professors (Table 5.22.5b).

/1@3%'UIAAIU@>'c1.1'-%#$,2%-'1+7'1#2;,$,+:*@&'#1+G'


AGM]HPPMG!

+PPM_!

AGM]HPPMG!

AGM]HPPMG!

]';1$%+l.';%1#7'()'.;,-' ?V.0Z! 5/.?Z! 51.6Z! 56.WZ!

]l$%';%1#7'()'.;,-'@".']'7(+l.'"+7%#-.1+7'

,.'

66.:Z! 6?.VZ! 6?.5Z! 66.VZ!

]'=(+,.(#'.;,-' 0/.5Z! =.:Z! V.1Z! W.1Z!

]l='12.,$%3&',+$(3$%7',+'.;,-' =.?Z! ?.VZ! ?./Z! 5.=Z!

' 011Z![66\! 011Z![W?\! 011Z![0//\! 011Z[0WW\!

More faculty in the physical sciences and engineering (71%) have heard of the School of Graduate Studies’ Electronic Theses and Dissertation (ETD) deposit policy than faculty in the social sciences (62%), the humanities (58%) or the life, health and medical sciences (55%). However, if you combine ‘I haven’t heard of this’ with ‘I’ve heard of this but don’t understand it’, the variation pretty much disappears (Table 5.2.6a).

/1@3%'UIAAIV1>'!2;((3'()'a#17"1.%'!."7,%-O'[3%2.#(+,2'/;%-%-'J'c,--%#.1.,(+'H[/cK'7%?(-,.*@&'@#(17'

7,-2,?3,+%'

' `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

]';1$%+l.';%1#7'()'.;,-' =6.=Z! /W.0Z! ==.?Z! 6W.5Z!

]l$%';%1#7'()'.;,-'@".']'7(+l.'

"+7%#-.1+7',.'

6V.=Z! /=.1Z! 65.VZ! =:.0Z!

]'=(+,.(#'.;,-' 0:.5Z! 60.0Z! 0W.?Z! 0:.0Z!

]l='12.,$%3&',+$(3$%7',+'.;,-' 01.5Z! 5.WZ! 01.0Z! :.0Z!

' 011Z![W?\! 011Z![0=:\! 011Z![00V\! 011Z[:1\!

Over sixty percent of professors (63%) and associate professors (64%) have heard of this policy compared with fifty-three percent (53%) of assistant professors. However, approximately one third of associate professors (37%) and professors (34%) who have heard of the policy say they ‘Don’t understand it’ (Table 5.22.6b).

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CDV'

/1@3%'UIAAIV@>'!2;((3'()'a#17"1.%'!."7,%-O'[3%2.#(+,2'/;%-%-'J'c,--%#.1.,(+'H[/cK'7%?(-,.*@&'#1+G'


AGM]HPPMG!

+PPM_!

AGM]HPPMG!

AGM]HPPMG!

]';1$%+l.';%1#7'()'.;,-' =6.VZ! =:.0Z! /?.VZ! /5.VZ!

]l$%';%1#7'()'.;,-'@".']'7(+l.'"+7%#-.1+7',.' //./Z! 6:.0Z! /5.5Z! //.:Z!

]'=(+,.(#'.;,-' 0V.1Z! 0W.WZ! 0V.0Z! 0V.WZ!

]l='12.,$%3&',+$(3$%7',+'.;,-' =.WZ! :.0Z! W.=Z! V.5Z!

' 011Z![60\! 011Z![W?\! 011Z![0/0\! 011Z[0W:\!

^AD>'b;,2;'()'.;%')(33(5,+:'5("37'@%'.;%'=(-.'%))%2.,$%'-("#2%-')(#'G%%?,+:'&("'

"?71.%7'1@(".'2;1+:%-',+'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+h'/@A@BC%FG%CD%CHI@@'!

/1@3%'UIADIB>'

'9%-?(+-%'

8%#2%+.'9%-?(+-%'<("+.'

*()/'Z"33%.,+' ?/.:Z! 6/?!

c%?1#.=%+.13'1+7')12"3.&'=%%.,+:-' ?6.?Z! 6/1!

`,:;%#'%7"21.,(+'?#%--'H%I:I6'B'1/)4&'*C122)#D'!"#$%&'()*$+*,&-")#*

./0'12&$%E'0W.VZ! W/!

<1=?"-'3,@#1#&M3,@#1#,1+-' /0.:Z! 0/V!

c,-2,?3,+%N-?%2,),2'3,.%#1."#%' /6.VZ! 0==!

47';(2'2(+$%#-1.,(+'5,.;'2(33%1:"%-' /0.0Z! 0/5!

4217%=,2'2(+)%#%+2%-' /1.0Z! 0/6!

S.;%#'H?3%1-%'-?%2,)&K' ?.VZ! 65!

/(.13'+"=@%#'#%-?(+7,+:>'EDX' ! !

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

The UofT Bulletin (54%) and department and faculty meetings (53%) are chosen most frequently as the most effective sources for keeping up to date with changes in scholarly communication. Four other options are selected approximately thirty percent of the time. These include: i) discipline-specific literature (33%), ii) campus library/librarians (32%) iii) ad hoc conversations with colleagues (31%) and iv) academic conferences (30%) (Table 5.23.0).

Figure 5.18 below shows this visually.

'

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CDW'

0,:"#%'UICX>'_(-.'%))%2.,$%'51&-'.('G%%?'"?N.(N71.%

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-'

The majority of comments suggested a variety of different ways of using email to keep up to date. The size of the university and the diversity of the faculty is recognized as a challenge. Several state a preference for direct targeted email but as a respondent who would prefer discipline specific dedicated email notification of changes with very good subject headings acknowledges, this would be very time consuming/resource intensive for the office sending them.

Using the web is also suggested.

There needs to be a single place that describes all the tools available to faculty – it should be centralized and easy to understand.

One faculty member suggests cross-media platform delivery:

An archived list of information with the links given in The Bulletin as new things are

added and the ability to search past items.

The use of social media, including Facebook, Twitter, Connotea and CiteULike etc.

were also suggested. Two faculty members feel that workshops would be effective.

YMML!SM!611Z!!

SM!GHJI!SHRS

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CDX'

^AE>'S$%#1336';(5'5("37'&("'2;1#12.%#,F%'.;%':%+%#13'-.1.%'()'.;%'-2;(31#3&'

2(=="+,21.,(+'-&-.%=',+'.;%'),%37-',+'5;,2;'&("'?#,=1#,3&'7,--%=,+1.%'&("#'#%-%1#2;h'

/@A@BC%DE@'!

/1@3%'UIAEIB>'

'9%-?(+-%'

8%#2%+.'

9%-?(+-%'

<("+.'

@H!JGH!HRNHGDLHKSDKE!dDSO!J!KFLTHG!M]!KHd!DIHJP!JKI!]MGLP! //.=Z! 0=1!

&OHGH!DP!_MKPDIHGJTQH!GHPDPSJK_H!SM!_OJKEH! //.=Z! 0=1!

&OH!PaPSHL!dMGhP!]DKH!JP!DS!DP! 60.:Z! V0!

3SOHG![NQHJPH!PNH_D]a\! 00.?Z! =W!

! 011.1Z! =0V!

!

S@-%#$1.,(+-'

The faculty are divided when forced to choose one of three statements to best characterize the state of scholarly communication in the fields in which they primarily disseminate their work. One third (33%) choose the statement that they are experimenting with a number of new ideas and forms, and another third (33%), say that there is considerable resistance to change. Twenty-one percent (21%) say that overall the system works fine as it is, and twelve percent (12%) prefer to comment (Table 5.24.0).

This is represented visually in Figure Appendix19B below.

!

0,:"#%'UICY>'/;%'a%+%#13'-.1.%'()'.;%'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'-&-.%='

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

Z&'Z#(17'c,-2,?3,+%'1+7'91+G'

Thirty-nine percent (39%) of faculty in the humanities choose the statement that that they are experimenting with a number of new ideas and forms, but an almost equal

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CDY'

percentage (38%) perceive that the statement that there is considerable resistance to change is the primary way they would characterize scholarly communication in their field. This pattern, albeit with different percentages, holds in each of the broad disciplinary categories. Overall, faculty are divided on which of these two statements best characterizes the system in their field.

Just over ten percent in the humanities (12%) choose the statement that the system works fine as it is, compared with almost forty percent of the physical scientists and engineering faculty (38%) who choose this option. The social sciences (20%) and life, health and medical sciences (21%) fall in between with approximately twenty percent choosing the statement that ‘The system works fine as it is’ (Table 5.24.1a).

