IGI Global Annual Academic Publishing Trends and Open Access Survey - 2024

Your participation in this survey is invaluable as we ask you to voice your opinions and concerns on the current state and future direction of research and publishing. The survey will take approximately 3-5 minutes to complete, and a summary of the survey results will be freely available at the end of the year.

Thank you for your participation and we look forward to your valuable insights.

Question Title

* 1. Please select your region.

Question Title

* 2. Please select the closest generalized profession to yours:

Professional (Business, Medical, etc.)

Professor/Faculty

Researcher

Student

Librarian

Publisher

Other. Please specify:

Question Title

* 3. Please rate the following statements regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its role in research and innovation.

	Strongly Disagree	Somewhat Disagree	Neutral/No Opinion	Somewhat Agree	Strongly Agree
AI can be a peer reviewer of academic research	AI can be a peer reviewer of academic research Strongly Disagree	AI can be a peer reviewer of academic research Somewhat Disagree	AI can be a peer reviewer of academic research Neutral/No Opinion	AI can be a peer reviewer of academic research Somewhat Agree	AI can be a peer reviewer of academic research Strongly Agree
AI can develop full academic research manuscripts	AI can develop full academic research manuscripts Strongly Disagree	AI can develop full academic research manuscripts Somewhat Disagree	AI can develop full academic research manuscripts Neutral/No Opinion	AI can develop full academic research manuscripts Somewhat Agree	AI can develop full academic research manuscripts Strongly Agree
AI monitoring tools are capable of reliably identifying the presence of AI-generated content in submitted manuscripts	AI monitoring tools are capable of reliably identifying the presence of AI-generated content in submitted manuscripts Strongly Disagree	AI monitoring tools are capable of reliably identifying the presence of AI-generated content in submitted manuscripts Somewhat Disagree	AI monitoring tools are capable of reliably identifying the presence of AI-generated content in submitted manuscripts Neutral/No Opinion	AI monitoring tools are capable of reliably identifying the presence of AI-generated content in submitted manuscripts Somewhat Agree	AI monitoring tools are capable of reliably identifying the presence of AI-generated content in submitted manuscripts Strongly Agree
AI adds to the problem of bias	AI adds to the problem of bias Strongly Disagree	AI adds to the problem of bias Somewhat Disagree	AI adds to the problem of bias Neutral/No Opinion	AI adds to the problem of bias Somewhat Agree	AI adds to the problem of bias Strongly Agree
Using AI breaches confidentiality and privacy policies	Using AI breaches confidentiality and privacy policies Strongly Disagree	Using AI breaches confidentiality and privacy policies Somewhat Disagree	Using AI breaches confidentiality and privacy policies Neutral/No Opinion	Using AI breaches confidentiality and privacy policies Somewhat Agree	Using AI breaches confidentiality and privacy policies Strongly Agree
AI will contribute greatly to the loss of jobs across different industries	AI will contribute greatly to the loss of jobs across different industries Strongly Disagree	AI will contribute greatly to the loss of jobs across different industries Somewhat Disagree	AI will contribute greatly to the loss of jobs across different industries Neutral/No Opinion	AI will contribute greatly to the loss of jobs across different industries Somewhat Agree	AI will contribute greatly to the loss of jobs across different industries Strongly Agree
Adopting AI is necessary for progressing research	Adopting AI is necessary for progressing research Strongly Disagree	Adopting AI is necessary for progressing research Somewhat Disagree	Adopting AI is necessary for progressing research Neutral/No Opinion	Adopting AI is necessary for progressing research Somewhat Agree	Adopting AI is necessary for progressing research Strongly Agree

Please add any additional comments:

Question Title

* 4. Please rate the following statements regarding open access (OA) publishing.

