Faculty Attitudes And Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication ...
FACULTY ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS
REGARDING SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION:
SURVEY FINDINGS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Prepared by
The University of California Office of Scholarly Communication
and the California Digital Library eScholarship Program
in association with
Greenhouse Associates, Inc.
August 2007
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors
Regarding Scholarly Communication:
Survey Findings from the University of California
Prepared by
The University of California Office of Scholarly Communication
and the California Digital Library eScholarship Program
in association with
Greenhouse Associates1
August 2007
Contents
I.
Executive
Summary
1
II. Summary of Findings
3
III. Statistical Methodology and Assumptions
9
IV.
Detailed
Findings
11
Appendix A: Selected Free-Form Comments
104
Appendix B: Survey Instrument
115
1 Organizational information available at http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/responses/osc.html;
http://www.cdlib.org/programs/escholarship.html; and http://www.greenhousegrows.com/.
August 2007
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The University of California’s Office of Scholarly Communication (OSC) promotes and
encourages Universitywide planning and action to develop scholarly communication systems
that 1) meet the needs of the University’s researchers, teachers, and students; 2) are
economically sustainable; and, 3) leverage Internet technologies to support innovation in all
forms of scholarship.
With the assistance of consultants from Greenhouse Associates, the OSC initiated a multi-
phase study in 2006 that aimed to deepen our understanding of faculty perspectives and
behavior on a range of issues and developments within the scholarly communication arena.
The study explored UC faculty members’ sense of the overall health of scholarly communication
systems, and their perspective on the role of tenure and promotion processes, copyright,
alternative and emerging forms of publication and dissemination, policy interventions, and key
services that the University does or could supply, including those of its eScholarship publishing
services.
Informed by a set of 37 structured interviews held in the spring of 2006, the OSC in November
2006 invited a random stratified sample of UC’s ladder-rank faculty from all ten UC campuses to
participate in a 32-question online survey. Using question sub-components, most questions
covered several, or many, aspects of an issue. The 1118 respondents – representing 23% of
those invited from the sample and 13% of the UC faculty population – came proportionately
from all faculty ranks and disciplines.
Results of the survey – available in summary and statistically detailed forms in sections II and IV
of the report respectively – reveal a profile of UC’s community of scholars where:
• Faculty are strongly interested in issues related to scholarly communication.
• Faculty generally conform to conventional behavior in scholarly publication, albeit with
significant beachheads on several fronts.
• Faculty attitudes are changing on a number of fronts, with a few signs of imminent
change in behaviors.
• The current tenure and promotion system impedes changes in faculty behavior.
• On important issues in scholarly communication, faculty attitudes vary inconsistently by
rank, except in general depth of knowledge and on issues related to tenure and
promotion.
• Faculty tend to see scholarly communication problems as affecting others, but not
themselves.
• The disconnect between attitude and behavior is acute with regard to copyright.
• University policies mandating change are likely to stir intense debate.
• Scholars are aware of alternative forms of dissemination but are concerned about
preserving their current publishing outlet.
August 2007
1
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• Scholars are concerned that changes might undermine the quality of scholarship.
• Outreach on scholarly communication issues and services has not yet reached the
majority of faculty.
• The Arts and Humanities disciplines may be the most fertile disciplines for University-
sponsored initiatives in scholarly communication.
• Senior faculty may be the most fertile targets for innovation in scholarly communication.
The OSC is sharing these results openly and widely, as a contribution to campus and
University-wide strategic planning, and in the hope that they will inform the scholarly
communication program planning of non-UC stakeholders. Within UC, the results are being
made available to various segments and stakeholders in order to assist ongoing efforts to:
• Contribute to strategic planning and implementation of a range of publishing services
made available to faculty, departments, and research centers;
• Redirect and fine-tune outreach and education activities that deepen scholars’
understanding and inform their actions with regards to disseminating and using research
results;
• Inform the University’s contributions and responses to policy proposals and other
environmental developments;
• Organize and prioritize faculty attention through ad hoc as well as formal governance
venues.
August 2007
2
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. SUMMARY
In November 2006 the University of California’s Office of Scholarly Communication sent an
invitation to 4,870 of its 8,000+ ladder-rank faculty members inviting them to participate in a 32-
item online survey that would allow the University to “better understand trends in scholarly
publishing, so that ultimately the University can continue to support and respond to changes in
this essential endeavor.” Replies were received from 1,118 respondents (22.9%), making this
survey one of the largest of its kind,2 and providing rich data to help inform the University’s
strategic and practical planning to support its scholars’ use and dissemination of research
results.
The survey results show a gap between attitude and behavior on the part of University of
California ladder-rank faculty. The UC faculty largely conform to conventional behavior
regarding scholarly communication, such as publishing in traditional venues, but widely express
a need for change in the current systems of scholarly communication.
While faculty evidence interest in learning about new scholarship and dissemination activities
occurring across the scholarly community, their awareness of alternative scholarly
communication opportunities is generally low, and they express varying levels of concern about
issues relating to commercial and society publishers, publishing costs, and copyright.
Faculty consistently do express concern about the existing promotion and tenure processes at
UC. They believe that such processes are not keeping up with the evolution of scholarly
communication, although few faculty members at this time express interest in actively changing
their own behavior or in fomenting change within the responsible institutions. Indeed, they
identify the obstacle to change as the existing reward systems of tenure/promotion (and even
grant-making), which favor traditional publishing forms and venues.
In addition, it appears that the faculty is under-informed on a range of issues and initiatives
designed to foster innovation in scholarly communication, including some that emanate from
their own governance structure and from UC’s eScholarship programs and services. Faculty
indicate that the best way to inform and educate them on such issues is through direct
communication from the Office of Scholarly Communication, campus library and librarians, and
departmental meetings.
2 Notable among these are: 1) Swan, Alma and Sheridan Brown. Open Access Self-Archiving: An Author
Study. Key Perspectives Ltd. 2005. http://www.keyperspectives.co.uk/openaccessarchive/reports/
(Sponsored by JISC; 1296 respondents); and 2) Rowlands, Ian, Dave Nicholas, and Paul Huntingdon.
Scholarly Communication in the Digital Environment: What Do Authors Want? Findings of an International
Survey of Author Opinion: Project Report. London: Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of
Research, Department of Information Science, City University, 2004. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ciber/ciber-pa-
report.pdf (sponsored by UK Publishers’ Association; 3787 respondents).
August 2007
3
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
B. SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS
Faculty are strongly interested in issues related to scholarly communication
Faculty across all ranks and disciplines are interested in scholarly communication and in
learning more about the new forms it is taking. One indication is the relatively high response
rate to the survey itself (20%+), and the relatively low rate of “abandonment” (24%) by
respondents who failed to complete the 32-item survey once they had started it. Another
indicator of interest is the number of respondents who took extra time to add optional
comments, many of them lengthy, in several places throughout the survey. Thematic highlights
of these comments are available in Appendix A.
University of California faculty generally conform to conventional behavior in scholarly
publication, albeit with significant beachheads on several fronts
Faculty see their own and their peers’ publishing as the critical currency of scholarship and
academic success, and in so doing overwhelmingly rely on traditional forms of publishing, such
as peer-reviewed journals and monographs. Faculty also tend to believe in traditional measures
such as citations and impact factor as proxies for the value of research. They also believe in
peer review as an effective mechanism for maintaining the quality of published scholarship.
There is limited but significant use of alternative forms of scholarship, with 21% of faculty having
published in open-access journals, and 14% having posted peer-reviewed articles in institutional
repositories or disciplinary repositories.3 Such publishing appears to be seen as supplementing
rather than substituting for traditional forms of publication. Furthermore, the large majority of
faculty authors readily cede their copyright rights to scholarly societies and to commercial
publishers. However, 7% of faculty authors have modified the copyright terms of a publication
contract, and 4% have refused to agree to terms and thereby have forgone the opportunity to
publish in a significant journal.4
While faculty attitudes are changing on a number of fronts, there are few signs of
imminent change in behaviors
Survey results highlight an apparent disconnect between the faculty’s expressed level of
concern and willingness to take action. Even on issues where faculty express substantial
concern, such as copyright or the price of journals, faculty show little evidence of changing
behavior. Indeed, notwithstanding their expression of concern about the present, when
projecting their future behavior, about 75% of faculty indicate that their publishing activities are
likely to remain largely unchanged.5 The majority’s lack of motivation to alter behavior appears
to be connected on the one hand to the tradition-bound tenure and review process, and on the
other hand to the need for explicit forms of assistance, such as in the management of copyright.
The current tenure and promotion system impedes changes in faculty behavior
Repeatedly, respondents indicated both in survey responses and free-form comments that the
current tenure and promotion system drives them to focus on conventional publishing activities
3 See findings from Question 19.
4 See findings from Questions 7 and 8.
5 See findings from Question 20.
August 2007
4
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
that are accorded the most weight toward their professional advancement.6 Assistant
Professors tend to feel the most constrained by impositions of the tenure and promotion system,
although Associate Professors also exhibit some of the same attitudes and behaviors, albeit to a
lesser extent.
Faculty appear to consider the act of publishing itself to be sufficient for accomplishing their
goals. Once an article or monograph has been published (presumably by a publisher with a
solid reputation), scholars are less concerned about the process of dissemination, and whether
its impact is measured directly rather than via the surrogate of the publication venue. In large
measure, this lack of concern is due to the tenure and promotion system, which rewards
publication over broader dissemination.
Furthermore, UC faculty appear to believe that nearly all published materials eventually appear
online through the efforts of publishers or aggregators, and are accessible to almost anyone on
the Internet. Such is not the case, however, as many published materials are legally accessible
only by subscription or with the explicit author/institutional act of alternative or supplementary
dissemination. These misconceptions may well stem from the UC faculty’s access to an
unusually rich set of subscriptions and resource-sharing services managed by the University’s
libraries.7
On important issues in scholarly communication, faculty attitudes vary
inconsistently by rank, except in general depth of knowledge and on issues
related to tenure and promotion
Chi-squared analyses and Analysis of Variance indicate that Full, Associate, and Assistant
Professors tend to have similar views about key issues, such as the roles of scholarly societies
and commercial publishers, the cost of journals, and the management of copyright. With two
exceptions, responses that do vary on different issues by faculty rank tend to reflect a matter of
degree rather than fundamental differences.
On matters of tenure and promotion Assistant Professors show consistently more skepticism
about the ability of tenure and promotion processes to keep pace with or foster new forms of
scholarly communication. On many issues, Assistant Professors more often admitted
uncertainty or lack of knowledge.
Faculty tend to see scholarly communication problems as affecting others, but
not themselves
While faculty often acknowledge problems with the current system of scholarly communication,
they tend to disassociate themselves from these issues. For example, while faculty members
see a large adverse impact on their institutions and on other scholars resulting from high journal
prices, relatively few say that the problem affects them.8 Similarly, while they feel that too much
research is being published, they do not believe that they are publishing more than they ought
to. In free-form comments, several faculty members said that the issues addressed by the
survey might have more relevance to disciplines other than their own.
6 See especially findings from Question 2f and 5 and selected quotes in Appendix A, ”Impact of
Promotion and Tenure Processes.”
7 While this observation was not necessarily evident from the survey, it was shown in a previous phase of
research conducted through interviews with UC faculty.
8 See findings for Question 3d-f.
August 2007
5
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
The disconnect between attitude and behavior is acute with regard to copyright
While faculty tend to agree that management of copyright is an important factor in the evolution
of scholarly publishing, fewer than half report that it is an important factor in their own scholarly
publishing, and even fewer take action to retain copyright rights.9
University policies mandating change are likely to stir intense debate
In May 2006, a special committee of the UC Academic Council proposed that faculty routinely
grant to the University a limited, nonexclusive license to place their scholarly publications in a
noncommercial, publicly accessible online repository.10 Under the proposal, granting this
license would be the default situation, but faculty could choose to opt out. Despite full faculty
governance review and discussion, the survey revealed that the vast majority of the faculty was
unaware of the proposal. Asked to opine, based on a short précis of the proposal, 50% of the
respondents expressed; support was tempered by concerns about implementation and impact.
Among those whose free-form comments supported the proposal, the two main reasons were a
perceived right of the University to lay claim to its faculty members’ output, and a view that the
University would have the clout to force change on publishers such that individual scholars
would not have to do it individually.
Among those whose free-form comments opposed the proposal, key issues included whether
the University should be involved in fostering new forms of scholarly communication; the need
for University involvement, given that other parties, such as discipline-specific bodies and
government agencies, already have undertaken such efforts; and whether the University has
competence in these areas. Several respondents were concerned that the proposed policy
might adversely affect their relationships with publishers, publishers’ financial viability, or
publishers’ willingness to publish works from UC faculty. While many of these concerns appear
to emanate from respondents who do not understand the UC proposal and its implications
(indeed, 75% reported that they had not previously heard of the proposal), these reactions
reveal a strong reliance on existing publishers.
Scholars are aware of alternative forms of dissemination but are concerned about
preserving their current publishing outlets
Approximately two-thirds of faculty respondents reported being aware of or knowledgeable
about open-access journals and repositories of open-access content.11 Faculty appear unwilling
to undertake activities, such as forcing changes on publishers, that might undermine the viability
of the system or threaten their personal success as traditionally evaluated. Again, revealing a
gap between attitudes and behaviors, few respondents indicated personal dissatisfaction in
terms of content, access, or economics of their own publishing, despite relatively high levels of
general concern. There is no dominant view about the potential impact of open-access
publishing. However, a number of free-form comments highlighted concern that new forms of
9 See findings for Questions 6 through 11 and selected quotes in Appendix A, “Copyright Issues.”
10 See “Draft UC Open Access Policy and Working Group Report at
http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/openaccesspolicy/; see findings for Questions 14 and 15.
11 See findings for Question 17 and selected quotes in Appendix A, “New Forms of Scholarly
Communication.”
August 2007
6
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
scholarly communication might come at the expense of existing publishers. For example, with
regard to open access, some respondents voiced concern that it would undermine the financial
viability of societies or commercial publishers, or that new payment models might simply shift
the cost burden from institutions to individual faculty authors.12
Scholars are concerned that changes might undermine the quality of scholarship
Consistently throughout the survey’s free-form comments, faculty indicated that they want to
preserve the quality of published works, regardless of the form or venue.13 Many respondents
voiced concerns that new forms of scholarly communication, such as open-access journals or
repositories, might produce a flood of low-quality output. Faculty showed broad and strong
loyalty to the current peer-review system as the primary means of ensuring the quality of
published works now and in the future, regardless of form or venue.
Outreach on scholarly communication issues and services has not yet reached
the majority of faculty
A striking finding of the survey was the lack of faculty knowledge about the potential change in
University policy (mentioned above): the University Senate’s proposed requirement that every
faculty member routinely grant the University a limited, nonexclusive license to place their
scholarly publications in a non-commercial, publicly accessible online repository. The lack of
awareness among faculty is noteworthy, both because of the proposal’s potential impact and
because at the time of the survey it had been under discussion in Senate forums for more than
a year.
Similarly, respondents were overwhelmingly unaware of eScholarship services, a University-
wide set of tools and electronic publishing services for enabling the electronic creation and
dissemination of published and unpublished works. This is an interesting contrast to the relative
success of eScholarship, as evidenced by the significant quantity, quality, and regularity of
contributions and the heavy use that content receives.14
Despite a broad range of Universitywide and campus-based web information and outreach –
sponsored in large part by the Office of Scholarly Communication and the campus libraries – as
well as focused Academic Senate attention,15 the faculty remain largely unaware of and
disengaged from m scholarly communications issues, University policies, and the tools and
services that are available to foster innovation and potentially alter the measures of their
professional success. Although the survey uncovered faculty preferences in how to be
informed, further study is needed to determine whether the lack of awareness stems from a lack
of communication overall, ineffective communication methods and venues, or other causes.
12 See findings for Question 18 and selected quotes in Appendix A, “New Forms of Scholarly
Communication.”
13 See selected quotes in Appendix A, “Perceived Importance of Peer Review.”
14 As of this writing, the eScholarship Repository included 17,500 faculty vetted articles contributed by
over 200 research units and departments; the cumulative 5.6 million articles downloaded represent an
average of more than 25,000 articles uses per week. eScholarship also hosts 19 open-access journals
and peer-reviewed series and, through its collaboration with the UC Press, nearly 2,000 electronic books.
15 See http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu; http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/scholarly/;
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/committees/scsc/; and
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/committees/ucolasc/
August 2007
7
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
The Arts and Humanities disciplines may be the most fertile disciplines for
University-sponsored initiatives in scholarly communication
The survey indicates that there is generally more appetite for change among faculty in Arts and
Humanities than within the Social Sciences, Life & Medical Sciences, or the Physical Sciences.
Arts and Humanities also evidence the most concern about copyright and its impact on scholarly
communication, in general and in their own related activities. The sciences have been seen as
the leading disciplines in adopting new forms of scholarly communication, as evidenced by their
use of disciplinary repositories and their shift away from monographs toward more rapid forms
of dissemination such as on-line journals. Ironically, it may be because these practices are so
well entrenched that respondents in the sciences voice limited support for University-sponsored
initiatives. In contrast, Arts and Humanities scholarship and the subsequent dissemination of
such scholarship are inherently different than the experiences of the sciences overall, and, as
such, Arts and Humanities faculty express greater interest in alternatives, the need for change,
and a call for discussion and help.
Senior faculty may be the most fertile targets for innovation in scholarly
communication
Although perhaps counterintuitive, given the perception that once faculty achieve tenure and a
more senior rank they become more resistant to change, the survey results overall suggest that
senior faculty may actually be more open to innovation than younger faculty. Senior faculty are
free from tenure concerns, and although many are still driven by a desire for promotion, they
appear more willing to experiment, more willing to change behavior, and more willing to
participate in new initiatives. Therefore, senior faculty may well serve as one starting point for
fostering change. Furthermore, because senior faculty are both involved in making academic
policy and serving as role models for junior faculty, their efforts at innovation are likely to have
broader influence within their departments.
August 2007
8
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
II. STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Statistical significance tests have been used throughout this analysis of survey results to
evaluate whether a relationship between respondent answers and classifications of faculty rank,
and separately academic discipline, and where appropriate, a difference in an average is likely
to have resulted purely by chance via the sampling process or whether such differences indicate
a real relationship or difference among categories in the subject population of this survey. A
5.0% (.05) criterion has been used throughout; that is, in order for a difference to be statistically
significant, there must be a 5.0% or lower chance that the difference resulted from the sampling
process. When a percentage difference meets the standard for statistical significance, it is
concluded, given that level of significance, that there exists a real relationship or a real
difference in the population represented by the data. In the tables and charts that follow, any
significant relationships are highlighted in bold.
Statistical relationship and difference depend on two primary factors: (1) sample sizes; and (2)
variability of responses within the groups, and subgroups where applicable, being compared.
Sample sizes and variability of responses differ comparison by comparison; thus, the same
absolute difference in value or percentage may be significant in one case, yet insignificant in
another. As the sample size increases, small differences in values or percentages may
increasingly become more statistically significant; and, as sample sizes decrease, large
differences in values or percentages may increasingly become more statistically insignificant.
Statistically-significant differences noted herein may or may not be managerially significant.
Such statistically-significant differences may be used by management for consideration.
Prior to fully analyzing survey results, frequency distributions of responses were preliminarily
examined. Where applicable, response categories for certain questions were grouped, or
collapsed, in order to make the final analysis more robust. Such analysis is labeled, where
applicable, as “Grouped Analysis.”
In cases where a response option included a level of indifference (i.e. “No opinion,” “Don’t
know,” “Not sure,” etc.), the “Grouped Analysis” excluded respondents who answered with the
indifference response option. In cases where an indifference response option exists and where
“Grouped Analysis” was not appropriate, a “Secondary Analysis” was conducted in which
respondents who answered with the indifference response option were excluded.
Approximately 40 respondents chose their faculty rank as “Other.” Where possible, these
respondents were reclassified as “Assistant Professor,” “Associate Professor,” or “Full
Professor” based upon the details of their positions each respondent provided. Approximately
35 respondents were not able to be reclassified; these respondents, in addition to the fewer
than 5 respondents who provided a null response to their faculty rank and who provided no
additional detail regarding their rank, were omitted from analysis conducted with regard to
faculty rank, but, where applicable, were included in analysis with regard to academic discipline.
Approximately 150 respondents chose their academic discipline as “Other.” Where possible,
these respondents were reclassified as “Arts,” “Humanities,” “Life & Medical Sciences,”
“Physical Sciences,” or “Social Sciences” faculty based on the details of their discipline that
each respondent provided. Fewer than 5 respondents were not able to be reclassified; these
August 2007
9
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
respondents, in addition to the approximately 5 respondents who provided a null response to
their academic discipline and who provided no additional detail regarding their discipline, were
omitted from analysis conducted with regard to academic discipline, but, where applicable, were
included in analysis with regard to faculty rank.
In the final analysis, a chi-squared analysis was used to evaluate statistical significance in
cross-classification, or contingency, tables (p ≤ .05). That is, a relationship between respondent
answers and classifications of faculty rank, and, separately, academic discipline, was
considered to be statistically significant only when it could have been produced by chance less
than or equal to 5.0% of the time. In cases where a chi-squared analysis determined that a
statistically-significant relationship exists, individual items which affected the overall chi-squared
statistic of the contingency table were noted for purposes of evaluation. That is, individual
deviations between expect and observed responses were analyzed, and large deviations which
contributed to the overall chi-squared statistic were noted (in bold).
In cases of questions where an interval level of measurement could be assumed, means were
computed and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in conjunction with Bonferroni tests to
assess the significance (also with p ≤ .05) of variations in responses. That is, a difference in
individual means was considered to be statistically significant only when it could have been
produced by chance less than or equal to 5.0% of the time.
