qualitative research open access journal

Qualitative Research Journal

• Submit your paper
• Author guidelines
• Editorial team
• Indexing & metrics
• Calls for papers & news

Before you start

For queries relating to the status of your paper pre decision, please contact the Editor or Journal Editorial Office. For queries post acceptance, please contact the Supplier Project Manager. These details can be found in the Editorial Team section.

Author responsibilities

Our goal is to provide you with a professional and courteous experience at each stage of the review and publication process. There are also some responsibilities that sit with you as the author. Our expectation is that you will:

• Respond swiftly to any queries during the publication process.
• Be accountable for all aspects of your work. This includes investigating and resolving any questions about accuracy or research integrity .
• Treat communications between you and the journal editor as confidential until an editorial decision has been made.
• Include anyone who has made a substantial and meaningful contribution to the submission (anyone else involved in the paper should be listed in the acknowledgements).
• Exclude anyone who hasn’t contributed to the paper, or who has chosen not to be associated with the research.
• In accordance with COPE’s position statement on AI tools , Large Language Models cannot be credited with authorship as they are incapable of conceptualising a research design without human direction and cannot be accountable for the integrity, originality, and validity of the published work. The author(s) must describe the content created or modified as well as appropriately cite the name and version of the AI tool used; any additional works drawn on by the AI tool should also be appropriately cited and referenced. Standard tools that are used to improve spelling and grammar are not included within the parameters of this guidance. The Editor and Publisher reserve the right to determine whether the use of an AI tool is permissible.
• If your article involves human participants, you must ensure you have considered whether or not you require ethical approval for your research, and include this information as part of your submission. Find out more about informed consent .

Generative AI usage key principles

• Copywriting any part of an article using a generative AI tool/LLM would not be permissible, including the generation of the abstract or the literature review, for as per Emerald’s authorship criteria, the author(s) must be responsible for the work and accountable for its accuracy, integrity, and validity.
• The generation or reporting of results using a generative AI tool/LLM is not permissible, for as per Emerald’s authorship criteria, the author(s) must be responsible for the creation and interpretation of their work and accountable for its accuracy, integrity, and validity.
• The in-text reporting of statistics using a generative AI tool/LLM is not permissible due to concerns over the authenticity, integrity, and validity of the data produced, although the use of such a tool to aid in the analysis of the work would be permissible.
• Copy-editing an article using a generative AI tool/LLM in order to improve its language and readability would be permissible as this mirrors standard tools already employed to improve spelling and grammar, and uses existing author-created material, rather than generating wholly new content, while the author(s) remains responsible for the original work.
• The submission and publication of images created by AI tools or large-scale generative models is not permitted.

Research and publishing ethics

Our editors and employees work hard to ensure the content we publish is ethically sound. To help us achieve that goal, we closely follow the advice laid out in the guidelines and flowcharts on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) website .

We have also developed our research and publishing ethics guidelines . If you haven’t already read these, we urge you to do so – they will help you avoid the most common publishing ethics issues.

A few key points:

• Any manuscript you submit to this journal should be original. That means it should not have been published before in its current, or similar, form. Exceptions to this rule are outlined in our pre-print and conference paper policies .  If any substantial element of your paper has been previously published, you need to declare this to the journal editor upon submission. Please note, the journal editor may use  Crossref Similarity Check  to check on the originality of submissions received. This service compares submissions against a database of 49 million works from 800 scholarly publishers.
• Your work should not have been submitted elsewhere and should not be under consideration by any other publication.
• If you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it upon submission; this allows the editor to decide how they would like to proceed. Read about conflict of interest in our research and publishing ethics guidelines .
• By submitting your work to Emerald, you are guaranteeing that the work is not in infringement of any existing copyright.

Third party copyright permissions

Prior to article submission, you need to ensure you’ve applied for, and received, written permission to use any material in your manuscript that has been created by a third party. Please note, we are unable to publish any article that still has permissions pending. The rights we require are:

• Non-exclusive rights to reproduce the material in the article or book chapter.
• Print and electronic rights.
• Worldwide English-language rights.
• To use the material for the life of the work. That means there should be no time restrictions on its re-use e.g. a one-year licence.

We are a member of the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM) and participate in the STM permissions guidelines , a reciprocal free exchange of material with other STM publishers.  In some cases, this may mean that you don’t need permission to re-use content. If so, please highlight this at the submission stage.

Please take a few moments to read our guide to publishing permissions  to ensure you have met all the requirements, so that we can process your submission without delay.

Open access submissions and information

All our journals currently offer two open access (OA) publishing paths; gold open access and green open access.

If you would like to, or are required to, make the branded publisher PDF (also known as the version of record) freely available immediately upon publication, you can select the gold open access route once your paper is accepted. 

If you’ve chosen to publish gold open access, this is the point you will be asked to pay the APC (article processing charge) . This varies per journal and can be found on our APC price list or on the editorial system at the point of submission. Your article will be published with a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 user licence , which outlines how readers can reuse your work.

Alternatively, if you would like to, or are required to, publish open access but your funding doesn’t cover the cost of the APC, you can choose the green open access, or self-archiving, route. As soon as your article is published, you can make the author accepted manuscript (the version accepted for publication) openly available, free from payment and embargo periods.

You can find out more about our open access routes, our APCs and waivers and read our FAQs on our open research page. 

Find out about open

Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines

We are a signatory of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines , a framework that supports the reproducibility of research through the adoption of transparent research practices. That means we encourage you to:

• Cite and fully reference all data, program code, and other methods in your article.
• Include persistent identifiers, such as a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), in references for datasets and program codes. Persistent identifiers ensure future access to unique published digital objects, such as a piece of text or datasets. Persistent identifiers are assigned to datasets by digital archives, such as institutional repositories and partners in the Data Preservation Alliance for the Social Sciences (Data-PASS).
• Follow appropriate international and national procedures with respect to data protection, rights to privacy and other ethical considerations, whenever you cite data. For further guidance please refer to our  research and publishing ethics guidelines . For an example on how to cite datasets, please refer to the references section below.

Prepare your submission

Manuscript support services.

We are pleased to partner with Editage, a platform that connects you with relevant experts in language support, translation, editing, visuals, consulting, and more. After you’ve agreed a fee, they will work with you to enhance your manuscript and get it submission-ready.

This is an optional service for authors who feel they need a little extra support. It does not guarantee your work will be accepted for review or publication.

Visit Editage

Manuscript requirements

Before you submit your manuscript, it’s important you read and follow the guidelines below. You will also find some useful tips in our structure your journal submission how-to guide.

Submit your manuscript

There are a number of key steps you should follow to ensure a smooth and trouble-free submission.

Double check your manuscript

Before submitting your work, it is your responsibility to check that the manuscript is complete, grammatically correct, and without spelling or typographical errors. A few other important points:

• Give the journal aims and scope a final read. Is your manuscript definitely a good fit? If it isn’t, the editor may decline it without peer review.
• Does your manuscript comply with our research and publishing ethics guidelines ?
• Have you cleared any necessary publishing permissions ?
• Have you followed all the formatting requirements laid out in these author guidelines?
• If you need to refer to your own work, use wording such as ‘previous research has demonstrated’ not ‘our previous research has demonstrated’.
• If you need to refer to your own, currently unpublished work, don’t include this work in the reference list.
• Any acknowledgments or author biographies should be uploaded as separate files.
• Carry out a final check to ensure that no author names appear anywhere in the manuscript. This includes in figures or captions.

You will find a helpful submission checklist on the website Think.Check.Submit .

The submission process

All manuscripts should be submitted through our editorial system by the corresponding author.

The only way to submit to the journal is through the journal’s ScholarOne site as accessed via the Emerald website, and not by email or through any third-party agent/company, journal representative, or website. Submissions should be done directly by the author(s) through the ScholarOne site and not via a third-party proxy on their behalf.

A separate author account is required for each journal you submit to. If this is your first time submitting to this journal, please choose the Create an account or Register now option in the editorial system. If you already have an Emerald login, you are welcome to reuse the existing username and password here.

Please note, the next time you log into the system, you will be asked for your username. This will be the email address you entered when you set up your account.

Don't forget to add your  ORCiD ID during the submission process. It will be embedded in your published article, along with a link to the ORCiD registry allowing others to easily match you with your work.

Don’t have one yet? It only takes a few moments to register for a free ORCiD identifier .

Visit the ScholarOne support centre  for further help and guidance.

What you can expect next

You will receive an automated email from the journal editor, confirming your successful submission. It will provide you with a manuscript number, which will be used in all future correspondence about your submission. If you have any reason to suspect the confirmation email you receive might be fraudulent, please contact the journal editor in the first instance.

Post submission

Review and decision process.

Each submission is checked by the editor. At this stage, they may choose to decline or unsubmit your manuscript if it doesn’t fit the journal aims and scope, or they feel the language/manuscript quality is too low.

If they think it might be suitable for the publication, they will send it to at least two independent referees for double anonymous peer review.  Once these reviewers have provided their feedback, the editor may decide to accept your manuscript, request minor or major revisions, or decline your work.

While all journals work to different timescales, the goal is that the editor will inform you of their first decision within 60 days.

During this period, we will send you automated updates on the progress of your manuscript via our submission system, or you can log in to check on the current status of your paper.  Each time we contact you, we will quote the manuscript number you were given at the point of submission. If you receive an email that does not match these criteria, it could be fraudulent and we recommend you contact the journal editor in the first instance.

Manuscript transfer service

Emerald’s manuscript transfer service takes the pain out of the submission process if your manuscript doesn’t fit your initial journal choice. Our team of expert Editors from participating journals work together to identify alternative journals that better align with your research, ensuring your work finds the ideal publication home it deserves. Our dedicated team is committed to supporting authors like you in finding the right home for your research.

If a journal is participating in the manuscript transfer program, the Editor has the option to recommend your paper for transfer. If a transfer decision is made by the Editor, you will receive an email with the details of the recommended journal and the option to accept or reject the transfer. It’s always down to you as the author to decide if you’d like to accept. If you do accept, your paper and any reviewer reports will automatically be transferred to the recommended journals. Authors will then confirm resubmissions in the new journal’s ScholarOne system.

Our Manuscript Transfer Service page has more information on the process.

If your submission is accepted

Open access.

Once your paper is accepted, you will have the opportunity to indicate whether you would like to publish your paper via the gold open access route.

If you’ve chosen to publish gold open access, this is the point you will be asked to pay the APC (article processing charge).  This varies per journal and can be found on our APC price list or on the editorial system at the point of submission. Your article will be published with a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 user licence , which outlines how readers can reuse your work.

For UK journal article authors - if you wish to submit your work accepted by Emerald to REF 2021, you must make a ‘closed deposit’ of your accepted manuscript to your respective institutional repository upon acceptance of your article. Articles accepted for publication after 1st April 2018 should be deposited as soon as possible, but no later than three months after the acceptance date. For further information and guidance, please refer to the REF 2021 website.

All accepted authors are sent an email with a link to a licence form.  This should be checked for accuracy, for example whether contact and affiliation details are up to date and your name is spelled correctly, and then returned to us electronically. If there is a reason why you can’t assign copyright to us, you should discuss this with your journal content editor. You will find their contact details on the editorial team section above.

Proofing and typesetting

Once we have received your completed licence form, the article will pass directly into the production process. We will carry out editorial checks, copyediting, and typesetting and then return proofs to you (if you are the corresponding author) for your review. This is your opportunity to correct any typographical errors, grammatical errors or incorrect author details. We can’t accept requests to rewrite texts at this stage.

When the page proofs are finalised, the fully typeset and proofed version of record is published online. This is referred to as the EarlyCite version. While an EarlyCite article has yet to be assigned to a volume or issue, it does have a digital object identifier (DOI) and is fully citable. It will be compiled into an issue according to the journal’s issue schedule, with papers being added by chronological date of publication.

How to share your paper

Visit our author rights page  to find out how you can reuse and share your work.

To find tips on increasing the visibility of your published paper, read about  how to promote your work .

Correcting inaccuracies in your published paper

Sometimes errors are made during the research, writing and publishing processes. When these issues arise, we have the option of withdrawing the paper or introducing a correction notice. Find out more about our  article withdrawal and correction policies .

Need to make a change to the author list? See our frequently asked questions (FAQs) below.