	Strongly Disagree	Somewhat Disagree	Neutral/No Opinion	Somewhat Agree	Strongly Agree
OA publishing opportunities exclude researchers from developing nations	OA publishing opportunities exclude researchers from developing nations Strongly Disagree	OA publishing opportunities exclude researchers from developing nations Somewhat Disagree	OA publishing opportunities exclude researchers from developing nations Neutral/No Opinion	OA publishing opportunities exclude researchers from developing nations Somewhat Agree	OA publishing opportunities exclude researchers from developing nations Strongly Agree
OA publishing increases accessibility of research	OA publishing increases accessibility of research Strongly Disagree	OA publishing increases accessibility of research Somewhat Disagree	OA publishing increases accessibility of research Neutral/No Opinion	OA publishing increases accessibility of research Somewhat Agree	OA publishing increases accessibility of research Strongly Agree
OA publishing increases visibility and impact of research	OA publishing increases visibility and impact of research Strongly Disagree	OA publishing increases visibility and impact of research Somewhat Disagree	OA publishing increases visibility and impact of research Neutral/No Opinion	OA publishing increases visibility and impact of research Somewhat Agree	OA publishing increases visibility and impact of research Strongly Agree
OA publishing opportunities exclude retired researchers and/or researchers with no university/research institution affiliation	OA publishing opportunities exclude retired researchers and/or researchers with no university/research institution affiliation Strongly Disagree	OA publishing opportunities exclude retired researchers and/or researchers with no university/research institution affiliation Somewhat Disagree	OA publishing opportunities exclude retired researchers and/or researchers with no university/research institution affiliation Neutral/No Opinion	OA publishing opportunities exclude retired researchers and/or researchers with no university/research institution affiliation Somewhat Agree	OA publishing opportunities exclude retired researchers and/or researchers with no university/research institution affiliation Strongly Agree
OA publishing has increased the number of predatory publications	OA publishing has increased the number of predatory publications Strongly Disagree	OA publishing has increased the number of predatory publications Somewhat Disagree	OA publishing has increased the number of predatory publications Neutral/No Opinion	OA publishing has increased the number of predatory publications Somewhat Agree	OA publishing has increased the number of predatory publications Strongly Agree
There should be no embargoes placed on OA research	There should be no embargoes placed on OA research Strongly Disagree	There should be no embargoes placed on OA research Somewhat Disagree	There should be no embargoes placed on OA research Neutral/No Opinion	There should be no embargoes placed on OA research Somewhat Agree	There should be no embargoes placed on OA research Strongly Agree
Researchers have a limited understanding of OA	Researchers have a limited understanding of OA Strongly Disagree	Researchers have a limited understanding of OA Somewhat Disagree	Researchers have a limited understanding of OA Neutral/No Opinion	Researchers have a limited understanding of OA Somewhat Agree	Researchers have a limited understanding of OA Strongly Agree
Traditional publishing (non-OA) is preferred over OA publishing	Traditional publishing (non-OA) is preferred over OA publishing Strongly Disagree	Traditional publishing (non-OA) is preferred over OA publishing Somewhat Disagree	Traditional publishing (non-OA) is preferred over OA publishing Neutral/No Opinion	Traditional publishing (non-OA) is preferred over OA publishing Somewhat Agree	Traditional publishing (non-OA) is preferred over OA publishing Strongly Agree

Please add any additional comments:

Question Title

* 5. Please rate the following statements regarding open access funding.

