The researcher considers the main key to dealing with an issue is understanding any concerns first, thus gaining an understanding on the perceptions of PAAET stakeholders towards OA, as well as understanding the benefits of an OA policy. This information helped the researcher to develop a suitable strategy for a more efficient and effective OA culture appropriate to PAAET.
OA Awareness
Academic staff were asked whether they had ever heard of the concept of OA and they did not show a strong indication that they had done so (see Chart 1: OA Awareness). 37% responded ‘Yes’ and 39% responded ‘No’, while 24% were ‘Not sure’ about the OA concept. As for acknowledging whether OA is important, 10% had a negative attitude (strongly disagreed or disagreed) and 28% were neutral. Although 62% of the sample
strongly agreed or agreed that OA is important; academic staff had a different response
towards the statement “My institution is aware of Open Access”; (62 out of 154) 40% were
neutral and (44 and 13 out 154) 37% had negative attitudes towards the institution’s
awareness of OA, leaving only (3 and 32 out of 154) 23% who strongly agreed or agreed that PAAET is aware of OA.
Chart 1: OA Awareness
Benefits of OA
Academic staff showed positive responses“Open Access will have an impact on my role in my institution” as (20 and 69 out of 154)58% by agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement while only (13 and 5 out of 154) 11% disagreed or strongly disagreed and (47 out of 154) 31% were neutral. As for Open Access increases visibility of research impact about three quarters’ of the respondents, (35 and 67) a total of 102 out of 154 (66%), supported
this statement compared with (11 and 1 out of 154) 8% who strongly disagreed or
disagreed. Furthermore, respondents were asked to express their opinions on whether “Open Access can help increase improvement of a researcher’s career”. It was found that there was no immense differences found in the responses as (18 and 35 out of 154) 35% who agreed
or strongly agreed with this statement, while (33 and 17 out of 154) 32 % disagreed or
strongly disagreed and (51 out of 154) 33% were neutral.
On the Regarding their views towards the statement “Open access will not help keep track of research active members' output in my institute”, a big portion of the respondents (57 and 19 out of 154) 49% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, while (6 and 27 out 154) 22% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement; (45 out of 154) 29% were neutral. Further analysis showed that (23 and 61 out of 154) 55% academic staff that agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement: “Open Access can increase the motivation for research
disagreed. 38% (58 out of 154) were neutral.
Academic staff showed differences in their perceptions towards exploring the influence of OA towards the increase of citation where (56 and 25 out 154) 52% disagreed and strongly
disagreed with “Open Access publishing does not influence the increase of citations” but (5
and 28 out 154) 22% agreed and strongly agreed and (40 out 154) 26% remained neutral. When the respondents were asked “Open access publishing does help avoid duplication in research efforts” strangely 48% (59 and 16 out 154) of academic staff disagreed or
strongly disagreed and 45 (29%) were neutral. These responses indicate that only 23% (6
and 28 out of 154) agreed or strongly agreed are aware about the basic concepts of OA. Academic staffs were asked to indicate whether “Open Access policy does not encourage research active members to deposit their research in an Open Access institutional Repository” (28 and 63 out of 154) 59% agreed and strongly agreed that an Open Access policy does not encourage research active members to deposit their research in an Open Access institutional Repository. While 4 and 3 (5%) disagreed and strongly disagreed upon this statement. 56 (36%) were neutral.
5.9.2 Policies and procedures
This section aims to provide an insight into the current issues that could not be explored clearly through interviews in regards to the academic staffs’ views towards OA policy implementation in PAAET and its strategies.
Research Output
Furthermore, these results indicate that the majorities do not see OA can help in institutional collaboration. Responses when asked whether “An Open access policy gains the institution a better picture of research outputs” The majority of academic staff, 28 and 63 out 154 (as highlighted in Chart 2) the total responses 59% agreed or strongly agreed that the institution could gain a better picture of research outputs by implementing Open access policy. Only 5% (4 and 3 out of 154) strongly disagreed or disagreed while (56) 36% were neutral.
Chart 2: Policies and procedures (Research Output)
Institution Collaboration
Results revealed that some academic staff viewed the institution’s collaboration with others through OA will not be difficult as 41% of the academic staff (41 and 22 out of
154) disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement with the statement: “It will be
difficult for my institution to collaborate with other institutions through Open Access” (See Chart 3) compared with the (47 out of 154) 30% were neutral and (15 and 29 out of 154) 29% of the academic staff agreed or strongly agreed in their views concerning this issue.
Government Influence
The governmental influence is an important environmental factor and when the academic staff were asked about government influence by this statement: “The government has no influence on open access policy practice through their instructions” no major differences shown in academic staffs’ responses (as shown in Chart 4), (17 and 36 out of 154) 34%,
agreed or strongly agreed compared with only (41 and 8 out of 154) 32% who disagreed or
strongly disagreed. (52 out of 154) 34% were neutral.