/1@3%'UIAEIC1>''/;%':%+%#13'-.1.%'()'.;%'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'-&-.%='@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+%'

' `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

b%'1#%'%Q?%#,=%+.,+:'5,.;'1'+"=@%#'

()'+%5',7%1-'1+7')(#=-'

/V.1Z! /6.=Z! /=.=Z! 6=.5Z!

/;%#%',-'2(+-,7%#1@3%'#%-,-.1+2%'.('

2;1+:%'

/:.WZ! /6.=Z! /5.0Z! 65.0Z!

/;%'-&-.%='5(#G-'),+%'1-',.',-' 06.6Z! 61.=Z! 60./Z! /:.:Z!

S.;%#' 00.1Z! 0=.WZ! W.6Z! 00.5Z!

' 011Z![W6\! 011Z![0=6\! 011Z![066\! 011Z[5V\!

!

When forced to choose between these three options, thirty four percent (34%) of associate professors and thirty-seven percent (37%) of professors choose ‘We are experimenting with a number of new ideas and forms’, compared with twenty percent (20%) of assistant professors.

Almost half of the assistant professors (46%) say that the statement that ‘There is considerable resistance to change’ best characterizes the general state of scholarly communication in the fields in which they disseminate their work. This compares with thirty-five percent (35%)of associate professors and twenty-nine percent (29%) of professors.

A similar number, approximately twenty percent in each rank, say that ‘The system works fine as it is’ (Table 5.24.1b).

/1@3%'UIAEIC@>'/;%':%+%#13'-.1.%'()'.;%'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'-&-.%='@&'#1+G''


AGM]HPPMG!

+PPM_!

AGM]HPPMG!

AGM]HPPMG!

b%'1#%'%Q?%#,=%+.,+:'5,.;'1'+"=@%#'()'

+%5',7%1-'1+7')(#=-'

?6.=Z! 0V.?Z! //.WZ! /:.0Z!

/;%#%',-'2(+-,7%#1@3%'#%-,-.1+2%'.('

2;1+:%'

0=./Z! =5./Z! /=.5Z! 6V.1Z!

/;%'-&-.%='5(#G-'),+%'1-',.',-' 6/.WZ! 6/.6Z! 61.1Z! 66.1Z!

S.;%#' V.?Z! 00.1Z! 00.?Z! 00.WZ!

' 011Z![60\! 011Z![W6\! 011Z![0/1\! 011Z[0W5\!

'

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CEB'

!%3%2.%7'2(==%+.-'

Forty-eight faculty members chose to make a comment in response to this question. Four themes are identified.

First, approximately one quarter of the comments supported either the view that the system is more or less working well, or that it is not working well.

Improvements are always welcome…

The system works okay, but needs updating as new options for publication and communication arise.

I appreciate the electronic submission and review techniques – this has made it much easier and faster to submit papers and hear about progress yet still maintain the peer review process.

It would appear that things are OK as is, but that’s from the perspective of the UofT.

There is some openness to news forms of dissemination and ideas.

Interesting experiments are underway, but there’s considerable resistance to change.

The system does not work very well, but no one seems willing/able to change it.

It’s stuck in limbo.

Some changes occurring but process is slow.

Second, approximately twenty percent of the comments raised the question of whether this is even an issue at this time, or an issue that anyone is discussing.

The issue is not on the radar as far as I’m aware.

We’re not doing much, news to me that it’s a topic of conversation.

As authors of material based on specialized areas of research, most of us aren’t interested in or aware of reforms in the scholarly communication system. The main purpose of our work is to publicize our findings and/or to attain salary or promotion increases.

But others say that:

There haven’t been many changes, but there is a lot of talk about changes.

Some changes [are] being discussed by some people but not enough communication.

Third, approximately twenty percent of faculty said I don’t know or a variation on this. One scholar observed:

I haven’t spent enough time thinking about it – clearly!

Fourth, approximately fifteen percent respond that it is difficult to select ‘one’ of the items. It’s a mix of all three commented one faculty member and there is neither high resistance nor much effort to change said another. One respondent observed that there’s no clear direction at the moment.

The remaining comments covered a range of topics. Change is experienced differently in different fields. There is a concern about the future of monograph publishing, a common form of publication in the humanities and in some areas of the social sciences.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CEC'

Generally the system works fine: the only problem we have is that the university presses are overloaded and in some cases it takes too long for my junior colleagues to get important monographs published.

The thing that seems most clear to me is that existing academic and non-profit publishing and sales contexts are struggling and falling by the wayside at a great rate.

The dynamic nature of an emerging field prompted one scientist to comment:

These aren’t the right choices. The field is hot right now. It is happening. Tons of new ideas. Lots of pubs. Lots of conferences. Exciting science happening. I don’t know if this is resistance to change or too dang busy to bring it to the forefront of effort. Is the system “working”? The system is not steady state. It is evolving. My whole field wasn’t around 15 years ago. I trust my field. They are my people. We are all stressed out together. We are on Facebook now, wishing each other happy birthday and following status updates.

One faculty member pointed to the possibility of a generation gap:

Both the first and second options are true – there is a generation gap at work here.

The pattern observed in the data (Table 5.24.1b) may support this idea, or it may represent the pre-tenure/tenure divide. This is an interesting topic for further research.

4')%5'),+13'2(==%+.-'

S$%#133'

Interesting questions about pressing issues of concern where we need some well informed, creative, socially aware and socially responsible discussion and thinking and initiatives.

I'm spoiled by being able to access what I need. Ability to pay to have my work available free to the widest audience is necessary and the lack of it leaves people at this university behind the field. It is normative for work published under US grant funding, for example. Canadian grants now invite you to add cost of publishing to budgets; then peer reviewers say 'this is ridiculous' because they are naive to it. Awareness needed.

My field is actively discussing radical changes to publication. It is rather worrisome that there's all sorts of innovations happening right here at UofT, apparently, which I don't even know about. I wonder how it's possible I could be so out of the loop! I don't think of myself as a dinosaur--I am just five years past tenure. My info portal is often the departmental meeting, but I am not aware of this info coming through that venue.

c,--%=,+1.,(+'@%&(+7'.;%'1217%=&'

I don't think that the main issue with the outcomes of the research is the dissemination. The information is there...the challenge is that we are not translating that research and using it to inform and shape policy. I'm not convinced that simply making the information more readily available will enhance knowledge translation. Rather, we need mechanisms to help translate that knowledge for policy makers and decision makers so that the applied implications can be made more explicit.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CEA'

S+'(?%+'122%--'1+7'-2;(31#3&'2(=="+,21.,(+'1-'1'-&-.%=

I think that any discussion of OA must proceed with, first, disciplinary differences in mind (and recognize too that disciplines aren't monolithic). It also should be more reflective and critical: too date too much of what I've heard has been far too celebratory and not attentive to the close relationships that faculty have with publishing. Not only do we benefit from a well-run system of peer-reviewed journals and books, we also are part of that system: as editors and peer reviewers. And participating in those processes isn't just a matter of service, it also keeps us abreast of new developments in our fields and hones our own critical skills - both of which makes us better researchers, graduate supervisors, and undergraduate teachers. I think these latter elements of peer review and scholarly communication haven't been appreciated or have been overlooked in these discussions.

433'$(,2%-'+%%7'.('@%';%1#7'

Your survey is strongly biased in favor of digital and open access dissemination. It is difficult for one to express satisfaction with the current system without feeling like a troglodyte. In fact, many of the academics who are showing some hesitation in moving towards digital and open access may be doing so because they want to be sure that this means of dissemination is actually serving the goals it seeks and not just technology driving academic activities.

_($,+:')(#51#7'

Good topic. I would generally like to see flatter freer more decentralized publishing. Scholars should hold their own copyrights, in partnership with their employer (e.g. universities), and the profit motive should be minimized in publishing because it often does not result in more innovative work (just greater quantity rehashed in newly marketed forms). I do recognize the issue of attributing value to various work may be more challenging with a more distributed digital model, but that can still be done well with citations, web linkages, reviews posted for everyone to read, etc. Open standards are key for integrating all of the review and dissemination systems. Ideally, the better work, like search results, seems to float to the top of search query lists. Reviews and ratings can be read right along with the piece in a way similar to Amazon.com's system. Collaborative filtering technology might draw out connections other work not yet read.