	Strongly Disagree	Somewhat Disagree	Neutral/No Opinion	Somewhat Agree	Strongly Agree
Funding is easy to find	Funding is easy to find Strongly Disagree	Funding is easy to find Somewhat Disagree	Funding is easy to find Neutral/No Opinion	Funding is easy to find Somewhat Agree	Funding is easy to find Strongly Agree
Funding is easy to apply for	Funding is easy to apply for Strongly Disagree	Funding is easy to apply for Somewhat Disagree	Funding is easy to apply for Neutral/No Opinion	Funding is easy to apply for Somewhat Agree	Funding is easy to apply for Strongly Agree
There are plenty of funding opportunities available	There are plenty of funding opportunities available Strongly Disagree	There are plenty of funding opportunities available Somewhat Disagree	There are plenty of funding opportunities available Neutral/No Opinion	There are plenty of funding opportunities available Somewhat Agree	There are plenty of funding opportunities available Strongly Agree
Funding is disproportionately available across regions	Funding is disproportionately available across regions Strongly Disagree	Funding is disproportionately available across regions Somewhat Disagree	Funding is disproportionately available across regions Neutral/No Opinion	Funding is disproportionately available across regions Somewhat Agree	Funding is disproportionately available across regions Strongly Agree
Universities/institutions should set aside OA funds for their faculty	Universities/institutions should set aside OA funds for their faculty Strongly Disagree	Universities/institutions should set aside OA funds for their faculty Somewhat Disagree	Universities/institutions should set aside OA funds for their faculty Neutral/No Opinion	Universities/institutions should set aside OA funds for their faculty Somewhat Agree	Universities/institutions should set aside OA funds for their faculty Strongly Agree
Governments should set aside OA funds for researchers	Governments should set aside OA funds for researchers Strongly Disagree	Governments should set aside OA funds for researchers Somewhat Disagree	Governments should set aside OA funds for researchers Neutral/No Opinion	Governments should set aside OA funds for researchers Somewhat Agree	Governments should set aside OA funds for researchers Strongly Agree
Funding mandates/compliance are difficult to understand and follow	Funding mandates/compliance are difficult to understand and follow Strongly Disagree	Funding mandates/compliance are difficult to understand and follow Somewhat Disagree	Funding mandates/compliance are difficult to understand and follow Neutral/No Opinion	Funding mandates/compliance are difficult to understand and follow Somewhat Agree	Funding mandates/compliance are difficult to understand and follow Strongly Agree
Funding is often denied due to lack of funds left	Funding is often denied due to lack of funds left Strongly Disagree	Funding is often denied due to lack of funds left Somewhat Disagree	Funding is often denied due to lack of funds left Neutral/No Opinion	Funding is often denied due to lack of funds left Somewhat Agree	Funding is often denied due to lack of funds left Strongly Agree
Funds for OA publishing should be included in research funding grants	Funds for OA publishing should be included in research funding grants Strongly Disagree	Funds for OA publishing should be included in research funding grants Somewhat Disagree	Funds for OA publishing should be included in research funding grants Neutral/No Opinion	Funds for OA publishing should be included in research funding grants Somewhat Agree	Funds for OA publishing should be included in research funding grants Strongly Agree

Please add any additional comments:

Question Title

* 6. Please rate the following statements on peer review in research and publishing.

	Strongly Disagree	Somewhat Disagree	Neutral/No Opinion	Somewhat Agree	Strongly Agree
Open peer review should replace all other peer review models	Open peer review should replace all other peer review models Strongly Disagree	Open peer review should replace all other peer review models Somewhat Disagree	Open peer review should replace all other peer review models Neutral/No Opinion	Open peer review should replace all other peer review models Somewhat Agree	Open peer review should replace all other peer review models Strongly Agree
Peer review prevents biased decisions	Peer review prevents biased decisions Strongly Disagree	Peer review prevents biased decisions Somewhat Disagree	Peer review prevents biased decisions Neutral/No Opinion	Peer review prevents biased decisions Somewhat Agree	Peer review prevents biased decisions Strongly Agree
Peer review is an effective way to ensure the publication of quality scientific work	Peer review is an effective way to ensure the publication of quality scientific work Strongly Disagree	Peer review is an effective way to ensure the publication of quality scientific work Somewhat Disagree	Peer review is an effective way to ensure the publication of quality scientific work Neutral/No Opinion	Peer review is an effective way to ensure the publication of quality scientific work Somewhat Agree	Peer review is an effective way to ensure the publication of quality scientific work Strongly Agree
Peer reviewers should receive monetary incentives	Peer reviewers should receive monetary incentives Strongly Disagree	Peer reviewers should receive monetary incentives Somewhat Disagree	Peer reviewers should receive monetary incentives Neutral/No Opinion	Peer reviewers should receive monetary incentives Somewhat Agree	Peer reviewers should receive monetary incentives Strongly Agree
Publications promising 2-3 weeks for completion of the peer review process are untrustworthy	Publications promising 2-3 weeks for completion of the peer review process are untrustworthy Strongly Disagree	Publications promising 2-3 weeks for completion of the peer review process are untrustworthy Somewhat Disagree	Publications promising 2-3 weeks for completion of the peer review process are untrustworthy Neutral/No Opinion	Publications promising 2-3 weeks for completion of the peer review process are untrustworthy Somewhat Agree	Publications promising 2-3 weeks for completion of the peer review process are untrustworthy Strongly Agree
Two completed peer reviews on a manuscript is considered a sufficient peer review	Two completed peer reviews on a manuscript is considered a sufficient peer review Strongly Disagree	Two completed peer reviews on a manuscript is considered a sufficient peer review Somewhat Disagree	Two completed peer reviews on a manuscript is considered a sufficient peer review Neutral/No Opinion	Two completed peer reviews on a manuscript is considered a sufficient peer review Somewhat Agree	Two completed peer reviews on a manuscript is considered a sufficient peer review Strongly Agree

Please add any additional comments:

Question Title

* 7. Please rate the following statements on the use of metrics (Impact Factor, CiteScore, Eigenfactors, etc.) in research and publishing.

