This article seeks to extend the knowledge of the behaviour and attitudes towards open access publishing through a survey that focusses on the attitudes and behaviours of academic researchers in Korea working in medicine and healthcare. Issues covered include: use of and intentions regarding OAP, and perceptions regarding advantages and disadvantages of OAP, journal article publication services, peer review, and re-use. A significant proportion of the articles (mean 58%) published by this group are published gold open access, consistent with the push in Korea towards international impact for their research. Researchers were more positive about the benefits of OAP than they were negative about its disadvantages. Analysis of responses on the basis of gender, and experience in publishing, showed some significant differences in attitudes to some statements.
BennettR (2013) The changing role of the publisher in the scholarly communications process. In: ShorleyDJubbM (eds.) The Future of Scholarly Communication. London: Facet.
2.
BirdC (2010) Continued adventures in open access: 2009 perspective. Learning Publishing23(2): 107–116.
3.
BjorkB-C (2004) Open access to scientific publications – an analysis of the barriers to change. Information Research9(2).
4.
BjorkB-CCataniP (2016) Peer review in megajournals compared with traditional scholarly journals: Does it make a difference?Learned Publishing29(1): 9–12.
5.
CooninB (2011) Open access publishing in business research: The authors’ perspective. Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship16(3).
6.
CooninBYounceL (2009) Publishing in open access journals in the social sciences and humanities: Who’s doing it and why?ACRL Fourteenth National Conference, March 12-15, Seattle, Washington.
7.
CooninBYounceLM (2010) Publishing in open access educational journals: The authors’ perspectives. Behavioral and Social Sciences Librarian29(2): 118–132.
8.
CullenRChawnerB (2011) Institutional repositories, open access, and scholarly communication: A study of conflicting paradigms. Journal of Academic Librarianship37(60): 460–470.
9.
CurryS (2013) Political, cultural and technological dimensions of open access: An exploration. In: VincentNWickhamC (eds.) Debating Open Access. London: British Academy, pp. 55–67.
10.
Dallmeier-TiessenSDarbyRGoernerBHyppoelaeJIgo-KemenesPKahnDLambertSLengenfelderALeonardCMeleSNowickaMPolydoratouPRossDRuiz-PerezSSchimmerRSwaislandMvan der SteltW (2011) Highlights form the SOAP Project Survey: What scientists think about open access publishing. arXiv: 1101.5260. Available online at: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.5260.pdf
HarleyDAccordSKEarl-NovellSShannonLKingCJ (2010) Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Available online at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g
Hernández-BorgesAACabrera-RodríguezRMontesdeoca-MeliánAMartínez-PinedaBTorres-Álvarez de ArcayaMLJiménez-SosaA (2006). Awareness and attitude of Spanish medical authors to open access publishing and the “author pays” model. Journal of the Medical Library Association94(4): 449–e218.
JamaliHRNicholasDWatkinsonAHermanETenopirCLevineKAllardSChristianLVolentineRBoehmgRNicholsF (2014) How scholars implement trust in their reading, citing and publishing activities. Library and Information Science Research36(3-4): 192–202.
18.
JeongHHHuhS (2016) Status of digital standards in Korean medical journals in 2016. Science Editing3(2): 100–104.
19.
JoungKH (2011) Characteristics of open access journals in Korea: Focussed on KCI journals. Journal of the Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science223(3): 373–391.
20.
JoungKHRowleyJE (2017) Scholarly publishing and open access: Perspectives from Korea. Learned Publishing, Accepted.
21.
JubbM (2013) Introduction. In: ShorleyDJubbM (eds.) The Future of Scholarly Communication. London: Facet.
22.
KlingRMcKimG (1999) Scholarly communication and the continuum of electronic publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science50(10): 890–906.
23.
KlingRMcKimG (2000) Not just a matter of time differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication: Scholarly communication and the continuum of electronic publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology51(14): 1306–1320.
24.
LewisDW (2012) The inevitability of open access. College and Research Libraries73(5): 493–506.
25.
MukherjeeB (2014) Green and gold open access in India. Learned Publishing21(1): 21–32.
26.
MulliganAMabeM (2011a). The effect of the internet on research motivations, behaviour and attitudes. Journal of Documentation67(2): 290–311.
27.
MulliganAMabeM (2011b) What journal authors want: Ten years of results from Elsevier’s Author Feedback Programme. New Review of Information Networking16(1): 71–89.
28.
NicholasDWatkinsonAVolentineRAllardSLevineKTenopirCHermanE (2014) Trust and authority in scholarly communications in the light of the digital transition: Setting the scene for a major study. Learned Publishing27(2): 121–134.
29.
NicholasDWatkinsonAJamaliHRHermanETenopirCVolentineRAllardSLevineK (2015) Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing28(1): 15–21.
RodriguezJE (2014) Awareness and attitudes about open access publishing: A glance at generational differences. Journal of Academic Librarianship40: 604–610.
32.
RowleyJJohnsonFSbaffiLFrassWDevineE (2017) Academics’ behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology68(5): 1201–1211.
33.
RussellJKentTK (2010) Paved with gold: An institutional case study on supporting open access publishing. Serials23(7): 97–102.
34.
SahuSKAyraSK (2013) Open access practice in India. Library Hi Tech News30(4): 6–12.
35.
SatyanarayanaK (2013) Journal publishing: The changing landscape. Indian Journal of Medical Research138(1): 4–7.
36.
SchroterSTiteLSmithR (2005) Perceptions on open access publishing: Interviews with journal authors. British Medical Journal330(7494): 656–759.
37.
SinghHP (2015) Knowledge and attitude of health researchers from India towards ‘Paying to Publish’ and open access journals. Indian Pediatrics52: 252–253. http://indianpediatrics.net/mar2015/mar-252-253.htm
38.
SolomonDJBjorkB-C (2012) Publication fees in open access publishing: Sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology63(1): 98–107.
39.
SwanA (2006) The culture of open access: researchers’ views and responses. In: JacobsN (ed.) Open Access: Key strategic, technical and economic aspects (pp. 65–72). Oxford, UK: Chandos.
40.
TenopirCDaltonEDChristianLJonesMKMcCabeMSmithMFishA (2017) Imagining a gold open access future: Attitudes, behaviors, and funding scenarios among authors of academic scholarship. College and Research Libraries. Earlycite.
41.
WarlickSEVaughanKTL (2007) Factors influencing publication choice: Why faculty choose open access. Biomedical Digital Libraries4(1).
42.
ZastrowM (2016) Why South Korea is the world’s biggest investor in research. Nature534: 20–23.
