cOAlition S’ Survey Seems Unbelievable

Survey results from a consultant hired by cOAlition S have a new result that seems, well, unbelievable.

Last week, cOAlition S released survey results of authors via the website of the consultants handling the process.

The consultants published their client’s name in the press release as, “cOAlition”:

Perhaps editing does matter, after all . . .

But let’s turn to the survey itself.

If you accept the results at face value, there’s little to nothing new here — journal brands are still the most important thing used to screen new research for submission or consumption, and authors want more papers published, but when they are put into the mode of readers, they want fewer, better, and more relevant papers. We’ve known these things for a long time, having seen similar results again and again in surveys and interviews.

Consistency over time matters to survey topics. When something deviates suddenly, it raises serious questions.

This post is for paying subscribers only

Already have an account? Sign in.

Subscribe to The Geyser

Don’t miss out on the latest issues. Sign up now to get access to the library of members-only issues.