	Strongly Disagree	Somewhat Disagree	Neutral/No Opinion	Somewhat Agree	Strongly Agree
All journals should display their metrics	All journals should display their metrics Strongly Disagree	All journals should display their metrics Somewhat Disagree	All journals should display their metrics Neutral/No Opinion	All journals should display their metrics Somewhat Agree	All journals should display their metrics Strongly Agree
Metrics are the most important factor in the decision to publish in a specific publication	Metrics are the most important factor in the decision to publish in a specific publication Strongly Disagree	Metrics are the most important factor in the decision to publish in a specific publication Somewhat Disagree	Metrics are the most important factor in the decision to publish in a specific publication Neutral/No Opinion	Metrics are the most important factor in the decision to publish in a specific publication Somewhat Agree	Metrics are the most important factor in the decision to publish in a specific publication Strongly Agree
Metrics are untrustworthy	Metrics are untrustworthy Strongly Disagree	Metrics are untrustworthy Somewhat Disagree	Metrics are untrustworthy Neutral/No Opinion	Metrics are untrustworthy Somewhat Agree	Metrics are untrustworthy Strongly Agree
Researchers should be limited to publishing in only publications with specific metrics (i.e., only journals with Impact Factors, only Q1 journals, etc.)	Researchers should be limited to publishing in only publications with specific metrics (i.e., only journals with Impact Factors, only Q1 journals, etc.) Strongly Disagree	Researchers should be limited to publishing in only publications with specific metrics (i.e., only journals with Impact Factors, only Q1 journals, etc.) Somewhat Disagree	Researchers should be limited to publishing in only publications with specific metrics (i.e., only journals with Impact Factors, only Q1 journals, etc.) Neutral/No Opinion	Researchers should be limited to publishing in only publications with specific metrics (i.e., only journals with Impact Factors, only Q1 journals, etc.) Somewhat Agree	Researchers should be limited to publishing in only publications with specific metrics (i.e., only journals with Impact Factors, only Q1 journals, etc.) Strongly Agree
Journals with a Web of Science Journal Impact Factor are the best journals to publish within	Journals with a Web of Science Journal Impact Factor are the best journals to publish within Strongly Disagree	Journals with a Web of Science Journal Impact Factor are the best journals to publish within Somewhat Disagree	Journals with a Web of Science Journal Impact Factor are the best journals to publish within Neutral/No Opinion	Journals with a Web of Science Journal Impact Factor are the best journals to publish within Somewhat Agree	Journals with a Web of Science Journal Impact Factor are the best journals to publish within Strongly Agree
OA processing charges or subscription fees should be set based on metrics	OA processing charges or subscription fees should be set based on metrics Strongly Disagree	OA processing charges or subscription fees should be set based on metrics Somewhat Disagree	OA processing charges or subscription fees should be set based on metrics Neutral/No Opinion	OA processing charges or subscription fees should be set based on metrics Somewhat Agree	OA processing charges or subscription fees should be set based on metrics Strongly Agree

Please add any additional comments:

Question Title

* 8. Please rate the following statement on publishing practices.