It was good to fill out. I resent that most publishers require authors to assign copyright for publication. They seem to have all the control. This is a tradition that needs to change. Furthermore more publications need to be open access. I hope the data from this survey will lead to changes.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CED'

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

First and foremost I want to thank the University of Toronto faculty who took time to complete the survey; without their cooperation this report would not have been possible. I regret that I cannot do justice here to the richness and volume of comments received. These inform my broader research agenda and are a reminder of what is masked by poll type questions. They are especially helpful in situating the experience of faculty in different disciplines with regard to the practices, norms and values, and are indicative of areas for future research.

I would like to thank the University Of California Office of Scholarly Communication; in particular John Ober, Co-Director of the this Office from 2004-2007, who granted me a lengthy interview as I began this project, provided background information on the UC Survey, supported the reuse of questions from the UC survey instrument, and reviewed my survey instrument.

Thank you also to the University of Toronto Library for giving me time to carry out this research, and to Carole Moore, Chief Librarian, for her continuing support of this project. I have benefited greatly from conversations with colleagues especially Leslie Chan, International Development Studies, UTSC and Charles Jones, Dept. of Sociology, who have also read and commented on the final draft. Special thanks to the members of the Tri-campus Scholarly Communication Working Group whose interest in the results of this project has never flagged. I hope they and others will find this work of use, and that it will inspire them to further research. Any errors are mine alone.

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CEE'

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R

Gale Moore is a Senior Fellow and former Director (2003-2008) of the Knowledge Media Design Institute (KMDI) – the University of Toronto’s first virtual institute. She is a member of the graduate faculty in the Dept. of Sociology and a member of the Tri-campus Scholarly Communication Working Group in the University of Toronto Library.

As a sociologist/interaction designer, her focus for the past twenty years has been the social impacts of digital media and digital media technologies in everyday life, and on bringing an understanding of peoples’ experience of technology into the design of technology and technology-mediated interactions. Collaboration research, in particular the design of video-mediated communication environments, is a special interest. From 1992-1995, Gale was head of social science research for the Ontario Telepresence Project (OTP), a $6M industry-university cross-disciplinary consortium supported by the Province of Ontario and a number of firms and corporations. Subsequently she was the principal investigator for a project on how people experience complex software, specifically MSWord, and a project at AT&T Research on the role of ICTs93 in the coordination and management of home-based care. Since 2003 she has been actively engaged in research on the phenomenon of openness. Moore was a co-investigator in KMDI's Bell University ePresence Laboratory, academic lead on Project Open Source |Open Access, and a co-inventor of ePresence Interactive Media, an open source interactive webcasting, archiving and media production system officially released through the University of Toronto.

In 2007/2008 Moore designed a course and seminar series on design research for KMDI, and was a member of the Jackman Humanities Institute Working Group on Understanding Scholarly Outputs in a Digital Age in 2008/2009. She has been involved with OCAD University’s graduate program in Strategic Foresight & Innovation, teaching there in 2009.

As a sociologist Gale has a longstanding interest in questions of transformation to a digital economy/society. She has a specific interest in the nature of innovation in 21st century organisations, and in 2009/2010 published a series of articles on the ways in which various forms of inter/transdisciplinary practice enhance creativity and foster institutional innovation in the contemporary university. Her current research continues the exploration of the opportunities and challenges raised by transformation to a digital economy in a study of innovation at the interface of the financial services and ICT sectors in the Toronto Region.

SSHRC, CITO, Bell University Laboratories, MRI and other government and industry partners have funded her research. Gale’s earlier careers were as a biochemist, and as an information scientist specializing in the area of health informatics.

93 Information and Communication Technologies

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CEU'

A P P E N D I X A : ARTICLE ON SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION

As part of the strategy to recruit faculty to the survey, an article on scholarly communication was prepared for the University of Toronto Bulletin. It appeared June 8, 2010, three weeks prior to mailing the invitation to faculty to participate.

!" # FORUM # $%&'()*+,-%.&,/!"#$%$ # %.01&2'0$*,34,$323.$3,5%66&$0.,

MAREK C

IEZKIEWIC

Z

“Scholarly communications covers a broad range of activities, including the discov-ery, collection, organization, evaluation, interpretation and preservation of primary and other sources of information, and the publication and dissemination of scholarly research.”!"#$$%&!'%(&)*+,%&-!.//0!1&&(*$!

2#3%4+-!5/6

78#&!9%(!+8,&: of innovation, scholarly communication might not come to mind but the turn to the digi-tal is potentially as “disruptive” here as it has been elsewhere. 789!)%#;!,+!<*++#4=!Scholarly communication is central to every scholar’s career. The outputs of schol-arly activities are the building blocks of reputation. They are key in decisions about tenure and promotion and in the allocation of research grants, academic awards and honours. They are signifi-cant not only for individuals but for institutions. The collective scholarly record informs the metrics and rank-ings that differentiate universities in the competition for resources. So, much depends on scholarly communication. Scholarly communication is often defined narrowly to mean publication and dissemination of scholarly research primarily through books, monographs and journal articles. The Mellon Foundation’s 2008 definition [above] expands this to include a range of activ-ities from discovery to dissemination and leaves space for the changes emerg-ing as the digital is increasingly embed-ded in all aspects of everyday life. 78*+!)%#;!+8,;!<#*&!>%4!;?8%$@

*4$9!?%<<(&,?*+,%&=!The answer, in large measure, could, or more strong-ly, should, depend on scholars. The technical and material conditions offer up a set of possibilities but the particu-lar practices that emerge, the different ways of understanding the opportuni-ties and challenges are social. However, scholars are not alone — publishers, research funders, university administra-tors, librarians and IT specialists and others each play a role in the scholarly communication system. The range of intellectual and financial interests sug-gests the potential for unanticipated consequences is high. 78*+A;!8*33#&#)!;%!>*4=!Scholars generally have now adapted their prac-tices to engage with digital technolo-gies, especially when this has improved their work practice in some way. Access to the journal literature online and increasingly to books online has gener-ally been well received. The cost of this access did not affect scholars directly, at least not initially. However, as sub-scriptions to journals began to be cut in the 1980s — largely in the scientific, technical and medicals fields where the cost is high, and others realized that libraries collectively face regular expenditures of millions of dollars for the licensing fees to support this access, many began to wonder if there might

be another way. Open Access (OA) — literature that is accessible online free of charge and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions — is one response. OA is not prescriptive in terms of “where” a scholar publishes — she can continue to publish in the society, commercial or open access journals of her choice, and the majority of commercial journal publishers, at least in the sciences, now permit some form of open access. Open access urges scholars to self-archive, that is, to include their work in an online archive or repository accessible to all. Today there are 1,764 institution-al and subject archives or repositories, including U of T’s T-Space, listed in the Registry of Open Access Repositories. The contents are discoverable through Google and an argument for self-archiving is that it makes your work available to the global community. By way of example, last week I received email from a faculty member interested in a paper I recently posted to T-Space. The paper, written for a special-ized art and design conference, had been published in a volume with limited dis-tribution. When the paper was initially accepted, I reserved sufficient rights to make the paper available in T-Space and there were several wins — the paper counts academically as it was peer-reviewed, I enjoyed the benefit of an intimate and specialized meeting, I have a small volume for my bookshelf and I am assured of global access to my work. Public funding and access are increasingly linked. Major funders, including the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Canadian Institutes of Health Research, have passed mandates requiring publications that result from publicly funded grants be deposited in

an online, openly accessible archive. Harvard, University College London and others have passed mandates or policies in support of OA practices and articles on OA appear regularly in pub-lications such as The Chronicle of Higher Education. OA was a theme at the recent 2010 Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences. 78%!3*9;= Technology often makes explicit what was formerly implicit. The Internet, the World Wide Web and the 1993 launch of Mosaic, the browser that made the web openly accessible to millions of non-technical people around the globe, have made it possible to do things in new ways and encourage inquiry into traditional prac-tices. Research on the economics of publishing by commercial, society and OA publishers, university presses and scholars has exploded. This engage-ment, or what at times looks more like a battleground, is generating new ideas. In the university sector consider the University of California’s eScholarship which “provides a suite of open access, scholarly publishing services and research tools that enable departments, research units, publishing programs, and individual scholars associated with the University of California to have direct control over the creation and dissemination of the full range of their scholarship.” To this point my focus has been largely on text-based content, or on doing old things in new ways. What about doing new things? Not to men-tion asking new questions, developing new methodologies and creating and working with multimedia content. Here too experiments are underway across the intellectual landscape. A technology infrastructure referred to as

cyberinfrastructure that combines mass storage, high-performance computing and other core technologies is leading to new network applications, not only for scientists but also for humanists and social scientists. Rome Reborn, an international collaborative project is one example. Hybrid forms that bridge the physical and virtual worlds also exist. Ubimark books, part of Sorin Matei’s research at Purdue, incorporate QR codes in physical books. The codes can be “translated” by a smart phone to open an embedded URL or other infor-mation. It’s easy to see how a scholarly paper or book in cinema studies, his-tory or art might be enhanced if the reader had immediate access to the film clips and the images being analysed and discussed. 14#!B#!$%%:,&C!,&!%&$9!%&#!