In some questions, the overall averages will differ slightly between the charts shown for faculty
by rank and by academic discipline. The reason why these overall averages vary slightly in
some questions is that the discipline and faculty rank populations are not identical. Some
respondents were not able to be classified by discipline but were able to be classified by faculty
rank, and vice versa. Therefore, when the responses in a given category are divided by the
total number of the population in question, the resulting overall averages may vary slightly. This
is further amplified in certain questions by the decision to round the numbers for presentation
purposes. When rounded, averages that only differ slightly appear to vary more significantly
(e.g. 49.499% and 49.500% would be reported as 49% and 50% when they only differed by
.001%). In the narrative text for each question, whenever there is a difference between the
overall averages by faculty rank and academic discipline, our convention is to reference the
overall average from the chart that shows faculty by academic discipline.
August 2007
10
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
IV. FINDINGS
Note: Throughout this document, whenever a statistically-significant relationship exists as
defined in the preceding “Statistical Methodology and Assumptions”, it is highlighted in bold as
an aid to the reader.
QUESTION 1 - How would you characterize the general health of the current scholarly
communication system within your discipline?
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 72% agreed that minor or substantial
changes need to be made; 5% had no opinion. A statistically-significant relationship exists
between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (28%) and Life & Medical Sciences
(27%) compared to the overall average (23%) and to faculty in the Humanities (16%) said
that no changes need to be made.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (53%) compared to the overall
average (46%) and to faculty in the Humanities (33%) said that some minor changes need
to be made.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (43%) compared to the overall average
(26%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (20%) and Physical Sciences (17%) said
that substantial changes need to be made.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (8%) compared to the overall average (5%)
and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (2%) had no opinion.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
212
260
255
341
1113
No changes need to be made
13%
16%
27%
28%
21%
23%
Some minor changes need to be made
49%
33%
49%
53%
46%
46%
Substantial changes need to be made
36%
43%
20%
17%
26%
26%
No opinion
2%
8%
4%
2%
6%
5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 5% of respondents who had no opinion, and combines
respondents who said “some minor changes need to be made” or “substantial changes need to
be made” into a single group who said “some changes need to be made.”) A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and between faculty
responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (29%) and Life & Medical Sciences
(28%) compared to the overall average (24%) and to faculty in the Humanities (17%) and
Arts (14%) said that no changes need to be made.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (83%) compared to the overall average
(76%) said that some changes need to be made.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (25%) compared to the overall average (23%) and to
Associate Professors said that no changes need to be made.
August 2007
11
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (84%) compared to the overall average (77%)
said that some changes need to be made.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
196
250
249
319
1058
No changes need to be made
14%
17%
28%
29%
23%
24%
Some changes need to be made*
86%
83%
72%
71%
77%
76%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
190
193
642
1025
No changes need to be made
24%
16%
25%
23%
Some changes need to be made*
76%
84%
75%
77%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
QUESTION 2 - To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
(a) Too much research is being published.
(b) I publish more than I ought to.
(c) Citations are a good indicator of the usefulness of research.
(d) The number of article downloads is a good indicator of the usefulness of research.
(e) Journals have become too specialized.
(f) Tenure and promotion drive my interest in disseminating my work more than any other
factor.
(2a)
Too much research is being published.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 50% strongly agreed or agreed
somewhat; 3% don’t know. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty
responses and discipline, and between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities and Physical Sciences (each 17%)
compared to the overall average (12%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (10%) and Life
& Medical Sciences (7%) strongly agreed.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Arts (20%) compared to the overall average (38%)
agreed somewhat.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Arts (16%) compared to the overall average (25%)
disagreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (44%) and Life & Medical Sciences (25%)
compared to the overall average (22%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (12%)
strongly disagreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (4%) compared to the overall average
(3%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (2%) don’t know.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (23%) compared to the overall average (22%) and to
Assistant Professors (17%) strongly disagreed.
August 2007
12
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (6%) compared to the overall average (3%) and
to Full Professors (2%) don’t know.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
212
259
255
340
1111
Strongly agree
9%
17%
7%
17%
10%
12%
Agree somewhat
20%
34%
40%
42%
39%
38%
Disagree somewhat
16%
23%
26%
28%
25%
25%
Strongly disagree
44%
23%
25%
12%
22%
22%
Don't know
11%
2%
2%
2%
4%
3%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
205
204
669
1078
Strongly agree
13%
13%
12%
12%
Agree somewhat
38%
35%
39%
38%
Disagree somewhat
27%
27%
24%
25%
Strongly disagree
17%
20%
23%
22%
Don't know
6%
4%
2%
3%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 3% of respondents who don’t know, and combines
“strongly” and “somewhat” responses into totals of “agree” and “disagree.”) A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty
responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (60%) compared to the overall
average (52%) and to faculty in the Arts (33%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (68%) compared to the overall average (48%) and
to faculty in the Physical Sciences (40%) disagreed.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
40
207
255
250
326
1078
Agree*
33%
53%
47%
60%
51%
52%
Disagree*
68%
47%
53%
40%
49%
48%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] strongly agreed to [4]
strongly disagreed). A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
-
Humanities faculty
-
Physical Sciences faculty
-
Social Sciences faculty
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty and
- Physical Sciences faculty
August 2007
13
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Total
Number of Respondents
40
207
255
250
326
1078
Average*
3.0
8
2.5
3
2.7
1
2.3
5
2.6
2
2.5
8
Variance
1.
15
1
.09
0
.87
0
.82
0
.91
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.62
Physical Sci
2.35
Life&Med Sci
2.71
Humanities
2.53
Arts
3.08
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
(2b)
I publish more than I ought to.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 82% strongly or somewhat strongly
disagreed; 4% don’t know. No statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty
responses and rank, or between faculty responses and discipline.
(2c)
Citations are a good indicator of the usefulness of research.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 57% strongly or somewhat strongly
agreed; 2% don’t know. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses
and discipline, and between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (12%) compared to the overall
average (10%) and to faculty in the Humanities (7%) strongly agreed.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Humanities (36%) compared to the overall average
(47%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (56%) agreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (32%) compared to the overall average
(26%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (23%) disagreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts and Humanities (each 22%) compared to the
overall average (15%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (8%) strongly disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (12%) compared to the overall average (10%) and to
Assistant Professors (7%) and Associate Professors (6%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (3%) compared to the overall average and to
Full Professors (each 1%) don’t know.
August 2007
14
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
212
259
255
339
1110
Strongly agree
0%
7%
12%
11%
10%
10%
Agree somewhat
44%
36%
47%
56%
47%
47%
Disagree somewhat
27%
32%
24%
23%
27%
26%
Strongly disagree
22%
22%
16%
8%
14%
15%
Don't know
7%
4%
0%
1%
1%
2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
204
204
669
1077
Strongly agree
7%
6%
12%
10%
Agree somewhat
48%
50%
47%
48%
Disagree somewhat
28%
28%
25%
26%
Strongly disagree
16%
13%
15%
15%
Don't know
1%
3%
1%
1%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 2% who don’t know, and combines “strongly” and
“somewhat” responses into totals of “agree” and “disagree.”) A statistically-significant
relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty responses
and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (68%) compared to the overall
average (58%) and to faculty in the Humanities (45%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (55%) and the Arts (52%) compared to the
overall average (42%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (32%) disagreed.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
42
204
259
252
335
1092
Agree*
48%
45%
60%
68%
58%
58%
Disagree*
52%
55%
40%
32%
42%
42%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] strongly agreed to [4]
strongly disagreed.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Humanities faculty and
- Life & Medical Sciences faculty
- Physical Sciences faculty
- Social Sciences faculty
August 2007
15
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
42
204
259
252
335
1092
Average*
2.
76
2.7
1
2
.44
2.2
9
2
.47
2.
47
Variance
0.
67
0
.81
0.8
1
0
.60
0.
73
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.47
Physical Sci
2.29
Life&Med Sci
2.44
Humanities
2.71
Arts
2.76
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
(2d) The number of article downloads is a good indicator of the usefulness of
research.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 49% strongly or somewhat agreed; 6%
don’t know. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and
discipline, but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (10%) compared to the overall
average (6%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (56%) and Life & Medical Sciences
(49%) compared to the overall average (43%) and to faculty in the Humanities (28%) agreed
somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (35%) compared to the overall average
(27%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (22%) and Physical Sciences (20%)
disagreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (31%) and Humanities (28%) compared to the
overall average (18%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (13%) strongly disagreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (10%) compared to the overall average
(6%) don’t know.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
212
259
255
342
1113
Strongly agree
2%
4%
10%
7%
5%
6%
Agree somewhat
33%
28%
49%
56%
40%
43%
Disagree somewhat
20%
30%
22%
20%
35%
27%
Strongly disagree
31%
28%
15%
13%
15%
18%
Don't know
13%
10%
4%
4%
4%
6%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
16
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 6% of respondents who don’t know, and combines
“strongly” and “somewhat” responses into totals of “agree” and “disagree.”) A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty
responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (66%) and Life & Medical Sciences
(61%) compared to the overall average (53%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (48%),
Arts (41%), and Humanities (36%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (64%), Arts (59%), and Social Sciences
(52%) compared to the overall average (47%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences
(39%) and Physical Sciences (34%) disagreed.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
39
191
248
245
328
1051
Agree*
41%
36%
61%
66%
48%
53%
Disagree*
59%
64%
39%
34%
52%
47%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] strongly agreed to [4]
strongly disagreed.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
- Life & Medical Sciences faculty
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Humanities faculty and
-
Life & Medical Sciences faculty
-
Physical Sciences faculty
-
Social Sciences faculty
• Physical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
39
191
248
245
328
1051
Average*
2.
92
2.9
0
2.4
4
2.
40
2
.63
2
.59
Variance
0
.86
0.
81
0
.78
0
.65
0.6
7
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.63
Physical Sci
2.40
Life&Med Sci
2.44
Humanities
2.90
Arts
2.92
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
August 2007
17
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
(2e)
Journals have become too specialized.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 60% strongly or somewhat disagreed;
4% don’t know. No statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and
discipline, or between faculty responses and rank.
(2f) Tenure and promotion drive my interest in disseminating my work more than any
other factor.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 30% strongly agreed or agreed
somewhat; none (0%) don’t know. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty
responses and rank, and between faculty responses and discipline.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (15%) compared to the overall average
(9%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (25%) compared to the overall
average (21%) and to faculty in the Humanities (17%) agreed somewhat.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Humanities (23%) compared to the overall average
(31%) disagreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (44%) compared to the overall average
(38%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (35%) strongly disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (19%) and Associate Professors (12%)
compared to the overall average (9%) and to Full Professors (6%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (34%) and Associate Professors (26%)
compared to the overall average (22%) and to Full Professors (16%) agreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (47%) compared to the overall average (38%) and to
Associate Professors (26%) and Assistant Professors (17%) strongly disagreed.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
213
259
255
341
1113
Strongly agree
7%
15%
9%
7%
7%
9%
Agree somewhat
22%
17%
25%
21%
22%
21%
Disagree somewhat
24%
23%
29%
35%
35%
31%
Strongly disagree
47%
44%
37%
37%
35%
38%
Don't know
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
205
204
671
1080
Strongly agree
19%
12%
6%
9%
Agree somewhat
34%
26%
16%
22%
Disagree somewhat
31%
35%
30%
31%
Strongly disagree
17%
26%
47%
38%
Don't know
0%
1%
0%
0%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
18
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 6% of respondents who don’t know, and combines
“strongly” and “somewhat” responses into totals of “agree” and “disagree.”) A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and rank, but not between faculty
responses and discipline.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (53%) and Associate Professors (38%)
compared to the overall average (31%) and to Full Professors (22%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (78%) compared to the overall average (69%) and to
Associate Professors (62%) and Assistant Professors (47%) disagreed.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
205
202
669
1076
Agree*
53%
38%
22%
31%
Disagree*
47%
62%
78%
69%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] strongly agreed to [4]
strongly disagreed.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Assistant Professors and
- Associate
Professors
• Assistant Professors and
- Full
Professors
• Associate Professors and
- Full
Professors
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
205
202
669
1076
Average*
2.4
5
2.77
3.19
2.97
Variance
0.95
0.96
0.84
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Full
3.19
Associate
2.77
Assistant
2.45
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
August 2007
19
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
QUESTION 3 - To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
(a) Scholarly societies in my discipline generate more revenue from publishing than is
required to cover their publishing costs.
(b) Commercial publishers in my discipline control scholarly dissemination to the detriment
of my discipline.
(c) Universities should do more to support publishing of scholarly books.
(d) The rise in journal prices increasingly is a burden to my institution.
(e) High journal prices have made it difficult for me to access the literature I need.
(f) High journal prices may make it difficult for others to access the literature I produce.
(g) As an author, I deliberately publish in journals that are affordable to readers.
(3a) Scholarly societies in my discipline generate more revenue from publishing than
is required to cover their publishing costs.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 43% disagreed strongly or somewhat,
while (41%) aren’t sure. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses
and discipline, and between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (22%) and Physical Sciences
(21%) compared to the overall average (16%) and to faculty in the Humanities (6%) and Arts
(4%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (65%) and Arts (62%) compared to the
overall average (43%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (37%) and Life & Medical
Sciences (33%) disagreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (45%) compared to the overall average
(41%) aren’t sure.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (18%) compared to the overall average (16%) and to
Associate Professors (13%) and Assistant Professors (12%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (47%) compared to the overall average (43%) and to
Assistant Professors (26%) disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (62%) compared to the overall average (41%)
and to Full Professors (34%) aren’t sure.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
212
260
256
341
1114
Agree
4%
6%
22%
21%
15%
16%
Disagree
62%
65%
33%
37%
40%
43%
Not Sure
33%
29%
45%
43%
45%
41%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
205
205
671
1081
Agree
12%
13%
18%
16%
Disagree
26%
44%
47%
43%
Not Sure
62%
43%
34%
41%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
20
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
SECONDARY ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 41% of respondents who don’t know.) A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty
responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (41%) and Physical Sciences
(36%) compared to the overall average (27%) and to faculty in the Humanities (8%) and Arts
(7%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (93%) and Humanities (92%) compared to the
overall average (73%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (64%) and Life & Medical
Sciences (59%) disagreed.
SECONDARY ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
30
150
143
147
188
658
Agree
7%
8%
41%
36%
28%
27%
Disagree
93%
92%
59%
64%
72%
73%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] agreed to [4] disagreed.)
A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
- Life & Medical Sciences faculty
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Humanities faculty and
- Life & Medical Sciences faculty
- Physical Sciences faculty
- Social Sciences faculty
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
30
150
143
147
188
658
Average*
1.
93
1.9
2
1.5
9
1.
64
1
.72
1
.73
Variance
0
.06
0.
07
0
.24
0
.23
0.2
0
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Agree) to 2 (Disagree)
Average Response
Social Sci
1.72
Physical Sci
1.64
Life&Med Sci
1.59
Humanities
1.92
Arts
1.93
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
Agree = 1
Disagree = 2
August 2007
21
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
(3b) Commercial publishers in my discipline control scholarly dissemination to the
detriment of my discipline.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 48% disagreed, while 21% aren’t sure.
A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and
between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (44%) and Humanities (38%) compared to the
overall average (31%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (28%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences and Social Sciences (each 53%)
compared to the overall average (48%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (39%)
disagreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (29%) compared to the overall
average (21%) and to faculty in the Arts (11%) aren’t sure.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (37%) compared to the overall average (31%)
and to Assistant Professors (24%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (53%) compared to the overall average (48%) and to
Associate Professors (36%) disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (32%) and Associate Professors (27%)
compared to the overall average (21%) and to Full Professors (16%) aren’t sure.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
212
259
254
340
1110
Agree
44%
38%
32%
28%
28%
31%
Disagree
44%
44%
39%
53%
53%
48%
Not Sure
11%
18%
29%
19%
19%
21%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
205
204
668
1077
Agree
24%
37%
32%
31%
Disagree
44%
36%
53%
48%
Not Sure
32%
27%
16%
21%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
SECONDARY ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 21% of respondents who aren’t sure.) A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and between faculty
responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (50%), Humanities (46%), and Life & Medical
Sciences (45%) compared to the overall average (40%) and to faculty in the Physical
Sciences and Social Sciences (each 34%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (66%) compared to the overall average
(60%) and to faculty in the Humanities (54%) disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (51%) compared to the overall average (40%)
agreed.
August 2007
22
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A smaller proportion of Associate Professors (49%) compared to the overall average (60%)
disagreed.
SECONDARY ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
40
173
184
206
276
879
Agree
50%
46%
45%
34%
34%
40%
Disagree
50%
54%
55%
66%
66%
60%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
SECONDARY ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
140
149
563
852
Agree
36%
51%
38%
40%
Disagree
64%
49%
62%
60%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] strongly agreed to [4]
strongly disagreed.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Assistant Professors and
- Associate
Professors
• Associate Professors and
- Full
Professors
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
140
149
563
852
Average*
1.64
1.
49
1.
62
1.60
Variance
0
.23
0.25
0.24
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Agree) to 2 (Disagree)
Average Response
Full
1.62
Associate
1.49
Assistant
1.64
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
Agree = 1
Disagree = 2
(3c)
Universities should do more to support publishing of scholarly books.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 55% agreed; 27% aren’t sure. A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and
between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (87%), Humanities (84%), and Social Sciences
(60%) compared to the overall average (55%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (38%)
and Life & Medical Sciences (37%) agreed.
August 2007
23
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (27%) and Life & Medical Sciences
(22%) compared to the overall average (18%) and to faculty in the Arts (7%) and Humanities
(5%) disagreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (40%) and Physical Sciences
(34%) compared the overall average (27%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (24%),
Humanities (11%), and Arts (7%) aren’t sure.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (21%) compared to the overall average (18%) and to
Associate Professors (13%) and Assistant Professors (12%) disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (37%) compared to the overall average (27%)
and to Full Professors (24%) aren’t sure.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
212
259
255
341
1112
Agree
87%
84%
37%
38%
60%
55%
Disagree
7%
5%
22%
27%
16%
18%
Not Sure
7%
11%
40%
34%
24%
27%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
204
205
670
1079
Agree
51%
58%
55%
55%
Disagree
12%
13%
21%
18%
Not Sure
37%
30%
24%
27%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
SECONDARY ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 27% of respondents who aren’t sure.) A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and between faculty
responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (95%) and Arts (93%) compared to the
overall average (76%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (63%) and Physical
Sciences (58%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (42%) and Life & Medical Sciences
(37%) compared to the overall average (24%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (21%),
Arts (7%), and Humanities (5%) disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (28%) compared to the overall average (25%) and to
Assistant Professors (19%) and Associate Professors (18%) disagreed.
SECONDARY ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
42
188
155
168
259
812
Agree
93%
95%
63%
58%
79%
76%
Disagree
7%
5%
37%
42%
21%
24%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
24
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
SECONDARY ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
129
144
511
784
Agree
81%
82%
72%
75%
Disagree
19%
18%
28%
25%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] agreed to [2] disagreed.)
A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
- Life & Medical Sciences faculty
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Humanities faculty and
-
Life & Medical Sciences faculty
-
Physical Sciences faculty
-
Social Sciences faculty
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty and
-
Social Sciences faculty
• Physical Sciences faculty and
-
Social Sciences faculty
• Associate Professors and
- Full
Professors
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
42
188
155
168
259
812
Average*
1.
07
1.0
5
1.3
7
1.
42
1
.21
1
.24
Variance
0
.07
0.
05
0
.24
0
.24
0.1
7
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Agree) to 2 (Disagree)
Average Response
Social Sci
1.21
Physical Sci
1.42
Life&Med Sci
1.37
Humanities
1.05
Arts
1.07
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
Agree = 1
Disagree = 2
August 2007
25
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
129
144
511
784
Average*
1.
19
1.18
1.
28
1.
25
Variance
0
.16
0.
15
0.20
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Agree) to 2 (Disagree)
Average Response
Full
1.28
Associate
1.18
Assistant
1.19
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
Agree = 1
Disagree = 2
(3d) The rise in journal prices increasingly is a burden to my institution.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 75% agreed; 16% aren’t sure.
A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and
between faculty responses, and between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (83%) compared to the overall average
(75%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (13%) compared to the overall average (8%)
disagreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (21%) compared to the overall average
(16%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (14%) and Humanities (10%) aren’t sure.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (83%) compared to the overall average (75%) and to
Assistant Professors (52%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (13%) compared to the overall average (8%)
and to Full Professors (7%) disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (35%) compared to the overall average (16%)
and to Full Professors (10%) aren’t sure.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
211
258
254
342
1110
Agree
71%
83%
79%
72%
71%
75%
Disagree
13%
7%
7%
9%
8%
8%
Not Sure
16%
10%
14%
18%
21%
16%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
26
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
203
205
669
1077
Agree
52%
74%
83%
75%
Disagree
13%
7%
7%
8%
Not Sure
35%
19%
10%
16%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
SECONDARY ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 16% of respondents who aren’t sure.) A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and rank, but not between faculty
responses and discipline.
• A smaller proportion of Assistant Professors (80%) compared to the overall average (90%)
agreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (20%) compared to the overall average (10%)
and to Associate Professors (9%) and Full Professors (7%) disagreed.
SECONDARY ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
132
166
602
900
Agree
80%
91%
93%
90%
Disagree
20%
9%
7%
10%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] agreed to [2] disagreed.)
A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Assistant Professors and
-
Associate Professors
• Assistant Professors and
-
Full Professors
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
132
166
602
900
Average*
1.
20
1.09
1.
07
1.
10
Variance
0
.16
0.
08
0.07
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Agree) to 2 (Disagree)
Average Response
Full
1.07
Associate
1.09
Assistant
1.20
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
Agree = 1
Disagree = 2
August 2007
27
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
(3e)
High journal prices have made it difficult for me to access the literature I need.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 63% disagreed while 8% aren’t sure. A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and
between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (44%) and Humanities (38%) compared to the
overall average (29%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (20%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (72%) compared to the overall
average (63%) and to faculty in Humanities (51%) and Arts (47%) disagreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (11%) compared to the overall average
(8%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (6%) aren’t sure.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (39%) compared to the overall average (28%)
and to Assistant Professors agreed (22%).