Frequently asked questions

Editor-in-Chief

• Dr Mark Vicars Victoria University and Honorary Adjunct Professor at Mahidol University - Australia and Thailand [email protected]
• Dr Jeanne Marie Iorio The University of Melbourne [email protected]

Commissioning Editor

• Danielle Crow Emerald Publishing - UK [email protected]

Journal Editorial Office (For queries related to pre-acceptance)

• Prashant Bangera Emerald Publishing [email protected]

Supplier Project Manager (For queries related to post-acceptance)

• Sivakeerthika Saravanan Emerald Publishing [email protected]

Editorial Advisory Board

• Professor Victoria Carrington University of Tasmania - Australia
• Dr Antonia Darder Loyola Marymount University - USA
• Professor Norman Denzin University of Illinois - USA
• Dr Yvonne Downs Independent Scholar - UK
• Dr Ken Gale Glasgow University - UK
• Professor William Gaudelli Lehigh University - USA
• Professor Dan Goodley Sheffield University - UK
• Professor Ivor Goodson University of Brighton - UK
• Professor Gabriele Griffin Centre for Gender Research, Uppsala University - Sweden
• Dr Aaron Koh The Chinese University of Hong Kong - Hong Kong
• Dr Rebecca Lawthom Sheffield University - UK
• Dr Ligia (Licho) Lopez Lopez The University of Melbourne - Australia
• Professor Kate Pahl Manchester Metropolitan University - UK
• Professor Will Parnell Portland State University - USA
• Professor Ronald Pelias Southern University, Illinois - USA
• Professor Laurel Richardson Ohio State University - USA
• Dr Reshmi Roy Federation University - Australia
• Professor Pat Sikes University of Sheffield - UK
• Professor Andrew Sparkes Leeds Beckett University - UK
• Professor Elizabeth St. Pierre University of Georgia - USA
• Prof Shirley R. Steinberg University of Calgary, Canada and University of the West of Scotland - UK
• Dr Allison Sterling Henward Penn State College of Education - USA
• Professor Maria Tamboukou University of East London - UK

CiteScore 2023

Further information

CiteScore is a simple way of measuring the citation impact of sources, such as journals.

Calculating the CiteScore is based on the number of citations to documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, book chapters, and data papers) by a journal over four years, divided by the number of the same document types indexed in Scopus and published in those same four years.

For more information and methodology visit the Scopus definition

CiteScore Tracker 2024

(updated monthly)

CiteScore Tracker is calculated in the same way as CiteScore, but for the current year rather than previous, complete years.

The CiteScore Tracker calculation is updated every month, as a current indication of a title's performance.

2022 Impact Factor

The Journal Impact Factor is published each year by Clarivate Analytics. It is a measure of the number of times an average paper in a particular journal is cited during the preceding two years.

For more information and methodology see Clarivate Analytics

5-year Impact Factor (2022)

A base of five years may be more appropriate for journals in certain fields because the body of citations may not be large enough to make reasonable comparisons, or it may take longer than two years to publish and distribute leading to a longer period before others cite the work.

Actual value is intentionally only displayed for the most recent year. Earlier values are available in the Journal Citation Reports from Clarivate Analytics .

Time to first decision

Time to first decision , expressed in days, the "first decision" occurs when the journal’s editorial team reviews the peer reviewers’ comments and recommendations. Based on this feedback, they decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for the manuscript.

Data is taken from submissions between 1st June 2023 and 31st May 2024

Acceptance rate

The acceptance rate is a measurement of how many manuscripts a journal accepts for publication compared to the total number of manuscripts submitted expressed as a percentage %

Data is taken from submissions between 1st June 2023 and 31st May 2024 .

This journal is abstracted and indexed by

• American Sociological Association Publishing Options database
• BFI (Denmark)
• British Library
• The Publication Forum (Finland)

Reviewer information

Peer review process.

This journal engages in a double-anonymous peer review process, which strives to match the expertise of a reviewer with the submitted manuscript. Reviews are completed with evidence of thoughtful engagement with the manuscript, provide constructive feedback, and add value to the overall knowledge and information presented in the manuscript.

The mission of the peer review process is to achieve excellence and rigour in scholarly publications and research.

Our vision is to give voice to professionals in the subject area who contribute unique and diverse scholarly perspectives to the field.

The journal values diverse perspectives from the field and reviewers who provide critical, constructive, and respectful feedback to authors. Reviewers come from a variety of organizations, careers, and backgrounds from around the world.

All invitations to review, abstracts, manuscripts, and reviews should be kept confidential. Reviewers must not share their review or information about the review process with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved, even after publication. This also applies to other reviewers’ “comments to author” which are shared with you on decision.

Resources to guide you through the review process

Discover practical tips and guidance on all aspects of peer review in our reviewers' section. See how being a reviewer could benefit your career, and discover what's involved in shaping a review.

More reviewer information

Calls for papers

Decentring the human in qualitative research: exploring diverse approaches by creating online communities.

Introduction This special issue emerged from the Australian Association for Research in Education Qualitative Research Methodologies Special Interest Group Seminar Series on Decentring the Human in Qualitative Research (cl...

Thank you to the 2022 Reviewers of Qualitative Research Journal

The publishing and editorial teams would like to thank the following, for their invaluable service as 2022 reviewers for this journal. We are very grateful for the contributions made. With their help, the journal has been able to publish such high...

Thank you to the 2021 Reviewers of Qualitative Research Journal

The publishing and editorial teams would like to thank the following, for their invaluable service as 2021 reviewers for this journal. We are very grateful for the contributions made. With their help, the journal has ...

Literati awards

Qualitative Research Journal - Literati Award Winners 2023

We are pleased to announce our 2023 Literati Award winners. Outstanding Papers Extended Qualitative Content Analysis: ...

Qualitative Research Journal - Literati Award Winners 2021

We are pleased to announce our 2021 Literati Award winners. Outstanding Paper Collaborative autoethnography:...

Qualitative Research Journal is an international journal dedicated to communicating the theory and practice of qualitative research in the human sciences. Interdisciplinary and eclectic, QRJ covers all methodologies that can be described as qualitative.

Aims and scope

Qualitative Research Journal (QRJ) deals comprehensively with the collection, analysis and presentation of qualitative data in the human sciences as well as theoretical and conceptual inquiry and provides an international forum for researchers and practitioners to advance knowledge and promote good qualitative research practices.

Latest articles

These are the latest articles published in this journal (Last updated: May 2024 )

Incorporating pragmatism in a behavioural change-led climate adaptation project: A collaborative reflection

Harnessing the potential of translanguaging in tanzanian secondary education, negotiating with technology: advancing the virtual in qualitative research methods, top downloaded articles.

These are the most downloaded articles over the last 12 months for this journal (Last updated: May 2024 )

Factors that enhance and limit youth empowerment, according to social educators

Regimes of patriarchy and faith: reflections on challenges in interviewing women and religious minorities in pakistan, visual tools for supporting interviews in qualitative research: new approaches.

These are the top cited articles for this journal, from the last 12 months according to Crossref (Last updated: May 2024 )

Culturally Responsive and Communicative Teaching for Multicultural Integration: Qualitative Analysis from Public Secondary School

Creating spaces of wellbeing in academia to mitigate academic burnout: a collaborative autoethnography, translanguaging approaches and perceptions of iranian egp teachers in bi/multilingual educational spaces: a qualitative inquiry, related journals.

This journal is part of our Education collection. Explore our Education subject area to find out more.  

See all related journals

Social Studies Research and Practice

Social Studies Research and Practice (SSRP) is a quality peer-reviewed, electronic journal. Research and practice...

On the Horizon: The International Journal of Learning Futures

On the Horizon: The International Journal of Learning Futures (OTH) is a strategic planning resource for decision makers...

International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies

The first journal of its kind, the International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies publishes lesson and learning...

This journal is aligned with our quality education for all goal

We believe in quality education for everyone, everywhere and by highlighting the issue and working with experts in the field, we can start to find ways we can all be part of the solution.

Qualitative Research Journal

Issue(s) available: 60 – From Volume: 6 Issue: 1 , to Volume: 24 Issue: 3

• Issue 3 2024
• Issue 2 2024 When intercultural communication meets translation studies: divergent experiences in qualitative inquiries
• Issue 1 2024 Methodological entanglements – public pedagogy research
• Issue 5 2023
• Issue 4 2023
• Issue 3 2023
• Issue 2 2023
• Issue 1 2023
• Issue 4 2022
• Issue 3 2022
• Issue 2 2022
• Issue 1 2022 Critically Exploring Co-production
• Issue 4 2021
• Issue 3 2021
• Issue 2 2021
• Issue 1 2021
• Issue 4 2020 Research and Methodology in times of Crisis and Emergency
• Issue 3 2020 The Practice of Qualitative Research in Migration Studies: Ethical Issues as a Methodological Challenge
• Issue 2 2020
• Issue 1 2020
• Issue 4 2019 Creative approaches to researching further, higher and adult education
• Issue 3 2019
• Issue 2 2019
• Issue 1 2019 Journeys in and through sound
• Issue 4 2018
• Issue 3 2018
• Issue 2 2018 Revisiting ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’: 30 years later
• Issue 1 2018
• Issue 4 2017
• Issue 3 2017 Bordering, exclusions and necropolitics
• Issue 2 2017
• Issue 1 2017
• Issue 4 2016
• Issue 3 2016 Auto-, duo- and collaborative- ethnographies:
• Issue 2 2016
• Issue 1 2016
• Issue 4 2015 Art practice as methodological innovation
• Issue 3 2015
• Issue 2 2015 Sub-prime scholarship
• Issue 1 2015
• Issue 3 2014
• Issue 2 2014
• Issue 1 2014 Approaches to Researching Masculinities
• Issue 3 2013
• Issue 2 2013 Selected papers from the 2012 Association of Qualitative ResearchDiscourse, Power and Resistance Conference
• Issue 1 2013
• Issue 2 2012
• Issue 1 2012
• Issue 2 2011
• Issue 1 2011
• Issue 2 2010
• Issue 1 2010
• Issue 2 2009
• Issue 1 2009
• Issue 2 2008
• Issue 1 2008
• Issue 2 2007
• Issue 1 2007
• Issue 2 2006
• Issue 1 2006

Reflexivity in co-constructed meanings: the impact of gender specific perspectives in the qualitative research context

This paper examines the impact of lived experiences and attitudinal blueprints on researchers within the context of masculinities research. It explores the negotiation of gendered…

Echoes of silence: an embossed poetic inquiry

Silences in qualitative social science research present a unique and sometimes ambiguous challenge for researchers. When working with transcription artefacts, considering not only…

The opportunity of struggle: a case study on developing a Māori-centric nursing course

This paper delves into the enduring influence of Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s groundbreaking work, “Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples,” while examining how the…

The power (and caveats) of body mapping as a visual methodology with vulnerable youth

This study aims to explore the NEET (Not in Education, Employment and Training) experiences of young people living in impoverished settings.

Conceptualising “the more-than-migrant child”

Using a feminist, post-structural and posthuman theoretical framing the paper argues for elevating the complexity of conceptions of migrant children’s engagements with and…

Fiction-writing and wonder: documenting a collaborative, creative writing process

We articulate cycles of creative storying and data analysis and the wonder that motivated the project by detailing our reading, thinking and writing processes to contribute to the…

Outside the field, inside the home: lessons learned from adapting qualitative research strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic

This collaborative paper presents three case studies on four scholars' experiences with remote data collection. The authors highlight the challenges and strengths of online…

Using data as poetry and text in case study research – poetic representations of adult learner experiences in neighbourhood houses

We argue this method of inquiry better represents the participants' learning, lives and experiences in the formal neoliberal education system prioritising performativity…

Incorporating pragmatism in a behaviour change-led climate adaptation project: a collaborative reflection

This article argues the value of integrating pragmatism in applying behavioural science to complex challenges. We describe a behaviour change-led knowledge co-production process…

Conducting collage elicitation research online: what happens when we remove the scissors and glue?

This autoethnographic article presents the adaptation of collage—an arts-based method traditionally used in face-to-face settings—into an online research tool. It emphasizes the…

“But our worlds are different!”: reflexivity as a tool to negotiate insider–outsider dilemmas

In ethnographic research, negotiating insider–outsider perspectives is essential in order to get closer to the participants’ lives. By highlighting the importance of empathy and…

Harnessing the potential of translanguaging in Tanzanian secondary education

This study aims to explore motives behind teachers' and students' use of translanguaging and how they use it in Tanzanian public secondary school classrooms.

Negotiating with technology: advancing the virtual in qualitative research methods

This study aims to describe key elements that are critical to virtual qualitative research especially while working with practitioners as participants.

“Online group discussion was challenging but we enjoyed it!” an exploratory practice in extensive reading

While many works have reported adopting exploratory practice (EP) principles in language teaching research, only a few studies have explored the enactment of EP in an online…

Tell me about your trauma: an empathetic approach-based protocol for interviewing school leaders who have experienced a crisis

In this study, we illuminate how techniques can be incorporated into interview protocols when conducting research with educational leaders who are being asked to discuss their…

Advancing women to leadership in academia: does personal branding matter?