),4#?+,%&=!The continued struggle with the cost of text-based dissemina-tion may turn out to be short-sighted indeed as new ways of creating and disseminating knowledge come increas-ingly to the fore. It’s unlikely these will be less expensive, and who will pay? D%!&#B!34*?+,?#;!*&)!>%4<;!%>!

:&%B$#)C#!?4#*+,%&!E?%(&+F=!

Scholars interested in new practices, methodologies and media are unable to work in these ways if they “don’t count.” Individual disciplines and fields have accepted norms about what consti-tutes knowledge and how the legitimacy of a new knowledge claim is established. While faculty are appointed to a depart-ment, faculty or other academic unit that regulates and administers the reward system of tenure, merit and pro-motion, it is the scholarly communities to which individual faculty members belong, who through processes such as peer review, evaluate the claims on which local institutional decisions depend. Senior faculty may be able to afford the risk associated in engaging with new practices, yet is often their junior colleagues who are at the leading edge of these changes who can’t afford to move away from traditional, often print-based forms. How might new work be evaluated? And what’s lost if it doesn’t count? There are more questions than answers and your input will help shape the future of scholarly communication. If you’ve stayed with me this far, I hope that I can engage you in my research. A survey to better understand emerging trends, attitudes and practices regard-ing scholarly communication at the University of Toronto is forthcoming. If you receive an invitation to participate, I hope that you’ll do so.

Gale Moore is a member of the graduate faculty, Department of Sociology; former director of the Knowledge Media Design Institute; and member of the Tri-campus Scholarly Communication Working Group, University of Toronto Libraries.

BY GALE MOORE

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CEW'

A P P E N D I X B : S U R V E Y D E S I G N & M E T H O D O L O G Y

A detailed description of the design and methodology of the survey is included so that the interested reader can make an informed judgment about the results.

Second, as several general questions regarding the conduct of web-based surveys were received from recipients of the survey invitation, considerable detail on the process has been included here in the event that it may be of use to others undertaking this type of research.

A number of faculty used the open-ended comment boxes to request further information on topics raised in the survey. It was not possible to respond directly as the surveys were anonymous, so references and links to these issues and others have been included throughout this document.

!"#$%&'c%-,:+'

The serials crisis described in the background (3.0) catalysed a reaction in the scholarly community that would take many forms; one of which was research. Questions began to be asked not only about the costs of the STM94 journals that had sparked the crisis, but more generally about the nature of scholarly publishing and the potential for innovation and the creation of new models for scholarly communication in an increasingly digital and networked world.

Brown and Swan’s95 report on a survey of journal authors appeared in 2004, and other surveys followed, including, for example, the work of Ian Rowlands96 and his colleagues at CIBER. Much of the initial research focused on the scientific community, on journal publishing, and the open access movement that had arisen out of the challenges being faced in that community. More recent surveys have focused on other communities and broaden the scope in different ways. See for example, the OAK Law Project published in 200897 and the 2009 Ithaka survey.98

The survey that most closely aligned with the interests of this research had been carried out at the University of California (UC) in late 2006 and published in 2007.99 In December 2009, the author has a lengthy interview with John Ober, former co-director of the Office of Scholarly Communication at UC about their project. He

94 Scientific, technical & medical

95 Brown, S. & A. Swan. 2004. JISC/OSI Journal Authors Study Final Report. Project Report. Prepared by key Perspectives. Retrieved Dec. 2010: http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/274/

96 Rowlands, I. & D. Nicholas. 2005. Scholarly communication in the digital environment - The 2005 survey of journal author behaviour and attitudes. ASLIB Proceedings 57(6): 481-197, and Rowlands I, Nicholas D, & P. Huntington. 2004. Scholarly communication in the digital environment: what do authors want? Learned Publishing 17(4): 261-273

97 Austin, Anthony C., Heffernan, Maree E. & David, Nikki. 2008. Academic authorship, publishing agreements and open access: Survey Results. Retrieved Nov. 2010 from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/13623/

98 Schonfeld, Roger C., & Ross Housewright. 2009. Faculty Survey 2009: Key Strategic Insights for Libraries, Publishers, and Societies, April 7, 2010. Retrieved June 2010 from http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/faculty-surveys-2000-2009/faculty-survey-2009

99 University of California. Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication: Survey Findings from the University of California. 2007. Prepared for the University of California Office of Scholarly Communication and the California Digital Library eScholarship Program in association with Greenhouse Associates. August 2007. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2011 from http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/responses/materials/OSC-survey-full-20070828.pdf

http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/274/

http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/responses/materials/OSC-survey-full-20070828.pdf

http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/faculty-surveys-2000-2009/faculty-survey-2009

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/13623/

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CEX'

agreed with the idea that re-use of a number of the UC questions would afford a degree of comparability going forward. The final instrument for this project was thus strongly influenced by the UC instrument. However, as the UC study had been conducted over four years earlier, under a different governance structure, and new issues and research had appeared, the instrument for this survey was substantially modified.

One strength of the survey method is the ability to gather information from a large number of people. However, much remains masked and subsequent field research can help ground and inform the results obtained in this way. A recently published report of a multi-year in-depth study of seven disciplines by Harley et al.100 from the Center for Higher Education at UC Berkeley is an excellent example of this approach. It is hoped that the results of the UofT survey may inform the design of future research projects at the level of the discipline, department or academic unit, as well as encourage the assessment of current services, and inform the development and delivery of future university and university library services.

/,=,+:'1+7'81#.,2,?1.,(+'

Survey fatigue is a significant issue. Three surveys involving faculty at the University of Toronto had taken place in the Spring of 2010, and the Speaking Up Employee Experience Survey 2010 – a centrally administered employee survey – was scheduled for October 2010. The decision was made to launch this survey in late June 2010 with one follow-up over the summer and another as term started. The survey closed September 30th, 2010.

To encourage participation, an article on scholarly communication was written for the UofT Bulletin, the biweekly university newsletter that is sent electronically to members of the community, as well as being available in print on campus. The column appeared on June 8, 2010 and included as Appendix A.

8(?"31.,(+'M'!1=?3,+:')#1=%'

The population of interest was all faculty for whom publication and other forms of dissemination of their research and scholarship is central to the progress of their career. This includes all full-time, appointed tenured/tenure stream faculty at the University of Toronto as well as some faculty lecturers and senior lecturers.101

Access to University of Toronto faculty, librarians, staff or students for research purposes requires permission from the Office of the Vice-Provost, Faculty & Academic Life.102 A protocol for the research was filed on March 3, 2010. Approval was received on March 26, 2010. Unfortunately it was not possible to get access to official data on faculty appointments. Without the official data, it was not possible to draw a simple random sample or to stratify by academic rank and division. The alternative was to construct the sampling frame using a variety of unofficial sources,

100 Harley, Diane, Acord, Sophia Krzys, Earl-Novell, Sarah, Lawrence, Shannon & C. Judson King. 2010. Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines. UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education. Retrieved Jan 30, 2010 from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g

101 Senior administrators at the vice-presidential level and higher were excluded, as were the Deans of the large faculties of Arts & Science, Medicine, and Engineering.

102 Guidelines and Procedures Regarding Access to University of Toronto Faculty, Students and Staff for Research. June 2006 (Revised September 2007) http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/policy/access.htm


http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/policy/access.htm

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CEY'

to survey all the faculty members identified, and hope that the achieved sample

would be representative of the distribution reported in the official data.103

]7%+.,),21.,(+'()'.;%'8(?"31.,(+'

The 2008/2009 University of Toronto paper telephone directory and the online telephone directory provided a list of members of the university with their email addresses. A database was built in Excel by systematically going through the paper directory, supplementing it with the online directory to confirm identification or to find an email address.104 The paper directory was not up to date105, and as academic rank was of particular interest, it was expected that the rank of ‘Assistant Professor’ would be under-represented, as it would not include recent hires. An extensive and systematic search of department and faculty websites was carried out and the number of ‘Assistant Professors’ identified confirmed the initial concern about under-representation of this group using the directory alone.

The approach described above was effective in identifying faculty with tenured/tenure stream appointments. There were additional challenges with three groups of faculty – lecturers/senior lecturers, Emerita/Emeritus professors and faculty in medicine.