• A smaller proportion of Associate Professors (52%) compared to the overall average (64%)
disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (12%) compared to the overall average (8%)
and to Full Professors (7%) aren’t sure.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
213
259
255
342
1114
Agree
44%
38%
29%
20%
28%
29%
Disagree
47%
51%
65%
72%
65%
63%
Not Sure
9%
11%
6%
8%
7%
8%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
204
205
672
1081
Agree
22%
39%
27%
28%
Disagree
66%
52%
66%
64%
Not Sure
12%
9%
7%
8%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
SECONDARY ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 8% of respondents who aren’t sure.) A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and between faculty
responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (49%) and Humanities (42%) compared to the
overall average (31%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (22%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (78%) compared to the overall
average (69%) and to faculty in the Humanities (58%) and Arts (51%) disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors disagreed (43%) compared to the overall
average (31%) and to Assistant Professors (25%) agreed.
• A smaller proportion of Associate Professors (57%) compared to the overall average (69%)
disagreed.
August 2007
28
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
SECONDARY ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
41
189
243
235
317
1025
Agree
49%
42%
30%
22%
30%
31%
Disagree
51%
58%
70%
78%
70%
69%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
SECONDARY ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
179
187
627
993
Agree
25%
43%
29%
31%
Disagree
75%
57%
71%
69%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] agreed to [2] disagreed.)
A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Humanities faculty and
-
Physical Sciences faculty
-
Social Sciences faculty
• Arts faculty and
-
Physical Sciences faculty
• Assistant Professors and
-
Associate Professors
• Associate Professors and
-
Full Professors
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
41
189
243
235
317
1025
Average*
1.
51
1.5
8
1.7
0
1.
78
1
.70
1
.69
Variance
0
.26
0.
25
0
.21
0
.17
0.2
1
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Agree) to 2 (Disagree)
Average Response
Social Sci
1.70
Physical Sci
1.78
Life&Med Sci
1.70
Humanities
1.58
Arts
1.51
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
Agree = 1
Disagree = 2
August 2007
29
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
179
187
627
993
Average*
1.
75
1.57
1.
71
1.
69
Variance
0
.19
0.
25
0.21
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Agree) to 2 (Disagree)
Average Response
Full
1.71
Associate
1.57
Assistant
1.75
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
Agree = 1
Disagree = 2
(3f)
High journal prices may make it difficult for others to access the literature I
produce.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 54% agreed while 18% aren’t sure. A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not
between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (69%) and Life & Medical Sciences (62%)
compared to the overall average (54%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (49%)
agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (37%) compared to the overall
average (28%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (20%) and Arts (18%)
disagreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (21%) compared to the overall average
(18%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (14%) aren’t sure.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
212
260
255
339
1111
Agree
69%
52%
62%
49%
52%
54%
Disagree
18%
30%
20%
37%
27%
28%
Not Sure
13%
17%
18%
14%
21%
18%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
SECONDARY ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 18% of respondents who aren’t sure.) A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty
responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (79%) and Life & Medical Sciences (75%)
compared to the overall average (66%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (57%)
agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (43%) compared to the average
(34%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (25%) and Arts (21%) disagreed.
August 2007
30
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
SECONDARY ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
39
175
214
219
269
916
Agree
79%
63%
75%
57%
66%
66%
Disagree
21%
37%
25%
43%
34%
34%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] agreed to [2] disagreed.)
A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty and
-
Physical Sciences faculty
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
39
175
214
219
269
916
Average*
1.
21
1.3
7
1.2
5
1.
43
1
.34
1
.34
Variance
0
.17
0.
23
0
.19
0
.25
0.2
3
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Agree) to 2 (Disagree)
Average Response
Social Sci
1.34
Physical Sci
1.43
Life&Med Sci
1.25
Humanities
1.37
Arts
1.21
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
Agree = 1
Disagree = 2
(3g) As an author, I deliberately publish in journals that are affordable to readers.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 70% disagreed, while 11% aren’t sure.
A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not
between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (33%) compared to the overall
average (19%) and to faculty in the Humanities (15%) and Social Sciences (12%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (78%) compared to the overall average
(70%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (57%) disagreed.
August 2007
31
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
208
259
253
338
1103
Agree
18%
15%
17%
33%
12%
19%
Disagree
67%
72%
71%
57%
78%
70%
Not Sure
16%
13%
12%
10%
9%
11%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
SECONDARY ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 11% of respondents who aren’t sure.) A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty
responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (37%) compared to the overall
average (21%) and to faculty in the Humanities (18%) and Social Sciences (14%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (86%) compared to the overall average
(79%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (63%) disagreed.
SECONDARY ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
38
181
229
227
306
981
Agree
21%
18%
19%
37%
14%
21%
Disagree
79%
82%
81%
63%
86%
79%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] agreed to [2] disagreed.)
A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Humanities faculty and
-
Physical Sciences faculty
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty and
-
Physical Sciences faculty
• Physical Sciences faculty and
-
Social Sciences faculty
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
38
181
229
227
306
981
Average*
1.
79
1.8
2
1.8
1
1.
63
1
.86
1
.79
Variance
0
.17
0.
15
0
.16
0
.23
0.1
2
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Agree) to 2 (Disagree)
Average Response
Social Sci
1.86
Physical Sci
1.63
Life&Med Sci
1.81
Humanities
1.82
Arts
1.79
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
Agree = 1
Disagree = 2
August 2007
32
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
QUESTION 4 - When submitting your work for publication in any venue, how important to
you are the following factors?
(a) Journal or book publisher’s reputation
(b) A journal’s impact factor
(c) Publication venue’s weight in tenure and promotion considerations
(d) My ability to retain copyright of my article
(e) My ability to publish the pre-publication version of my work on a website
(f) My ability to put the published version of my work on a website
(g) My ability to submit my manuscript online
(h) Availability in both print and electronic versions
(i) Low or no subscription costs to readers
(j) Speed of publication
(4a)
Journal or book publisher’s reputation
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 98% said it is very or somewhat
important. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline,
but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (76%) compared to the overall
average (83%) said it is very important.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (21%) compared to the overall
average (15%) and to faculty in the Humanities (12%) said it was somewhat important.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities and Life & Medical Sciences faculty (each
3%) compared to the overall average (2%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (1%) said it
is not important.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
212
258
253
337
1104
Very important
82%
85%
76%
85%
85%
83%
Somewhat important
18%
12%
21%
13%
14%
15%
Not important
0%
3%
3%
1%
1%
2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] very important to [3] not
important). A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty and
-
Physical Sciences faculty
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty and
-
Social Sciences faculty
August 2007
33
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
212
258
253
337
1104
Average*
1.
18
1.1
8
1.2
7
1.
16
1
.15
1
.19
Variance
0
.15
0.
20
0
.26
0
.16
0.1
5
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Very Important) to 3 (Not Important)
Average Response
Social Sci
1.15
Physical Sci
1.16
Life&Med Sci
1.27
Humanities
1.18
Arts
1.18
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
Very Important = 1
Somewhat Important = 2
Not Important = 3
(4b) A journal’s impact factor
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 93% said it is very or somewhat
important; 7% said it is not important. A statistically-significant relationship exists between
faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (51%) compared to the overall
average (59%) said it is very important.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (44%) compared to the overall
average (34%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (30%) said it is somewhat important.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (9%) compared to the overall
average (7%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences faculty (5%) and Arts (2%) said it
is not important.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
43
207
257
253
336
1096
Very important
60%
61%
51%
60%
63%
59%
Somewhat important
37%
31%
44%
31%
30%
34%
Not important
2%
7%
5%
9%
7%
7%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
34
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
(4c)
Publication venue’s weight in tenure and promotion considerations
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 78% said it is very or somewhat
important and 21% said it is not important. A statistically-significant relationship exists between
faculty responses and rank but not between faculty responses and discipline.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (65%) compared to the overall average (37%)
and to Full Professors (28%) said it is very important.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (44%) compared to the overall average (41%) and to
Assistant Professors (28%) said it is somewhat important.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (28%) compared to the overall average (21%) and to
Associate Professors (14%) and Assistant Professors (6%) said it is not important.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
204
202
663
1069
Very important
65%
42%
28%
37%
Somewhat important
28%
45%
44%
41%
Not important
6%
14%
28%
21%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] agreed to [2] disagreed.)
A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Assistant Professors and
-
Associate Professors
• Assistant Professors and
-
Full Professors
• Associate Professors and
-
Full Professors
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
204
202
663
1069
Average*
1.
41
1.72
2.
00
1.
84
Variance
0
.37
0.
48
0.56
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Very important) to 3 (Not Important)
Average Response
Full
2.00
Associate
1.72
Assistant
1.41
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
Very important = 1
Somewhat important = 2
Not important = 3
August 2007
35
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
(4d) My ability to retain copyright of my article
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 38% said it is very or somewhat
important; 62% said it is not important. A statistically-significant relationship exists between
faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (40%) compared to the overall average (9%) and
to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (4%) said it is very important.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (39%) and Social Sciences (33%)
compared to the overall average (29%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (24%)
and Physical Sciences (22%) said it is somewhat important.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (72%) and Physical Sciences
(69%) compared to the overall average (62%) and to faculty in the Humanities (54%) and
Arts (33%) said it is not important.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
43
210
257
251
337
1098
Very important
40%
8%
4%
10%
7%
9%
Somewhat important
28%
39%
24%
22%
33%
29%
Not important
33%
54%
72%
69%
60%
62%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] very important to [3] not
important.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
-
Humanities faculty
-
Life & Medical Sciences faculty
-
Physical Sciences faculty
-
Social Sciences faculty
• Humanities faculty and
-
Life & Medical Sciences faculty
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty
-
Social Sciences faculty
August 2007
36
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
43
210
257
251
337
1098
Average*
1.
93
2.4
6
2.6
8
2.
59
2
.52
2
.54
Variance
0
.73
0.
40
0
.31
0
.44
0.4
0
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Very Important) to 3 (Not Important)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.52
Physical Sci
2.59
Life&Med Sci
2.68
Humanities
2.46
Arts
1.93
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
Very Important = 1
Somewhat Important = 2
Not Important = 3
(4e) My ability to publish the pre-publication version of my work on a website
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 40% said it is very or somewhat
important. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline,
but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (29%) compared to the overall
average (13%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (9%), Life & Medical Sciences (7%),
and Humanities (5%) said it is very important.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (32%) and Social Sciences (30%)
compared to the overall average (27%) and to faculty in the Humanities (16%) said it is
somewhat important.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (79%) and Life & Medical Sciences faculty
(66%) compared to the overall average (60%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (39%)
said it is not important.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
211
258
252
337
1102
Very important
16%
5%
7%
29%
9%
13%
Somewhat important
27%
16%
28%
32%
30%
27%
Not important
57%
79%
66%
39%
60%
60%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] very important to [3] not
important.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
-
Humanities faculty
• Humanities faculty and
-
Physical Sciences faculty
-
Social Sciences faculty
August 2007
37
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty and
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Physical Sciences faculty and
-
Social Sciences faculty
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
211
258
252
337
1102
Average*
2.
41
2.7
3
2.5
9
2.
10
2
.51
2
.47
Variance
0
.57
0.
30
0
.38
0
.67
0.4
4
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Very Important) to 3 (Not Important)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.51
Physical Sci
2.10
Life&Med Sci
2.59
Humanities
2.73
Arts
2.41
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
Very Important = 1
Somewhat Important = 2
Not Important = 3
(4f) My ability to put the published version of my work on a website
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 53% said it is very or somewhat
important; 47% said it is not important. A statistically-significant relationship exists between
faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (32%) compared to the overall
average (18%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (14%) and Humanities (6%) said it is
very important.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Arts (23%) compared to the overall average (35%) and
to faculty in the Humanities (30%) said it is somewhat important.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (63%) compared to the overall average
(47%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (29%) said it is not important.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
210
257
253
335
1099
Very important
23%
6%
17%
32%
14%
18%
Somewhat important
23%
30%
37%
39%
36%
35%
Not important
55%
63%
46%
29%
51%
47%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
38
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] very important to [3] not
important.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
-
Physical Sciences faculty
• Humanities faculty and
-
Life & Medical Sciences faculty
-
Physical Sciences faculty
-
Social Sciences faculty
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty and
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Physical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
210
257
253
335
1099
Average*
2.
32
2.5
7
2.2
8
1.
98
2
.37
2
.30
Variance
0
.69
0.
37
0
.55
0
.61
0.5
1
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Very Important) to 3 (Not Important)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.37
Physical Sci
1.98
Life&Med Sci
2.28
Humanities
2.57
Arts
2.32
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
Very Important = 1
Somewhat Important = 2
Not Important = 3
(4g) My ability to submit my manuscript online
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 57% said it is very or somewhat
important; 43% said it is not important. A statistically-significant relationship exists between
faculty responses and discipline, and between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (34%) and Life & Medical Sciences
(29%) compared to the overall average (20%) and to faculty in the Arts (12%) and
Humanities and Social Sciences (each 9%) said it is very important.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (47%) compared to the overall
average (37%) and to faculty in the Humanities (26%) said it is somewhat important.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (65%) and Social Sciences (56%)
compared to the overall average (43%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (31%)
and Physical Sciences (18%) said it is not important.
August 2007
39
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (48%) compared to the overall average (37%)
and to Full Professors (35%) said it is somewhat important.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (49%) compared to the overall average (43%)
and to Assistant Professors (35%) said it is not important.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
43
206
257
253
334
1093
Very important
12%
9%
29%
34%
9%
20%
Somewhat important
37%
26%
40%
47%
35%
37%
Not important
51%
65%
31%
18%
56%
43%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
204
202
657
1063
Very important
17%
17%
21%
20%
Somewhat important
48%
34%
35%
37%
Not important
35%
49%
44%
43%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] very important to [3] not
important). A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
- Life & Medical Sciences faculty
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Humanities faculty and
- Life & Medical Sciences faculty
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty and
- Physical Sciences faculty
- Social Sciences faculty
• Physical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
August 2007
40
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
43
206
257
253
334
1093
Average*
2.
40
2.5
6
2
.02
1.8
4
2
.47
2.
23
Variance
0.
48
0
.43
0.6
1
0
.50
0.
43
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Very Important) to 3 (Not Important)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.47
Physical Sci
1.84
Life&Med Sci
2.02
Humanities
2.56
Arts
2.40
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
Very Important = 1
Somewhat Important = 2
Not Important = 3
(4h) Availability in both print and electronic versions
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 72% said it is very or somewhat
important; 29% said it is not important. A statistically-significant relationship exists between
faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (44%) and Life & Medical Sciences
(39%) compared to the overall average (31%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (27%),
Arts (20%), and Humanities (14%) said it is very important.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (46%) and Social Sciences (34%)
compared to the overall average (29%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (19%)
and Physical Sciences (15%) said it is not important.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
209
258
252
335
1098
Very important
20%
14%
39%
44%
27%
31%
Somewhat important
45%
40%
41%
41%
39%
41%
Not important
34%
46%
19%
15%
34%
29%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] very important to [3] not
important.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
-
Social Sciences faculty
• Humanities faculty and
-
Life & Medical Sciences faculty
-
Physical Sciences faculty
-
Social Sciences faculty
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
August 2007
41
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• Physical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
209
258
252
335
1098
Average*
2.
14
2.3
3
1
.80
1.7
1
2
.07
1.
98
Variance
0.
54
0
.50
0.5
5
0
.50
0.
60
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Very Important) to 3 (Not Important)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.07
Physical Sci
1.71
Life&Med Sci
1.80
Humanities
2.33
Arts
2.14
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
Very Important = 1
Somewhat Important = 2
Not Important = 3
(4i)
Low or no subscription costs to readers
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 52% said it is very or somewhat
important; 47% said it is not important. A statistically-significant relationship exists between
faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (19%) compared to the overall
average (13%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (8%) said it is very important.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (50%) compared to the overall average (39%) and
to faculty in the Social Sciences (34%) said it is somewhat important.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (58%) compared to the overall average
(47%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (39%) and Arts (32%) said it is not important.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
209
258
252
333
1096
Very important
18%
13%
14%
19%
8%
13%
Somewhat important
50%
40%
41%
42%
34%
39%
Not important
32%
47%
45%
39%
58%
47%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] very important to [3] not
important). A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
August 2007
42
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• Physical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
209
258
252
333
1096
Average*
2.
14
2.3
3
2.3
2
2.
20
2
.50
2
.34
Variance
0
.49
0.
49
0
.49
0
.54
0.4
2
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Very Important) to 3 (Not Important)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.50
Physical Sci
2.20
Life&Med Sci
2.32
Humanities
2.33
Arts
2.14
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
Very Important = 1
Somewhat Important = 2
Not Important = 3
(4j)
Speed of publication
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 94% said it is very or somewhat
important; 6% said it is not important. A statistically-significant relationship exists between
faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (45%) and Physical Sciences
(44%) compared to the overall average (40%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (31%)
said it is very important.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (60%) compared to the overall average
(54%) said it is somewhat important.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities and Social Sciences (each 9%) compared
to the overall average (6%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (4%) and Physical
Sciences (2%) said it is not important.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
210
257
254
336
1101
Very important
41%
41%
45%
44%
31%
40%
Somewhat important
55%
50%
51%
53%
60%
54%
Not important
5%
9%
4%
2%
9%
6%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
43
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] very important to [3] not
important.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
• Physical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
210
257
254
336
1101
Average*
1.
64
1.6
8
1.6
0
1.
58
1
.78
1
.66
Variance
0
.33
0.
39
0
.33
0
.29
0.3
6
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Very Important) to 3 (Not Important)
Average Response
Social Sci
1.78
Physical Sci
1.58
Life&Med Sci
1.60
Humanities
1.68
Arts
1.64
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
Very Important = 1
Somewhat Important = 2
Not Important = 3
QUESTION 5- To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
(a) The existing promotion and tenure processes at UC…force me to publish in print
publications, rather than electronic-only forms of dissemination.
(b) The existing promotion and tenure processes at UC…cause me to forgo using
alternative forms of dissemination.
(c) The existing promotion and tenure processes at UC…encourage new forms of
high-quality (peer-reviewed) scholarly communication.
(d) The existing promotion and tenure processes at UC…are keeping up with the
evolution of scholarly communication.
(5a) The existing promotion and tenure processes at UC…force me to publish in print
publications, rather than electronic-only forms of dissemination.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 58% strongly agreed or somewhat
agreed; 9% don’t know. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses
and discipline, and between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (40%) compared to the overall average
(25%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (19%) and Life & Medical Sciences (16%)
strongly agreed.
August 2007
44
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences and Physical Sciences (each
23%) compared to the overall average (19%) and to faculty in the Humanities (11%) and
Arts (9%) disagreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences and Physical Sciences (each
19%) compared to the overall average (14%) and to faculty in the Humanities and Social
Sciences (each 10%) strongly disagreed.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (7%) compared to the overall
average (9%) don’t know.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (33%) and Assistant Professors (31%)
compared to the overall average (25%) and to Full Professors (21%) strongly agreed.
• A smaller proportion of Assistant Professors (16%) compared to the overall average (19%)
disagreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (17%) compared to the overall average (14%) and to
Assistant Professors (11%) and Associate Professors (8%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (11%) compared to the overall average (8%)
don’t know.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
212
259
253
339
1107
Strongly agree
32%
40%
16%
19%
27%
25%
Agree somewhat
39%
30%
32%
33%
34%
33%
Disagree somewhat
9%
11%
23%
23%
20%
19%
Strongly disagree
16%
10%
19%
19%
10%
14%
Don't know
5%
9%
10%
7%
9%
9%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
205
204
666
1075
Strongly agree
31%
33%
21%
25%
Agree somewhat
31%
30%
34%
33%
Disagree somewhat
16%
21%
20%
19%
Strongly disagree
11%
8%
17%
14%
Don't know
11%
8%
8%
8%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 9% of respondents who don’t know, and combines the
“strongly” and “somewhat strongly” responses into totals of “agreed” and “disagreed.”) A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and
between faculty responses rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (77%) compared to the overall average
(64%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (53%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (47%) and Physical Sciences
(44%) compared to the overall average and to faculty in the Humanities (23%) disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (70%) compared to the overall average (64%)
and to Full Professors (60%) agreed.
August 2007
45
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (40%) compared to the overall average (36%) and to
Associate Professors (32%) and Assistant Professors (30%) disagreed.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
42
192
232
236
307
1009
Agree*
74%
77%
53%
56%
67%
64%
Disagree*
26%
23%
47%
44%
33%
36%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
183
187
614
984
Agree*
70%
68%
60%
64%
Disagree*
30%
32%
40%
36%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] strongly agreed to [4]
strongly disagreed.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Humanities faculty and
- Life & Medical Sciences faculty
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty
- Social Sciences faculty
• Physical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
• Assistant Professors and
- Full
Professors
• Associate Professors and
- Full
Professors
August 2007
46
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
42
192
232
236
307
1009
Average*
2.
10
1.9
0
2.5
0
2.
44
2
.14
2
.24
Variance
1
.11
0.
99
1
.03
1
.06
0.9
3
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.14
Physical Sci
2.44
Life&Med Sci
2.50
Humanities
1.90
Arts
2.10
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
183
187
614
984
Average*
2.0
7
2.04
2.35
2.24
Variance
1.01
0.93
1.06
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Full
2.35
Associate
2.04
Assistant
2.07
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
(5b) The existing promotion and tenure processes at UC…cause me to forgo using
alternative forms of dissemination.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 54% strongly agreed or somewhat
agreed; 7% don’t know. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses
and discipline, and between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (36%) and Humanities (31%) compared to the
overall average (23%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (19%) and Physical
Sciences (16%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (32%) compared to the overall
average (24%) and to faculty in the Humanities (16%) disagreed somewhat.