Personal branding is a strategic tool of marketing and communication to define success in organisations. While it constitutes a conscious attempt to commodify self and audit self…

Reflections on a cross-cultural interview study

The aim of this article is to address some aspects of a cross-cultural interview study conducted in a PhD research project. This is done by reflecting on and discussing the…

Free association and qualitative research interviewing: perspectives and applications

This paper contributes to a dialogue about the psychoanalytic concept of free association and its application in the context of qualitative research interviewing. In doing so, it…

Opportunities and challenges facing LGBTQ+ people in employment in rural England post-pandemic: a thematic analysis

The following study aimed to better understand rural dwelling LGBTQ+ adults’ experiences of the challenges and opportunities facing their working lives in England.

Handle with care; considerations of Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis

The purpose of this paper is to support potential users of thematic analysis (as outlined by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke). Researchers with the intention of applying…

Translanguaging approaches and perceptions of Iranian EGP teachers in bi/multilingual educational spaces: a qualitative inquiry

This study aims to analyze translanguaging practices and beliefs of Iranian English for General Purposes (EGP) teachers and find discrepancies between the practice and perception…

Women leaders' lived experiences of bravery in leadership

The research aims to understand the stories of women leaders who have demonstrated bravery in leadership. By analyzing their lived experiences through storytelling and narratives…

Listening to children's voices: reflections on methods, practices and ethics in researching with children using zoom video interviews

The purpose of this research was to reflect on the enablers, challenges and ethical considerations in conducting qualitative research with young children using online methods. The…

Using teacher narratives to map policy effects in the Victorian Government International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme (IB-PYP) context

Government primary schools in Australia increasingly take up the International Baccalaureate's Primary Years Programme (IB-PYP) to supplement government-mandated curriculum and…

The use of digital technologies in the co-creation process of photo elicitation

This article approaches the possibilities of photo elicitation as a technique for social research in the landscape of technology-mediated instantaneous interpersonal communication.

Illuminating the path: a methodological exploration of grounded theory in doctoral theses

This article explores challenges faced by doctoral candidates using grounded theory (GT) in their theses, focusing on coding, theory development and time constraints. It also…

Culturally responsive and communicative teaching for multicultural integration: qualitative analysis from public secondary school

The aim of this paper is to examine the strategic approach of culturally responsive and communicative teaching (CRCT) through a critical assessment of interracial teachers in…

Unraveling the challenges of education for sustainable development: a compelling case study

Education for sustainable development (ESD) has gained significant attention, but integrating ESD into existing education systems is challenging. The study aims to explore the…

Children's voices through play-based practice: listening, intensities and critique

This paper offers a reflection of a research process aimed at listening to young children's voices in their everyday school life through a play-based context in a Scottish school…

It's too late – the post has gone viral already: a novel methodological stance to explore K-12 teachers' lived experiences of adult cyber abuse

The purpose of this scoping rapid review was to identify and analyse existing qualitative methodologies that have been used to investigate K-12 teachers' lived experiences of…

Behind my pet's shadow: exploring the motives underlying the tendency of socially excluded consumers to anthropomorphize their pets

Social exclusion is a complicated psychological phenomenon with behavioral ramifications that influences consumers' lifestyles and behaviors. In contrast, anthropomorphism is a…

“A balancing act of keeping the faith and maintaining wellbeing”: perspectives from Australian faith communities during the pandemic

The pandemic presented many new challenges is all spheres of life including faith communities. Around the globe, lockdowns took pace at various stages with varying restrictions…

Online date, start – end:

Copyright holder:, open access:.

• Dr Mark Vicars

Further Information

• About the journal (opens new window)
• Purchase information (opens new window)
• Editorial team (opens new window)
• Write for this journal (opens new window)

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

• Find My Rep

You are here

Qualitative Research

Preview this book.

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

Qualitative Research  publishes papers with a clear methodological focus. We invite scholarship that has multi-disciplinary appeal, that debates and enlivens qualitative methods, and that pushes at the boundaries of established ways of doing qualitative research. We are interested in papers that are attentive to a wide audience, that are alive to new and diverse ways of thinking about qualitative methods, and that contribute to discussions within the pages of this journal. These discussions can be brought to life through empirical studies and research encounters, but we do not accept papers that focus on reporting the findings from qualitative research studies.

We see our journal as contributing to the community of academics across different fields who use qualitative methods as a way of making sense of the world. We understand methods and methodology as a practice and as a perspective, and welcome contributions that reflect on and critically engage with both aspects.  Qualitative Research is a space where ideas and understandings are used to open up methodological issues for reflection and debate, and we work hard to provide a supportive environment to foster this ethos.  

• Academic Search Premier
• Anthropological Index Online
• Anthropological Literature
• Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)
• British Education Index
• Business Source Corporate
• CD-ROM - International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences
• CD-ROM - International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Lterature on the Humanities and Social S
• CD-ROM International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences
• CD-ROM International Bibliography of Periodical Literature on the Humanities and Social Sciences
• Caredata CD (Discontinued)
• Combined Health Information Database (CHID)
• Contents Pages in Education
• Criminal Justice Abstracts
• Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature CINAHL
• Current Contents / Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Current Contents/ Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Current Index To Statistics
• EBSCO: Human Resources Abstracts
• Educational Research Abstracts Online - e-Psyche
• Family Index
• Family Index Database
• IBZ: International Bibliography of Periodical Literature
• IBZ: International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences
• International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences
• International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature on the Humanities and Social Sciences
• International Bibliography of the Social Sciences
• Journal Citation Reports Social Sciences
• Journal Citation Reports/Social Sciences Edition
• MasterFILE Premier
• Online - International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences
• Online - International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature on the Humanities and Social
• Online - International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences
• Online - International Bibliography of Periodical Literature on the Humanities and Social Sciences
• PAIS Bulletin
• Psychological Abstracts
• Public Administration Abstracts
• Research Alert
• Research Into Higher Education Abstracts
• Social Care Online
• Social SciSearch
• Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)
• Social Sciences Index
• Social Services Abstracts
• Social Work Abstracts
• Sociological Abstracts
• Sociology of Education Abstracts
• Worldwide Political Science Abstracts

Manuscript submission guidelines can be accessed on Sage Journals.

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Individual, Single Print Issue

Institutional, Single Print Issue

Subscription Information

To purchase a non-standard subscription or a back issue, please contact SAGE Customer Services for availability.

[email protected]  +44 (0) 20 7324 8701

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Qualitative Health Research

Preview this book

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

Qualitative Health Research provides an international, interdisciplinary forum to enhance health and health care and further the development and understanding of qualitative health research. The journal is an invaluable resource for researchers and academics, administrators and others in the health and social service professions, and graduates, who seek examples of studies in which the authors used qualitative methodologies. Each issue of Qualitative Health Research provides readers with a wealth of information on conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues pertaining to qualitative inquiry. A Variety of Perspectives We encourage submissions across all health-related areas and disciplines. Qualitative Health Research understands health in its broadest sense and values contributions from various traditions of qualitative inquiry. As a journal of SAGE Publishing, Qualitative Health Research aspires to disseminate high-quality research and engaged scholarship globally, and we are committed to diversity and inclusion in publishing. We encourage submissions from a diverse range of authors from across all countries and backgrounds. There are no fees payable to submit or publish in Qualitative Health Research .

Original, Timely, and Insightful Scholarship Qualitative Health Research aspires to publish articles addressing significant and contemporary health-related issues. Only manuscripts of sufficient originality and quality that align with the aims and scope of Qualitative Health Research will be reviewed. As part of the submission process authors are required to warrant that they are submitting original work, that they have the rights in the work, that they have obtained, and that can supply all necessary permissions for the reproduction of any copyright works not owned by them, and that they are submitting the work for first publication in the Journal and that it is not being considered for publication elsewhere and has not already been published elsewhere. Please note that Qualitative Health Research does not accept submissions of papers that have been published elsewhere. Sage requires authors to identify preprints upon submission (see https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/preprintsfaq ). This Journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) .

This Journal recommends that authors follow the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals formulated by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Qualitative Health Research is an international, interdisciplinary, refereed journal for the enhancement of health care and to further the development and understanding of qualitative research methods in health care settings. We welcome manuscripts in the following areas: the description and analysis of the illness experience, health and health-seeking behaviors, the experiences of caregivers, the sociocultural organization of health care, health care policy, and related topics. We also seek critical reviews and commentaries addressing conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues pertaining to qualitative enquiry.

• Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)
• CAB Abstracts (Index Veterinarius, Veterinary Bulletin)
• CABI: Abstracts on Hygiene and Communicable Diseases
• CABI: CAB Abstracts
• CABI: Global Health
• CABI: Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews Series A
• CABI: Tropical Diseases Bulletin
• Clarivate Analytics: Current Contents - Physical, Chemical & Earth Sciences
• Combined Health Information Database (CHID)
• Corporate ResourceNET - Ebsco
• Current Citations Express
• EBSCO: Vocational & Career Collection
• EMBASE/Excerpta Medica
• Family & Society Studies Worldwide (NISC)
• Health Business FullTEXT
• Health Service Abstracts
• Health Source Plus
• MasterFILE - Ebsco
• ProQuest: Applied Social Science Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)
• ProQuest: CSA Sociological Abstracts
• Psychological Abstracts
• Rural Development Abstracts
• SRM Database of Social Research Methodology
• Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science)
• Social Services Abstracts
• Standard Periodical Directory (SPD)
• TOPICsearch - Ebsco

Manuscript submission guidelines:

Qualitative Health Research (QHR)  has specific guidelines! While  Sage Publishing has general guidelines , all manuscripts submitted to QHR must follow our specific guidelines (found below). Once you have reviewed these guidelines, please visit QHR ’s  submission site  to upload your manuscript.   Please note that manuscripts not conforming to these guidelines will be returned and/or encounter delays in peer review.   Remember you can log in to the submission site at any time to check on the progress of your manuscript throughout the peer review process.

1. Deciding whether to submit a manuscript to QHR

1.1 Aims & scope

1.2 Article types

2. Review criteria

2.1  Original research studies

2.2 Pearls, Piths, and Provocations

2.3 Common reasons for rejection

3.  Preparing your manuscript

3.1 Title page

3.2 Abstract

3.3 Manuscript

3.4 Tables, Figures, Artwork, and other graphics

3.5 Supplemental material

4. Submitting your manuscript

5. Editorial Policies

5.1 Peer review policy

5.2 Authorship

5.3 Acknowledgments

5.4 Funding

5.5 Declaration of conflicting interests

5.6 Research ethics and participant consent

6. Publishing Policies

6.1 Publication ethics

6.2 Contribtor's publishing agreement

6.3 Open access and author archiving

1. Deciding whether to submit a manuscript to QHR 

QHR  provides an international, interdisciplinary forum to enhance health and health care and further the development and understanding of qualitative health research. The journal is an invaluable resource for researchers and academics, administrators and others in the health and social service professions, and graduates, who seek examples of studies in which the authors used qualitative methodologies.  Each issue of QHR provides readers with a wealth of information on conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues pertaining to qualitative inquiry.

Rather than send query letters to the Editor regarding article fit, QHR asks authors to make their own decision regarding the suitability of their manuscript for QHR   by  asking: Does your proposed submission make a meaningful and strong contribution to qualitative health research literature? Is it useful to readers and/or practitioners?

The following manuscript types are considered for publication.

• Original Research Studies : These are fully developed qualitative research studies. This may include mixed method studies in which the major focus/portion of the study is qualitative research. Please read  Maintaining the Integrity of Qualitatively Driven Mixed Methods: Avoiding the “ This Work is Part of a Larger Study”  Syndrome . 
• Pearls, Piths, and Provocations : These manuscripts should foster discussion and debate about significant issues, enhance communication of methodological advances, promote and discuss issues related to the teaching of qualitative approaches in health contexts, and/or encourage the discussion of new and/or provocative ideas. They should also make clear what the manuscript adds to the existing body of knowledge in the area.
• Editorials : These are generally invited articles written by editors/editorial board members associated with QHR.

Please note, QHR does NOT publish pilot studies. We do not normally publish literature reviews unless they focus on qualitative research studies elaborating methodological issues and developments. Review articles should be submitted to the Pearls, Piths, and Provocations section. They are reviewed according to criteria in 2.2.