Not all faculty in the lecturer/senior lecturer stream conduct research or publish – yet many do, and it was important that they be included. Department and faculty websites were reviewed to identify those units where the survey appeared to be relevant for this group of faculty. As a result, lecturers/senior lecturers will be under-represented in terms of their numbers overall, and not representative of this group as a whole.

Emerita/Emeritus professors also posed a challenge. Those identified in the paper directory as ‘EMER’ were, in general, excluded. However, many of these faculty members remain active; some departments distinguish the active and non-active members on their website, and others would have only recently achieved this status. It was expected that a number would be included in the final sampling frame.

The third and most challenging area was medical HR. An attempt was made to exclude those with clinical teaching appointments where the expectation of research and publishing is not the norm. At the same time, researchers whose primary appointment is with a hospital may also be part of the professoriate and issues of scholarly publishing and dissemination may be significant in their career. The websites of medical departments in the Faculty of Medicine and the website of the Institute of Medical Sciences were scanned with the goal of minimizing the number

103 The University of Toronto Facts & Figures 2008 was the most up to date source of published data available to the researcher.

104 A short time after the sampling frame was compiled a new version of the online directory was released. This version includes an Advanced Directory accessible to University of Toronto faculty and staff that enables the generation of lists by department or job title, including for example, Professoriate Tn-Strm and Lecturer/Sr. Lecturer. A scan of the file produced this way revealed a number of duplications and other anomalies, so cleaning and supplementing this listing with information gathered from local websites would still be required. However, it is likely a more efficient process than the one undertaken.

105 The paper directory, which was compiled once a year, ceased production in 2008/2009 (Personal communication with B. Sawada, Telecommunication Services, Dec. 6, 2010).

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CUB'

of faculty included in the initial sampling frame for whom this survey would not be relevant.

[.;,2-'9%$,%5'

A Human Ethics Review Protocol was filed with the University on May 21, 2010 and approval was received on June 17, 2010.

!"#$%&'!().51#%'

The original plan was to use a Canadian survey firm so that the data collected would remain in Canada. A number of web-based survey applications were evaluated (to the extent possible), colleagues were consulted and a Canadian supplier was contracted. Unfortunately, despite considerable time and effort on the part of both the researcher and the company, the design requirements could not be met in a timely and cost-effective way. The US product SurveyMonkey™106 had been among the software applications originally reviewed. It offers customer-controlled real-time customization for the design of the survey instrument, and while it does not have advanced tools for data analysis, data are easily explored to a database application such as Excel or to a statistical package, such as SPSS.

The use of SurveyMonkey is permitted at the University of Toronto and the options provided to researchers with respect to confidentiality and anonymity are continuously improving. In this case, the survey was designed so that no IP address or other identifier would be kept once the respondent either completed the survey or alternately, exited the survey. Figure AppendixB.1 below illustrates how this option is selected in SurveyMonkey.

However, one challenge remained. Any responses entered before exiting the survey are captured. This is a strong technical strategy as there can be network transmission issues beyond the control of the respondent that can interrupt the survey at any time, and if the data are collected only on exit then all responses prior to this event would be lost. However, if the researcher wants to assure participants that participation is not only voluntary, but also that they can leave at any time without leaving a trace (which was the case here), a strategy needs to be put in place in the design of the survey that allows participants to move backward as well as forward in the survey. In this study, each of the three invitation letters included the following statement: Your participation is voluntary and you may exit at any point. Should you exit before clicking the DONE button, your responses up to that point will have been recorded. However, as you are able to move both backward and forward in the survey, you have the option of deleting earlier responses which overwrites them to record them as missing data.

!

106 http://www.surveymonkey.com/

http://www.surveymonkey.com/

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CUC'

>DEFGH!+NNHKIDR7.0B!)FG`Ha*MKhHaj!$MQQH_SMG!PHSSDKEP!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

9%2#",.=%+.'1+7'47=,+,-.#1.,(+''

All members of the population or sampling frame were sent an invitation via email inviting them to participate in the online survey. The invitation was sent out on June 29, 2010 with a follow-up email on July 19/20th and a final reminder on Sept. 8th. The survey closed on Sept. 30, 2010.

The process of creating the sampling frame had been time-consuming, but the email addresses proved to be remarkably accurate. The use of the mail merge program in MSWord/Outlook assured that each invitation was individually addressed and less likely to be ‘caught’ by a spam filter. There were no ‘bouncebacks’ for technical reasons such as firewalls. A small number of messages were returned with an incorrect address, but in every case either a typo was found or an alternate address was available. After each mailing a number of queries were received and each of these was answered. A small number reported that believed they had been incorrectly included. This was greatly appreciated as they could be removed from the sampling frame. Several hundred ‘out of office’ or ‘on sabbatical’ messages were received.

!

YMML!SM!611Z!k!SM!GHJI!SHRS!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CUA'

These cases were not removed, as it was impossible to tell if these individuals had responded to the survey.

42;,%$%7'!1=?3%'1+7'9%-?(+-%'91.%'

The original sampling consisted of 3092 faculty members. Over the period in which the survey was open, 31 cases were identified as being outside the sampling frame and removed, bringing the final population to 3061. 529 responses to the survey were received giving a response rate of 17.3 %. However, on closer examination of the data, an additional eight cases were removed from the sampling frame as they did not meet the criteria, and another 24 cases were removed from the sample (but not the sampling frame) as they had completed only the initial demographic questions. The final number of responses, or the achieved sample was 497 cases. The final response rate is 16.3%.

9%?#%-%+.1.,$%+%--'()'.;%'12;,%$%7'-1=?3%''

Without access to an official database of faculty, an alternate approach was required to assess how representative the respondents to the survey are of the UofT faculty overall. A comparison of the distribution of the achieved sample in terms of rank and division with official UofT data on these variables provides a way to consider the extent of under- or over- representation by rank and division. The latest official data available for comparison was the University of Toronto Facts & Figures 2008.107

(JEM%

Table AppendixB1 below compares the rank of respondents to the survey with the overall distribution of rank in the published data. A comparison is not made for ‘Emerita/Emeritus Professor’ or ‘Lecturer/Senior Lecturer as they are known not to be representative for reasons discussed earlier.

The distribution of the achieved sample in Table Appendix B.1 below is similar to the distribution in the official data – most importantly no rank is seriously under- or over-represented.

/1@3%'4??%+7,QZIC>'<(=?1#,-(+'()'()),2,13'71.1'5,.;'12;,%$%7'-1=?3%'@&'#1+G'

94\o' /S/4d' 8[9<[\/4a['

! >JBCL%N%

>OPFI@L%0QQR!

,HPNMKIHKSP!

SM!SOH!PFG`Ha!

>JBCL%N%

>OPFI@L%0QQR!

,HPNMKIHKSP!

SM!SOH!PFG`Ha!

AGM]HPPMG! W6/! 616! =/.6Z! ==.:Z!

"LHGDSJf"LHGDSFP!AGM]HPPMG! 2+! 0:l! ^! ^!

+PPM_DJSH!AGM]HPPMG! 565! 0=:! /6.VZ! /6.?Z!

+PPDPSJKS!AGM]HPPMG! =?=! 01/! 6/.WZ! 66.WZ!

<H_SFGHGf)HKDMG!<H_SFGHG! 6=Wl! 6Wl! ^! ^!

&MSJQ! 0V1/! =?6! ! !

l!"R_QFIHI!]GML!SMSJQ!m!M]!GHPNMKIHKSP!

107 http://www.utoronto.ca/__shared/assets/FB2008_PartG2855.pdf

http://www.utoronto.ca/__shared/assets/FB2008_PartG2855.pdf

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CUD'

Seventeen respondents to the survey identified their rank as ‘Other’. There were all Emerita/Emeritus professors and for the purpose of the analysis they were reclassified as Professor. Second, given the small number of Lecturers and Senior lecturers in the achieved sample these were combined. The distribution under these conditions is shown below in Table AppendixB.2.

/1@3%'4??%+7,QZIA>'<(=?1#,-(+'()'()),2,13'71.1'5,.;'12;,%$%7'-1=?3%'H91+G'9%231--,),%7K''

94\o' /S/4d' 8[9<[\/4a['

! >JBCL%N%

>OPFI@L%

0QQR!

)FG`Ha!

,HPNMKIHKSP!

>JBCL%N%

>OPFI@L%

0QQR!

)FG`Ha!

,HPNMKIHKSP!

AGM]HPPMG!! W6/! 60Vl! /W./Z! ==.0Z!

+PPM_DJSH!AGM]HPPMG! 565! 0=:! 6V.0Z! 6V.5Z!