Chart 4: Policies and procedures (Government Influence)
Mandated Policy
The type of policy that is preferred by PAAET’s academic staff is explored. Therefore, respondents were asked whether a mandated open access policy should not be practiced in PAAET, Unexpectedly (56%) 86 out of 154 were neutral, while 12 and 49 out of 154
(40%) of the total responses agreed or strongly agreed that a mandated open access policy
should be mandated (See Chart 5). Only (4%) 6 and 1 out 154 of the responses that disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Chart 5: Policies and procedures (Mandated Policy)
Voluntary Policy
Further analysis showed that 20 and 59 out of 154 (51%) academic staff that agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement: “A voluntary Open access policy is appropriate for my
institution”. On the other hand, 63 (41%) responded as neutral and the least response was (8%) 11 and 1 out of 154 who disagreed or strongly disagreed (See Chart 6).
Self-archiving
Academic staff responded to self-archiving according to their IT skills and backgrounds by responding to the statement “Self-archiving in the Institutional Repository will be easy for researchers in PAAET” and surprisingly 28 and 51 out 154 (51%) agreed or strongly
agreed with that statement (as illustrated in Chart 7) and 13 and 5 out of 154 (12%)
disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 57 out of 154 (37%) remained neutral.
Chart 7: Policies and procedures (Self-archiving) Library Agreement
On the other hand, (37%) 46 and 12 out of 154 respondents disagreed or strongly
disagreed with the statement: “An agreement should be made between the researcher and
the library to grant the institution a permission to make his or her scholarly articles available in the IR and to exercise the copyright for those articles” and 52 (34%) were neutral compared with 3 and 41 out of 154 (29%) who agreed or strongly agreed that the library to act on his/her behalf ( as shown in Chart 8).
Chart 8: Policies and procedures (Library Agreement)
Copyright Concerns
In regards to explore the type of policy copyright issues should be uncovered and should be revealed. Therefore, 42 and 10 out of 154 (34%) disagreed or strongly disagreed to the statement: “There will not be copyright issues with publishers if peer-reviewed articles are deposited in PAAET’s institutional repository”, while (28%) 13 and 30 out of 154 agreed or strongly agreed and 59 out 154 (38%) were neutral (See Chart 9).
Deposit Published articles
When the respondents were asked to express their opinions on whether only published research should be deposited in PAAET’s Institutional repository, 15 and 44 out of 154 of the respondents (38%) strongly agreed and agreed (as illustrated in Chart 10), while (26%) 32 and 8 out of 154 disagreed and strongly disagreed with the statement and 55 out of 154 (36%) of the respondents were neutral.
Chart 10: Policies and procedures (Deposit Published articles)
PAAET’s need for an OA Policy
A comparison between two statements on whether PAAET needs an OA policy to implement an open access IR for research active members’ outcomes was explored; one statement had a positive response and the other negative. It was found in the first statement that the half of academic staff 15 and 63 out of 154 (51%) agreed or strongly agreed that they support the need for an OA policy to establish an IR (See Chart 11), while only (13%) 13 and 7 out of 154 who disagreed or strongly disagreed and 56 out of 154 (36%) remained neutral.
Chart 11: Policies and procedures (PAAET’s need for an OA Policy)
For the second statement just over half, 95 out of 154 (62%), responded neutral and the least response was 16 and 10 out of 154 (16%) who strongly disagreed or disagreed. Whereas 7 and 26 out of 154 (22%) who supported this statement by agreeing and strongly disagreeing (See Chart 12).
Chart 12: Policies and procedures (PAAET’s need for an OA Policy)
5.9.3 Organisational resources
In this section PAAET’s level of resources and professionals are explored and it presents an analysis of the responses to statements regarding these specific issues.
IT Infrastructure
But in term to the statement “Technology resources do not prevent the implementation of an
open access policy” (53%) 27 and 55 out of 154 of the respondents strongly agreed or
agreed that technological resources is not an issue for implementing an OA policy (as
illustrated in Chart 13), which, clearly indicates they are not aware the practice of an OA policy; and 56 out 154 (36%) were neutral, the least were 15 and 1 out of 154 (11%) who strongly disagreed or disagreed.
Chart 13: Organisational resources (IT Infrastructure)
Information Professionals
In terms of the issue of the lack of OA professionals in PAAET that can support it through IT and Advocacy of an OA policy, academic staff were more likely to support this statement “Lack of Open Access professionals will prevent the implementation of an open access policy” as 12 and 60 out 0f 154 (47%) agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement compared to 26 and 5 out 154 (20%) disagreed and strongly disagreed, while 51 (33%) were neutral (See Chart 14).
Chart 14: Organisational resources (Information Professionals)
5.9.4 Organisational tensions