Back to top

2. Review criteria 

2.1 Original research

Reviewers are asked to consider the following areas and questions when making recommendations about research manuscripts:

• Importance of submission : Does the manuscript make a significant contribution to qualitative health research literature?  Is it original? Relevant? In depth? Insightful? Is it useful to the reader and/or practitioner?
• Methodological considerations : Is the overall study design clearly explained including why this design was an appropriate one? Are the methodology/methods/approaches used in keeping with that design? Are they appropriate given the research question and/or aims? Are they logically articulated? Clarity in design and presentation? Data adequacy and appropriateness? Evidence of rigor?
• Ethical Concerns : Are relevant ethical concerns discussed and acknowledged? Is enough detail given to enable the reader to understand how ethical issues were navigated? Has formal IRB approval (when needed) and consent from participants been obtained?
• Data analysis, findings, discussion : Does the analysis of data reflect depth and coherence? In-depth descriptive but also interpretive dimensions? Creative and insightful analysis? Are results linked to existing literature and theory, as appropriate? Is the contribution of the research clear including its relevance to health disciplines and their practice?
• Manuscript style and format : Is the manuscript organized in a clear and concise manner? Has sufficient attention been paid to word choice, spelling, grammar, and so forth? Did the author adhere to APA guidelines? Do diagrams/illustrations comply with guidelines? Is the overall manuscript aligned with QHR guidelines in relation to formatting?
• Scope:  Does the article fit with QHR ’s publication mandate? Has the author cited the major work in the area, including those published in QHR ? 

The purpose of papers in this section is to raise and discuss issues pertinent to the development and advancement of qualitative research in health-related arenas.  As the name Pearls, Piths, and Provocations suggests, we are looking for manuscripts that make a significant contribution to areas of dialogue, development, experience sharing and debate relevant to the scope of QHR in this section of the journal.  Reviewers are asked to consider the following questions when making recommendations about  articles in the Pearls, Piths, and Provocations section.

• Significance :   Does the paper highlight issues that have the potential to advance, develop, and/or challenge thinking in qualitative health related research?
• Clarity :   Are the arguments clearly presented and well supported? 
• Rigor :   Is there the explicit use of/interaction with methodology and/or theory and/or empirical studies (depending on the focus of the paper) that grounds the work and is coherently carried throughout the arguments and/or analysis in the manuscript? Put another way, is there evidence of a rigorously constructed argument?
• Engagement :   Does the paper have the potential to engage the reader to ‘think differently’ by raising questions, suggesting innovative directions for qualitative health research, and/or stimulating critical reflection?   Are the implications of the paper for the practice of either qualitative research and/or health clear? 
• Quality of the writing :   Is the main argument of the paper clearly articulated and presented with few grammatical or typographical issues? Are terms and concepts key to the scholarship communicated clearly and in sufficient detail? 

QHR  most commonly turns away manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, do not make a novel contribution to the literature, lack substantive and/or interpretative depth, require extensive revisions, and/or do not adequately address ethical issues that are fundamental to qualitative inquiry. Submissions of the supplementary component of mixed methods studies often are rejected as the findings are difficult to interpret without the findings of the primary study. For additional information on this policy, please read  Maintaining the Integrity of Qualitatively Driven Mixed Methods: Avoiding the “ This Work is Part of a Larger Study”  Syndrome . 

3. Preparing your manuscript for submission 

We strongly encourage all authors to review previously published articles in QHR for style prior to submission.

QHR  journal practices include double anonymization. All identifying information MUST be removed completely from the Abstract, Manuscript, Acknowledgements, Tables, and Figure files prior to submission. ONLY the Title Page and Cover Letter may contain identifying information. See  Sage’s general submission guidelines  for additional guidance on making an anonymous submission.

Preferred formats for the text and tables of your manuscript are Word DOC or PDF. The text must be double-spaced throughout with standard 1-inch margins (APA formatting). Text should be standard font (i.e., Times New Roman) 12-point. 

3.1 Title page 

• The title page should be uploaded as a separate document containing the following information: Author names; Affiliations; Author contact information; Contribution list; Acknowledgements; Ethical statement; Funding Statement; Conflict of Interest Statements; and, Grant Number. Please know that the Title Page is NOT included in the materials sent out for Peer Review.
• Ethical statement: An ethical statement must include the following: the full name of the ethical board that approved your study; the approval number given by the ethical board; and, confirmation that all your participants gave informed consent. Authors are also required to state in the methods section whether participants provided informed consent, whether the consent was written or verbal, and how it was obtained and by whom. For example: “Our study was approved by The Mercy Health Research Ethics Committee (approval no. XYZ123). All participants provided written informed consent prior to enrollment in the study.” If your study did not need ethical approval (often manuscripts in the Pearls, Piths, and Provocations may not), we still need a statement that states that your study did not need approval and an explanation as to why. For example: “Ethical Statement: Our study did not require an ethical board approval because it did not directly involve humans or animals.” 

3.2 Abstract and Keywords

• The Abstract should be unstructured, written in narrative form. Maximum of 250 words. This should be on its own page, appearing as the first page of the Main Manuscript file.
• The keywords should be included beneath the abstract on the Main Manuscript file. 
• Length: 8,000 words or less excluding the abstract, list of references, and acknowledgements. This applies to both Original Research and Pearls, Piths, and Provocations. Please note that text from Tables and Figures is included in the word count limits. On-line supplementary materials are not included in the word limit. 
• Structure: While many authors will choose to use headings of Background, Methods, Results, and Discussion to organize their manuscript, it is up to authors to choose the most appropriate terms and structure for their submission. It is the expectation that manuscripts contain detailed reflections on methodological considerations.
• Ethics: In studies where data collection or other methods present ethical challenges, the authors should explicate how such issues were navigated including how consent was gained and by whom. An anonymized version of the ethical statement should be included in the manuscript (in addition to appearing on the title page).
• Participant identification: Generally, demographics should be described in narrative form or otherwise reported as a group. Quotations may be linked to particular participants and/or demographic features provided measures are taken to ensure anonymity of participants (e.g., use of pseudonyms).
• Use of checklists: Authors should not include qualitative research checklists, such as COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research).  Generally, authors should use a narrative approach to describe the processes used to enhance the rigor of their study. For additional information on this policy, please read  Why the Qualitative Health Research (QHR) Review Process Does Not Use Checklists
• References: APA format. While there is no limit to the number of references, authors are recommended to use pertinent references only, including literature previously published in QHR . References should be on a separate page.   QHR adheres to the APA 7 reference style. View the APA guidelines to ensure your manuscript conforms to this reference style. Please ensure you check carefully that both your in-text references and list of references are in the correct format.
• Authors are required to disclose the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (such as ChatGPT) and other technologies (such as NVivo, ATLAS. Ti, Quirkos, etc.), whether used to conceive ideas, develop study design, generate data, assist in analysis, present study findings, or other activities formative of qualitative research. We suggest authors provide both a description of the technology, when it was accessed, and how it was used (see  https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/chatgpt-and-generative-ai ).
• Manuscripts that receive favorable reviews will not be accepted until any formatting and copy-editing required has been done. 
• Tables, Figures, Artwork, and other graphics should be submitted as separate files rather than incorporated into the main manuscript file. Within the manuscript, indicate where these items should appear (i.e. INSERT TABLE 1 HERE).
• TIFF, JPED, or common picture formats accepted. The preferred format for graphs and line art is EPS.
• Resolution: Rasterized based files (i.e. with .tiff or .jpeg extension) require a resolution of at least 300 dpi (dots per inch). Line art should be supplied with a minimum resolution of 800 dpi.
• Dimension: Check that the artworks supplied match or exceed the dimensions of the journal. Images cannot be scaled up after origination.
• Figures supplied in color will appear in color online regardless of whether or not these illustrations are reproduced in color in the printed version. For specifically requested color reproduction in print, you will receive information regarding the costs from Sage after receipt of your accepted article. 
• Core elements of the manuscript should not be included as supplementary material.
• QHR  is able to host additional materials online (e.g., datasets, podcasts, videos, images etc.) alongside the full-text of the article. For more information please refer to Sage’s general  guidelines on submitting supplemental files .

4. Submitting your manuscript 

QHR  is hosted on Sage Track, a web based online submission and peer review system powered by ScholarOne™ Manuscripts. Visit  https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/QHR  to login and submit your article online. 

IMPORTANT:  Please check whether you already have an account in the system before trying to create a new one. If you have reviewed or authored for the Journal in the past year it is likely that you will have had an account created.  For further guidance on submitting your manuscript online please visit  ScholarOne Online Help . 

5. Editorial policies 

QHR  adheres to a rigorous double-anonymized reviewing policy in which the identities of both the reviewer and author are always concealed from both parties.

Sage does not permit the use of author-suggested (recommended) reviewers at any stage of the submission process, be that through the web-based submission system or other communication. Reviewers should be experts in their fields and should be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. Our policy is that reviewers should not be assigned to a manuscript if:

•  The reviewer is based at the same institution as any of the co-authors

•  The reviewer is based at the funding body of the manuscript

•  The author has recommended the reviewer

•  The reviewer has provided a personal (e.g. Gmail/Yahoo/Hotmail) email account and an institutional email account cannot be found after performing a basic Google search (name, department and institution). 

Qualitative Health Research  is committed to delivering high quality, fast peer-review for your manuscript, and as such has partnered with Web of Science. Web of Science is a third-party service that seeks to track, verify and give credit for peer review. Reviewers for Qualitative Health Research can opt in to Web of Science in order to claim their reviews or have them automatically verified and added to their reviewer profile. Reviewers claiming credit for their review will be associated with the relevant journal, but the article name, reviewer’s decision, and the content of their review is not published on the site. For more information visit the  Web of Science  website.

The Editor or members of the Editorial Team or Board may occasionally submit their own manuscripts for possible publication in the Journal. In these cases, the peer review process will be managed by alternative members of the Editorial Team or Board and the submitting Editor Team/Board member will have no involvement in the decision-making process. 

Manuscripts should only be submitted for consideration once consent is given by all contributing authors. Those submitting manuscripts should carefully check that all those whose work contributed to the manuscript are acknowledged as contributing authors. The list of authors should include all those who can legitimately claim authorship. This is all those who meet all of the following criteria:

(i)   Made a substantial contribution to the design of the work or acquisition, analysis, interpretation, or presentation of data,  (ii)  Drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content,  (iii) Approved the version to be published,  (iv) Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship, although all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgments section. Please refer to the  International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines   for more information on authorship.

Authors are required to disclose the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (such as ChatGPT) and other technologies (such as NVivo, ATLAS. Ti, Quirkos, etc.), whether used to conceive ideas, develop study design, generate data, assist in analysis, present study findings, or other activities formative of qualitative research. We suggest authors provide both a description of the technology, when it was accessed, and how it was used. This needs to be clearly identified within the text and acknowledged within your Acknowledgements section. Please note that AI bots such as ChatGPT should not be listed as an author. For more details on this policy, please visit  ChatGPT and Generative AI . 

5.3 Acknowledgements

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, or a department chair who provided only general support.

Please supply any personal acknowledgements separately to the main text to facilitate anonymous peer review. 

Per  ICMJE recommendations , it is best practice to obtain consent from non-author contributors who you are acknowledging in your manuscript.

1.3.1 Writing assistance

Individuals who provided writing assistance, e.g., from a specialist communications company, do not qualify as authors and so should be included in the Acknowledgements section. Authors must disclose any writing assistance – including the individual’s name, company and level of input – and identify the entity that paid for this assistance. It is not necessary to disclose use of language polishing services. 

Qualitative Health Research   requires all authors to acknowledge their funding in a consistent fashion under a separate heading.  Please visit the  Funding Acknowledgements   page on the Sage Journal Author Gateway to confirm the format of the acknowledgment text in the event of funding, or state that: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. 

It is the policy of  Qualitative Health Research to require a declaration of conflicting interests from all authors enabling a statement to be carried within the paginated pages of all published articles.

Please ensure that a ‘Declaration of Conflicting Interests’ statement is included at the end of your manuscript, after any acknowledgements and prior to the references. If no conflict exists, please state that ‘The Author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest’. For guidance on conflict of interest statements, please see the ICMJE recommendations  here . 

Research involving participants must be conducted according to the  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki

Submitted manuscripts should conform to the  ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals :

All manuscripts must state that the relevant Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board provided (or waived) approval. Please ensure that you blind the name and institution of the review committee until such time as your article has been accepted. The Editor will request authors to replace the name and add the approval number once the article review has been completed. Please note that in itself, simply stating that Ethics Committee or Institutional Review was obtained is not sufficient.  Authors are also required to state in the methods section whether participants provided informed consent, whether the consent was written or verbal, and how it was obtained and by whom.

Please do not submit the participant’s informed consent documents with your article, as this in itself breaches the participant’s confidentiality. The Journal requests that you confirm to us, in writing, that you have obtained informed consent recognizing the documentation of consent itself should be held by the authors/investigators themselves (for example, in a participant’s hospital record or an author’s institution’s archives).

Please also refer to the  ICMJE Recommendations for the Protection of Research Participants . 

6. Publishing Policies 

Sage is committed to upholding the integrity of the academic record. We encourage authors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics’  International Standards for Authors  and view the Publication Ethics page on the  Sage Author Gateway .