+PPDPSJKS!AGM]HPPMG! =?=! 01/! 60.0Z! 61.:Z!

<H_SFGHGf)HKDMG!<H_SFGHG! 6=W! 6W! 00.?Z! ?.5Z!

&MSJQ! 60?0! =V:! ! !

*'K_QFIHP!"LHGDSJf"LHGDSFP!AGM]HPPMG

With this reclassification, faculty with the rank of ‘Professor’ are somewhat over-represented in the achieved sample. The percentage of Lecturers and Senior lecturers is low relative to the number reported in the official data as only a small percentage were included in the sampling frame as discussed earlier. The data for Lecturers and Senior lecturers are reported in 5.0: Detailed Findings, but they are not used in the comparisons across rank.

%

-BJS@TOB%8OUOLODE%

The respondents to the survey come from across the academic divisions, and even the smallest units are represented (Table AppendixB.3). In comparison with the Facts & Figures 2008 data, the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering is under-represented, as are UTM and UTSC. The Faculty of Medicine is over-represented.

!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CUE'

/1@3%'4??%+7,QZID>'c,-.#,@".,(+'()'*()/')12"3.&'@&'1217%=,2'7,$,-,(+'

'

4<4c[_]<'c]i]!]S\' p'012"3.&' f'S0'/S/4d'

! 0QQR%>JBCL%

N>OPFI@L%

+_ODH`HI!

PJLNQH!

0QQR%>JBCL%

N>OPFI@L%

+_ODH`HI!

)JLNQH!

+NNQDHI!)_DHK_H!C!"KEDKHHGDKE! 0V0! 65! 01.1Z! ?./Z!

+G_ODSH_SFGH! 0=! /! 1.:Z! 1.5Z!

+GSP!C!)_DHK_H! 5:V! 0V/! /?.:Z! /V.:Z!

4HKSDPSGa! =/! :! 6./Z! 0.=Z!

"IF_JSDMK! 0/6! /=! 5.VZ! :.1Z!

>MGHPSGa! 0/! =! 1.:Z! .WZ!

'K]MGLJSDMK! 0/! V! 1.:Z! 0.WZ!

<Jd! ?1! 5! 6.5Z! 0.6Z!

*JKJEHLHKSl! W/! 0=! =.=Z! 6.VZ!

*HID_DKH! 0W?! 015! V.:Z! 60.WZ!

*FPD_! 6V! ?! 0.?Z! 0.1Z!

2FGPDKE! 61! V! 0.0Z! 0.WZ!

AOJGLJ_a! /0! W! 0.5Z! 0.5Z!

AOaPD_JQ!"IF_JSDMK!C!;HJQSO! 0=! ?! 1.:Z! 0.1Z!

)_OMMQ!M]!9GJIFJSH!)SFIDHP! 05! 1! 1.WZ! 1Z!

)M_DJQ!@MGh! 60! ?! 0.0Z! 0.1Z!

%M]&!*DPPDPPJFEJ![%&*\! 615! 6/! 01.WZ! =.:Z!

%M]&!)_JGTMGMFEO![%&)$\! 05/! 65! W.5Z! ?.=Z!

3SOHG! 1! /! ^! 1.5Z!

&3&+<! 0V1/! =W5ll! ! !

V%>JBCL%N%>OPFI@L!611W!IJSJ!MK!n*JKJEHLHKSb!DK_QFIHP!MKQa!SOH!,MSLJK!)_OMMQ!M]!*JKJEHLHKS.!'K!SOH!PFG`Ha!V!

GHPNMKIHKSP!JKPdHGHI!,MSLJK!SM!SOH!oFHPSDMK!M]!IHNJGSLHKSf]J_FQSa!JKI!?!GHPNMKIHI!!nLJKJEHLHKSb.!&OHPH!?!

_MFQI!JQPM!THQMKE!SM!HDSOHG!%&*!MG!%&)$.!!

ll!00!GHPNMKIHKSP!IDI!KMS!JKPdHG!SODP!oFHPSDMK.

8OLBOGAOE@%

Disciplinary differences in norms and practices around scholarly publishing and dissemination are recognized and in some fields well studied and documented. See for example, Becher & Trowler (2001)108, Harley et al. (2010)109, Gibbons et al. (1994)110 etc. However, there are differences by broad disciplinary categories that are generally accepted. For example, faculty in the humanities and social sciences publish more monographs and books than scientists whose preference is for the peer reviewed journal article or conference paper. While this statement is an

108 Becher, Tony & Paul R. Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. 2d ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.

109 Harley, Diane, Acord, Sophia Krzys, Earl-Novell, Sarah, Lawrence, Shannon & C. Judson King. 2010. Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines. UC Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education. Retrieved Jan. 30, 2011 from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g

110 Gibbons, Michael et al. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.


!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CUU'

oversimplification, and exceptions may be found, this difference suggests there may be fundamental differences in other practices whereby the results of scholarly research are produced, disseminated and evaluated, and in the ways in which new digital forms are experienced and taken up, or not.

To maximize comparability with previous studies faculty respondents were assigned to one of four broad disciplinary categories. Of course, scholarly activity defies such simple categorization. Not only are many of the differences within the disciplinary categories masked, what is more controversial today is the concept of discipline itself. Many scholars not longer identify themselves in terms of traditional disciplines, and departments, faculties, and scholarly communities have become increasingly more interdisciplinary. From the outset it was understood that it is impossible in a poll-type survey, even one in which ample room is provided for comment, to do justice to the rich set of meanings that inform the organisation of contemporary scholarship and the epistemic communities that comprise it. But, while disciplinary categorization may be resisted, scholars continue to look for funding, publishing and dissemination opportunities for their research in a world of granting councils, funding agencies and publishers that are often described and aligned according to broad categories.

For purpose of analysis I defined four categories – Humanities (including Arts), Social Sciences, Life, Health and Medical Sciences, and Physical Sciences & Engineering – and then used a set of criteria for allocating individual faculty to them. To mitigate the challenge of miscategorization, three different questions were asked in an attempt to triangulate on the definition of discipline with the goal of assigning faculty to the category that best mapped to their practices of scholarly publication and dissemination. In the series of preliminary questions, faculty were first asked to identify their discipline defined as the discipline of their highest degree. Second, they were asked to identify the areas in which they publish at the present time. Third, a question was included which asked If your work is not well described in terms of these general categories, please briefly describe your field, the focus of your work and the background of those participating. While the majority were reasonably straightforward, a case-by-case analysis of the responses was carried out to assign each respondent to one of the four broad categories (Table AppendixB.4).

/1@3%'4??%+7,QZIE>'!"#$%&'#%-?(+7%+.-'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+1#&':#("?'

`*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J[' /S/4d'

0VZ![V/\! /VZ![0V=\! 65Z![0/1\! 05Z![::\! =V=![011Z\000!

!

/1@3%'4??%+7,QZIU>'!"#$%&'#%-?(+7%+.-'@&'@#(17'7,-2,?3,+1#&':#("?'1+7'#1+G112'

111 Three cases could not be classified.

112 Rank (excluding lecturer/senior lecturer) is very slightly correlated with broad disciplinary category, (p<0.05).

' `*_!' !S<!<]' d`_!<]' 8`e!<]J['

AGM]HPPMG! /:Z! /VZ! =5Z! 50Z!

+PPM_DJSH!AGM]HPPMG! /5Z! 6VZ!! 6VZ! 0WZ!

+PPDPSJKS!AGM]HPPMG! 66Z! 0VZ! 6?Z! 05Z!

<H_SFGHGf)G.<H_SFGHG! 5Z! 0/Z! 1.?Z! ?Z!

&MSJQB!!=V=! 011Z![V/\! 011Z![0V=\! 011Z![0/1\! 011Z![::\!

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CUV'

The respondents are reasonably well distributed across the ranks with the exception of Engineering and Physical Sciences where the number of Professors is higher and the number of Associate Professors is lower relative to the percentages in the other broad disciplinary categories.

c,--%=,+1.,(+'()'9%-"3.- '

This report, a two page Research Highlights and the Survey Instrument will be deposited in T-Space. An email with a link to the documents will be sent to the faculty who received an invitation to participate. The publication of the report will also be announced in a various media.

On Nov. 30, 2010, a presentation was made to the Provost’s Advisory Committee on the University of Toronto Library. Additional presentations are planned at the University of Toronto this spring. A panel on scholarly communication has been accepted for presentation at the CAIS/ASCI113 2011 Conference at the 2011 Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences this June, and academic papers are in process.