August 2007
47
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (17%) compared to the overall
average (14%) strongly disagreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (9%) compared to the overall
average (7%) don’t know.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (31%) and Assistant Professors (29%)
compared to the overall average (24%) and to Full Professors (19%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (27%) compared to the overall average (25%) and to
Assistant Professors (20%) disagreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (18%) compared to the overall average (14%) and to
Assistant Professors (9%) and Associate Professors (7%) strongly disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (11%) compared to the overall average (7%)
and to Full Professors (5%) don’t know.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
211
258
251
338
1103
Strongly agree
36%
31%
19%
16%
25%
23%
Agree somewhat
31%
32%
31%
29%
33%
31%
Disagree somewhat
18%
16%
26%
32%
23%
24%
Strongly disagree
11%
12%
16%
17%
13%
14%
Don't know
4%
9%
9%
6%
5%
7%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
204
204
663
1071
Strongly agree
29%
31%
19%
24%
Agree somewhat
31%
33%
30%
31%
Disagree somewhat
20%
22%
27%
25%
Strongly disagree
9%
7%
18%
14%
Don't know
11%
7%
5%
7%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 7% of respondents who don’t know, and combines the
“strongly” and “somewhat strongly” responses into totals of “agreed” and “disagreed.”) A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and
between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (69%) compared to the overall average
(59%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (48%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (46%) and Physical Sciences
(52%) compared to the overall average (41%) and to faculty in the Humanities (31%) and
Arts (30%) disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (69%) and Assistant Professors (68%)
compared to the overall average (58%) and to Full Professors (52%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (48%) compared to the overall average (42%) and to
Assistant Professors (32%) and Associate Professors (31%) disagreed.
August 2007
48
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
43
193
236
237
320
1029
Agree*
70%
69%
54%
48%
62%
59%
Disagree*
30%
31%
46%
52%
38%
41%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
182
190
629
1001
Agree*
68%
69%
52%
58%
Disagree*
32%
31%
48%
42%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] strongly agreed to [4]
strongly disagreed.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Humanities faculty and
- Life & Medical Sciences faculty
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Physical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
• Assistant Professors and
- Full
Professors
• Associate Professors and
- Full
Professors
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
43
193
236
237
320
1029
Average*
2.
05
2.0
9
2.4
4
2.
53
2
.24
2
.32
Variance
1
.05
1.
03
1
.01
0
.96
0.9
9
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.24
Physical Sci
2.53
Life&Med Sci
2.44
Humanities
2.09
Arts
2.05
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
August 2007
49
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
182
190
629
1001
Average*
2.0
9
2.
05
2.46
2.32
Variance
0
.94
0.87
1.04
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Full
2.46
Associate
2.05
Assistant
2.09
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
(5c)
The existing promotion and tenure processes at UC…encourage new forms of
high-quality (peer-reviewed) scholarly communication.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 63% somewhat or strongly disagreed;
17% don’t know. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and
discipline, and between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (9%) and Life & Medical Sciences (6%) compared
to the overall average (4%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (24%) compared to the overall average (17%) and
to faculty in the Social Sciences (14%) agreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (44%) compared to the overall average
(39%) and to faculty in the Humanities (32%) disagreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (31%) compared to the overall average
(24%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (19%) strongly disagreed.
• A smaller proportion of Associate Professors (2%) compared to the overall average (4%)
strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (19%) compared to the overall average (17%) and to
Associate Professors (13%) agreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (32%) compared to the overall average (24%)
and to Full Professors (21%) strongly disagreed.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
213
259
252
340
1109
Strongly agree
9%
3%
6%
3%
3%
4%
Agree somewhat
24%
19%
17%
18%
14%
17%
Disagree somewhat
31%
32%
39%
37%
44%
39%
Strongly disagree
22%
31%
19%
23%
23%
24%
Don't know
13%
15%
19%
19%
15%
17%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
50
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
205
205
666
1076
Strongly agree
4%
2%
5%
4%
Agree somewhat
15%
13%
19%
17%
Disagree somewhat
38%
40%
39%
39%
Strongly disagree
24%
32%
21%
24%
Don't know
19%
14%
17%
17%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 17% of respondents who don’t know and combines the
“strongly” and “somewhat strongly” responses into totals of “agreed” and “disagreed.”) A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and
between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (38%) compared to the overall average (25%) and
to faculty in the Social Sciences (21%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (29%) compared to the overall average (26%) and to
Associate Professors (18%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (82%) compared to the overall average (74%)
disagreed.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
39
181
209
205
290
924
Agree*
38%
26%
29%
26%
21%
25%
Disagree*
62%
74%
71%
74%
79%
75%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
166
177
555
898
Agree*
23%
18%
29%
26%
Disagree*
77%
82%
71%
74%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] strongly agreed to [4]
strongly disagreed.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Associate Professors and
-
Full Professors
August 2007
51
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
166
177
555
898
Average*
3.0
2
3.
17
2.90
2.98
Variance
0
.68
0.58
0.70
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Full
2.90
Associate
3.17
Assistant
3.02
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
(5d) The existing promotion and tenure processes at UC…are keeping up with the
evolution of scholarly communication.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 56% strongly disagreed or disagreed
somewhat; 18% don’t know. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty
responses and discipline, and between faculty responses and rank.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (2%) compared to the overall average
(4%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (27%) compared to the overall
average (22%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (18%) and Humanities (17%) agreed
somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (41%) compared to the overall average
(37%) disagreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (28%) compared the overall average (19%)
and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (13%) strongly disagreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (22%) compared to the overall average
(18%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (15%) and Humanities (14%) don’t know.
• A smaller proportion of Associate Professors (2%) compared to the overall average (4%)
strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (24%) compared to the overall average (22%) and to
Assistant Professors (18%) agreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (25%) compared to the overall average (19%)
strongly disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (25%) compared to the overall average (18%)
don’t know.
August 2007
52
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
211
258
252
340
1106
Strongly agree
7%
3%
7%
5%
2%
4%
Agree somewhat
27%
17%
24%
27%
18%
22%
Disagree somewhat
31%
37%
36%
35%
41%
37%
Strongly disagree
22%
28%
13%
18%
18%
19%
Don't know
13%
14%
21%
15%
22%
18%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
205
205
663
1073
Strongly agree
4%
2%
5%
4%
Agree somewhat
18%
19%
24%
22%
Disagree somewhat
36%
38%
38%
37%
Strongly disagree
17%
25%
17%
19%
Don't know
25%
16%
16%
18%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 18% of respondents who don’t know and combines the
“strongly” and “somewhat strongly” responses into totals of “agreed” and “disagreed.”) A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not
between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences and Physical Sciences (each
38%) compared to the overall average (32%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (26%)
and Humanities (24%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (76%) and Social Sciences (74%)
compared to the overall average (68%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences and
Physical Sciences (each 62%) disagreed.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
39
181
204
213
266
903
Agree*
38%
24%
38%
38%
26%
32%
Disagree*
62%
76%
62%
62%
74%
68%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] strongly agreed to [4]
strongly disagreed.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Humanities faculty and
-
Life & Medical Sciences faculty
-
Physical Sciences faculty
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
August 2007
53
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
39
181
204
213
266
903
Average*
2.
79
3.0
6
2
.70
2.7
7
2
.94
2.
86
Variance
0.
85
0
.69
0.7
1
0
.71
0.
56
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.94
Physical Sci
2.77
Life&Med Sci
2.70
Humanities
3.06
Arts
2.79
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
QUESTION 6 - To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
(a) Scholars’ management of copyright is…an important factor in the evolution of
scholarly publishing.
(b) Scholars’ management of copyright is…an important factor in my own scholarly
publishing.
(c) Scholars’ management of copyright is…a topic needing faculty discussion and
analysis.
(6a) Scholars’ management of copyright is…an important factor in the evolution of
scholarly publishing.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 51% strongly agreed or agreed
somewhat, while 23% don’t know. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty
responses and discipline, and between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (43%) and Humanities (25%) compared to the
overall average (18%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences and Physical Sciences
(each 11%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (27%) and Life & Medical Sciences
(24%) compared to the overall average (19%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (16%),
Humanities (12%), and Arts (9%) disagreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (11%) compared to the overall
average (8%) and to faculty in the Humanities (4%) strongly disagreed.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Arts (9%) compared to the overall average (23%) don’t
know.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (21%) compared to the overall average (18%)
strongly agreed.
August 2007
54
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A smaller proportion of Assistant Professors (27%) compared to the overall average (33%)
agreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (22%) compared to the overall average (20%) and to
Assistant Professors (16%) and Associate Professors (15%) disagreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (35%) compared to the overall average (23%)
and to Full Professors (18%) don’t know.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
213
257
253
338
1105
Strongly agree
43%
25%
11%
11%
20%
18%
Agree somewhat
34%
34%
30%
32%
34%
33%
Disagree somewhat
9%
12%
24%
27%
16%
19%
Strongly disagree
5%
4%
11%
8%
7%
8%
Don't know
9%
25%
24%
22%
23%
23%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
202
205
667
1074
Strongly agree
16%
21%
17%
18%
Agree somewhat
27%
33%
34%
33%
Disagree somewhat
16%
15%
22%
20%
Strongly disagree
6%
6%
8%
8%
Don't know
35%
25%
18%
23%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 23% of respondents who don’t know and combines the
“strongly” and “somewhat strongly” responses into totals of “agreed” and “disagreed.”) A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not
between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (85%) and Humanities (79%) compared to the
overall average (65%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (56%) and Life & Medical
Sciences (54%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (46%) and Physical Sciences
(44%) compared to the overall average (35%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (30%),
Humanities (21%), and Arts (15%) disagreed.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
40
160
196
198
261
855
Agree*
85%
79%
54%
56%
70%
65%
Disagree*
15%
21%
46%
44%
30%
35%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] strongly agreed to [4]
strongly disagreed.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
- Life & Medical Sciences faculty
- Physical Sciences faculty
August 2007
55
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• Humanities faculty and
- Life & Medical Sciences faculty
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
• Physical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
40
160
196
198
261
855
Average*
1.
73
1.9
3
2.4
6
2.
40
2
.15
2
.22
Variance
0
.72
0.
69
0
.84
0
.74
0.8
2
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.15
Physical Sci
2.40
Life&Med Sci
2.46
Humanities
1.93
Arts
1.73
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
(6b) Scholars’ management of copyright is…an important factor in my own scholarly
publishing.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 50% strongly or somewhat disagreed;
12% don’t know. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and
discipline, and between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (40%) and Humanities (16%) compared to the
overall average (11%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (8%) and Life & Medical
Sciences (6%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (36%) compared to the overall average
(28%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (24%) and Life & Medical Sciences (22%)
agreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (34%) compared to the overall
average (30%) and to faculty in the Humanities (21%) and Arts (14%) disagreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (26%) and Physical Sciences
(25%) compared to the overall average (20%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (17%),
Humanities (13%), and Arts (7%) strongly disagreed.
August 2007
56
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (10%) compared to the overall
average (12%) don’t know.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (34%) compared to the overall average (28%)
and to Assistant Professors (22%) agreed somewhat.
• A smaller proportion of Associate Professors (25%) compared to the overall average (30%)
disagreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (22%) compared to the overall average (19%) and to
Assistant Professors (16%) and Associate Professors (14%) strongly disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (22%) and Associate Professors (14%)
compared to the overall average (12%) and to Full Professors (8%) don’t know.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
42
211
258
252
338
1101
Strongly agree
40%
16%
6%
8%
10%
11%
Agree somewhat
31%
36%
22%
24%
30%
28%
Disagree somewhat
14%
21%
33%
34%
31%
30%
Strongly disagree
7%
13%
26%
25%
17%
20%
Don't know
7%
13%
13%
10%
12%
12%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
202
204
663
1069
Strongly agree
10%
12%
11%
11%
Agree somewhat
22%
34%
28%
28%
Disagree somewhat
30%
25%
32%
30%
Strongly disagree
16%
14%
22%
19%
Don't know
22%
14%
8%
12%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 12% of respondents who don’t know, and combines the
“strongly” and “somewhat strongly” responses into totals of “agreed” and “disagreed.”) A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and
between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (77%) and Humanities (60%) compared to the
overall average (44%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (35%) and Life & Medical
Sciences (33%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (67%) and Physical Sciences
(65%) compared to the overall average (56%) and the Humanities (40%) disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (54%) compared to the overall average (44%)
agreed.
• A smaller proportion of Associate Professors (46%) compared to the overall average (56%)
disagreed.
August 2007
57
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
39
183
224
228
298
972
Agree*
77%
60%
33%
35%
46%
44%
Disagree*
23%
40%
67%
65%
54%
56%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
158
175
611
944
Agree*
41%
54%
42%
44%
Disagree*
59%
46%
58%
56%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] strongly agreed to [4]
strongly disagreed.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Humanities faculty and
- Life & Medical Sciences faculty
- Physical Sciences faculty
- Social Sciences faculty
• Life & Medical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
• Arts faculty and
- Humanities
faculty
- Life & Medical Sciences faculty
- Physical Sciences faculty
- Social Sciences faculty
• Associate Professors and
- Full
Professors
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
39
183
224
228
298
972
Average*
1.
87
2.3
7
2.9
0
2.
85
2
.62
2
.66
Variance
0
.90
0.
91
0
.83
0
.85
0.8
4
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.62
Physical Sci
2.85
Life&Med Sci
2.90
Humanities
2.37
Arts
1.87
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
August 2007
58
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
158
175
611
944
Average*
2.6
6
2.49
2.71
2.66
Variance
0.89
0.87
0.92
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Full
2.71
Associate
2.49
Assistant
2.66
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
(6c) Scholars’ management of copyright is…a topic needing faculty discussion and
analysis.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 60% strongly agreed or agreed
somewhat; 18% don’t know. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty
responses and discipline, and between faculty responses and rank16.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (50%) and Humanities (32%) compared to the
overall average (25%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (21%) and Physical
Sciences (18%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (40%) compared to the overall average
(35%) agreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (19%) compared to the overall
average (15%) and to faculty in the Humanities (10%) and Arts (7%) strongly disagreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (10%) compared to the overall
average (7%) and to faculty in the Humanities (4%) and Arts (2%) disagreed somewhat.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Arts (5%) and Humanities (14%) compared to the
overall average (18%) don’t know.
• A smaller proportion of Assistant Professors (18%) compared to the overall average (24%)
strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (8%) compared to the overall average (7%) and to
Associate Professors (5%) and Assistant Professors (4%) strongly disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (29%) compared to the overall average (18%)
and to Full Professors (16%) and Associate Professors (14%) don’t know.
16 After “don’t know” responses are removed.
August 2007
59
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
213
258
253
338
1106
Strongly agree
50%
32%
21%
18%
25%
25%
Agree somewhat
36%
40%
33%
33%
36%
35%
Disagree somewhat
7%
10%
17%
19%
14%
15%
Strongly disagree
2%
4%
9%
10%
6%
7%
Don't know
5%
14%
20%
20%
20%
18%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
203
205
665
1073
Strongly agree
18%
27%
25%
24%
Agree somewhat
35%
40%
34%
36%
Disagree somewhat
13%
14%
16%
15%
Strongly disagree
4%
5%
8%
7%
Don't know
29%
14%
16%
18%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 18% of respondents who don’t know, and combines the
“strongly” and “somewhat strongly” responses into totals of “agreed” and “disagreed.”) A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not
between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (90%) and Humanities (83%) compared to the
overall average (73%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (64%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (36%) and Life & Medical Sciences
(32%) compared to the overall average (27%) and to faculty in the Humanities (17%) and
Arts (10%) disagreed.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
42
184
206
203
270
905
Agree*
90%
83%
68%
64%
75%
73%
Disagree*
10%
17%
32%
36%
25%
27%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] strongly agreed to [4]
strongly disagreed.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
-
Life & Medical Sciences faculty
-
Physical Sciences faculty
-
Social Sciences faculty
• Humanities faculty and
- Life & Medical Sciences faculty
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Physical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
August 2007
60
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
42
184
206
203
270
905
Average*
1.
60
1.8
5
2
.17
2.2
7
2
.01
2.
05
Variance
0.
54
0
.67
0.8
8
0
.89
0.
78
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.62
Physical Sci
2.85
Life&Med Sci
2.90
Humanities
2.37
Arts
1.87
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
QUESTION 7 - How do you approach the copyright terms in your publication contracts?
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 59% examine and sign the contract;
34% don’t examine the contract before signing. A statistically-significant relationship exists
between faculty responses and discipline, and between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (48%) and Life & Medical Sciences
(47%) compared to the overall average (34%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (26%),
Humanities (17%), and Arts (13%) don’t examine contracts.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (77%) compared to the overall average
(59%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences and Physical Sciences (each 50%)
examine and sign publication contracts.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (20%) and Social Sciences (14%) compared to the
overall average (7%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (3%) and Physical
Sciences (2%) modify contracts.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (40%) compared to the overall average (34%)
don’t examine contracts.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (67%) compared to the overall average (59%)
examine and sign contracts.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (10%) compared to the overall average (7%) and to
Assistant Professors (5%) and Associate Professors (2%) modify contracts.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
213
260
256
343
1117
Don’t examine
13%
17%
47%
48%
26%
34%
Examine & Sign
67%
77%
50%
50%
60%
59%
Modify
20%
6%
3%
2%
14%
7%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
61
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
205
205
673
1083
Don’t examine
40%
31%
33%
34%
Examine & Sign
55%
67%
58%
59%
Modify
5%
2%
10%
7%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
QUESTION 8 - If you have modified the copyright terms of a publication contract, what
actions have you taken?
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 55% said that they have replaced terms
in a publication contract, and 48% have attached an addendum. No statistically-significant
relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, or between faculty responses and
rank.
QUESTION 9 - To what degree do you adhere to all copyright terms of your publication
contracts?
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 48% were “not sure/don’t pay attention”
to whether they adhere to all copyright terms in their publication contracts.” A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty
responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (49%), Humanities (45%), and Social Sciences
(39%) compared to the overall average (33%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences
(27%) and Physical Sciences (21%) adhere to copyright terms all the time.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (28%) compared to the overall average (19%)
adhere to copyright terms from time to time.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (60%) and Life & Medical Sciences
(55%) compared to the overall average (48%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (42%),
Humanities (39%), and Arts (23%) do not pay attention to copyright terms or are not sure if
they adhere to them.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
43
210
257
256
332
1098
All the time
49%
45%
27%
21%
39%
33%
Time to time
28%
16%
18%
20%
19%
19%
Not Sure / No attention
23%
39%
55%
60%
42%
48%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
62
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
QUESTION 10 - In cases where you would prefer to retain some copyright rights but do
not negotiate with publishers to do so, what is the most important factor that prevents
you from doing so?
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 39% had not thought about this issue;
23% said that it was too much trouble to negotiate with a publisher. A statistically-significant
relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and between faculty responses
and rank.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (9%) compared to the overall
average (14%) said they do not have the knowledge to negotiate.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences and Physical Sciences (each
48%) compared to the overall average (39%) and to faculty in the Humanities (32%), Social
Sciences (31%), and Arts (23%) had not thought about this issue.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (30%), Humanities (25%) and Social Sciences
(24%) compared to the overall average (19%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences
(15%) and Physical Sciences (10%) said they must publish to get tenure, merit increases, or
promotions.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (30%) compared to the overall
average (23%) and to faculty I n the Humanities (19%) and Life & Medical Sciences (18%)
said it is too much trouble to negotiate with publishers.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (16%) and Humanities (8%) compared to the
overall average (5%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences and Physical Sciences
(each 3%) had other concerns about negotiating with publishers.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (16%) compared to the overall average (14%) and to
Assistant Professors (9%) said they do not have the knowledge to negotiate with publishers.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (37%) and Associate Professors (28%)
compared to the overall average (20%) and to Full Professors (11%) said they must publish
to get tenure, merit increases, or promotions.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (28%) compared to the overall average (24%) and to
Assistant Professors (10%) said it is too much trouble to negotiate with publishers.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (7%) compared to the overall average (5%) and to
Associate Professors (3%) and Assistant Professors (2%) had other concerns about
negotiating with publishers.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
43
204
249
242
330
1068
Do not have knowledge to negotiate
14%
15%
16%
9%
15%
14%
I have not thought about this issue
23%
32%
48%
48%
31%
39%
Must publish to get tenure, merit
30%
25%
15%
10%
24%
19%
increases, or promotion
Too much trouble to negotiate w/
16%
19%
18%
30%
25%
23%
publisher
Other
16%
8%
3%
3%
5%
5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
63
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
201
200
636
1037
Do not have knowledge to negotiate
9%
12%
16%
14%
I have not thought about this issue
40%
34%
38%
38%
Must publish to get tenure, merit increases, or promotion
37%
28%
11%
20%
Too much trouble to negotiate with the publisher
10%
24%
28%
24%
Other
2%
3%
7%
5%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
QUESTION 11 - Are there instances in which you have refused to sign a publication
contract because of concern about the copyright terms, thereby forgoing the opportunity to
publish in that journal?
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 90% said no; 6% said it is not
applicable. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and
discipline, and between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (23%) compared to the overall average (4%)
answered yes.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Arts (68%) compared to the overall average (90%)
answered no.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (8%) compared to the overall average (6%)
and to faculty in the Physical Sciences faculty (4%) said the question was not applicable.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (5%) compared to the overall average (4%) and to
Assistant Professors and Associate Professors (each 1%) answered yes.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (9%) compared to the overall average (6%) and
to Full Professors (4%) said the question was not applicable.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
211
259
254
337
1105
Yes
23%
2%
3%
3%
3%
4%
No
68%
90%
92%
94%
90%
90%
Not Applicable
9%
8%
5%
4%
7%
6%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
205
204
664
1073
Yes
1%
1%
5%
4%
No
90%
92%
90%
90%
Not Applicable
9%
7%
4%
6%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS: (Calculated using a value scale from [1] yes to [2] no). A
statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
- Humanities
faculty
August 2007
64
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
- Life & Medical Sciences faculty
- Physical Sciences faculty
- Social Sciences faculty
• Assistant professors and
- Full
professors
• Associate professors and
- Full
professors
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
40
194
245
245
315
1039
Average*
1.
75
1.9
7
1
.97
1.9
7
1
.97
1.
96
Variance
0.
19
0
.03
0.0
3
0
.03
0.
03
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Yes) to 2 (No)
Average Response
Social Sci
1.97
Physical Sci
1.97
Life&Med Sci
1.97
Humanities
1.97
Arts
1.75
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
Yes = 1
No = 2
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
186
190
635
1011
Average*
1.