	Strongly Disagree	Somewhat Disagree	Neutral/No Opinion	Somewhat Agree	Strongly Agree
Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript in multiple publications is unethical	Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript in multiple publications is unethical Strongly Disagree	Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript in multiple publications is unethical Somewhat Disagree	Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript in multiple publications is unethical Neutral/No Opinion	Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript in multiple publications is unethical Somewhat Agree	Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript in multiple publications is unethical Strongly Agree
Adding co-author after paper is accepted to be published is unethical	Adding co-author after paper is accepted to be published is unethical Strongly Disagree	Adding co-author after paper is accepted to be published is unethical Somewhat Disagree	Adding co-author after paper is accepted to be published is unethical Neutral/No Opinion	Adding co-author after paper is accepted to be published is unethical Somewhat Agree	Adding co-author after paper is accepted to be published is unethical Strongly Agree
Withdrawing a paper after acceptance to publish in a higher impact publication is unethical	Withdrawing a paper after acceptance to publish in a higher impact publication is unethical Strongly Disagree	Withdrawing a paper after acceptance to publish in a higher impact publication is unethical Somewhat Disagree	Withdrawing a paper after acceptance to publish in a higher impact publication is unethical Neutral/No Opinion	Withdrawing a paper after acceptance to publish in a higher impact publication is unethical Somewhat Agree	Withdrawing a paper after acceptance to publish in a higher impact publication is unethical Strongly Agree
Plagiarism including use of exact verbiage verbatim and not referencing the source is unethical	Plagiarism including use of exact verbiage verbatim and not referencing the source is unethical Strongly Disagree	Plagiarism including use of exact verbiage verbatim and not referencing the source is unethical Somewhat Disagree	Plagiarism including use of exact verbiage verbatim and not referencing the source is unethical Neutral/No Opinion	Plagiarism including use of exact verbiage verbatim and not referencing the source is unethical Somewhat Agree	Plagiarism including use of exact verbiage verbatim and not referencing the source is unethical Strongly Agree
Reviewer/editor demands to add their references to paper in order to be accepted is unethical	Reviewer/editor demands to add their references to paper in order to be accepted is unethical Strongly Disagree	Reviewer/editor demands to add their references to paper in order to be accepted is unethical Somewhat Disagree	Reviewer/editor demands to add their references to paper in order to be accepted is unethical Neutral/No Opinion	Reviewer/editor demands to add their references to paper in order to be accepted is unethical Somewhat Agree	Reviewer/editor demands to add their references to paper in order to be accepted is unethical Strongly Agree
Publishing work with a student's involvement in development of the research is unethical	Publishing work with a student's involvement in development of the research is unethical Strongly Disagree	Publishing work with a student's involvement in development of the research is unethical Somewhat Disagree	Publishing work with a student's involvement in development of the research is unethical Neutral/No Opinion	Publishing work with a student's involvement in development of the research is unethical Somewhat Agree	Publishing work with a student's involvement in development of the research is unethical Strongly Agree
Manuscripts rejected based on bias such as gender, race, etc. is practiced routinely	Manuscripts rejected based on bias such as gender, race, etc. is practiced routinely Strongly Disagree	Manuscripts rejected based on bias such as gender, race, etc. is practiced routinely Somewhat Disagree	Manuscripts rejected based on bias such as gender, race, etc. is practiced routinely Neutral/No Opinion	Manuscripts rejected based on bias such as gender, race, etc. is practiced routinely Somewhat Agree	Manuscripts rejected based on bias such as gender, race, etc. is practiced routinely Strongly Agree
Use of third party company guaranteeing the acceptance of a paper to a publication is unethical	Use of third party company guaranteeing the acceptance of a paper to a publication is unethical Strongly Disagree	Use of third party company guaranteeing the acceptance of a paper to a publication is unethical Somewhat Disagree	Use of third party company guaranteeing the acceptance of a paper to a publication is unethical Neutral/No Opinion	Use of third party company guaranteeing the acceptance of a paper to a publication is unethical Somewhat Agree	Use of third party company guaranteeing the acceptance of a paper to a publication is unethical Strongly Agree

Please add any additional comments:

Question Title

* 9. List five emerging/forthcoming topics that are advancing your field.

Topic 1

Topic 2

Topic 3

Topic 4

Topic 5

Please add any additional comments:

IGI Global Annual Academic Publishing Trends and Open Access Survey - 2024

Question Title

* 1. Please select your region.

Question Title

* 2. Please select the closest generalized profession to yours:

Question Title

* 3. Please rate the following statements regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its role in research and innovation.

Question Title

* 4. Please rate the following statements regarding open access (OA) publishing.

Question Title

* 5. Please rate the following statements regarding open access funding.

Question Title

* 6. Please rate the following statements on peer review in research and publishing.

Question Title

* 7. Please rate the following statements on the use of metrics (Impact Factor, CiteScore, Eigenfactors, etc.) in research and publishing.

Question Title

* 8. Please rate the following statement on publishing practices.

Question Title

* 9. List five emerging/forthcoming topics that are advancing your field.

Question Title

* 10. What improvements or innovations would you like to see occur in research and publishing?

Question Title

* 11. In your opinion, what is the greatest obstacle that authors and editors face in research and publishing?