113 Canadian Association for Information Science/L’association canadienne des sciences de l’information

!"#$%&'()'*+,$%#-,.&'()'/(#(+.('012"3.&'451#%+%--6'4..,."7%-'1+7'8#12.,2%-'9%:1#7,+:'!2;(31#3&'

<(=="+,21.,(+>'4'8#%3,=,+1#&'9%?(#.'''''''''''''''''''''

0%@#"1#&'ABCC'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''CUW'

A P P E N D I X C : S U R V E Y I N S T R U M E N T

A copy of the survey instrument created in SurveyMonkey is included here as Appendix C.

One advantage of an online survey is that a progress bar can be included to let respondents know where they are in terms of completion, and question numbers are not required. Second, when skip questions are included, the secondary questions are presented only to the appropriate respondents. In a paper version, neither of these is possible. Question numbers have been added so that the instrument maps more readily to 5.0: Detailed Findings. There are five unnumbered demographic questions at the beginning of the survey.

Thank you for responding to the invitation to participate.

This poll-type survey takes approximately 20 minutes to complete.

A few notes on the design:

• A progress bar has been included so you can see at a glance how much you have completed.

• Declining to answer a question will not prevent you from advancing to the next question.

• The data collection is anonymous. Your IP address will not be stored in the survey results when you

submit the survey, or if you exit the survey.

• Definitions are occasionally included. The weblinks for these are provided when you exit the survey.

I welcome your comments and space is provided throughout for these. Please note that time to comment

is not included in the estimate above.

Gale Moore, PhD

Welcome to the Survey on Awareness, Attitudes and Practices Regarding Schol...

Other

My faculty rank is:

Select one

In which department or faculty is your primary university appointment?

What is your discipline, defined as the discipline of your highest degree?

First, a few questions about you

Lecturer

nmlkj

Senior Lecturer

nmlkj

Assistant Professor

nmlkj

Associate Professor

nmlkj

Professor

nmlkj

Other (please specify):

nmlkj

If your work is not well described in terms of these general categories please briefly

describe your field, the focus of your work and the background of those participating.

A few questions about you (cont.)

In which of the following areas do you publish or disseminate your work at the

present time?

Select all that apply

55

66

Humanities

gfedc

Social sciences

gfedc

Life sciences

gfedc

Health sciences/Medical sciences

gfedc

Mathematics/Computer science

gfedc

Physical sciences

gfedc

Engineering

gfedc

Law

gfedc

Management/Business/Finance

gfedc

Information Studies/Librarianship/Archives/Museum studies

gfedc

Architecture/Design

gfedc

Music

gfedc


gfedc

Other

Practices and norms vary across disciplines. The next questions ask about the ways in which you disseminate your

work.

Please comment if desired:

Your current practices

[Q1] Reflecting on the past 5 years, please indicate all the ways in

which you have disseminated your work, and estimate the number of

items in each category

None 1-5 items 6-10 itemsMore than

10 items

Published a monograph nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Edited a collection of original material nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Contributed a chapter to an edited book nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Published an article in a peer-reviewed journal nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Published a peer-reviewed conference paper in a conference

proceedingsnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Published an article in a magazine or periodical read by members

of the university community, e.g., Chronicle of Higher Educationnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Presented my research in the media nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Created a scholarly or archival website nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Created a learning object or other multi-media resource that can

be used and re-usednmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Had work in an adjudicated competition, exhibition, or installation nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Posted a journal article on a personal or departmental web site nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Gave a formal presentation at a conference nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Was invited to give a guest lecture, or keynote a conference nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

55

66

Other

Your current practices (cont.)

[Q2] What is the norm in terms of authorship when you publish/disseminate

your work?

Select one

The majority of my publications/works are co-authored

nmlkj

Some of my publications/works are co-authored

nmlkj

None of my publications/works are co-authored

nmlkj


nmlkj

55

66



[Q3] When considering where to submit your work for publication,

how important to you are each of the following factors?

Select one response for each statement

Very important Important Not important

Reputation of the book or journal publisher nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Reputation of the journal title nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Being able to submit my manuscript online nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Quality of the peer review nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Weight of the publication venue in tenure and promotion

considerations in my department/facultynmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Readership/audience nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Journal impact factor nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Speed of publication nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

A paper issue or print volume is produced nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

A digital version is available nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

The full-text is accessible online to anyone who finds it nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

My ability to retain some of the rights (i.e., copyright) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

The ability to self-archive* my work nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

55

66

* Self-archive

Self-archiving is the posting in an digital archive, repository or library of an authors final version

of a refereed paper (postprint) accepted for publication.



[Q4] To what extent do you agree or disagree that the existing tenure,

merit and promotion processes in your department/faculty...

Strongly

agreeAgree Disagree

Strongly

disagree

I don't

know

lead me publish in print publications, rather than electronic-only

forms of disseminationnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

cause me to forego using alternative forms of dissemination nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

encourage new forms of high-quality (peer-reviewed) scholarly

communicationnmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

are keeping up with the evolution of scholarly communication. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

55

66



[Q5] With new forms of digital production emerging, are scholars in

your field re-evaluating what constitutes a research contribution for

purposes of tenure, merit and promotion? Examples might include:

the contribution of executable code to a collaborative database in

genomics, the design of a serious game in education, a digital

interactive model of a historic site, etc.

Select one

55

66

Yes, this is already happening

nmlkj

Yes, we are talking about it

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

The next questions are about scholarly publishing, including copyright and peer review.

Scholarly publishing, including copyright and peer review

[Q6] How do you approach the copyright terms in your publication contracts?

Select one

I don't examine the copyright terms of the contract -- I just sign it as is.

nmlkj

I examine the copyright terms of the contract and usually sign it as is.

nmlkj

I modify the copyright terms of the contract before signing.

nmlkj


Scholarly publishing, including copyright and peer review (cont.)

[Q6a] In what ways have you modified the terms in your contracts with

publishers?


55

66

* SPARC Canadian Author Addendum

Traditional publishing agreements often require that authors grant exclusive rights to the

publisher. The SPARC Canadian Author Addendum enables authors to secure a more balanced

agreement by retaining select rights, such as the rights to reproduce, reuse, and publicly present

the articles they publish for non-commercial purposes. It will help Canadian researchers to

comply with granting council public access policies, such as the Canadian Institutes of Health

Research Policy on Access to Research Outputs. The Canadian Addendum reflects Canadian

copyright law and is an adaptation of the original U.S. version of the SPARC Author Addendum.

The addendum is available in both French and English.

I have replaced the publisher’s contractual terms with my own.

gfedc

I have attached an addendum such as the SPARC Author Addendum*.

gfedc

I have replaced the entire agreement with one of my choosing.

gfedc

Other

If yes, please comment if desired:


[Q7] Are there instances in which you have refused to sign a publication

contract because of concern about the copyright terms, thereby foregoing the

opportunity to publish in that journal?

55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


[Q8] In cases where you would prefer to retain some rights but do not

negotiate with publishers to do so, what is the most important factor that

prevents you from doing this?

Select one

It’s too much trouble to negotiate with the publisher.

nmlkj

I don’t have the knowledge to negotiate.

nmlkj

I need to publish in the journal to get tenure, merit increases, or promotion and I am concerned

that raising this issue could lead the publisher to refuse to publish my work.

nmlkj

I haven’t thought about this issue.

nmlkj


nmlkj

55

66


[Q9] To what extent do you agree or disagree that scholars'

management of copyright is...

Strongly

agreeAgree Disagree

Strongly

disagree

I don't

know

an important factor in the evolution of scholarly communication? nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

an important factor in my own scholarly publishing? nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

a topic colleagues need to disucss? nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

If you have other concerns, please comment if desired:


[Q10] Are you concerned that transferring copyright to a publisher

may limit your ability to...

Concerned Not concerned

I haven't

thought about

it

put the materials on a departmental web site or in an institutional

repository?nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

use the materials in a class that you or others are teaching without

asking for permission from the publisher?nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

make the materials available for course packs without asking for

permission from the publisher?nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

use or submit the materials to an anthology? nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

create a derivative work based on the material, e.g., a multi-media

work?nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

55

66

Other


[Q11] What factors would help you the most in negotiating or

modifying the copyright terms of a publication contract?

Select up to three

If I had precise instructions, and examples of how to do it.

gfedc

If I had the advice and support of my institution.

gfedc

If I had the advice and support of my funder.

gfedc

If I knew I would not be penalised for refusing to sign the standard contract.

gfedc


gfedc

55

66


[Q12] Which of the following activities would you be willing to undertake?