99
1
.98
1.
94
1.
96
Variance
0.
01
0.
02
0
.05
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Yes) to 2 (No)
Average Response
Full
1.94
Associate
1.98
Assistant
1.99
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
Yes = 1
No = 2
August 2007
65
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
QUESTION 12 - To what degree are you concerned that transferring copyright to a
publisher may limit your ability to perform the following activities?
(a) Put materials on a website or in an institutional repository
(b) Use the materials in a class that you or others are teaching without asking for
permission from the publisher
(c) Make the materials available for course packs without asking for permission from
the publisher
(d) Use in or submit the materials to an anthology
(e) Create a derivative work based on the material
(12a) Put materials on a website or in an institutional repository
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 52% are concerned. A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty
responses and rank.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (46%) compared to the overall
average (52%) are concerned.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (25%) compared to the overall average
(29%) are not concerned.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (24%) compared to the overall
average (19%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (12%) had not thought about this
issue.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
209
258
252
338
1101
Concerned
57%
49%
46%
56%
56%
52%
Not concerned
27%
31%
29%
32%
25%
29%
Not thought about it
16%
20%
24%
12%
19%
19%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
(12b) Use the materials in a class that you or others are teaching without asking for
permission from the publisher
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 46% are not concerned. A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty
responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (56%) compared to the overall average (40%) and
to faculty in the Physical Sciences (35%) are concerned.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Arts (33%) and Humanities (38%) compared to the
overall average (46%) are not concerned.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (17%) compared to the overall average
(14%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (10%) had not thought about it.
August 2007
66
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
43
207
257
250
334
1091
Concerned
56%
45%
38%
35%
41%
40%
Not concerned
33%
38%
46%
50%
49%
46%
Not thought about it
12%
17%
16%
15%
10%
14%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
(12c) Make the materials available for course packs without asking for permission from
the publisher
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 45% are concerned. A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty
responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (57%) compared to the overall average (45%) and
to faculty in the Physical Sciences (37%) are concerned about this issue.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Humanities (34%) compared to the overall average
(38%) are not concerned.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (21%) and Life & Medical Sciences
(20%) compared to the overall average (17%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (11%)
and Arts (7%) had not thought about this issue.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
42
205
244
239
321
1051
Concerned
57%
48%
44%
37%
47%
45%
Not concerned
36%
34%
35%
41%
42%
38%
Not thought about it
7%
18%
20%
21%
11%
17%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
(12d) Use or submit the materials to an anthology
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 41% are concerned. A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and between faculty
responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (68%), Humanities (59%), and Social Sciences
(48%) compared to the overall average (41%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences
(30%) and Physical Sciences (24%) are concerned about this issue.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Humanities (26%) compared to the overall average
(33%) are not concerned.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (37%) and Physical Sciences
(33%) compared to the overall average (26%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (21%)
and Humanities (15%) had not thought about it.
• A smaller proportion of Assistant Professors (33%) compared to the overall average (41%)
are concerned.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (35%) compared to the overall average (33%) are not
concerned.
August 2007
67
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (37%) compared to the overall average (26%)
and to Full Professors (22%) had not thought about it.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
208
258
250
336
1096
Concerned
68%
59%
30%
24%
48%
41%
Not concerned
25%
26%
33%
43%
31%
33%
Not thought about it
7%
15%
37%
33%
21%
26%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
203
204
657
1064
Concerned
33%
46%
42%
41%
Not concerned
29%
29%
35%
33%
Not thought about it
37%
25%
22%
26%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS (Calculated using a value scale from [1] concerned to [2] not
concerned.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
-
Life & Medical Sciences faculty
-
Physical Sciences faculty
• Humanities faculty and
- Life & Medical Sciences
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Physical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
41
177
162
167
264
811
Average*
1.
27
1.3
1
1.5
2
1.
64
1
.39
1
.44
Variance
0
.20
0.
22
0
.25
0
.23
0.2
4
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Concerned) to 2 (Not concerned)
Average Response
Social Sci
1.39
Physical Sci
1.64
Life&Med Sci
1.52
Humanities
1.31
Arts
1.27
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
Concerned = 1
Not Concerned = 2
August 2007
68
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
(12e) Create a derivative work based on the material
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 40% are not concerned. A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty
responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (55%), Humanities (43%), and Social Sciences
(41%) compared to the overall average (37%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences
(32%) and Physical Sciences (28%) are concerned.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (49%) compared to the overall
average (40%) and to faculty in the Arts (30%) are not concerned about this issue.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (32%) compared to the overall
average (23%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (20%) and Humanities (18%) had not
thought about this issue.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (43%) compared to the overall average (40%) and to
Assistant Professors (30%) are not concerned about this issue.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (34%) compared to the overall average (23%)
and to Full Professors (20%) had not thought about this issue.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
210
259
251
336
1100
Concerned
55%
43%
32%
28%
41%
37%
Not concerned
30%
39%
36%
49%
39%
40%
Not thought about it
16%
18%
32%
23%
20%
23%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
204
204
660
1068
Concerned
35%
35%
38%
37%
Not concerned
30%
40%
43%
40%
Not thought about it
34%
25%
20%
23%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS (Calculated using a value scale from [1] concerned to [2] not
concerned). A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Humanities faculty and
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Physical Sciences faculty and
- Social Sciences faculty
August 2007
69
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
38
171
216
212
301
938
Average*
1.
37
1.4
6
1.5
5
1.
58
1
.54
1
.53
Variance
0
.24
0.
25
0
.25
0
.24
0.2
5
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Concerned) to 2 (Not concerned)
Average Response
Social Sci
1.54
Physical Sci
1.58
Life&Med Sci
1.55
Humanities
1.46
Arts
1.37
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
Concerned = 1
Not Concerned = 2
QUESTION 13 - What single factor would help you the most in negotiating or modifying
the copyright terms of a publication contract?
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 42% would like precise instructions and
examples of how to negotiate or modify copyright terms. A statistically-significant relationship
exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (54%) and Social Sciences (46%)
compared to the overall average (42%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (29%) would
like precise instructions and examples.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (46%) and Life & Medical Sciences
(44%) compared to the overall average (36%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (31%)
and Humanities (22%) would like someone to advise them about modifying the terms of a
contract for them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (18%) compared to the overall average
(15%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (11%) would like it if they knew they
would not be penalized for refusing to sign a standard contract.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (14%) and Physical Sciences faculty (12%)
compared to the overall average (8%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (5%) had other
concerns about publishing contracts.
August 2007
70
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
43
202
246
246
324
1061
If I had precise instructions and examples
37%
54%
39%
29%
46%
42%
of how to do it
If I had someone to do it for me
30%
22%
44%
46%
31%
36%
If knew would not be penalized for
19%
15%
11%
13%
18%
15%
refusing to sign standard contract
Other
14%
8%
6%
12%
5%
8%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
QUESTION 14 - In May 2006, a special committee of the UC Academic Council forwarded a
proposal 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.
Under the proposal, granting such a license would be the default situation, although faculty
could opt out when necessary. To what extent are you aware of this proposal?
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 75% are not aware of the proposal. No
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline or between
faculty responses and rank.
QUESTION 15 - Based on your current level of knowledge, would you be in favor of this
proposal?
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 47% would be in favor of the proposal.
A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and
between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (35%) and Humanities (25%) compared to the
overall average (22%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (18%) understand the
proposal but are not sure if they are in favor of it.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (13%) compared to the overall average
(7%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (5%) weren’t in favor of the proposal.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (54%) compared to the overall
average (47%) and to faculty in the Humanities (40%) and Arts (33%) were in favor of the
proposal.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
43
208
257
250
337
1095
I do not understand the proposal
26%
21%
24%
22%
26%
23%
I understand the proposal, but I am not
35%
25%
21%
18%
21%
22%
sure
No
7%
13%
5%
6%
6%
7%
Yes
33%
40%
50%
54%
47%
47%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
71
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
QUESTION 16 - Please tell us which of the following activities you would be willing to
undertake.
(a) I would be willing to encourage my society's publication board to make its copyright
policy more author-friendly.
(b) I would be willing to encourage my society to seek alternative sources of revenue
rather than relying on subscription fees to support society activities.
(c) 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.
(d) I would be willing to submit my scholarly output solely to publishers who require
only the right of first publication and no other right.
(e) I would be willing to encourage publishers to experiment with business models in
order to reduce or eliminate barriers – including subscription costs – to readers.
(f) None of the above.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 50% would be willing to encourage their
societies' publication boards to make copyright policy more author-friendly, and 49% said that
they would be willing to strike out and modify a publication contract’s language to change the
contract from granting "exclusive" rights to the publisher to granting "non-exclusive" rights to the
publisher. No statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and
discipline, or between faculty responses and rank.
QUESTION 17 - Traditionally, libraries and individuals pay for scholarly journals and
books. Alternative ways to disseminate scholarship are emerging, several of which - in
pursuit of open access - make the content available at no cost to the reader or library, with
production costs covered elsewhere.
What is your level of knowledge about the following alternative forms of scholarly
dissemination?
(a) Institutionally-based repositories of open-access content
(b) Discipline-based repositories of open-access content
(c) Fully open-access journals (all journal articles freely available without university
or individual subscription)
(d) Blogs/wikis
(17a) Institutionally-based repositories of open-access content
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 82% said that they are “not aware of” or
“aware of but don’t know much” about institutionally-based repositories of open-access content.
A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not
between faculty responses and rank. No statistically-significant relationship exists between
faculty responses and discipline or between faculty responses and rank.
August 2007
72
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
(17b) Discipline-based repositories of open-access content
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 79% said that they are “not aware of”
or are “aware of but don’t know much” about discipline-based repositories of open-access
content. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline,
but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (48%) compared to the overall average (37%) and
to faculty in the Physical Sciences (26%) are not aware of discipline-based repositories.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (34%) compared to the overall
average (42%) are aware of discipline-based repositories but don’t know much about them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences faculty (17%) compared to the
overall average (12%) and Arts (7%) are knowledgeable about them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (24%) compared to the overall
average (8%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (5%) and Humanities and Life & Medical
Sciences (each 3%) have used discipline-based repositories to disseminate their work.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
205
254
249
332
1084
Not aware
48%
40%
40%
26%
40%
37%
Aware, but don't know much
39%
46%
46%
34%
44%
42%
Knowledgeable
7%
11%
11%
17%
12%
12%
Used to disseminate work
7%
3%
3%
24%
5%
8%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
17(c) Fully open-access journals (all journal articles freely available without university
or individual subscription)
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 64% said that they “were not aware of”
or are “aware of but don’t know much” about fully open-access journals; 26% of respondents
said that they were knowledgeable. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty
responses and discipline, but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (35%), Humanities (33%), and Social Sciences
(27%) compared to the overall average (24%) and Life & Medical Sciences (10%) are not
aware of open-access journals.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (46%) compared to the overall average
(40%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (35%) are aware of fully open-access journals
but don’t know much about them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (43%) compared to the overall
average (26%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (20%) and Humanities (19%) are
knowledgeable about them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (16%) compared to the overall
average (10%) and to faculty in the Humanities (8%) and Social Sciences (7%) use open-
access journals to disseminate their work.
August 2007
73
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
43
206
255
251
332
1087
Not aware
35%
33%
10%
25%
27%
24%
Aware, but don't know much
30%
40%
37%
35%
46%
40%
Knowledgeable
26%
19%
43%
24%
20%
26%
Used to disseminate work
9%
8%
11%
16%
7%
10%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
(17d) Blogs/wikis
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 75% said that they are “not aware of” or
are “aware of but don’t know much” about blogs and wikis; 22% said they were knowledgeable.
A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and rank and between
faculty responses and discipline.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (35%) compared to the overall
average (24%) and to faculty in the Humanities and Social Sciences (each 19%) and Arts
(14%) are not aware of blogs and wikis.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (44%) compared to the overall
average (51%) are aware of them but don’t know much about them.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (17%) compared to the overall
average (22%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (26%) are knowledgeable about
them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (11%) and Physical Sciences (6%) compared to
the overall average (4%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (0%) use them to
disseminate their work.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (27%) compared to the overall average (24%) and to
Assistant Professors (19%) and Associate Professors (17%) are not aware of them.
• A smaller proportion of Assistant Professors (44%) compared to the overall average (51%)
are aware of them but don’t know much about them.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (32%) compared to the overall average (22%)
and to Full Professors (19%) are knowledgeable about them.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
202
252
248
331
1077
Not aware
14%
19%
35%
24%
19%
24%
Aware, but don't know much
45%
55%
49%
44%
55%
51%
Knowledgeable
30%
21%
17%
26%
23%
22%
Used to disseminate work
11%
5%
0%
6%
3%
4%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
74
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
198
204
644
1046
Not aware
19%
17%
27%
24%
Aware, but don't know much
44%
56%
51%
51%
Knowledgeable
32%
23%
19%
22%
Used to disseminate work
5%
4%
3%
3%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
QUESTION 18 - To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
(a) Open access will dramatically change scholarly communication in my field in the
next two years.
(b) Open access threatens commercial publishers in my discipline.
(c) Open access threatens my scholarly society(ies).
(d) Libraries’ subscriptions are a critical source of revenue for scholarly societies.
(18a) Open access will dramatically change scholarly communication in my field in the
next two years.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 43% agreed strongly or somewhat,
while 40% disagreed strongly or somewhat. A statistically-significant relationship exists between
faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (24%) compared to the overall average (11%) and
to faculty in the Physical Sciences (7%) strongly agreed.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (27%) compared to the overall average
(32%) agreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (20%) compared to the overall
average (13%) and to faculty in the Humanities (9%) and Arts (4%) strongly disagreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (23%) and Social Sciences (22%)
compared to the overall average (18%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (14%)
and Physical Sciences (12%) don’t know.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
211
259
250
335
1100
Strongly agree
24%
12%
10%
7%
10%
11%
Agree somewhat
33%
33%
35%
33%
27%
32%
Disagree somewhat
24%
24%
29%
29%
28%
27%
Strongly disagree
4%
9%
12%
20%
13%
13%
Don't know
13%
23%
14%
12%
22%
18%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 17% of respondents who don’t know and combines
“strongly” and “somewhat strongly” into the totals of “agree” and “disagree.”) A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty
responses and rank.
August 2007
75
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (67%) and Humanities (58%) compared to the
overall average (51%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (45%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (55%) compared to the overall
average (49%) and to faculty in the Humanities (42%) and Arts (33%) disagreed.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
39
163
222
221
262
907
Agree*
67%
58%
53%
45%
48%
51%
Disagree*
33%
42%
47%
55%
52%
49%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS (Calculated using a value scale from [1] strongly agree to [4]
strongly disagree). A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Arts faculty and
- Physical Sciences faculty
- Social Sciences faculty
• Humanities faculty and:
- Physical Sciences faculty
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
39
163
222
221
262
907
Average*
2.
10
2.3
7
2.4
9
2.
69
2
.56
2
.52
Variance
0
.78
0.
78
0
.77
0
.82
0.8
4
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.56
Physical Sci
2.69
Life&Med Sci
2.49
Humanities
2.37
Arts
2.10
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
(18b) Open access threatens commercial publishers in my discipline.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 45% agreed strongly or somewhat,
while 31% of faculty disagreed strongly or somewhat; 30% don’t know. A statistically-significant
relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and between faculty responses
rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (15%) compared to the overall average
(12%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (9%) strongly agreed.
August 2007
76
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (38%) compared to the overall
average (33%) agreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (33%) compared to the overall
average (22%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (19%) disagreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (13%) compared to the overall average (9%)
strongly disagreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (30%) compared to the overall average
(24%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (18%) don’t know.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (14%) compared to the overall average (12%) and to
Associate Professors (9%) and Assistant Professors (8%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (39%) compared to the overall average (33%)
and to Assistant Professors (24%) agreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (12%) compared to the overall average (9%)
strongly disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (34%) compared to the overall average (24%)
and to Associate Professors (20%) don’t know.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
210
258
250
335
1098
Strongly agree
16%
15%
12%
9%
11%
12%
Agree somewhat
36%
32%
38%
30%
33%
33%
Disagree somewhat
18%
20%
19%
33%
19%
22%
Strongly disagree
13%
7%
9%
10%
8%
9%
Don't know
18%
26%
22%
18%
30%
24%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
202
203
662
1067
Strongly agree
8%
9%
14%
12%
Agree somewhat
24%
39%
35%
33%
Disagree somewhat
23%
23%
21%
22%
Strongly disagree
12%
9%
8%
9%
Don't know
34%
20%
22%
24%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 24% of respondents who don’t know, and combines the
“strongly” and “somewhat strongly” responses into totals of “agreed” and “disagreed.”) A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline and between
faculty responses rank.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (48%) compared to the overall
average (59%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (52%) compared to the overall
average (41%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (36%) agreed.
• A smaller proportion of Assistant Professors (48%) compared to the overall average (60%)
agreed.
August 2007
77
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (52%) compared to the overall average (40%)
and to Full Professors (37%) disagreed.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
37
156
200
206
236
835
Agree*
62%
64%
64%
48%
62%
59%
Disagree*
38%
36%
36%
52%
38%
41%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
134
162
514
810
Agree*
48%
60%
63%
60%
Disagree*
52%
40%
37%
40%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
ANOVA/F-TEST ANALYSIS (Calculated using a value scale from [1] strongly agree to [4]
strongly disagree.) A statistically-significant relationship exists between the following groups:
• Humanities faculty and
- Physical Sciences faculty
• Assistant Professors and
- Full
Professors
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
37
156
200
206
236
835
Average*
2.
35
2.2
4
2
.32
2.5
3
2
.34
2.
36
Variance
0.
96
0
.78
0.7
5
0
.72
0.
77
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Social Sci
2.34
Physical Sci
2.53
Life&Med Sci
2.32
Humanities
2.24
Arts
2.35
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
August 2007
78
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
ANOVA / F TEST ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
139
153
493
785
Average*
3.1
4
3.08
2.80
2.92
Variance
0.57
0.66
0.87
*Analysis calculated using value scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 4 (Strongly Disagree)
Average Response
Full
2.80
Associate
3.08
Assistant
3.14
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Strongly Agree = 1
Agree Somewhat = 2
Disagree Somewhat = 3
Strongly Disagree = 4
(18c) Open access threatens my scholarly society(ies).
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 52% disagreed strongly or somewhat,
while 22% of faculty agreed strongly or somewhat; 26% don’t know. A statistically-significant
relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and between faculty responses
and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (9%) and Life & Medical Sciences (7%) compared
to the overall average (5%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (4%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (35%) compared to the overall
average (30%) disagreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (33%) and Physical Sciences (29%) compared to
the overall average (22%) and to faculty in the Humanities and Life & Medical Sciences
(each 18%) strongly disagreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (33%) and Social Sciences (31%)
compared to the overall average (26%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (15%) said
that don’t know.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (7%) compared to the overall average (5%) and to
Associate Professors (3%) and Assistant Professors (1%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (20%) compared to the overall average (17%) and to
Associate Professors (13%) and Assistant Professors (11%) agreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (25%) compared to the overall average (21%)
and to Full Professors (19%) strongly disagreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (31%) compared to the overall average (26%)
don’t know.
August 2007
79
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
209
259
251
333
1097
Strongly agree
9%
4%
7%
4%
5%
5%
Agree somewhat
11%
15%
19%
17%
17%
17%
Disagree somewhat
22%
30%
31%
35%
28%
30%
Strongly disagree
33%
18%
18%
29%
19%
22%
Don't know
24%
33%
25%
15%
31%
26%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
202
203
661
1066
Strongly agree
1%
3%
7%
5%
Agree somewhat
11%
13%
20%
17%
Disagree somewhat
33%
34%
28%
30%
Strongly disagree
24%
25%
19%
21%
Don't know
31%
25%
25%
26%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 26% of respondents who don’t know, and combines the
“strongly” and “somewhat strongly” responses into totals of “agreed” and “disagreed.”) A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and rank, but not between
faculty responses discipline.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (36%) compared to the overall average (30%) and to
Associate Professors (22%) and Assistant Professors (18%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (82%) and Associate Professors (78%)
compared to the overall average (70%) and to Full Professors (64%) disagreed.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
139
153
493
785
Agree*
18%
22%
36%
30%
Disagree*
82%
78%
64%
70%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
(18d) Libraries’ subscriptions are a critical source of revenue for scholarly societies.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 53% agreed strongly or somewhat,
while 13% disagreed strongly or somewhat; 34% don’t know. A statistically-significant
relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and between faculty responses
and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (30%) compared to the overall average
(20%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (10%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (15%) compared to the overall
average (10%) and to faculty in the Humanities (5%) disagreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (7%) and Physical Sciences (5%) compared to the
overall average (3%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (1%) strongly disagreed.
August 2007
80
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (24%) compared to the overall average (21%) and to
Associate Professors (17%) and Assistant Professors (14%) strongly agreed.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (35%) compared to the overall average (33%) and to
Assistant Professors (25%) agreed somewhat.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (49%) compared to the overall average (34%)
and to Full Professors (29%) don’t know.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
210
257
251
337
1100
Strongly agree
22%
30%
21%
10%
22%
20%
Agree somewhat
29%
29%
33%
35%
34%
33%
Disagree somewhat
7%
5%
11%
15%
9%
10%
Strongly disagree
7%
4%
3%
5%
1%
3%
Don't know
36%
31%
33%
35%
34%
34%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
200
204
664
1068
Strongly agree
14%
17%
24%
21%
Agree somewhat
25%
33%
35%
33%
Disagree somewhat
10%
10%
9%
9%
Strongly disagree
4%
3%
3%
3%
Don't know
49%
37%
29%
34%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Excludes the 34% of respondents who don’t know, and combines the
“strongly” and “somewhat strongly” responses into totals of “agreed” and “disagreed.”) A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not
between faculty responses rank.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences faculty (69%) compared to the
overall average (80%) agreed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (31%) compared to the overall
average (20%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (15%) and Humanities (13%)
disagreed.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
29
144
173
163
221
730
Agree*
79%
87%
80%
69%
85%
80%
Disagree*
21%
13%
20%
31%
15%
20%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
QUESTION 19 - Over the past twelve months, in which of the following activities have you
engaged to disseminate your work?
