Skip to content

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

Your participation in this survey is invaluable as we ask you to voice your opinions and concerns on the current state and future direction of research and publishing. The survey will take approximately 3-5 minutes to complete, and a summary of the survey results will be freely available at the end of the year.
 
Thank you for your participation and we look forward to your valuable insights.
1.Please select your region.(Required.)
2.Please select the closest generalized profession to yours:(Required.)
3.Please rate the following statements regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its role in research and innovation.(Required.)
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral/No Opinion
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
AI can be a peer reviewer of academic research
AI can develop full academic research manuscripts
AI monitoring tools are capable of reliably identifying the presence of AI-generated content in submitted manuscripts
AI adds to the problem of bias
Using AI breaches confidentiality and privacy policies
AI will contribute greatly to the loss of jobs across different industries
Adopting AI is necessary for progressing research
4.Please rate the following statements regarding open access (OA) publishing.(Required.)
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral/No Opinion
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
OA publishing opportunities exclude researchers from developing nations
OA publishing increases accessibility of research
OA publishing increases visibility and impact of research
OA publishing opportunities exclude retired researchers and/or researchers with no university/research institution affiliation
OA publishing has increased the number of predatory publications
There should be no embargoes placed on OA research
Researchers have a limited understanding of OA
Traditional publishing (non-OA) is preferred over OA publishing
5.Please rate the following statements regarding open access funding.(Required.)
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral/No Opinion
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Funding is easy to find
Funding is easy to apply for
There are plenty of funding opportunities available
Funding is disproportionately available across regions
Universities/institutions should set aside OA funds for their faculty
Governments should set aside OA funds for researchers
Funding mandates/compliance are difficult to understand and follow
Funding is often denied due to lack of funds left
Funds for OA publishing should be included in research funding grants
6.Please rate the following statements on peer review in research and publishing.(Required.)
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral/No Opinion
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Open peer review should replace all other peer review models
Peer review prevents biased decisions
Peer review is an effective way to ensure the publication of quality scientific work
Peer reviewers should receive monetary incentives
Publications promising 2-3 weeks for completion of the peer review process are untrustworthy
Two completed peer reviews on a manuscript is considered a sufficient peer review
7.Please rate the following statements on the use of metrics (Impact Factor, CiteScore, Eigenfactors, etc.) in research and publishing.(Required.)
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral/No Opinion
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
All journals should display their metrics
Metrics are the most important factor in the decision to publish in a specific publication
Metrics are untrustworthy
Researchers should be limited to publishing in only publications with specific metrics (i.e., only journals with Impact Factors, only Q1 journals, etc.)
Journals with a Web of Science Journal Impact Factor are the best journals to publish within
OA processing charges or subscription fees should be set based on metrics
8.Please rate the following statement on publishing practices.(Required.)
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral/No Opinion
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript in multiple publications is unethical
Adding co-author after paper is accepted to be published is unethical
Withdrawing a paper after acceptance to publish in a higher impact publication is unethical
Plagiarism including use of exact verbiage verbatim and not referencing the source is unethical
Reviewer/editor demands to add their references to paper in order to be accepted is unethical
Publishing work with a student's involvement in development of the research is unethical
Manuscripts rejected based on bias such as gender, race, etc. is practiced routinely
Use of third party company guaranteeing the acceptance of a paper to a publication is unethical
9.List five emerging/forthcoming topics that are advancing your field.(Required.)
10.What improvements or innovations would you like to see occur in research and publishing?
11.In your opinion, what is the greatest obstacle that authors and editors face in research and publishing?