6.1.1 Plagiarism

Qualitative Health Research  and Sage take issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism or other breaches of best practice in publication very seriously. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines plagiarism as: “When somebody presents the work of others (data, words or theories) as if they were his/her own and without proper acknowledgment.” We seek to protect the rights of our authors and we always investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published articles. Equally, we seek to protect the reputation of the journal against malpractice. Submitted articles may be checked with duplication-checking software. Where an article, for example, is found to have plagiarised other work or included third-party copyright material without permission or with insufficient acknowledgement, or where the authorship of the article is contested, we reserve the right to take action including, but not limited to: publishing an erratum or corrigendum (correction); retracting the article; taking up the matter with the head of department or dean of the author's institution and/or relevant academic bodies or societies; or taking appropriate legal action.

6.1.2 Prior publication

If material has been previously published it is not generally acceptable for publication in a Sage journal. However, there are certain circumstances where previously published material can be considered for publication. Please refer to the guidance on the  Sage Author Gateway  or if in doubt, contact the Editor at the address given below. 

6.2 Contributor's publishing agreement

Before publication, Sage requires the author as the rights holder to sign a Journal Contributor’s Publishing Agreement. Sage’s Journal Contributor’s Publishing Agreement is an exclusive licence agreement which means that the author retains copyright of the work but grants Sage the sole and exclusive right and licence to publish for the full legal term of copyright. Exceptions may exist where an assignment of copyright is required or preferred by a proprietor other than Sage. In this case copyright in the work will be assigned from the author to the society. For more information please visit the  Sage Author Gateway . 

Qualitative Health Research  offers optional open access publishing via the Sage Choice programme and Open Access agreements, where authors can publish open access either discounted or free of charge depending on the agreement with Sage. Find out if your institution is participating by visiting Open Access Agreements at Sage . For more information on Open Access publishing options at Sage please visit Sage Open Access . For information on funding body compliance, and depositing your article in repositories, please visit Sage’s Author Archiving and Re-Use Guidelines and Publishing Policies .

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, E-access

Individual Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Backfile Purchase, E-access (Content through 1998)

Institutional Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, E-access Plus Backfile (All Online Content)

Institutional Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Institutional Subscription & Backfile Lease, Combined Plus Backfile (Current Volume Print & All Online Content)

Individual, Single Print Issue

Institutional, Single Print Issue

To order single issues of this journal, please contact SAGE Customer Services at 1-800-818-7243 / 1-805-583-9774 with details of the volume and issue you would like to purchase.

About the Journal

American Journal of Qualitative Research (AJQR)   is a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal that publishes qualitative research articles from a number of social science disciplines, such as health science, psychology, sociology, criminology, education, political science, and administrative studies. The journal is an international and interdisciplinary focus and greatly welcomes papers from all countries. The journal offers an intellectual platform where researchers, practitioners, administrators, and policy-makers can contribute and promote qualitative research and analysis.

Aim and Scope

The American Journal of Qualitative Research (AJQR) is a free,  peer-reviewed interdisciplinary open-access journal for scholars of qualitative research and publishes under the Center for Ethnic and Cultural Studies in Fort Myers, Florida, United States. The journal was established in 2017 as an eclectic and international forum for papers reporting original methodological insights and publishes papers with a clear methodological focus and funded-project proposals using qualitative useful to the global research community. AJQR invites scholarship with a multi-disciplinary appeal that debates and enlivens qualitative methods and pushes the boundaries of established ways of doing qualitative research. AJQR is interested in papers that are attentive to a wide audience and open to new and diverse ways of thinking about qualitative methods. 

Publication Frequency & DOI

American Journal of Qualitative Research (AJQR) is published every February, May, August, and November.  In addition to the special issues, which may be various numbers for each year.

AJQR assigns a  Digital Object Identifier (DOI)  to each published article. DOI is a unique access number that enables the identification and accessibility of each article published electronically. It is mandatory that each article published in AJQR or in the early release is assigned a DOI number.

Global or Self Plagiarism

Authors cannot use other researchers’ opinions or thoughts as their own. Similarly, authors cannot use thoughts, opinions, and parts of research from their own previous work without citing them properly. All manuscripts must be free from plagiarism contents. All authors are suggested to use plagiarism detection software to do the similarity checking. Editors check the plagiarism detection of articles in this journal by using Turnitin and/or Grammarly software.

After acceptance, the manuscripts are checked for plagiarism and bibliography and ready for publication and are given a DOI number by the Editorial Board.

Ethics Committee Approval

• All manuscripts that use data collected from human participants should submit the ethics committee approval form. These include research studies that require data collection by means of scale, questionnaire, interview, or observation.
• The researchers should acknowledge that ethical principles are taken into consideration during the data collection and analysis processes such as obtaining the volunteer informed / consent form in the article.

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research

About the Journal

FQS is a peer-reviewed multilingual online journal for qualitative research. FQS issues are published three times a year. Selected single contributions and contributions to the journal's regular features FQS Reviews, FQS Debates, FQS Conferences and FQS Interviews are part of each issue. Additionally, thematic issues are published according to prior agreement with the FQS Editors .

FQS is an open-access journal, so all articles are available free of charge and published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

• Current Issue: Current
• Back Issues: Archives

Please register if you are interested to receive our newsletter, distributed three times per year to inform about new publications and other news, important for qualitative researchers.

Current Issue

Single contributions, ethnographic eye-tracking interviews: analyzing visual perception and practices of looking.

• HTML (Deutsch)
• PDF (Deutsch)

Biographical Interviews With People With So-Called Intellectual Disabilities. Experiences and Perspectives From Research Practice for Research Practices

Linking the study of social and spatial mobility. reflections from research on subjective social positions in the context of migration to germany, because we have the responsibility of care in qualitative method training. vulnerability and diversity-appropriate support for student researchers, text-types and their analysis in qualitative interview research: a methodological update, a recipe for successful collaboration: shared creative work experiences (scrwe) among co-researchers, investigating couple relationships through couple interviews. potentials of the documentary method illustrated in two research projects, qualitative longitudinal research. opportunities and challenges, historical ethnography: key characteristics and the journey before, during, and after the archival field, exploring the pleasures and perils of participant observation in researching heterosexual identities, fqs debate: quality of qualitative research, validity in multi-method research designs: reflection on challenges in research on complex questions, fqs interviews, "let the fear go and trust the process"—experiencing grounded theory over a lifetime. odis e. simmons in conversation with astrid gynnild.

Make a Submission

Information.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Usage Statistics Information

We log anonymous usage statistics. Please read the privacy information for details.

Developed By

2000-2024 Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research (ISSN 1438-5627) Institut für Qualitative Forschung , Internationale Akademie Berlin gGmbH

Hosting: Center for Digital Systems , Freie Universität Berlin Funding 2023-2025 by the KOALA project

Privacy Statement Accessibility Statement

Qualitative Studies

Announcements

Call for papers: reaching out - participatory and engaged research for change.

To propose an article to this special issue of Qualitative Studies, please provide an abstract (max 500 words) to [email protected] no later than 1. august 2024.

Important dates:

1st august 2024: Abstracts submitted (500 words)

1st September 2024: Contributors invited to write a full paper

15th January 2025: Manuscripts submitted and subjected to peer review (5000-7000 words)

March 2025: Contributors receive peer reviews

1st July 2025: Deadline for submission of revised manuscripts

August 2025: second review/minor revision

1st November 2025: Deadline for finalized manuscripts

1st December 2025: Special issue published

Requirements:

Submissions must be sent to Britta Møller, [email protected] . Final papers submitted for peer-review should be 5000-7000 worlds (excluding a 150-word structured abstract, 4-6 keywords and reference list) and formatted according to APA7. All submissions should be in Word format, formatted with a standard margin, 12-point font and double spacing. All figures, models and tables should be embedded into the text. All full papers are subjected to double-blind review prior to publication. Qualitative Studies does not charge a publication fee. We accept papers in English or Scandinavian languages. 

Call for Papers: Hybrid Work

Call for papers: educational leadership in higher education, call for papers: caring about elderly care, the politics of parenting, current issue.

Articles in English

Psychology of change.

• Psychology of change

Qualitative Studies (QS) aims to be a central forum for discussions of qualitative research in social sciences in general. QS is an open access journal that employs a blinded peer-review process. We are interested in papers that discuss qualitative methods, their promises, problems, and philosophies, as well as papers that apply such methods in concrete qualitative studies. We are in particularly looking for papers that critically expand the borders of qualitative research by experimenting with literary, aesthetic, narrative and other creative genres in the communication of research. We also welcome theoretical and philosophical discussions of qualitative inquiry. The journal is affiliated with Aalborg University, Denmark.

QS is a biannual themebased journal. There is thus a call for papers twice annually in March and in September. It is therefore not open to contributions that do not relate to the current theme. However, we are open to theme-proposals and guest editors.

Qualitative Studies is BFI-registered and DOAJ licensed.  ISSN: 1903-7031

Make a Submission

Information.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

ISSN 1903-7031

Hosted by the Royal Danish Library

• Open supplemental data
• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, drivers and obstacles of open access publishing. a qualitative investigation of individual and institutional factors.

• 1 Peter L. Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics, Technische Universität (TU) Braunschweig and Hannover Medical School, Braunschweig, Germany
• 2 Department of Social Sciences, Institute for Communication Science, Technische Universität (TU) Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany

Open Access (OA) is an evolving publication model that is heavily supported by politics and science organizations aiming to make scientific knowledge more accessible to a wider audience. Whether it will indeed alter scholarly communication, however, depends on researchers' underlying attitudes, motivations, and needs. Drawing on group discussions and interviews ( n = 42), this study explores the perceptions, attitudes and behaviours of researchers towards OA publishing. We focus on researchers in the field of biomedical and health informatics located in different global regions and from different seniority levels. Overall, the results show that whilst most researchers support the idea of making scientific knowledge freely accessible to everyone, they are hesitant about actually living this practice by choosing OA journals to publish their own work. Article processing charges and quality issues are perceived as the main obstacles in this respect, revealing a two-sided evaluation of OA models, reflecting the different viewpoints of researchers as authors or readers. The results further highlight hitherto underexplored influencing factors regarding institutional frame conditions, located on the level of the scientific system, the publication service providers or the national/international OA policies.

Introduction

The dissemination of findings and ideas is an integral part of scientific research. Academic journals are important venues in this respect, as they not only create a public record of knowledge that shapes the development of disciplines, but also form a core component of scholarly communication—within and beyond the scientific community ( Hyland, 2016 ). Over the years, publication processes have significantly changed. This is most evident in the development of Open Access (OA) models. Initially founded in niche areas by small initiatives embracing the idea of sharing knowledge freely on the web ( Dalton et al., 2020 ), the notion that (publicly funded) research should be publicly available to all interested parties has now become a global movement. OA publishing is seen as a possibility for the democratization and broader communication of science, blurring the line between internal and external science communication ( Bonfadelli et al., 2017 ).

In this vein, reputable journals are offering new options for publishing research papers ( Kuballa, 2017 ) and are evaluating ways of spreading OA by implementing and testing new business models ( Haux et al., 2016 ; Spann et al., 2017 ). The rise of OA on the publication market is stimulated by politics and science organizations. The European Union stated in a press release in May 2016 that all scientific output of publicly funded projects has to be freely accessible to everyone and thus published in OA until 2020 ( Politico, 2016 ). Even 1 year earlier the Max Planck Society started a global Open Access initiative, which is endorsed by research councils, funding agencies, academic institutions, and publishers committed to speeding up the transition to OA by transforming existing subscription-based journals into OA journals [for a comprehensive overview of the OA movement and its implications for scientific research see Kuballa (2017) , Max Planck Digital Library (2019) ]. These attempts correlate with the requirements of societal impact and public engagement of science through science communication activities ( Bonfadelli et al., 2017 ): researchers are increasingly called out to communicate their knowledge not just within their field but also to general audiences. Open access availability fits into this paradigm ( Leßmöllmann, 2020 ), although simply providing access to information about a (highly specialized) topic does not compensate for an actual barrier-free dialogue between scientists and the public.

With the growing relevance of OA models, the determinants of scientists' publishing attitudes and behaviours have received considerable scholarly interest ( Rowley et al., 2017 ; Severin et al., 2020 ). Overall, however, the research field presents itself as rather scattered and a comprehensive understanding of why scientists decide (not) to publish in an Open Access journal is still lacking. Given the centrality of scientific knowledge for contemporary societies ( Weingart, 2001 ), it is nevertheless crucial to understand the drivers and obstacles for OA publishing to discuss the future development of scholarly communication and to decide on appropriate strategies. Moreover, with some notable exceptions [e.g., Sheikh (2019) , Joung et al. (2019) ], prior studies have mainly focused on the publishing behavior of scientific communities in Europe and the US [e.g., Zhu (2017) ]. Research on a global movement such as OA, however, calls for an international perspective that takes into account the varying individual and institutional conditions that influence the production, dissemination, and reception of scientific knowledge.