August 2007
81
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
(a) Publishing articles in subscription-based journals
(b) Publishing articles in open-access journals
(c) Publishing monographs
(d) Posting post-prints on a personal or departmental website
(e) Posting post-prints on an institutional repository such as arXiv, REPEC, or
PubMed
(f) Posting working papers, preprints and technical reports on a personal,
departmental or institutional website or repository
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 90% said that over the past twelve
months they had published articles in subscription-based journals, the most-popular answer.
The second-most-popular dissemination activities were posting post-prints on a personal or
departmental website (31%) and posting working papers, pre-prints, and technical reports on a
personal, departmental, or institutional website or repository. A statistically-significant
relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty responses
and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (95%) and Life & Medical Sciences
(93%) compared to the overall average (90%) have published articles in subscription-based
journals.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (27%) compared to the overall
average (22%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (16%) have published articles in open-
access journals.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (35%) and Social Sciences (28%)
compared to the overall average (21%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (10%) and
Life & Medical Sciences (9%) have published monographs.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (46%) compared to the overall
average (31%) and to faculty in the Humanities (16%) have posted post-prints on a personal
or departmental website.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (33%) compared to the overall
average (14%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (9%) and Arts and Humanities (each
2%) have posted post-prints on an institutional repository such as arXiv, REPEC, or
PubMed.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (42%) and Social Sciences (41%)
compared to the overall average (29%) and to faculty in the Humanities (18%) and Life &
Medical Sciences (11%) have posted working papers, pre-prints, and technical reports on a
personal, departmental, or institutional website or repository.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities and Life & Medical Sciences (each 5%)
compared to the overall average (4%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (1%) have not
engaged in any of these publishing activities.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (31%) and Humanities (13%) compared to the
overall average (7%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences and Social Sciences (each 5%)
and Life & Medical Sciences (3%) have engaged in other publishing activities.
August 2007
82
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
212
258
255
338
1108
(a) Published articles in subscription-
64%
83%
93%
95%
90%
90%
based journals
(b) Published articles in open access
29%
22%
27%
23%
16%
22%
journals
(c) Published monographs
29%
35%
9%
10%
28%
21%
(d) Posted post-prints on a personal or
27%
16%
25%
46%
33%
31%
departmental website
(e) Posted post-prints on an institutional
2%
2%
10%
33%
9%
14%
repository, such as arXiv, REPEC, or
PubMed
(f) Posted working papers, pre-prints, and
24%
18%
11%
42%
41%
29%
technical reports on a personal,
departmental, or institutional website or
repository
(g) None of the above
2%
5%
5%
1%
4%
4%
(h) Other
31%
13%
3%
5%
5%
7%
QUESTION 20 - In the next twelve months, how, if at all, do you expect your participation
in these dissemination activities to change?
(a) Publishing articles in subscription-based journals
(b) Publishing articles in open-access journals
(c) Publishing monographs
(d) Posting post-prints on a personal or departmental website
(e) Posting post-prints on an institutional repository such as arXiv, REPEC, or
PubMed
(f) Posting working papers, preprints and technical reports on a personal,
departmental or institutional website or repository
(20a) Publishing articles in subscription-based journals
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 67% expect their publishing of articles
in subscription-based journals to stay about the same in the next 12 months, while 30% expect
their level of activity to increase. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty
responses and discipline, and between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (5%) compared to the overall
average (3%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (2%) expect their publishing activities in
subscription-based journals to decrease.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (75%) compared to the overall
average (67%) and to faculty in the Arts (52%) expect their publishing activities in
subscription-based journals to stay about the same.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (43%) and Social Sciences (34%) compared to the
overall average (30%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (22%) expect their publishing
activities in subscription-based journals to increase.
August 2007
83
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (74%) compared to the overall average (67%) and to
Assistant Professors (47%) expect their publishing activities in subscription-based journals
to stay about the same.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (50%) and Associate Professors (34%)
compared to the overall average (30%) and to Full Professors (22%) expect their publishing
activities in subscription-based journals to increase.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
42
208
256
250
332
1088
Decrease
5%
2%
5%
3%
2%
3%
Stay about the same
52%
68%
66%
75%
64%
67%
Increase
43%
30%
29%
22%
34%
30%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
199
203
657
1059
Decrease
3%
2%
3%
3%
Stay about the same
47%
64%
74%
67%
Increase
50%
34%
22%
30%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
(20b) Publishing articles in open-access journals
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 75% expect their publishing of articles
in open access journals to stay about the same in the next 12 months, while 23% expect their
level of activity to increase. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty
responses and discipline, but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (4%) compared to the overall average
(2%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (1%) and Physical Sciences (0%) expect
their publishing activities in open-access journals to decrease.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Arts (59%) and Life & Medical Sciences (65%)
compared to the overall average (75%) expect their publishing activities in open-access
journals to stay about the same.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (38%) and Life & Medical Sciences (34%)
compared to the overall average (23%) and to faculty in the Humanities and Social Sciences
(each 17%) expect their publishing activities in open-access journals to increase.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
34
175
228
222
269
928
Decrease
3%
2%
1%
0%
4%
2%
Stay about the same
59%
81%
65%
78%
79%
75%
Increase
38%
17%
34%
22%
17%
23%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
84
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
(20c) Publishing monographs
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 77% expect their publishing of
monographs to stay about the same in the next 12 months, while 18% expect their level of
activity to increase. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and
discipline, but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (7%) compared to the overall average (5%)
expect their publication of monographs to decrease.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (91%) and Physical Sciences
(89%) compared to the overall average (77%) and to faculty in the Humanities (64%) and
Arts (50%) expect their publication of monographs to stay about the same.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (45%), Humanities (29%), and Social Sciences
(24%) compared to the overall average (18%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (8%)
and Life & Medical Sciences (4%) expect their publication of monographs to increase.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
38
192
194
218
288
930
Decrease
5%
7%
5%
3%
4%
5%
Stay about the same
50%
64%
91%
89%
72%
77%
Increase
45%
29%
4%
8%
24%
18%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
(20d) Posting post-prints on a personal or departmental website.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 75% expect their posting of post-prints
on a personal or department website to stay about the same in the next 12 months, while 24%
expect their level of activity to increase. A statistically-significant relationship exists between
faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (3%) compared to the overall average (1%)
and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (0%) expect their level of activity to decrease.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (82%) compared to the overall
average (75%) and to faculty in the Arts (56%) expect their level of activity to stay about the
same.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (18%) compared to the overall
average (24%) and to faculty in the Arts (44%) and Social Sciences (27%) expect their level
of activity to increase.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
34
160
204
223
281
902
Decrease
0%
3%
1%
0%
2%
1%
Stay about the same
56%
73%
78%
82%
71%
75%
Increase
44%
24%
20%
18%
27%
24%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
85
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
(20e) Posting post-prints on an institutional repository such as arXiv, REPEC or
PubMed
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 77% expect their posting of post-prints
on an institutional repository such as arXiv, REPEC or PubMed to stay about the same over the
next 12 months, while 13% expect their level of activity to increase. There was no statistically-
significant relationship between faculty responses and discipline, or between faculty responses
and rank.
(20f) Posting working papers, preprints, and technical reports on a personal,
departmental, or institutional website or repository.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 6% expect their posting of working
papers, preprints, and technical reports on a personal, departmental, or institutional website to
stay about the same over the next 12 months, while 12% expect their level of activity to
increase. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline,
but not between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (3%) compared to the overall average
(2%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (1%) expect their level of activity to decrease.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (85%) and Physical Sciences
(84%) compared to the overall average (77%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (67%)
expect their level of activity to stay about the same.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (31%) and Social Sciences (29%) compared to the
overall average (21%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (15%) and Life & Medical
Sciences (14%) expect their level of activity to increase.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (77%) compared to the overall average (76%) and to
Assistant Professors (75%) expect their level of activity to stay about the same.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (23%) compared to the overall average and to
Associate Professors and Assistant Professors (all 21%) expect their level of activity to
increase.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
32
164
200
221
286
903
Decrease
0%
2%
2%
1%
3%
2%
Stay about the same
69%
74%
85%
84%
67%
77%
Increase
31%
23%
14%
15%
29%
21%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
182
177
521
880
Decrease
2%
2%
2%
2%
Stay about the same
75%
77%
77%
76%
Increase
23%
21%
21%
21%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
86
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
QUESTION 21 - Which best characterizes your level of awareness of each publishing
service below?
(a) eScholarship programs in general
(b) eScholarship Repository
(c) eScholarship Journals and Peer Review Series
(d) eScholarship Editions
(e) UC Press eScholarship Editions
(21a) eScholarship programs in general
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 70% had not heard of eScholarship
programs and 15% have heard of them but don’t understand them. Among all respondents,
13% said that they were either “actively involved with, monitor and discuss eScholarship
programs regularly,” or “have heard of, read, and discussed them occasionally.” A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and between faculty
responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (77%) compared to the overall
average (70%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (65%) have not heard of them.
• A smaller proportion of faculty in the Arts (9%) compared to the overall average (15%) have
heard of them but didn’t understand them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (18%) compared to the overall average
(12%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (7%) have heard of them, read them,
and occasionally discussed them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (4%) compared to the overall average (1%) and to
faculty in the Humanities (0%) regularly monitor and discuss them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (3%) compared to the overall average
(2%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (0%) are actively involved with them.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (79%) compared to the overall average (70%)
have not heard of them.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (20%) compared to the overall average (16%)
have heard of them but didn’t understand them.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (14%) compared to the overall average (12%) and to
Assistant Professors (7%) have heard of them, read them, and occasionally discussed them.
• The same proportion of Full Professors as the overall average (1%) regularly monitors and
discusses them, while a lower proportion of Assistant Professors and Associate Professors
(0%) compared to the average regularly monitors and discusses them.
• The same proportion of Full Professors as the overall average (2%) are actively involved
with them, while a lower proportion of Assistant Professors (1%) compared to the average
are actively involved with them.
August 2007
87
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
211
252
253
332
1093
Have not heard of this
78%
64%
77%
73%
65%
70%
Have heard of this, but don't understand
9%
17%
15%
13%
17%
15%
Have heard, read & discussed
7%
18%
7%
11%
14%
12%
occasionally
Monitor & discuss regularly
4%
0%
1%
1%
2%
1%
Actively involved
2%
1%
0%
2%
3%
2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
200
203
658
1061
Have not heard of this
79%
69%
67%
70%
Have heard of this, but don't understand
14%
20%
15%
16%
Have heard, read & discussed occasionally
7%
10%
14%
12%
Monitor & discuss regularly
0%
0%
1%
1%
Actively involved
1%
1%
2%
2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Combines “Have not heard of this” and “Have heard of this, but don’t
understand” into “Don’t know/understand.” Also combines “Have heard, read and discussed
occasionally,” “Monitor and discuss regularly,” and “Actively involved” into “Know.”) A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and
between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (92%) compared to the overall
average (85%) don’t know about or understand them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (19%) and Social Sciences (18%)
compared to the overall average (15%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (8%)
know about them.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (93%) compared to the overall average (86%)
don’t know about or understand them.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (17%) compared to the overall average (14%) and to
Associate Professors (11%) and Assistant Professors (8%) know about them.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
211
252
253
332
1093
Don't know/understand*
87%
81%
92%
87%
82%
85%
Know*
13%
19%
8%
13%
18%
15%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
200
203
658
1061
Don't know/understand*
93%
89%
83%
86%
Know*
8%
11%
17%
14%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
88
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
(21b) eScholarship Repository
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 66% had not heard of the eScholarship
Repository and 18% had heard of it but didn’t understand it. Among all respondents, 16% said
that they were either “actively involved, monitor and discuss the eScholarship Repository
regularly,” or “have heard of, read, and discussed it occasionally.” A statistically-significant
relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and between faculty responses
and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (72%) compared to the overall
average (66%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (60%) had not heard of the
eScholarship Repository.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (16%) compared to the overall average
(12%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (8%) and Arts (5%) had heard about it,
read it, and discussed it occasionally.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (5%) compared to the overall average (1%) and to
faculty in the Humanities (0%) regularly monitor and discuss it.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (5%) compared to the overall average
(3%) and to faculty in the Humanities (1%) are actively involved with it.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
210
253
253
332
1092
Have not heard of this
77%
63%
72%
67%
60%
66%
Have heard of this, but don't understand
11%
19%
17%
16%
20%
18%
Have heard, read & discussed
5%
16%
8%
12%
13%
12%
occasionally
Monitor & discuss regularly
5%
0%
1%
2%
2%
1%
Actively involved
2%
1%
2%
4%
5%
3%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Combines “Have not heard of this” and “Have heard of this, but don’t
understand” into “Don’t know/understand;” also combines “Have heard, read and discussed
occasionally,” “Monitor and discuss regularly,” and “Actively involved” into “Know.”) A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and
between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (20%) compared to the overall average
(16%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (11%) know about it.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (18%) compared to the overall average (16%) and to
Associate Professors (12%) and Assistant Professors (11%) know about it.
August 2007
89
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
44
210
253
253
332
1092
Don't know/understand*
89%
82%
89%
83%
80%
84%
Know*
11%
18%
11%
17%
20%
16%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
199
204
657
1060
Don't know/understand*
89%
88%
82%
84%
Know*
11%
12%
18%
16%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
(21c) eScholarship Journals and Peer Review Series
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 72% had not heard of eScholarship
Journals and Peer Review Series and 14% have heard of them but don’t understand them.
Among all respondents, 14% said that they were either “actively involved, monitor, and discuss
them regularly,” or “have heard of, read, and discussed them occasionally.” A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and between faculty
responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences and Physical Sciences (each
80%) compared to the overall average (72%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (67%)
and Humanities (61%) have not heard of them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (18%) compared to the overall average
(14%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (9%) and Arts (4%) had heard about them but
don’t understand them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (17%) and Social Sciences (13%)
compared to the overall average (11%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (8%) and Life
& Medical Sciences (6%) had heard about them, read them, and occasionally discussed
them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (7%) and Social Sciences (2%) compared to the
overall average (1%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (0%) regularly monitor
and discuss them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (3%) compared to the overall average
(2%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (0%) are actively involved with them.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (82%) compared to the overall average (73%)
and to Full Professors (69%) had not heard about them.
• A smaller proportion of Assistant Professors (9%) compared to the overall average (14%)
had heard about them but don’t understand them.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (12%) compared to the overall average (11%) and to
Assistant Professors and Associate Professors (each 8%) had heard about them, read
them, and occasionally discussed them.
August 2007
90
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (2%) compared to the overall average (1%) and to
Assistant Professors and Associate Professors (each 0%) regularly monitor and discuss
them.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
210
253
252
326
1086
Have not heard of this
80%
61%
80%
80%
67%
72%
Have heard of this, but don't understand
4%
18%
13%
9%
16%
14%
Have heard, read & discussed
7%
17%
6%
8%
13%
11%
occasionally
Monitor & discuss regularly
7%
1%
0%
1%
2%
1%
Actively involved
2%
2%
0%
2%
3%
2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
199
202
653
1054
Have not heard of this
82%
75%
69%
73%
Have heard of this, but don't understand
9%
15%
15%
14%
Have heard, read & discussed occasionally
8%
8%
12%
11%
Monitor & discuss regularly
0%
0%
2%
1%
A
ctively involved
1%
1%
2%
2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Combines “Have not heard of this” and “Have heard of this, but don’t
understand” into “Don’t know/understand.” Also combines “Have heard, read and discussed
occasionally,” “Monitor and discuss regularly,” and “Actively involved” into “Know.”) A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not
between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (93%) compared to the overall
average (86%) and to faculty in the Humanities (80%) don’t know about or understand them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (20%) and Social Sciences (18%)
compared to the overall average (14%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (11%) know
about them.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (16%) compared to the overall average (13%) and to
Assistant Professors and Associate Professors (each 9%) know about them.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
210
253
252
326
1086
Don't know/understand*
84%
80%
93%
89%
82%
86%
Know*
16%
20%
7%
11%
18%
14%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
91
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
199
202
653
1054
Don't know/understand*
91%
91%
84%
87%
Know*
9%
9%
16%
13%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
(21d) eScholarship Editions
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 78% had not heard of eScholarship
Editions and 12% have heard of them but don’t understand them. Among all respondents, 10%
said that they were either “actively involved, monitor, and discuss eScholarship Editions
regularly,” or “have heard of, read, and discussed them occasionally.” A statistically-significant
relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and between faculty responses
and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences and Physical Sciences (each
85%) compared to the overall average (78%) and to faculty in the Humanities (68%) had not
heard about them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (16%) compared to the overall average
(12%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (8%) and Arts (4%) had heard about them but
don’t understand them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (14%) and Social Sciences (10%)
compared to the overall average (8%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (5%) and Life
& Medical Sciences (3%) had heard about them, read them, and occasionally discussed
them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (7%) and Humanities (2%) compared to the overall
average (1%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (0%) regularly monitor and
discuss them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (2%) compared to the overall average (1%) and to
faculty in the Humanities (0%) are actively involved with them.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
207
252
248
327
1079
Have not heard of this
82%
68%
85%
85%
75%
78%
Have heard of this, but don't understand
4%
16%
12%
8%
14%
12%
Have heard, read & discussed
4%
14%
3%
5%
10%
8%
occasionally
Monitor & discuss regularly
7%
2%
0%
1%
1%
1%
Actively involved
2%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Combines “Have not heard of this” and “Have heard of this, but don’t
understand” into “Don’t know/understand.” Also combines “Have heard, read, and discussed
occasionally,” “Monitor and discuss regularly,” and “Actively involved” into “Know.”) A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, and
between faculty responses and rank.
August 2007
92
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (96%) compared to the overall
average (90%) and to faculty in the Humanities (84%) don’t know about or understand them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (16%) and Social Sciences (12%)
compared to the overall average (10%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (7%) and Life
& Medical Sciences (4%) know about them.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (11%) compared to the overall average (9%) and to
Assistant Professors and Associate Professors (each 6%) know about them.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
207
252
248
327
1079
Don't know/understand*
87%
84%
96%
93%
88%
90%
Know*
13%
16%
4%
7%
12%
10%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Assistant
Associate
Full
Overall
Number of Respondents
198
200
649
1047
Don't know/understand*
94%
95%
89%
91%
Know*
6%
6%
11%
9%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
(21e) UC Press eScholarship Editions
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 65% had not heard of UC Press
eScholarship Editions and 17% have heard of them but don’t understand them. Of all
respondents, 18% said that they were either “actively involved, monitor, and discuss them
regularly,” or “have heard of, read, and discussed them occasionally.” A statistically-significant
relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty responses
and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (73%) and Physical Sciences
(72%) compared to the overall average (65%) and to faculty in the Humanities (54%) and
Arts (47%) have not heard of them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (23%) compared to the overall average
(14%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences and Physical Sciences (each 9%) have
heard of them, read them, and occasionally discussed them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (7%) and Humanities (4%), compared to the
overall average (2%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences and Physical Sciences
(each 1%) regularly monitor and discuss them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (9%) compared to the overall average (2%) and to
faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (0%) are actively involved with them.
August 2007
93
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
207
251
251
328
1082
Have not heard of this
47%
54%
73%
72%
65%
65%
Have heard of this, but don't understand
22%
17%
16%
17%
17%
17%
Have heard, read & discussed
16%
23%
9%
9%
14%
14%
occasionally
Monitor & discuss regularly
7%
4%
1%
1%
2%
2%
Actively involved
9%
2%
0%
1%
2%
2%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
GROUPED ANALYSIS: (Combines “Have not heard of this” and “Have heard of this, but don’t
understand” into “Don’t know/understand.” Also combines “Have heard, read, and discussed
occasionally,” “Monitor and discuss regularly,” and “Actively involved” into “Know.”) A
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not
between faculty responses and rank.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (90%) and Physical Sciences
(89%) compared to the overall average (83%) and to faculty in the Humanities (71%) don’t
know about them or understand them.
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (31%) and Humanities (29%) compared to the
overall average (17%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (11%) and Life & Medical
Sciences (10%) know about them.
GROUPED ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
207
251
251
328
1082
Don't know/understand*
69%
71%
90%
89%
82%
83%
Know*
31%
29%
10%
11%
18%
17%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
QUESTION 22 - Faculty were asked which of the following activities best describe their
involvement with eScholarship Services:
(a) Editor of a journal or monograph series
(b) Author and/or contributor
(c) Seminar convener
(d) Member or director of a participating department or unit
(e) UC Press published author whose book is on eScholarship
(f) Other involvement
(g) No involvement
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, 88% had no involvement with
eScholarship services; 8% were an author/contributor; 3% were an editor of a journal or a
monographic series; and 1% to 2% of respondents said that they were involved in one of the
other roles described. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses
and discipline, but not between faculty responses and rank.
August 2007
94
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
(22a) Editor of a journal or monograph series
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (6%) compared to the overall average (3%)
and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences and Physical Sciences (each 1%) and Arts
(0%) edit a journal or monograph series.
(22b) Author and/or contributor
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (11%) compared to the overall average
(8%) and to faculty in the Humanities (6%) are an author or contributor.
(22c) Seminar convener
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts and Humanities (each 2%) compared to the overall
average (1%) are seminar conveners.
(22d) Member or director of a participating department or unit
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities and Social Sciences (each 3%) compared
to the overall average (2%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (0%) are a member or
director of a participating department or unit.
(22e) UC Press published author whose book is on eScholarship
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (7%) compared to the overall average and to
faculty in the Social Sciences (each 2%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences and
Physical Sciences (each 0%) are authors of books published by UC Press that are on
eScholarship.
(22f) Other involvement
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (7%) compared to the overall average (2%) and to
faculty in the Humanities (3%) and Life & Medical Sciences (0%) have other involvement.
(22g) No involvement
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (94%) compared to the overall
average (88%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (83%) have no involvement.
