@misc{cogprints4385, month = {May}, title = {Open access self-archiving: An author study}, author = {Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown}, year = {2005}, keywords = {open access, self-archiving, research impact, institutional repositories, citation, publication, journals}, url = {http://cogprints.org/4385/}, abstract = {This, our second author international, cross-disciplinary study on open access had 1296 respondents. Its focus was on self-archiving. Almost half (49\%) of the respondent population have self-archived at least one article during the last three years. Use of institutional repositories for this purpose has doubled and usage has increased by almost 60\% for subject-based repositories. Self-archiving activity is greatest amongst those who publish the largest number of papers. There is still a substantial proportion of authors unaware of the possibility of providing open access to their work by self-archiving. Of the authors who have not yet self-archived any articles, 71\% remain unaware of the option. With 49\% of the author population having self-archived in some way, this means that 36\% of the total author population (71\% of the remaining 51\%), has not yet been appraised of this way of providing open access. Authors have frequently expressed reluctance to self-archive because of the perceived time required and possible technical difficulties in carrying out this activity, yet findings here show that only 20\% of authors found some degree of difficulty with the first act of depositing an article in a repository, and that this dropped to 9\% for subsequent deposits. Another author worry is about infringing agreed copyright agreements with publishers, yet only 10\% of authors currently know of the SHERPA/RoMEO list of publisher permissions policies with respect to self-archiving, where clear guidance as to what a publisher permits is provided. Where it is not known if permission is required, however, authors are not seeking it and are self-archiving without it. Communicating their results to peers remains the primary reason for scholars publishing their work; in other words, researchers publish to have an impact on their field. The vast majority of authors (81\%) would willingly comply with a mandate from their employer or research funder to deposit copies of their articles in an institutional or subject-based repository. A further 13\% would comply reluctantly; 5\% would not comply with such a mandate.} }