Building on previous research in this area ( Kuballa et al., 2019 ), the present study aims to address these gaps by providing an in-depth investigation of an exemplary research discipline that is particularly affected by transitions to OA ( Severin et al., 2020 ). We conducted group discussions and interviews with medical informatics researchers located in all parts of the world and with different levels of seniority in order to obtain a comprehensive picture of their perceptions, motivations and behaviours regarding OA publishing. Besides providing an international and generational overview, we deepen prior examinations of individual and institutional contexts. As the OA movement ultimately depends on the authors' decision where to publish their work ( Heaton et al., 2019 ), our findings offer important insights into a current trend that might significantly shape the internal and external communication of science ( Lüthje, 2017 ; Leßmöllmann, 2020 ), and serve as building blocks helping relevant stakeholders in advancing a barrier-free development and communication of science.

Background and Context: Perceptions of and Attitudes Towards OA Publishing

OA has a longer history of development ( Suber, 2009 ), key steps being the Budapest Open Access Initiative in 2002 and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access in 2001, both asking for a liberal copyright policy for facilitating the access to scientific literature ( Budapest Open Access Initiative, 2002 ; Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, 2003 ). The share of OA articles has grown steadily since then: while it was only 2.9% in 2003, it was already 27.9% in 2017 ( Laakso et al., 2011 ; Piwowar et al., 2018 ). Over the years, complementary but parallel strategies to OA have been advocated. The most important ones are the gold road and the green road to OA. The gold road (also known as gold OA) refers to the primary publication of scientific work either in a genuine OA journal or by choosing the OA option offered by a subscription-based journal. Importantly, the content is freely available from the moment it is published, whereby the rights of use granted to the publisher and the conditions of use applying to the openly accessible content are clearly specified. Gold OA models are typically funded by publication fees (so-called Article Processing Charges) payed by the author of the accepted and published article. The green road (also known as self-archiving or green OA), by contrast, refers to depositing a preprint or defined postprint version of the scientific work in institutional or disciplinary repositories or on personal websites. In this study, we focus on the perceived drivers and obstacles of publishing in gold OA models.

Open Access can only contribute to the democratization and broader communication of science ( Bonfadelli et al., 2017 ) if scientists themselves regard it as a real alternative to the traditional publishing model. Over the years, survey and interview studies have consistently shown that across all disciplines, the majority of researchers is in favor of Open Access ( Dallmeier-Tiessen et al., 2011 ; Tenopir et al., 2017 ). The ability to reach wider, also non-academic audiences and to increase the visibility and impact of one's own work are the key benefits associated with this publishing model ( Heaton et al., 2019 ; Joung et al., 2019 ; Dalton et al., 2020 ).

Despite the positive stance towards open access, researchers appear to be reluctant to fully embrace it ( Rowley et al., 2017 ). This is particularly evident regarding their experience with OA models, and according to what criteria they choose a publication outlet for their own scholarly work. Recent studies show that a considerable share of the scientific community is not sufficiently aware of OA-related initiatives and resources, especially when being located in lower income countries ( Sheikh, 2019 ). Moreover, OA availability is a rather low-ranked factor when deciding where to publish ( Blankstein and Wolff-Eisenberg, 2019 ), even among scholars who have already authored an OA publication ( Solomon and Björk, 2012 ). Similar to other disciplines ( Eger et al., 2015 ; Zhu, 2017 ), for researchers in medical and health science, the main criteria for choosing a journal are its perceived reputation and impact factor as well as the rigor and speed of peer review services ( Schroter et al., 2005 ; Joung et al., 2019 ; O'Hanlon et al., 2020 ). According to Peekhaus (2020) , these criteria reflect traditional values grounded in the academic tenure and promotion system, where OA is not of major importance yet. Scholars' hesitations towards publishing in OA journals echo these considerations, together with uncertainties about plagiarism and copyright ( Lwoga and Questier, 2015 ), in particular regarding commercial reuse ( Joung et al., 2019 ).

One problem associated with OA alternatives is the high prevalence of predatory journals, which pledge small publishing fees and fast turnout but do not publish the paper or provide no proper quality control. Swanberg et al. (2020) , for example, found that only 60% of the surveyed university and medical school faculty members could correctly identify a journal as predatory. Young and inexperienced researchers, as well as researchers from resource-limited settings are most likely to be trapped by fraudulent publishers ( Kurt, 2018 ).

This finding is closely linked to a second common barrier of OA, namely the funding of article processing charges (APCs) ( Dallmeier-Tiessen et al., 2011 ; O'Hanlon et al., 2020 ). Discipline-based studies, however, provide mixed evidence on charging policies as a barrier to OA. While for some researchers in STEM fields, factors as higher quality and greater likely citation might outweigh cost, others perceive APCs as a key challenge for authors without institutional support and research funding ( Schroter et al., 2005 ). Studies conducted among medicine and health researchers in India ( Singh, 2015 ), Pakistan ( Sheikh, 2019 ), or Spain ( Hernández-Borges et al., 2006 ) confirm this view, raising concerns that APCs can reinforce existing hierarchies, as they might exclude authors from publishing in specific (prestigious) outlets. In the literature, attitudes towards OA publishing are mainly assessed from the perspective of researchers as authors. However, the OA movement also refers strongly to researchers as readers of scholarly work. Moreover, especially when it comes to costs, the impact of resources—of countries and institutions—becomesapparent ( Sheikh, 2019 ).

Besides the professional affiliation and related geographic location of researchers, their seniority level has been found to explain attitudes and behaviors towards OA publishing—even though prior studies yield inconclusive results ( Rodriguez, 2014 ): while some studies found that younger and less experienced researchers are more open to OA, others found they rather shy away from new publishing models as they are concerned about negative impacts on tenure ( Rowlands et al., 2004 ; Harley et al., 2010 ). As young scientists are generally in need of guidance and support to successfully manage a publication process ( Merga et al., 2018 ), this might be probably even more true for a publication outside the traditional, subscription-based routines, while facing the pressure of career and research quality assessment requirements ( Wakeling et al., 2019 ).

Overall, the findings reviewed in this chapter demonstrate the strong interdependence of individual and institutional decision-making mechanisms, which nevertheless needs further analysis. In this paper we focus on three main analytical dimensions to address this research gap, namely institutional frame conditions, researchers' current career stage (i.e., level of seniority) and researchers' geographical location, classified in six world regions (i.e., regionality). Institutional frame conditions here refer to the potential requirements or facilities on part of at least three players that are vital for the generation and publication of scientific knowledge, namely the universities, the publication service providers, and the national and international OA policies that are developed for example by funding bodies. They are external factors, which cannot (or only with difficulty and in the long term) be altered by the scientists themselves but which might significantly shape their attitudes and behaviours towards Open Access. Together, the level of seniority, regionality, and institutional frame conditions provide a comprehensive framework that allows us to view the topic of OA from different angles and thus to better understand its practice in an exemplary research field such as biomedical and health informatics.

Objectives and Research Questions

In order to shed light on current developments in scholarly communication, the overall aim of this study is to explore the relevant individual and institutional factors that speak both in favour and against OA publishing from a researcher's perspective 1 . Since prior research has hinted to a discrepancy between awareness and experiences ( Rowley et al., 2017 ), we first investigate researchers' familiarity with Open Access:

RQ1: How experienced are the researchers with OA?

Overall, we are interested in researchers' perceptions of and attitudes towards Open Access on the individual level. Our second research question therefore asks:

RQ2: What do researchers perceive as the drivers and obstacles of OA publishing?

The perception of OA may vary depending on the role researchers play in the process of sharing knowledge. Focusing on the author's perspective, we ask about researchers' publication habits:

RQ3: What criteria are most important when choosing a publication medium and model?

Researchers are not only authors but also readers of scientific publications. In order to gain insights from both perspectives, we further ask:

RQ4: How does the reception behaviour of OA articles compare to subscription-based articles?

RQ5: Do researchers differ between a reader's and an author's perspective regarding OA?

As stated above, there are several efforts in politics and science to enhance OA. Therefore, our sixth research question asks about aspects on the institutional level that might affect the publication process:

RQ6: What influence do frame conditions have on the decision for a publication?

As we have no prior research on that, we are interested in how researchers imagine the future of OA publishing:

RQ7: How do researchers appraise the development of the publication landscape in the near future and what are their wishes in this regard?

Finally, in order to provide a comprehensive picture on OA publishing, the differences between regionality and seniority levels are considered:

RQ8: Are there country differences and differences between seniority levels in the state and standing of OA?

In order to substantiate these research questions, the present study explores the researchers' perspectives in the field of biomedical and health informatics. Research and publication practices are shaped by disciplinary traditions ( Harley et al., 2010 ). In the field of medical and health sciences, peer-reviewed journal articles reporting on empirical findings play a major role ( Fry et al., 2009 ), with scholars in this field spending a great amount of time reading them ( Tenopir et al., 2011 ). Moreover, in medical and health sciences, the development of OA models is already well-advanced ( Severin et al., 2020 ), making them a nice testing ground for potential variations between regions and seniority levels that can be transferred to research fields with similar traditions. As this interview study on OA represents an empirical module of a project in the field of biomedical and health informatics, we also had the unique opportunity to compile a broad international sample and thus to provide in-depth insights into the scholarly communication practices of one specific discipline [see also Kuballa et al. (2020 2 )]. Being more specific, this study is part of the “Trans-O-MIM” project, conducted by the Peter L. Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics (PLRI) in cooperation with Schattauer Publishers in Stuttgart, Germany, and is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). The abbreviated title means the development of “[s]trategies, models and evaluation metrics for the goal-oriented, stepwise, sustainable and fair transformation of established subscription-based scientific journals into open-access-based journals with Methods of Information in Medicine as example” ( Haux et al., 2016 ). A concrete attempt for journal transformation in this project is Methods Open , a newly created OA-track of Methods of Information in Medicine .

This study relies on guide-based group discussions and individual interviews with researchers in the field of biomedical and health informatics. The open approach allows us to reveal new and hitherto disregarded aspects pertaining to the perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours of this research community regarding OA publishing as the respondents have the opportunity to talk about their own experiences in detail, especially with regard to institutional frame conditions, level of seniority, and geographic region. Moreover, it allows us to review and deepen extant findings obtained in quantitative surveys ( Rowley et al., 2017 ). In preparation for this study, we conducted a short survey at an international meeting of biomedical and health informaticians ( Kuballa et al., 2017 ).

In this study, we focus on the perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours of persons doing research in the field of biomedical and health informatics worldwide. Our sampling frame therefore comprised all persons who are organized in the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA 3 , which is the global umbrella organization of biomedical and health informatics with ~70,000 members. The sample itself consisted of single IMIA members who were suggested to us by the organization as potential participants. As we are interested in differences between regionality and seniority levels, the process for recruiting included a focus on these two characteristics. In total, we interviewed 42 participants from all over the world (divided into six regions) and varying academic experience (divided into three levels), either in group discussions or individual interviews. The three seniority levels are junior (i.e., researchers at the beginning of their careers such as Ph.D. students), middle (i.e., researchers with intermediate experience such as postdoctoral researchers) and senior (i.e., researchers with long experience such as professors or department chairs). The six world regions are Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, und North America. Thirty-three percent of our participants were female. The exact composition of the sample is displayed in Table 1 (see Appendix A for more information on the sample).

Table 1 . Composition of the sample.

Overall, we conducted six group discussions with two to four participants each (i.e., 18 persons in total). This data base is enriched with individual interviews with another 24 researchers who participated in discipline-specific national or international conferences or authored a paper published in Methods of Information in Medicine 's OA track Methods Open . Initially, we intended to study a sample of 36 persons in the discussion sessions. However, due to differing time zones, we faced difficulties in recruiting larger international groups, which is why we decided to rely on individual interviews. The interviews followed the same guidelines as the group discussions.

The group discussions and interviews were conducted from July 2017 to February 2018. Each group discussion lasted for about 1 h, the individual interviews lasted for about 30 min. The majority of them was conducted virtually, using a video conferencing tool 4 , only six individual interviews were conducted face-to-face. All conversations were recorded using at least audio for further transcription and analysis in MAXQDA software. All group discussions and interviews were done in English. Transcription was based on a set of rules established by Kuckartz (2018) and Dresing and Pehl (2015) , which focus on the content.

Overall, our methodological design ensured that participants could respond spontaneously and unconfined, with as little intervention as possibly needed. In the group settings, the interviewer paid attention to establish an open culture of discussion, encouraging participants to freely narrate and to engage with arguments raised by fellow participants. The topics covered in the group discussions and interviews were based on a guideline representing the research questions of this study 5 . The interviewer did not follow this guideline rigidly, but rather used it as vehicle to structure and animate the conversations. If the situation demanded it, more specific follow-up questions on aspects brought up by the participants were asked.