I would be willing to encourage the publication boards of the societies/associations to which I belong to make their

copyright policy more author-friendly.

gfedc

I would be willing to encourage the societies/associations to which I belong to seek alternative sources of revenue,

rather than relying on subscription fees to support society activities.

gfedc

Before signing a publishing contract, I would be willing to strikeout and modify its language to change the contract

from granting "exclusive" rights to the publisher to granting "non- exclusive" rights to the publisher.

gfedc

I would be willing to submit my scholarly output solely to publishers who require only the right of first publication and

no other right.

gfedc

I would be willing to encourage publishers to experiment with business models in order to reduce or eliminate barriers,

including subscription costs, to readers.

gfedc

None of the above

gfedc


gfedc

55

66

Peer review is the principal formal means whereby scholars evaluate each other’s work.


If yes, could you please describe them briefly:


[Q13] To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following?

Strongly

AgreeAgree Disagree

Strongly

disagree

I don't

know

I am happy to be a reviewer for journals/conferences or presses that I value. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Serving as a reviewer is part of my responsibility as a member of the

community.nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

I am receiving too many requests to review papers today. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

There are too many other demands on my time to contribute to the review

process.nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

There are too many graduate students doing peer review in my field. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

The traditional peer review process is working well for me. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Open peer review systems where both authors and reviewers are identified

result in high quality peer reviews in my field.nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

There are serious problems with the peer review system today. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

55

66

[Q14] Are you aware of any experiments underway in your discipline/field that

explore questions of peer review?

55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Other

With widespread access to digital publishing and communication technologies and to the internet,

alternative ways to disseminate scholarship are emerging. The next questions have to do with open access*.

[Q15] Have you heard of Open Access (OA)?

* Open Access (OA)

Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. What makes

it possible is the internet and the consent of the author or copyright-holder. In most fields, scholarly journals do not pay

authors, who can therefore consent to OA without losing revenue. OA is entirely compatible with peer review, and all the

major OA initiatives for scientific and scholarly literature insist on its importance. Peter Suber. A Very Brief Introduction to

Open Access

Open access, repositories and mandates

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Other

[Q15a] Have you made any of your publications available on an open access basis?

Select one

If no, why not?

[Q15b] Are you aware of whether there are open access (OA) journals being published

in your field?

Select one

Open access, repositories and mandates (cont.)

55

66

Yes, through self-archiving

nmlkj

Yes, through publishing in an OA journal

nmlkj

Yes, both through self-archiving and publishing in OA journals

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Other



[Q15c] To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Strongly

agreeAgree Disagree

Strongly

disagree

I don't

know

Open access will dramatically change scholarly communication in my

discipline or field in the next two years.nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Making my work openly accessible to everyone with access to the internet –

not only to those whose universities can afford the licensing fees – is a

benefit to me.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Open access is likely to lead to an increase in the number of citations to my

work.nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

The principle of free access for all to the results of publicly funded research

is important to me.nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Open access threatens commercial publishers in my field. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Open access threatens the survival of my scholarly society(ies). nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Library subscriptions are a critical source of revenue for scholarly

societies/associations.nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

55

66

A repository* is a digital collection of publicly accessible research outputs from an institution, discipline or community.


[Q16] Have you heard of the University of Toronto’s research repository, T-

Space?

Select one

* Repository

A repository may be institutionally-based or subject-based. There are now 1739 repositories

listed in ROAR: the Registry of Open Access Repositories. Over 80% of Canadian universities

have repositories. A key feature of repositories is that many are federated which means that their

resources are all accessible with a single search.

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

[Q16a] Is any of your work in T-Space?

Select one


[Q16b] What are the main reasons that you contribute your scholarly work to T-

Space?

Select up to three reasons

[Q16c] Have you ever come across citations to items in T-Space in the process

of doing your research?

Select one

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

I don’t know

nmlkj

It increases exposure of my previously-published work (e.g., post-prints).

gfedc

It provides exposure for work not previously published (e.g., seminar papers, working papers).

gfedc

It broadens the dissemination of academic research generally.

gfedc

It is the norm in my academic department/faculty/unit.

gfedc

It increases an academic institutions' ability to negotiate with commercial publishers.

gfedc

It increases my own commercial publishing opportunities.

gfedc

It increases my promotion, and tenure prospects.

gfedc


gfedc

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

A number of universities and funders have passed mandates or policies* for faculty to routinely grant to the University a

limited, non-exclusive license to place their scholarly publications in a non-commercial publicly-accessible online

repository.

Why or why not?


[Q17] To what extent, are you aware of these types of mandates and policies?

Select one

[Q18] Does this seem like is an idea that UofT should evaluate?

Select one

55

66

* Mandates and Policies

Harvard and Stanford are among the universities that have passed mandates or policies for

faculty to routinely grant a limited, non-exclusive license to place their scholarly publications in

a non-commercial publicly-accessible online repository. University College London has

implemented an open access policy whereby research is placed online in the university’s

institutional repository, and freely accessible to all. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research

and the U.S. National Institutes of Health are among the funders who have passed a mandate or

policy to assure that publicly-funded research is accessible.

Not aware

nmlkj

Aware, but don't know much about them

nmlkj

Knowledgeable

nmlkj

Am actively involved in this issue

nmlkj

Strongly agree

nmlkj

Agree

nmlkj

Disagree

nmlkj

Strongly disagree

nmlkj

I don't know

nmlkj

The following questions address the issue of costs associated with scholarly communication.

Costs

[Q19] Have you ever paid page charges or other charges, e.g., for illustrations,

to have your peer-reviewed article or book published?

Select one

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

[Q19a] Where do you get the funds to pay these charges?


If yes, please comment if desired:

Costs (cont.)

55

66

From my research grant

gfedc

My department/faculty pays these charges

gfedc

I pay them myself

gfedc


gfedc



Costs (cont.)

[Q20] Scholarly communication costs money. There will be costs associated

with every option. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following

statements about scholarly publishing?

Strongly

agreeAgree Disagree

Strongly

disagree

I don't

know

There are new opportunities in the digital era to simultaneously reduce

costs and increase access to the scholarly literature.nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

There is need for greater transparency in terms of the costs of publishing

and disseminating scholarly books and journals.nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

New business models for scholarly communication should be explored. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Scholars need to play a greater role in shaping the future of scholarly

communication.nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

There is need to reform the scholarly communication system. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

55

66

[Q21] Who do you think should be responsible for the costs

associated with maintaining the scholarly communication system?


55

66

Publishers

gfedc

Those who fund the research

gfedc

The university should establish a special fund

gfedc

The university library through institutional subscriptions and licensing agreements (i.e., current model)

gfedc

Your department/faculty

gfedc

You, the author

gfedc

You, the reader

gfedc

All of the above

gfedc


gfedc

[Q23] Which of the following would be the most effective sources for keeping you

updated about changes in scholarly communication?

Select up to three

Final questions

[Q22] The UofT offers many different dissemination services to the academic

community. Which of the statements below best characterises your level of

awareness about each of these services?

I haven't

heard of this

I've heard of

this but I

don't

understand

it

I monitor

this

I'm actively

involved in

this

Journal Publishing Software, e.g., OJS: Open Journal System nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Conference Management Software, e.g., OCS: Open Conference System nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Book publishing software, e.g., Open Monograph Press nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Hosting and archiving services for audio/visual materials nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Data services and data archiving nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

School of Graduate Studies’ Electronic Theses & Dissertation (ETD) deposit* nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

* ETD Deposit

In fall 2007, the School of Graduate Studies launched Phase One of an electronic theses &

dissertation (ETD) submission project which allowed both masters and doctoral students to

choose between electronic or paper submission of their theses. Access to ETDs is provided

through T-Space, the University of Toronto’s digital repository. In Phase 2, which commenced on

September 1 2009, all final copies of theses, both doctoral and master's, must now be submitted

electronically.

Source: UofT SGS Website

UofT Bulletin

gfedc

Departmental and faculty meetings

gfedc

Higher education press (e.g., Academic Matters, Chronicle of Higher Education)

gfedc

Campus library/librarians

gfedc

Discipline-specific literature

gfedc

Ad hoc conversation with colleagues

gfedc

Academic conferences

gfedc

Other (please specify)

gfedc

[Q25] Please add any comments about this survey or the issues it raises.

[Q24] Overall, how would you characterise the general state of the scholarly

communication system in the fields in which you primarily disseminate your

research?

Select one

55

66

We are experimenting with a number of new ideas and forms

nmlkj

There is considerable resistance to change

nmlkj

The system works fine as it is

nmlkj

Other (please specify)

nmlkj

preliminary report final - university of toronto t …...mellon foundation, 2008 annual report, p....

Documents