August 2007
95
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
213
260
255
343
1116
(a) Editor of a journal or monographic
0%
6%
1%
1%
3%
3%
series
(b) Author, contributor
7%
6%
6%
8%
11%
8%
(c) Seminar convener
2%
2%
0%
0%
1%
1%
(d) Member/Director of a participating
0%
3%
1%
0%
3%
2%
department or unit
(e) UC Press published author, whose
7%
2%
0%
0%
2%
2%
book is on eScholarship
(f) Other
7%
3%
0%
1%
2%
2%
(g) No involvement
82%
86%
94%
91%
83%
88%
QUESTION 23 - Respondents were asked which types of scholarly output they have
placed in UC’s eScholarship Repository.
(a) Previously published, peer-reviewed journal articles
(b) Original peer-reviewed journal articles not previously published elsewhere
(c) Monographs, edited volumes and other book-length works
(d) Working papers, pre-prints, and technical reports
(e) Other types of works
(f) Not sure
(g) None
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among faculty respondents who said that they had some involvement
with eScholarship services, 35% had put none of their scholarly output into the eScholarship
repository; 32% had put previously-published peer-reviewed journal articles into the repository;
and 21% had deposited working papers, preprints, and technical reports. A statistically-
significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty
responses and rank.
(23a) Previously published, peer-reviewed journal articles
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (63%) and Physical Sciences
(58%) compared to the overall average (32%) and to faculty in the Humanities (3%) have
deposited previously published, peer-reviewed journal articles.
(23b) Original peer-reviewed journal articles not previously published elsewhere
• (On this sub-question, no statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty
responses and discipline, or between faculty responses and rank.)
(23c) Monographs, edited volumes and other book-length works
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (38%) compared to the overall average (8%) and
to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences and Physical Sciences (each 0%) have deposited
monographs, edited volumes, and other book-length works.
August 2007
96
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
(23d) Working papers, pre-prints and technical reports
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Social Sciences (36%) compared to the overall average
(21%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (4%) and Arts (0%) have deposited working
papers, pre-prints and technical reports.
(23e) Other types of works
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (13%) compared to the overall average (4%) have
deposited other types of works.
(23f) Not sure
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (17%) compared to the overall average
(10%) were not sure.
(23g) None
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (60%) compared to the overall average
(35%) and to faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (13%) have deposited no works in UC’s
eScholarship Repository.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
8
30
16
24
58
136
(a) Previously-published peer-reviewed
25%
3%
63%
58%
29%
32%
journal articles
(b) Original peer-reviewed journal
0%
10%
0%
8%
7%
7%
articles not previously published
elsewhere
(c) Monographs, edited volumes, and
38%
10%
0%
0%
9%
8%
other book-length works
(d) Working papers, preprints, and
0%
13%
19%
4%
36%
21%
technical reports
(e) Other
13%
3%
0%
0%
5%
4%
(f) Not sure
13%
17%
13%
4%
9%
10%
(g) None
38%
60%
13%
33%
29%
35%
August 2007
97
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
QUESTION 24 - How often have you deposited your scholarly output in UC’s
eScholarship Repository?
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents by discipline, 34% deposit their scholarly
output in UC’s eScholarship Repository annually; 21% do so each semester; 6% do so monthly;
and 39% have done so once only. No statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty
responses and discipline, or between faculty responses and rank.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
4
7
12
15
32
70
Annually
50%
14%
33%
27%
41%
34%
Each semester
0%
0%
50%
13%
22%
21%
Monthly
0%
14%
0%
13%
3%
6%
Weekly
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Once only
50%
71%
17%
47%
34%
39%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
QUESTION 25 - Who actually posts your work in the eScholarship Repository?
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents by discipline, 16% said that a
departmental administrative assistant posts their work; 13% said that a graduate student or
teaching assistant does so; 46% do it themselves; and 26% said that someone else posts their
work. No statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, or
between faculty responses and rank.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
4
6
12
15
33
70
A departmental administrative assistant
0%
0%
25%
0%
24%
16%
A graduate student/teaching assistant
25%
17%
8%
13%
12%
13%
I do it myself
0%
33%
50%
73%
39%
46%
Someone else
75%
50%
17%
13%
24%
26%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
QUESTION 26 - Please tell us the top reasons why you contribute your scholarly output to
the UC eScholarship Repository.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents by discipline, 84% said that they
contribute their scholarly output to the UC eScholarship Repository because it increases
exposure of their previously published work; 42% cited exposure for work not previously
published; 73% cited broader dissemination of academic research generally; 3% cited a
mandate by their academic department; 13% cited increased institutional leverage with
commercial publishers; 1% cited increased commercial publishing opportunities; and 13% cited
increased prospects for higher academic rank, promotion, or tenure. No statistically-significant
relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, or between faculty responses and
rank.
August 2007
98
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
4
7
12
13
31
67
(a) Increases exposure of my previously-
100%
86%
92%
100%
71%
84%
published work (e.g., postprints)
(b) Provides exposure for work not
0%
57%
33%
15%
58%
42%
previously published (e.g., seminar
papers)
(c) Broadens the dissemination of
75%
71%
58%
92%
71%
73%
academic research generally
(d) Mandated by my academic
0%
0%
8%
8%
0%
3%
department
(e) Increases academic institutions'
0%
14%
17%
23%
10%
13%
leverage with commercial publishers
(f) Increases my own commercial
25%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
publishing opportunities
(g) Increases my rank, promotion, and
50%
0%
25%
15%
6%
13%
tenure prospects
QUESTION 27 - Have you ever consulted the eScholarship Repository as an aid to your
own research.
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents by discipline, 92% have consulted the
eScholarship Repository; 8% have not. A statistically-significant relationship exists between
faculty responses and discipline, but not between faculty responses and rank.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
45
45
45
45
45
45
No
84%
85%
98%
98%
88%
92%
Yes
16%
15%
2%
2%
12%
8%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
QUESTION 28 – What is your primary means of accessing works contained in UC’s
eScholarship Repository?
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents by discipline, 19% access works in UC’s
eScholarship Repository from another work that links to a specific work in the Repository; 30%
access the Repository through eScholarship’s home page and search capability; and 51%
access the Repository from a public search engine. No statistically-significant relationship
exists between faculty responses and discipline, or between faculty responses and rank.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
7
29
6
6
38
86
From another work that links to specific
43%
21%
0%
0%
18%
19%
work in repository
Through eScholarship's home page and
0%
34%
17%
50%
32%
30%
its search facility
Via a public search engine
57%
45%
83%
50%
50%
51%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
August 2007
99
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
QUESTION 29 - How do you rate the quality of work in the eScholarship Repository?
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents by discipline, 8% rated the quality of
work in the eScholarship Repository very high; 41% rated it high; 19% rated it moderate; 1%
rated it low; and 31% had no opinion. No statistically-significant relationship exists between
faculty responses and discipline, or between faculty responses and rank.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
7
32
6
6
39
90
Very high
0%
9%
0%
0%
10%
8%
High
29%
41%
50%
83%
36%
41%
Moderate
29%
16%
17%
0%
23%
19%
Low
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
1%
No opinion
43%
31%
33%
17%
31%
31%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
QUESTION 30 - Overall, how do you rate the value of the eScholarship Repository as a
research tool?
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents by discipline, 11% rated the value of the
eScholarship Repository as a research tool very high; 31% rated it high; 32% rated it moderate;
1% rated it low; 2% rated it very low; and 22% had no opinion. No statistically-significant
relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, or between faculty responses and
rank.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
6
30
6
6
39
87
Very high
17%
13%
0%
0%
13%
11%
High
33%
40%
0%
33%
28%
31%
Moderate
17%
30%
67%
33%
31%
32%
Low
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
1%
Very low
0%
0%
0%
17%
3%
2%
No opinion
33%
17%
33%
17%
23%
22%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
QUESTION 31 - Which of the following types of content would you like to see the
University support?
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents by discipline, 82% would like to see the
University support journal articles; 81% cited monographs and books; 55% cited conference
papers; 30% cited seminar papers; 31% cited technical reports; 26% cited other working
papers; 35% cited theses; 51% cited dissertations; 14% cited field notes; 32% cited data sets;
34% cited maps, charts, graphs, drawings, and diagrams; 40% cited photo images; 34% cited
software, including simulations; 26% cited audio; 27% cited video; 33% cited teaching and text
assessment materials; 3% cited other types of content; and 5% cited none of the above. No
statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and discipline, or between
faculty responses and rank.
August 2007
100
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
GENERAL ANALYSIS
Arts
Humanities Life&Med Sci
Physical Sci
Social Sci
Overall
Number of Respondents
7
31
6
6
38
88
Journal articles
86%
87%
83%
83%
76%
82%
Monographs/books
86%
94%
50%
67%
76%
81%
Conference papers
86%
48%
67%
50%
53%
55%
Seminar papers
43%
19%
17%
33%
37%
30%
Technical reports
43%
3%
67%
67%
39%
31%
Other working papers
14%
13%
17%
33%
39%
26%
Theses
43%
16%
67%
83%
37%
35%
Dissertations
43%
45%
50%
83%
53%
51%
Field notes
29%
10%
17%
17%
13%
14%
Data sets
14%
13%
50%
33%
47%
32%
Maps, charts, graphs, drawings, and
29%
26%
33%
67%
37%
34%
diagrams
Photo images
71%
39%
33%
33%
37%
40%
Software (including simulations)
14%
23%
67%
50%
39%
34%
Audio
29%
26%
33%
17%
26%
26%
Video
43%
19%
33%
33%
29%
27%
Teaching and text assessment materials
0%
29%
17%
67%
45%
35%
Other
14%
3%
17%
0%
0%
3%
None of the above
0%
0%
17%
0%
8%
5%
QUESTION 32 – Faculty were asked to select up to three sources from the following choices
as most effective in keeping them updated about UC eScholarship services:
(a) Direct communication from eScholarship/Office of eScholarship communications
(b) UC Senate
(c) Campus library/librarians
(d) Department meetings
(e) Faculty meetings
(f)
Higher education press, e.g. Chronicle of Higher Education
(g) Discipline-specific literature
(h) Ad hoc colleague conversation
(i) Academic conferences
(j) Other sources
GENERAL ANALYSIS: Among all faculty respondents, eScholarship/Office of Scholarly
Communications placed first, selected as one of the top three choices by 54% of respondents.
Campus library/librarians placed second, with 43% of respondents selecting it within their top
three choices. Departmental meetings placed third, selected as one of the top three choices by
37% of respondents. A statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses and
discipline, and between faculty responses and rank.
(32a) Direct communication from eScholarship/Office of eScholarship communications
• A smaller proportion of Assistant Professors (48%) compared to the overall average (54%)
cited direct communications from eScholarship/Office of eScholarship.
August 2007
101
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
(32b) UC Senate
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (21%) compared to the overall average
(17%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (15%) cited the UC Senate.
• A greater proportion of Full Professors (21%) compared to the overall average (18%) and to
Assistant Professors (15%) and Associate Professors (12%) cited the UC Senate.
(32c) Campus library and librarians
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (49%) and Social Sciences (47%)
compared to the overall average (43%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (33%) cited
the campus library and librarians.
• A smaller proportion of Assistant Professors (39%) compared to the overall average (43%)
cited the campus library and librarians.
(32d) Department meetings
(On this sub-question, no statistically-significant relationship exists between faculty responses
and discipline or between faculty responses and rank.)
(32e) Faculty meetings
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (40%) compared to the overall
average (32%) and to faculty in the Humanities (23%) cited faculty meetings.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (39%) and Associate Professors (36%)
compared to the overall average (32%) and to Full Professors (28%) cited faculty meetings.
(32f) Higher education press, e.g., Chronicle of Higher Education
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (12%) compared to the overall average
(6%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (4%) and Life & Medical Sciences (2%) cited
the higher education press.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (10%) compared to the overall average (6%)
and to Full Professors (5%) cited the higher education press.
(32g) Discipline-specific literature
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Humanities (45%) compared to the overall average
(33%) cited discipline-specific literature.
• A smaller proportion of Assistant Professors (30%) compared to the overall average (33%)
cited discipline-specific literature.
August 2007
102
Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
(32h) Ad hoc conversations with colleagues
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Physical Sciences (37%) and Social Sciences (36%)
compared to the overall average (32%) and to faculty in the Humanities (27%) and Arts
(19%) cited ad hoc conversations with colleagues.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (40%) compared to the overall average (32%)
cited ad hoc conversations with colleagues.
(32i) Academic conferences
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Life & Medical Sciences (16%) compared to the overall
average (13%) and to faculty in the Physical Sciences (10%) cited academic conferences.
• A greater proportion of Assistant Professors (18%) compared to the overall average (13%)
and to Full Professors (11%) cited academic conferences.
(32j) Other sources
• A greater proportion of faculty in the Arts (10%) and Physical Sciences (7%) compared to
the overall average (4%) and to faculty in the Social Sciences (2%) cited other sources.
• A greater proportion of Associate Professors (5%) compared to the overall average (4%)
cited other sources.
August 2007
103
Appendix A: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
APPENDIX A:
SELECTED FREE-FORM COMMENTS
FROM SURVEY RESPONDENTS
THE CURRENT STATE OF SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
“The publication of scholarly monographs in the humanities is in crisis. UC campuses need to
reconsider how this situation impacts tenure and promotion in humanities fields.”
-- Associate Professor, Literature, San Diego
“I hope that serious revisions about publishing considerations (for tenure and promotion,
among other areas) are made in a way that facilitates the spread of research through different
media.”
-- Assistant Professor, Ethnic Studies, Berkeley
“In physics, arXiv.org has revolutionized publishing, and all for the better. This model should
be emulated by other fields.”
-- Professor, Physics, Santa Barbara
“It is about time to change the publishing policies. The tenure criteria in my department and
my school are not current with the rapid development of my field (Computer Science). Paper-
based journal publications are too slow. Full-length, peer-reviewed conference papers
published in proceedings, DVDs or online should be given the same credit as a journal paper.
Rigor of the review process and acceptance rates should be used as criteria, not the type of
publication or the medium.”
-- Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering and Computing, Irvine
“Publishing seriously needs to come into the modern era in my discipline. But most of all,
faculty need to adapt to the changes and appreciate the changes when reviewing merit
cases. Importantly, they need to stop trying to avoid actually looking at the contents of the
papers and not simply counting the number of papers in established journals that may not be
as cutting-edge as they used to be. If people aren't prepared to do the work to evaluate a
colleague, the presumption should be that she is doing at least adequately. Most people in
my discipline have very little knowledge of copyright and licensing issues. It is essential that
we move away from transferring copyright, but it must be explained to faculty why this is a
bad thing. The University also needs to exert its influence to ensure that publishers change
their policies. If these matters are left to the faculty, inertia will dominate and scholarly
activities will continue to be handed away to commercial interests.”
-- Associate Professor, Statistics, Davis
August 2007
104
Appendix A: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
SOURCES OF PROBLEMS WITH THE SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION
SYSTEM
“In my field, journals play a very small role and the marquee role is played by particular
conferences. This model is generally not well reflected in the survey nor in UC's promotion
policies. As well, my community finds a great deal of its literature via open search engines
(e.g., Google) since it is standard to put the full text of one's paper on one's web site.”
-- Associate Professor, Computer Science and Engineering, San Diego
“In my discipline, scholarly societies are losing money with publishing because subscription
costs cannot begin to cover the expenses of publishing high-quality journals with high-quality
articles. At the same time, those journals do not request fees from authors (whether to submit
an article or for page fees), so the cost for authors to publish is very low, while the journals
bear the burden entirely. I think UC needs to support the publishing activities of its faculty,
but rather than trying to hogtie all of the disciplines with the same generic set of copyright
rules, as well as propose such crazy ideas as giving us money that we can use to buy our
way into journals (which is one model that I've seen proposed—that junior faculty should be
given money to pay journals to accept their articles—this is called 'vanity publishing' in my
discipline and would decrease the likelihood that anyone would take that author seriously), we
need to consider flexible approaches that can be tweaked for every discipline.”
-- Assistant Professor, Anthropology, Santa Cruz
“The biggest problem is not copyrights, but the very high fees charged by some journals.”
-- Professor, Business, Irvine
“I think you should be careful to differentiate between the massive cost of science and
medical journals versus the cheapness of humanities and social-sciences ones!”
-- Professor, English and Women’s Studies, Riverside
“The basic problem is that the UC Press no longer is committed to publishing scholarship,
especially by first time authors. Instead it looks for works that will sell.”
-- Professor, History, Irvine
“I am an astronomer. There are few journals in my field and they are not priced in a predatory
fashion. My colleagues and I make extensive use of the LANL preprint server. Nevertheless,
the journals in our field continue to survive, supported more and more by library subscriptions.
Continued existence of peer-reviewed journals is imperative, despite the preprint server. For
this to continue, journal prices need to be kept low. The key in my field is thus the
Combination of the preprint server (which gives open access to everybody) together with the
reasonable prices of journals (and comparatively SMALL NUMBER of journals) that are
published by the societies. There are almost no purely commercial publishers in my field.
Most of your survey was not relevant to me, but I do understand the concerns that other
scholars have about published [works]. Astronomers (and physicists) are very lucky....”
-- Professor, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Santa Cruz
“The two most important issues for my discipline here are: 1) the impact of electronic and
open source venues on my disciplinary societies; and 2) the impact of electronic and open-
August 2007
105
Appendix A: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
source venues on the quality of scholarly publication. In my field, it remains the case that
online venues are not seen as rigorously peer reviewed, or as serious venues in which to
place one's work. Unfortunately, the colleagues who have most taken advantage of them are
those who are the least productive and/or the least respected in their fields. Those colleagues
use such forms of scholarly communication to pad their CVs and to claim 'innovation' in the
manner in which they are engaging in research production. In my field, there is a clear,
inverse relationship between national prominence and publication in online venues.”
-- Professor, Anthropology, Irvine
“In my field, 99% of the relevant publications are published by the non-profit professional
societies at very reasonable rates. The commercial journals in my field are all second-rate at
best. The top journals are all non-profit. There is absolutely no change necessary in my field.”
-- Professor, Computer Science, Irvine
“I resent the commercial publishers' exploitation of my labor for their own profit. I would
strongly support any effort to be able to make my work available electronically to a wide
audience…”
-- Associate Professor, Linguistics, Santa Barbara
FACTORS DRIVING SCHOLARS’ PUBLISHING BEHAVIORS
“I am totally unaware of most of the new ways of disseminating my work. It has not been
discussed in my department. It's not clear what our Personnel Committee and faculty would
think of such things. That's of major importance to many of us.”
-- Associate Professor, Education, Santa Barbara
“I'm trying to get tenure and am not convinced that CAP at my institution is open to alternative
forms of dissemination so I am currently disseminating in traditional forms. If I receive tenure,
I will be more likely to try alternative forms.”
-- Assistant Professor, Theater and Dance, Davis
“Very important topics! Good work! I would be doing a lot of work on innovative digital
humanities methodologies for dissemination if I didn't have to worry about tenure.”
-- Assistant Professor, Arts
“The pressures associated with obtaining grants outweigh the pressures of tenure and
promotion at UC. Simply put, NIH-style peer review is mostly concerned with number of
published papers in traditional sources. That, of course, motivates the desire to publish in
well-known journals that have the most restrictive and unfavorable copyright issues, highest
expenses, and so on. Changes in the UC promotion [process] is a welcome first step but
does not override the pressures of granting agencies.”
-- Assistant Professor, Physiology, San Francisco
“In general I'd like to see academic publishing be less like a competition, and be less focused
on high-profile journals. I think the excessive focus on 'prestigious' journals is simply dumb. In
15 years of research work, I have not found papers in the prestige journals of much use.”
-- Administrator, Anthropology, Davis
August 2007
106
Appendix A: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
August 2007
107
Appendix A: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF PEER REVIEW
“The issue isn't the venue so much as the caliber of publication and research.”
-- Professor, Planning, Los Angeles
“I strongly disagree with the proliferation of on-line publications, because they are not as
strictly refereed as regular journals and many are not refereed at all. In my field this has taken
epidemic proportions, with 'scholars' in some circles simply depositing whatever they want in
non-refereed e-archives. Personally, I think enough junk is published already even after
refereeing; we don't need any more. On the other hand, I do agree that publishers do set
very high prices for journals and books.”
-- Associate Professor, Linguistics, San Diego
“... I don't care as much about being able to publish in online venues, since those papers tend
to look really ugly, and frankly the quality is lower so far, but I'd be willing to reconsider if there
was more quality control, as in the sciences.”
-- Associate Professor, Linguistics, Santa Barbara
“I am the editor of a society journal. My only concern with e-publishing is the potential for the
submission of articles that have not been adequately reviewed by peers and accepted
through the traditional review system; e-pubs should not be a depository for unedited work.
This is my only real concern.”
-- Professor, Anesthesiology and Pathology, San Diego
“Vetting of research quality is extremely important regardless of the dissemination venue.
Many of the print journals upload accepted papers on web sites soon after acceptance so
dissemination speed isn't an issue. The A journals I am familiar with all allow working paper
versions to be uploaded onto ssrn.com or our own personal web pages. It would be great to
be able to provide links to the final version for cheap download (just like downloading
copyrighted music for $1). Instead, the print journals seem to charge a lot for buying an
article. Until my discipline takes seriously publishing in open-access venues that are as
rigorously peer reviewed as current print journals, I would be reluctant to publish there
regardless of costs. Some of the journals charge more than $500 dollars for each round of
submission and yet I feel I have no choice but to pay them. The A journals have a monopoly
and the lifelong editors at these journals also sometimes seem like a dictatorship. The UC
merit system, where every same-rank faculty member votes, encourages a race towards
numbers rather than quality. To be a top-rank institution, we need to encourage risk taking to
hit home runs. Failure to hit home runs is indirectly punished because number counting is
easier on busy voting faculty.”
-- Professor, Business, Irvine
“Electronic publishing is nice for a number of reasons but if peer review is weakened by it, the
quality of science will be weakened.”
-- Professor, Entomology, Davis
“Frankly, in my discipline, only peer-reviewed publication in respectable journals (either open-
access or traditional journals) matters. I am happy to have electronic subscriptions to most
journals in my field available through the library. I depend on them. Other methods of
publishing are not taken seriously. Universities should not undermine the journals' ability to
sell subscriptions by not granting journals copyright ownership.”