Analytical Approach

In order to identify patterns in the data and to answer our research questions, the transcripts of the group discussions and interviews were systematically annotated and condensed following the qualitative structuring content analysis approach by Mayring (2014) . Three authors of this paper were directly involved into the analytical processes, in constant exchange with the entire team of authors. They developed a coding scheme containing central dimensions based on the research questions investigated in this study 6 . Two authors immersed themselves in the data by reading and rereading the transcripts carefully and conscientiously, in search for deeper understanding ( Moser and Korstjens, 2018 ). They applied the coding scheme using MAXQDA following an iterative procedure based on a mutual understanding agreement: First, one author selected and reduced the material so that the essential content remained. She prepared a coding scheme (containing variables and dimensions) and a coding guideline (containing coding rules and a collection of anchor examples for orientation) that was used to mark discovery points. Then, a second author reproduced the procedure and further structured the material, leading to the final annotated material in accordance to the previously defined coding scheme. A third author has supervised all steps, ensuring a satisfactory reliability of the subsequent coding of the two authors. Coding scheme and findings were intensively discussed among all authors to ensure intersubjective understanding.

Experience With OA Publishing (RQ1)

The majority of the 42 medical informatics researchers that participated in this study has already published in an OA journal. However, while researchers with long or intermediate experience are mostly familiar with Open Access, especially researchers on a junior level from Latin America and from Africa seem to have a lack of experience with this publishing model. This might also be explained by the fact that young researchers in our sample tend to face more difficulties with allocating funding to pay publication fees or have not much publication experience in general. Two interviewees indicated to be editors in chief of OA journals. Besides actual experience with OA publishing, the knowledge about this model is also quite divers. While some interviewees are very well-versed with the discussions and developments surrounding OA, others have never encountered this model before. Accordingly, their definition of OA ranges from detailed information about its functionality, implications, and challenges to the rather simple notion of “ If I can download the PDF.” (Europe, junior) .

The presentation of the results continues with the drivers and obstacles of OA publishing identified on an individual level (RQ2), including a differentiated view on participants' attitudes and behaviors as authors and readers (RQ3, RQ4, RQ5). It then moves on to influences on an institutional level (i.e., frame conditions related to the scientific system, the publishing system, and national/international OA policies), RQ6) and participants' estimations of the future of OA publishing (RQ7). The chapter closes with a summary of the regional differences as well as of differences between seniority levels observed in the data (RQ8).

Individual-Level Drivers of OA Publishing (RQ2)

Across all regions and seniority levels, for the majority of interviewees the increased and easier accessibility of articles is the main driver of Open Access publishing. From an authors' perspective, the enhanced accessibility of scientific knowledge is closely related to intrinsic motives regarding science's contribution to society. Scholarly resources are perceived as a public good that should not be hidden behind a paywall:

“ Well, I think Open Access is absolutely necessary, it's, ahm, it is part of the development in our society regarding transparency, accessibility of information, democratization of information and, ahm, rate to distribute scientific knowledge in a just bigger and larger way than through the subscription journal.” (Europe, senior) .

Moreover, about half of the interviewees point out that scientific findings should be accessible for everyone and everyone should have the chance to learn from them. Here, a global perspective is adopted and across all regions, respondents point out the need of developing countries to have free access to scientific knowledge. This argument applies also to non-academic audiences, as non-academics are usually not able to inform themselves about recent research published in subscription-based journals. One interviewee for example said:

“ I spend a lot of time talking to cancer patients and support groups and explaining the research I do and they're always stunned that a lot of it is behind paywalls and I mean I share it, but (.) I find it frustrating that, you know, it's just not, especially things that are grant fund by government or you know, a charity and it's like, yes but it's not there for them to see, just seems them disconnect (.).” (Asia and the Pacific, junior) .

For respondents arguing from this perspective, Open Access does not end with free access to publications but is expanded in terms of providing easier-to-comprehend information for laypersons or the possibility to promote multilingualism in scientific resources. This can yet also result in an overflow of information that requires critical management—also in connection with unreliable content:

“ Ahm, the pro is definitely we can get a lot of information from this kind of resource. Ahm, but it could also be a con there are too many information and, ahm, how could we find what we need in a short time? And maybe if the information could be organized better, so the users could find what they need quickly.” (Asia and the Pacific, junior) .

“ These predatory journals where we need to spend a lot of time to choosing between, this also could be a problem.” (Latin America, junior) .

Greater accessibility also implies greater visibility and impact of one's own work. Since it is of utmost importance for the respondents that their ideas and findings are encountered by as many people as possible, expecting a wider reach is another reason for advocating OA strategies. Correspondingly, a faster publication process and better copyright for authors are considered additional advantages of OA, as they allow researchers to access and distribute their own work in a timely manner, and thus give others the chance to build on it. This is problematic with subscription-based articles, as pointed out by one participant:

“ (…) this year I received an e-mail from a library in Argentina from Buenos Aires and they were asking me to send my work for them, because they would like to have access and didn't have the money to buy it. So I sent it to them, through a mail. I don't even know if this is okay, ahm, to do.” (North America, junior) .

Accessibility is further discussed from the perspective of a reader. Many interviewees stress the relevance of being connected to a (well-equipped) institution that provides them with subscriptions to domain-specific journals. In this vein, especially researchers from economically weaker regions report to be excluded from information published in subscription-based journals, which leads to difficulties in building on relevant literature:

“ I was planning to do a systematic review but systematic review I have to access like many papers so I stopped that idea of doing a systematic review being from Ethiopia. But just for to cite for my work articles I'm just using, requesting my friends to send me and, yeah that's how I'm working.” (Africa, middle)

Individual-Level Obstacles of OA Publishing (RQ2)

Across all regions and seniority levels, the by far most mentioned obstacles in OA publishing are the related costs. Especially interviewees from economically weaker regions reported to not have funding to pay the charges for an OA publication, which drives them away from this publishing model:

“ We are not all American funded. We are not all funded in a way that we can even ask to that money and (.) especially in the IT, e-health sector which there isn't any funding and so every time we publish we have got zero income and we're expected to spend. And that's, ahm, that's what hurts the most.” (Africa, senior) .

Even if the charging policy does not completely exclude researchers from OA, it significantly limits their choice of OA journals:

“ my first criteria will be, ahm, will they ask me that payment. So because I cannot pay I will just like check at BMC even though it's a low impact or it's not the right journal I will submit to BMC because they will automatically waive article[s] from developing countries.” (Africa, middle) .

Most researchers addressing APCs as a criterion for choosing a journal for publication are on a junior or middle level and no mention of this obstacle came from European interviewees. Overall, the interviewees do not understand how the amount of money comes about and believe the high amount is not justified.

Besides APCs, from an author's perspective, a second obstacle relates to the perceived quality and reputation of OA journals. Within the last years, the number of predatory journals grew steadily, and many interviewees reported to regularly receive fraudulent e-mails inviting them to submit or review a paper:

“ (…) they are not reputable and then unfortunately Open Access has turned to a scam of academics, ahm, it also allows people to publish, ahm, without proper peer-review.” (North America, senior) .

Some researchers in our sample—in particular from Africa, Latin America, and Asia and the Pacific—further perceive OA journals to be less reputable than their subscription-based counterparts. These concerns correspond to the criteria for choosing a publication outlet and model, which are further explored in our third research question.

Choosing a Publication Outlet (RQ3)

More than half of the interviewees mentioned the Impact Factor as primary criterion for choosing a publication outlet or model, although many of them question its role in academia:

“ (…) I think we all hate that part of science that we have to think about that [publishing in an as high impact journal as possible] but it is a necessary evil for having a job in this field.” (North America, junior) .

A suitable scope of the journal (i.e., a good fit) was mentioned with nearly the same frequency, followed by the quality of the editorial and peer review services. However, in many cases researchers report having problems identifying journals of high quality or doubt that just because a journal is well-known it is automatically of high quality. In regard of the quality factor we found that this seems most important for researchers with an advanced career. Another criterion that is important for some of the interviewed persons is a fast processing time. Open Access availability is only for a few respondents the primary factor for choosing a publication outlet, and mostly applies only when sufficient funding is provided to cover the APCs.

Reception Behaviour (RQ4)

Our fourth research question turns to researchers as readers of OA publications. While the perceived quality and reputation of a journal was regarded as an obstacle for publishing in an OA journal, interestingly, these concerns are not mentioned regarding reading an OA publication. In fact, in most cases, the reception behavior at OA articles appears to be the same compared to subscription-based articles. One interviewee stated, for example:

“ I don't really check for if it is open or if it's subscription. I go more, okay, is this an interesting journal for my view, then I check if it's open or if it's, ahm, it needs a subscription, of course I'm happier when I know it's open and it's easier.” (Latin America, junior) .

Interviewees outlined that they usually inform themselves about new articles via search engines such as PubMed or Google Scholar. While this applies to both, OA and subscription-based articles, many also use electronic table of content alerts, which rather stem from subscription-based journals than from OA journals. A slightly more positive reception behavior of OA articles could be observed at researchers from Middle East and from Asia and the pacific.

Differences Between Authors and Readers (RQ5)

In the statements presented in the context of the first three research questions, we have already seen different perceptions inherent in the role of an author of scientific publications, which are met by OA models. On the one hand, publishing implies to communicate findings to diverse, also non-academic audiences, and to provide them with relevant and timely information. On the other hand, it enables researchers to gain reputation in the scientific community and to become visible in the respective field. Moreover, nearly half of the researchers in our sample actively differ between a readers' and an authors' perspective in regard to OA. Here, the dividing line between the two roles becomes most apparent in terms of costs, as summarized by one interviewee from North America:

“ If you make it a pay to read model it disadvantages the readers in poor areas, if you make it an Open Access journal you disadvantage the authors of, ahm, papers in resource poor areas.” (North America, senior) .

That is, in the position of a reader, the vast majority welcomes OA publications due to their accessibility, while in the position of an author, the opinion on OA is more difficult, as especially APCs are regarded as a limiting factor. Most researchers who actively differentiated between these positions are located in Europe and Northern America and are advanced in career.

Institutional Influences: Frame Conditions (RQ6)

The previous sections have pointed to individual-level attitudes and behaviour, providing insights into the perception of OA publishing from the perspective of scientists as authors and readers. However, as anticipated by our sixth research question, the decision (not) to publish in an OA journal might also be affected by institutional frame conditions, located on the level of the scientific system, the publication service providers or the national/international OA policies. Overall, the influence of frame conditions on the decision for a publication was difficult to define for many respondents.

The interviews reveal that funding is identified as a central influencing frame condition that is discussed in terms of changes pertaining to the scientific system, to publication providers, and to OA policies in order to promote a barrier-free communication of scientific knowledge. Regarding the scientific system, researchers from all around the world, but predominantly on a middle or senior level of seniority, argue that their decision on a publication model oftentimes builds on the demands of funding organizations. Hence, in their view, funding bodies could support the OA movement by providing additional money that enables researchers to cover the APCs of (required) OA publications, so they do not need to decide between spending money on another study or on publication fees. Besides the funding bodies, researchers are demanding for policies on different levels of the system and other specifications in order to support OA publishing. Where such policies exist, interviewees think they are a good method and do not feel constricted by them in terms of their publication freedom. Especially researchers from Asia and the Pacific, Middle East, and Latin America desire having such policies, as one interviewee states:

“ I guess if more grant bodies really insist on it and the other thing is if more universities insisted on it for their students, like that would make a massive change, you know, because if like, if our university would say student work has to be in Open Access, students are doing so many projects (.).” (Asia and the Pacific, junior) .

Resonating with the individual-level obstacles identified in this study, a reduction of the costs was also the most popular request to publication service providers, as especially researchers from low- or middle-income countries do not have money to afford an OA publication:

“ Ahm, if we have different discounts or agreements as you mentioned with our institute to waive our, ahm, the cost for our authors it would be great opportunity and this would promote Open Access in Egypt so well.” (Middle East, middle) .

In this context it needs to be mentioned that many researchers did not use or even know about waiver systems of publishers so far. However, international cooperation might make the system even more difficult, as one participant outlined:

“ So the publisher tell us that, ahm, because there are two authors from Germany and from the US we are not going to make it free. Ahm, but I was saying they are not funded, they were just giving a scientific support (…) and they do not have specific funding for that research work. (…) Because the student cannot pay, the accepted paper must have been withdrawn.” (Africa, middle)

Besides funding, the quality of the journal is an important issue for the interviewees. Many argue that the quality of OA journals is regarded as lower compared to subscription-based journals, which makes it hard to publish in them due to reputation reasons. The career-related impact of the decision where to publish one's work is thereby considered very high. Hence, they demand publishers to increase the quality of OA journals to the common standard of subscription-based journals.