-- Researcher, Marine Biology and Oceanography, San Diego
August 2007
108
Appendix A: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
IMPACT OF PROMOTION AND TENURE PROCESSES
“The key issue is and will likely remain what forms are understood to be accepted by tenure
and promotion committees and the outside reviewers on whom they rely.”
--
Associate Professor, Medicine, San Diego
“... It’s hard to entice junior colleagues to publish in e-journals if electronic publications don't
count in tenure and promotion cases. This is ironic because the reason why we should have
more e-journals is to make it easier for junior colleagues to get their work out (rather than wait
for years to see their work in print). In short, the contributors at present are predominantly
grad students and senior professors who can 'afford' to publish in non-print journals. It seems
difficult to break this cycle.”
-- Professor, German, Berkeley
“…with CAP forcing you to count publications and divide them into A-list and B-list
publications, you are forced to publish in high-quality journals, most of which are published by
commercial mainstream (and expensive) publishers. Incidentally, I have never before seen
such disconnect between what a University professes and what it actually does: it is
acknowledged that UCSD's image is not as good as it could be, yet its faculty are forced not
to publish in conference proceedings (since these don't count for promotion and tenure) and
get virtually no financial support for attending conferences. Yet, what better way to project a
positive image of the campus at large than having its members publicize their work among
their peers?”
--
Associate Professor, Linguistics, San Diego
“What I would most want to understand is how alternative publishing would be regarded by
my peers who will review me for tenure.”
-- Assistant Professor, Education, Berkeley
“I edit two journals, both thankfully safe from disciplines and their associations. I edit a book
series. I am a member of the UC Press Board. All struggle to avoid the idea that tenure and
promotion drive knowledge—that’s innovative!”
-- Professor, English, Sociology, and Women’s Studies, Riverside
OVERALL LEVEL OF CONCERN REGARDING COPYRIGHT ISSUES
“Journals in my field(s) leave copyright with the author, at least so far as I know. I have not
come across counter-examples.”
-- Professor, Physics, Santa Barbara
“The fact is that, regardless of copyright, versions of articles float around the web as pre-
prints and after the fact float around as 'reprints'. Journal publishers do not sue faculty.”
-- Professor, Management and Public Policy, Los Angeles
August 2007
109
Appendix A: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
“We have little difficulty with copyrights in our discipline. The most important venues are
conferences, which have very author-friendly copyright agreements.”
-- Professor, Computer Science and Engineering, San Diego
“I'm the editor of a journal, and we recently renegotiated our contract with Cambridge UP so
that transfer of copyright is changed to reflect author's right to post his/her own work on line,
etc.”
-- Professor, French and Dramatic Art, Santa Barbara
“I have always been able to successfully negotiate the changes I wanted in publishing
contracts.”
-- Assistant Professor, Communication, San Diego
“Copyright is not a major issue in my field, so most of this questionnaire is much ado about
nothing to me.”
-- Professor, Political Science, Irvine
“I wanted to publish an article as a chapter in a book or in another publication. Journals have
always been cooperative.”
-- Professor, Social Sciences, Los Angeles
FACULTY BEHAVIOR REGARDING COPYRIGHT
“On occasion, I have added a provision allowing my placement of a pre-print on a publicly
accessible electronic archive. Most physics journals have by now adjusted their copyright
terms to explicitly permit this…”
-- Professor, Physics, Davis
“Attempted, rejected by publisher.”
-- Associate Professor, Medicine, San Diego
“I feel strongly about handing over copyright to the journal if it restricts what I do with the work
in other venues. For example, I cannot post book chapters I wrote on the web. The publisher
won't let me. So, I won't be writing them any more as they are almost invisible unless they are
on the web.”
-- Associate Professor, Neurology, Los Angeles
“I have negotiated the order of names on a co-edited book and retained rights to translation
and web publishing of my work when publishers’ contracts provided for the contrary.”
-- Assistant Professor, French and Italian, Santa Barbara
“In my work as an author and an editor I have rewritten contracts, inserted addendums, and
replaced contracts wholesale. The main goal has been for authors to retain copyright. The
secondary goal has been for the rights authors grant to publishers to be specific and limited
(and, especially, not preclude free web posting).”
-- Assistant Professor, Communication, San Diego
August 2007
110
Appendix A: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
“I cross out any part of the agreement that limits my right to redistribute the article
electronically.”
-- Professor, Biomolecular Engineering, Santa Cruz
“I retain the right to post and disseminate my own work and to reuse it in other publications. I
also retain copyright wherever possible. As long as I can have control over the use of my
work, it's usually easier to let the publisher have copyright. I have withdrawn an article when
they refused to accept my changes. I also have negotiated at length with a book publisher
about control and registration of copyright in my name.”
-- Professor, Information Studies, Los Angeles
“I believe in owning all copyright to what I publish.”
-- Professor, Media Arts and Technology, Santa Barbara
“I do not, as a rule, waive copyright over my work except in cases where the journal is
esteemed enough for me to accept that it won't misuse its control of copyright to my work.”
-- Assistant Professor, History of Art and Architecture, Santa Barbara
Contracts are negotiable in my copyrighted works (films), although usually the ownership of
the copyright is not. I take direct and contingent compensation rather than argue about
copyright ownership.”
-- Professor, Film, Television and Digital Media, Los Angeles
UC REPOSITORY PROPOSAL – COMMENTS IN SUPPORT
“I think this is a very important issue. I'm glad that UC is taking leadership on this. From the
beginning of my career I have felt bitter about the coercive requirement that I sign away
copyright to my intellectual work. My preference would be to retain copyright for myself,
always. It isn't right that publishers are getting rich off the free labor of academics. I'm also
concerned about the financial burden on libraries and the barriers to open communication and
distribution.”
-- Associate Professor, Psychology, Santa Cruz
“Professors are paid by the University while doing their scholarly work so should at least
make it available to the University who supported them, especially as any license is non-
exclusive and limited.”
-- Professor, Film, Television and Digital Media, Los Angeles
“Publishers are not going to make deals with individual faculty. UC is big enough to have
some clout.”
-- Professor, Management and Public Policy, Los Angeles
“The federal government does not allow employees to agree to the copyright rules of print
journals and the journals accept this. I’ll bet UC could do the same.”
-- Professor, Medicine, San Diego
“That would be great! Do it.”
-- Professor, Psychology, Berkeley
August 2007
111
Appendix A: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
“If indeed articles would be freely available online to anyone, I'd strongly support it.”
-- Administrator, Anthropology, Davis
COMMENTS OPPOSING OR QUESTIONING THE UC REPOSITORY PROPOSAL
“The University should stay out of this area. It has already been addressed in my discipline by
the federal government. UC has a poor record of intellectual property management. Efforts to
meddle in publication will only increase regulatory burdens and skim off even more funds for
the administration.”
--
Professor, Bioengineering, San Diego
“UC faculty should not be forced by the administration or academic senate to follow certain
policies with regard to how they handle copyright issues for their own publications. They
should continue to retain the unrestricted ability to make these decisions on a case-by-case
basis, and according to their own judgment.”
-- Professor, Statistics, Davis
“I think it important to stress that faculty should be free to publish wherever they want and
under whatever conditions make most sense to them. No mandatory conditions should be set
by UC!”
-- Professor, Political Science, Los Angeles
“If you publish the best stuff, the journals will go belly up.”
--
Professor, Agricultural and Resource Economics, Berkeley
“Will likely weaken the journals in which I publish.”
-- Professor, Medicine, San Diego
“This might jeopardize publication in a real journal.”
--
Professor, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Los Angeles
“As long as the publisher prestige factor is important in tenure/promotion considerations,
taking any steps that would make our publications less attractive to the potential publishers
(such as reserving the copyrights for University repositories) are problematic.”
-- Professor, Applied Linguistics and TESL, Los Angeles
“There is too much bad research being published. Do we really need more non-refereed
venues?”
-- Associate Professor, Linguistics, San Diego
“It needs to be accepted by the discipline as a serious peer-reviewed venue.”
--
Professor, Engineering, Santa Cruz
“What happens with peer review? Science needs it.”
--
Professor, Entomology, Davis
“Online repositories need to be organized by discipline, not by the University. No one will pay
attention to a UC-only repository.”
--
Professor, Physics, Santa Barbara
August 2007
112
Appendix A: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
“This is discipline-specific as a problem: It is MUCH more a science problem than a
humanities problem, so a 'one-size' solution will likely be disastrous.”
--
Associate Professor, Religious Studies, Riverside
NEW FORMS OF SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION
“Like many similar surveys, this one has ignored the crucial issue: who pays? I have been
told by administrators and colleagues (from outside my department) to 'just ask my funding
agency for more money to pay for open access publishing.' My funding agency will not
provide this, and I worry that the net effect of a focus on open access—however laudable the
intentions—will be to shift costs away from institutions (e.g., the University library) and onto
individual PIs. My grant is stretched as far as it can go—you can't milk it for more!”
--
Professor, Physics, Davis
“Important issues, but UC response has been feeble. There has been a jump-on-the-
bandwagon effect for open-access publishing, but author-pays journals are going to shut out
unfunded researchers. Reading gets cheaper, but writing articles gets much more
expensive.”
-- Professor, Biomolecular Engineering, Santa Cruz
UC’s eSCHOLARSHIP SERVICES
“You have a long way to go in getting colleagues to become aware of this in my parts of the
University (Humanities and Social Sciences).”
-- Professor, History, Berkeley
“Since I haven't heard of eScholarship I have no ideas on how to use it or what it does.”
-- Assistant Professor, Social Sciences, Irvine
“Never heard of an active UC involvement in eScholarship...but I have just been hired this
fall!”
-- Assistant Professor, French and Italian, Santa Barbara
August 2007
113
Appendix A: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
PREFERRED METHODS OF COMMUNICATION ABOUT eSCHOLARSHIP
“It would be highly useful to provide workshops on the subject of eScholarship.”
-- Professor, Spanish and Portuguese and Chicano Studies, Santa Barbara
“If UC wants to encourage ePublishing, just sending more emails that won't be read won't help.
I don't know what will, but I already get too much email from UC and UCI.“
-- Professor, Cognitive Sciences, Irvine
“… a separate office for monitoring the changing field of scholarly publishing and UC policies
about this field should be established, rather than assigning this task to Senate committees
such as the Committee on the Library. These issues far exceed the purposes of the COL and
need to be addressed more comprehensively and decisively within an administrative office.”
-- Assistant Professor, Anthropology, Santa Cruz
August 2007
114
Appendix B: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
APPENDIX B:
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
The University's Office of Scholarly Communication is surveying UC faculty to better understand
emerging trends and practices in scholarly publishing.
Thank you for responding to the invitation to participate in the survey, and for taking a few
minutes of your time to give us your candid views. This survey contains approximately 35
substantive questions and will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. The results of this
survey will help identify potential university responses to key challenges and opportunities. Your
participation and answers will be kept confidential. Results will be announced to the UC
community.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[Demographics] Your faculty rank is:
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
Other:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[Demographics] Your academic discipline is within:
Arts
Humanities
Life & Medical Sciences
Physical Sciences
Social Sciences
Other
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[Demographics] Please tell us your specific department name:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[Demographics] Your campus affiliation is:
Berkeley
Davis
Irvine
Los Angeles
Merced
Riverside
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Barbara
Santa Cruz
August 2007
115
Appendix B: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
Los Alamos Lab
Lawrence Berkeley Lab
Lawrence Livermore Lab
Other (please specify):
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1. Scholarly communication refers to the processes for disseminating research results
and other scholarship. It includes traditional publishing as well as alternative
dissemination vehicles, such as open access journals, institutional repositories, web
sites and portals, and blogs, among others.
How would you characterize the general health of the current scholarly communication
system within your discipline?
No changes need to be made
Some minor changes need to be made
Substantial changes need to be made
No opinion
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
2. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
[Strongly agree; Agree somewhat; Disagree somewhat; Strongly disagree; I don’t know]
Too much research is being published.
I publish more than I ought to.
Citations are a good indicator of the usefulness of research.
The number of article downloads is a good indicator of the usefulness of research.
Journals have become too specialized.
Tenure and promotion drive my interest in disseminating my work more than any other factor.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
[Strongly agree; Agree somewhat; Disagree somewhat; Strongly disagree; I don’t know]
Scholarly societies in my discipline generate more revenue from publishing than is required to
cover their publishing costs.
Commercial publishers in my discipline control scholarly dissemination to the detriment of my
discipline.
Universities should do more to support publishing of scholarly books.
The rise in journal prices increasingly is a burden to my institution.
High journal prices have made it difficult for me to access the literature I need.
High journal prices may make it difficult for others to access the literature I produce.
As an author, I deliberately publish in journals that are affordable to readers.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4. When submitting your work for publication in any venue, how important to you are the
following factors?
[Very Important, Somewhat important, Not important]
Journal or book publisher's reputation
Journal's impact factor
August 2007
116
Appendix B: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
Publication venue's weight in tenure and promotion considerations
My ability to retain copyright of my article
My ability to put the pre-publication version of my work on a web site
My ability to put the published version of my work on a web site
My ability to submit my manuscript online
Availability in both print and electronic versions
Low or no subscription costs to readers
Speed of publication
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following:
[Strongly agree; Agree somewhat; Disagree somewhat; Strongly disagree; I don’t know]
The existing promotion and tenure processes at UC...
...force me to publish in print publications, rather than electronic-only forms of dissemination.
...cause me to forego using alternative forms of dissemination.
...encourage new forms of high-quality (peer-reviewed) scholarly communication.
...are keeping up with the evolution of scholarly communication.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
6. To what extent do you agree or disagree that scholars' management of copyright is ...
[Strongly agree; Agree somewhat; Disagree somewhat; Strongly disagree; I don’t know]
... an important factor in the evolution of scholarly publishing?
... an important factor in my own scholarly publishing?
... a topic needing faculty discussion and analysis?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7. How do you approach the copyright terms in your publication contracts?
[choose one]
I don't examine the copyright terms of the contract -- I just sign it as is.
I examine the copyright terms of the contract and usually sign it as is.
I modify the copyright terms of the contract before signing.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
8. If you have modified the copyright terms of a publication contract, what actions have
you taken?
[all that apply]
Replaced publisher’s contractual terms with my own
Attached an addendum
Replaced the entire agreement with one of my choosing
Please provide details if possible:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
August 2007
117
Appendix B: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
9. To what degree do you adhere to all copyright terms of your publication contracts?
[select one]
Consistently, all the time
Not really sure because I do not pay attention
From time to time, I likely disregard the terms of the contracts
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
10. In cases where you would prefer to retain some copyright rights but do not negotiate
with publishers to do so, what is the most important factor that prevents you from doing
so?
[select one]
I need to publish in the journal to get tenure, merit increases, or promotion.
It is too much trouble to negotiate with the publisher.
I do not have the knowledge to negotiate.
I have not thought about this issue.
Other (please specify):
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
11. 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?
Yes
No
Not applicable
Please provide details, if possible:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
12. To what degree are you concerned that transferring copyright to a publisher may limit
your ability to:
[Concerned; Not concerned; Haven’t thought about it]
Put the materials on a web site or in an institutional repository
Use the materials in a class that you or others are teaching without asking for permission from
the publisher
Make the materials available for course packs without asking for permission from the publisher
Use or submit the materials to an anthology
Create a derivative work based on the material
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
13. What single factor would help you the most in negotiating or modifying the copyright
terms of a publication contract?
[select one]
If I had precise instructions and examples of how to do it.
If I had someone to do it for me.
If I knew I would not be penalized for refusing to sign the standard contract.
Other (please specify):
August 2007
118
Appendix B: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
14. In May 2006, a special committee of the UC Academic Council forwarded a proposal
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.
Under the proposal, granting such a license would be the default situation, but faculty
could opt out when necessary.
To what extent are you aware of this proposal?
[select one]
Not aware
Aware, but don't know much
Knowledgeable
Am actively involved in this issue
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
15. Based on your current level of knowledge, would you be in favor of this proposal?
[select one]
Yes
No
I understand the proposal, but I am not sure
I do not understand the proposal
Comments:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
16. Please tell us which of the following activities you would be willing to undertake [all
that apply]
I would be willing to encourage my society's publication board to make its copyright policy more
author-friendly.
I would be willing to encourage my society to seek alternative sources of revenue, rather than
relying on subscription fees to support society activities.
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.
I would be willing to submit my scholarly output solely to publishers who require only the right of
first publication and no other right.
I would be willing to encourage publishers to experiment with business models in order to
reduce or eliminate barriers – including subscription costs – to readers.
None of the above
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
17. Traditionally, libraries and individuals pay for scholarly journals and books.
Alternative ways to disseminate scholarship are emerging, several of which – in pursuit
of “open access” – make the content available at no cost to the reader or library, with
production costs covered elsewhere.
What is your level of knowledge about the following alternative forms of scholarly
dissemination?
August 2007
119
Appendix B: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
[Not aware; Aware, but don’t know much; Knowledgeable; Have actually used to disseminate
my work]
Institutionally-based "repositories" of open access content
Disciplinary "repositories" of open access content
Fully open access journals (all journal articles freely available without university or individual
subscription)
Blogs/wikis
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
18. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
[Strongly agree; Agree somewhat; Disagree somewhat; Strongly disagree; I don’t know]
Open access will dramatically change scholarly communication in my discipline in the next two
years.
Open access threatens commercial publishers in my discipline.
Open access threatens my scholarly society(ies).
Libraries' subscriptions are a critical source of revenue for scholarly societies.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
19. Over the past 12 months, in which of the following activities have you engaged to
disseminate your work?
[all that apply]
Published articles in subscription-based journals
Published articles in open access journals
Published monographs
Posted postprints on a personal or departmental web site
Posted postprints on an institutional repository, such as arXiv, REPEC, or PubMed
Posted working papers, preprints, and technical reports on a personal, departmental, or
institutional web site or repository
None of the above
Other (please specify):
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
20. In the next 12 months, how, if at all, do you expect your participation in these
dissemination activities to change?
[Increase; Decrease; Stay about the same]
Publishing articles in subscription-based journals
Publishing articles in open access journals
Publishing monographs
Posting postprints on a personal or departmental web site
Posting postprints on an institutional repository, such as arXiv, REPEC, or PubMed
Posting working papers, preprints, and technical reports on a personal, departmental, or
institutional web site or repository
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
21. UC offers many different publishing services to the academic community. Which best
characterizes your level of awareness about each publishing service below?
August 2007
120
Appendix B: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
[Have not heard of this; Have heard of this, but do not understand it; Have heard, read, and
discussed this occasionally; Monitor and discuss this regularly; Am actively involved in this]
eScholarship programs in general
eScholarship Repository
eScholarship Journals & Peer Review Series
eScholarship Editions
UC Press/eScholarship Editions
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
22. The following describes my involvement with eScholarship Services:
[all that apply]
Editor of a journal or monographic series
Author/contributor
Seminar convener
Member/Director of a participating department or unit
UC Press published author whose book is in eScholarship
No involvement
Other (please specify):
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[if “No involvement” on #22, skip to #27]
23. To date, I have put the following types of scholarly output in UC's eScholarship
Repository:
[all that apply]
Previously-published peer-reviewed journal articles
Original peer-reviewed journal articles not previously published elsewhere
Monographs, edited volumes, and other book-length works
Working papers, preprints, and technical reports
Other (please specify):
Not sure
None
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
24. How often have you deposited your scholarly output in UC's eScholarship
Repository?
[select one]
Weekly
Monthly
Each semester
Annually
Once only
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
25. Who actually posts your work in the eScholarship Repository?
[select one]
I do it myself
August 2007
121
Appendix B: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
A departmental administrative assistant
A graduate student/teaching assistant
Someone else (please specify):
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
26. Please tell us the top reasons that you contribute your scholarly output to the UC
eScholarship Repository.
[select up to three]
Increases exposure of my previously-published work (e.g., postprints)
Provides exposure for work not previously published (e.g., seminar papers)
Broadens the dissemination of academic research generally
Mandated by my academic department
Increases academic institutions' leverage with commercial publishers
Increases my own commercial publishing opportunities
Increases my rank, promotion, and tenure prospects
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
27. Have you ever consulted the eScholarship Repository as an aid to your own
research?
Yes
No
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[if no to #27 then skip to #31]
28. What is your primary means of accessing works contained in UC's eScholarship
Repository?
[select one]
Via a public search engine
Through eScholarship's home page and its search facility
From another work that links to a specific work in the repository
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
29. How do you rate the quality of works within the eScholarship Repository?
[select one]
Very high
High
Moderate
Low
Very low
No opinion
Feel free to add any comments:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
30. Overall, how do you rate the value of the eScholarship Repository as a research tool?
Very high
High
Moderate
Low
August 2007
122
Appendix B: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
Very low
No opinion
Feel free to add any comments:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
31. For which of the following types of content would you like to see the University
provide publishing support ?
[all that apply]
Journal articles
Monographs/books
Conference papers
Seminar papers
Technical reports
Other working papers
Theses
Dissertations
Field notes
Data sets
Maps, charts, graphs, drawings, and diagrams
Photo images
Software (including simulations)
Audio
Video
Teaching and text assessment materials
None of the above
Other: (please specify)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
32. Which would be the most effective sources for keeping you updated about UC
eScholarship services?
[select up to three]
eScholarship/Office of Scholarly Communications directly
UC Senate
Campus library/librarians
Departmental meeting
Faculty meeting
Higher education press (e.g., Chronicle of Higher Education)
Discipline-specific literature
Ad-hoc colleague conversation
Academic conference
Other
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
33. Please comment on any innovative publishing activities in which you and your
colleagues are currently engaged:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
34. Please feel free to add any comments about this survey or the issues it addresses:
August 2007
123
Appendix B: Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Scholarly Communication
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
35. Would you be willing to have an in-depth telephone conversation with one of our
researchers on the topics covered in this survey?
Yes
No
[if no to #35 then skip to end]
Please give us your contact information:
Name:
Telephone:
Email:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Thank you for participating in this survey.
August 2007
124