“ Research is very expensive and, ahm, what you publish becomes your reputation and so, if that [Open Access publication] is not [as] well-handled as a good reviewed publication, it can really, really ruin you and at a very high cost. So that's a risk that I see.” (Africa, middle)

Moreover, the respondents would welcome OA journals that are not run by profit-oriented publishing houses but for example by scientific organizations. One part of good quality is a thorough and fast review process. Some respondents therefore suggest incentivizing the reviewers, for example by paying them or proving them with a free submission in the respective journal, in order to speed up the reviewing process. Moreover, a smooth publication process that uses up-to-date workflows (e.g., in terms of data security or communication) appears to be important to increase the attractiveness of OA options.

Another point regarding the scientific system is the demand for a change of the scientific evaluation/reward system, mostly in regard to the high importance of the Impact Factor. In this respect, the increased availability of OA papers also raises concerns, as one researcher argues:

“ that makes you do that [publishing OA] out of this like set reasons of you need to compare each other. So, like the idea of sharing knowledge—great thing. But having this metric to, well like have more citations because it's Open Access, like gambling on that, so I have to pay more money, but my visibility is better so I get better metric, that's kind of a, yeah, struggling idea.” (Europe, junior) .

Ethical considerations are also pointed out by other participants, who report that co-authors were not willing to pay for the publication after the paper was accepted.

At the same time, the publication strategy of junior scientists in particular follows the expectations and requirements of their university, which means that factors located on the individual level (such as intrinsic motivations for turning to OA options) take a back seat:

“ I would like to publish in something well-known, at least in the beginning. And maybe that then I have more flexibility where to publish, I mean, I still, I only have one article published, still now, ahm, in a refereed journal and, ahm, something in a conference, which wasn't reviewed and yeah, so I need to fast publish and something which is acceptable to people here.” (Middle East, junior) .

Overall, the topic marketing and information on OA was often addressed and more action demanded. The interviewees, without any differences in their geographic location or career level, outlined that there is not enough information available on OA publishing and they desire better information about the differences and advantages of it compared to subscription-based publications. In this regard they think publishers should make the workflows of an OA publication more transparent (e.g., where does the publication fee go?), and more actively promote their OA options. More guidance on OA was also desired for example for the identification of predatory journals, which is often seen as difficult, especially from researchers at the beginning of their career.

Future of OA Publishing (RQ7)

Enriching perceptions of the current status, our seventh research question asks for a look into the future. Despite the partly controversial attitudes towards OA models, including the concerns from an author perspective, the huge majority of researchers in our study predict a bright future for the OA movement, with a rise of the OA proportion within the next 5 years. Here, no differences across regions or seniority levels have been observed. A majority of the respondents would also desire a change of the whole publication system to OA in the future, although most of these comments were from young, junior-level scientists. It appears that OA publication is strongly associated with modern, digital communication, which stands out from old-fashioned, paper-based systems:

“ People are using the internet for free (…) and when you go through Pubmed or any other portals, (…) if you can read the abstract and do not get access through the full article it's so, ahm, weird, in our times.” (Europe, senior) .

Many who are also in favor of OA demanded though to retain a choice between the publication models in future. Especially researchers in the middle and in their late career have a more differentiated view on the future of OA:

“ It depends on what the big publishing houses are tending to do. Are they going to stand up as a group or are they going to come one publishing house after the other and it isn't just the publishing houses, the societies (…) own some of the journals.” (Africa, senior) .

Those interviewees mostly also prefer OA but mention problems associated with the future of this publication model. So, in their opinion it will depend from the journal and the publisher development regarding this topic, but they see also a dependency from external influencing factors such as politics and policies and mention the further existing financial problem associated with OA.

Differences Regarding Regionality and Seniority (RQ8)

Taken together, in line with the final research question, our data points to some differences due to the geographical location and the seniority level of the respondents. First, it becomes clear that OA is closely linked to the question of resources. Researchers from economically weaker regions (e.g., Africa, Middle East, or Latin America) report far more often to be unable to go for OA alternatives at all or only from certain journals due to financial reasons, which in turn are closely tied to a country's political and economic situation:

“ It depends on the economic scenario of the country. So, a few years ago we had a better condition in Brazil, I'm talking about Brazil. Ahm, now we are in a political and economic crisis. So, it affects directly the funding.” (Latin America, middle) .

In addition, the question is raised, off when a country should get the publication costs waived, highlighting the fine differences also within regions:

“ I'm very opposed to the extreme costs that some journals are charging now, one. Two, they say they will reduce the fee, or waive the fees to the least developed countries. But it is for a state in the middle, as we are in South Africa, I think it's very expensive” (Africa, senior) .

This ultimately reveals the many different levels the decision to publish in an OA journal is located at: for it is not only the respective region or country (and the associated economic situation) that is decisive whether one can afford to choose this publication model, but also the size or type of the institution within that country:

“ The problem is when you are in a developing country and you are in smaller institutions. So, if you could help these smaller institutions [with waivers], then I think this would be very nice” (Latin America, junior) .

At the same time, in our sample, the reception of OA journals is slightly more positive among researchers located in the Middle East and Africa. In addition to researchers from Asia and the Pacific, they also strongly emphasize the adoption of OA policies as an important mechanism to advance the OA movement in the future.

Regarding seniority levels, some of our interviewees assume a generation gap, with younger researchers being already more into OA than their more experienced colleagues. Senior scientists are therefore regarded as central gatekeepers for the OA movement:

“ I think if, you know I like the idea of Open Access, but I think it will take the senior level scientist to persuading that more or promoting it more. I think if journals are wanting to move this way then it may take some marketing and messaging to senior scientists to demonstrate the value of this.” (North America, junior)

In our sample, however, especially junior-level scientists have published very little in OA journals, which nevertheless might be due to the fact that they often lack the funding to make unrestricted journal choices and are dependent on the requirements and expectations of their university or mentors. Moreover, they feel most insecure about the identification of predatory journals:

“ I just would like to know if they have some, ahm, criterias to go to, because I just don't want to have my work in some, ahm, portal that isn't so, ahm, trusted.” (North America, junior) .

“ Because the Open Access journals they tend to be confusing predatory journals. The same issue in my university also, if it is an Open Access journal they always evaluate if it's not a predatory journal, they tend to confuse it too.” (Africa, junior) .

Interviewees with a more advanced career have a more differentiated opinion of OA, which also takes into account implications for the science or publication system in general, such as the informative value of evaluation metrics that are based on downloads, the increasing speed and amount of publications and the related challenges for thorough quality management, or the dominance of big publishing houses. Interestingly, it is also the senior researchers (located in Europe and Northern America) who explicitly distinguish between an author's and a reader's perspective when talking about the OA movement.

Fuelled by growing initiatives in politics and science, Open Access may significantly alter the internal and external communication of science (Leßmöllmann, 2020 ). Since the potential of this movement relies on the underlying motivations and needs of individual researchers, this study set out to comprehensively explore the perceptions, attitudes and behaviours of biomedical and health informaticians towards OA publishing. As early adopter of OA strategies, this discipline is a valuable case in this respect. Overall, the findings of our group discussions and interviews support previous research in this area, but also point to hitherto underestimated aspects, in particular regarding institutional frame conditions, regionality and seniority.

Individual-Level Factors

First, corroborating extant interview and survey studies across various disciplines including medicine and health ( Tenopir et al., 2017 ; Heaton et al., 2019 ), accessibility appears to be the most important driver of the OA movement. Accessibility is thereby understood in multifaceted ways. From the authors' point of view, it enables comprehensive communication of one's own ideas and findings. In line with findings by Dalton et al. (2020) , this is not only regarded as a matter of reputation and visibility in the field, but also as part of an intrinsic motivation and perceived responsibility to provide broad (non-academic) audiences with scientific knowledge. Our data further supports the well-documented discrepancy between a general support for Open Access and the actual use of OA alternatives ( Rowley et al., 2017 ). As recently indicated by O'Hanlon et al. (2020) or Joung et al. (2019) , for those who decide to publish in OA, the most important criteria for choosing a journal are its reputation (e.g., Impact Factor) and quality (e.g., thorough peer review and editorial services). OA accessibility itself, however, is only for a few respondents a primary factor for choosing a publication outlet, and mostly applies only when sufficient funding is provided to cover the APCs ( Tenopir et al., 2016 ).

Overall, our data support prior studies demonstrating that costs are the most prevalent obstacle of OA publishing ( O'Hanlon et al., 2020 ), as researchers with no or only limited funding report to be excluded from this publication model. Importantly, this aspect is also considered by researchers affiliated with well-funded institutions. In this context, however, several of our interviewees have hitherto not known about or used the free waivers offered by OA journals to authors (located in low- or middle-income countries) who cannot afford to pay the APCs. Here, the need for comprehensive information about the OA model becomes evident. While country-specific studies have already pointed to an information deficit ( Sheikh, 2019 ), it is noteworthy that in our study, many interviewees actively desire more information on OA and also think that publishers should better advertise this model. In addition to questions about the financing model and the lack of transparency regarding high APCs, uncertainty revolves around predatory journals, as especially respondents with less experience face difficulties in distinguishing them from an authentic OA journal. Besides the concrete—and widely examined ( Kurt, 2018 ; Swanberg et al., 2020 )—danger of predatory journals, some of our respondents also referred to the quality of OA publications as potential obstacle. Hence, although in their quantitative survey, Rowley et al. (2017 , p. 1,206) have already identified “positive progress” regarding the perceived quality and production standards of OA journals, there is still distrust in this publication model, even in a research field such as biomedical and health informatics that has joined the OA movement early on [see Joung et al. (2019) for similar results; Severin et al. (2020) ].

While from the author's point of view, a distinction between OA and traditional, subscription-based journal is certainly being drawn, from a reader's point of view, we could not identify such differences. This may reveal an important difference between green and gold OA that warrants further investigation: a cross-disciplinary study on researchers' use of OA repositories reports that readers have difficulties identifying the version of an archived manuscript (i.e., whether it is a pre-print or a final publication), with potential negative implications for the perceived quality of the content found ( Spezi et al., 2013 ). The focus on the different roles that researchers play in the publication process—as authors and as readers—payed off in our study. Several study participants who are located in North America and Europe and are already advanced in their career made this analytical distinction even themselves when talking about OA. One explanation for this pattern might be that these researchers are faced with distinct strategies and objectives from political and scientific institutions. Specifically, in North America and Europe OA strategies are promoted by third-party funding providers and scientific associations, but also by political actors, which draws attention to this publication model and its advantages and disadvantages for various stakeholders. Moreover, due to their function in the acquisition and realization of third-party funded projects, scientists that are more advanced in their career come into closer contact with OA publishing as authors, while at the same time, the accessibility of journals at universities in North America and Europe is usually relatively good, making OA less important from a reader's point of view.

Despite the obstacles outlined above, most interviewees predict a future growth of OA models in the coming years. Most of them declared to be ready for Open Access, but they see challenges that need to be worked on in order to establish an equitable global development and communication of science. Closely related to this is the link between OA and the availability of resources (for instance to pay for APCs), which comes to the fore by the international focus taken in our study. Although our respondents are clearly more optimistic, this result resonates with Dalton et al. (2020) , who show that scientists are uncertain where the OA movement is heading in the future, as it can have significant negative implications for poorly funded institutions, especially in developing countries.

Institutional Frame Conditions

Besides individual-level factors that shape the perceptions, attitudes, and behaviour of researchers in terms of OA models, our study explored whether institutional-level factors such as demands of funding bodies, the scientific system or the publication service providers might determine where a publication ultimately finds a home. Notably, our respondents had difficulties to freely expand on the influence of institutional frame conditions, but when being asked more explicitly, their considerable impact became apparent. Overall, the researchers in our sample do not feel restricted in their freedom of publication by policies stipulating that results must be made openly available. By contrast, many would even like to see more such policies (established by grant bodies or academic institutions) in order to further advance the transformation of the traditional publishing system. That is, the results indicate that the respondents would like the obstacles perceived at the individual level (e.g., costs or perceived quality deficits) to be solved on an institutional level: either by improving the peer review system on part of the publication service providers or by adapting the academic reward system on part of the scientific system.

Regionality

Given its close ties to the science-society interface, more research is needed to trace the global development of Open Access, accounting for the perspective of individual researchers. A shift in focus away from well-studied (Western) countries will thereby be essential. Our data supports previous single-country studies regarding costs as main barrier to choose an OA publication outlet ( Singh, 2015 ; Sheikh, 2019 ). Apparently, actors at the institutional level are regarded as having a duty in this respect: particularly researchers from Asia and the Pacific, Middle East and Latin America argue in favour of funding policies that advance OA strategies in their regions. However, while an international sample allows to transfer and extrapolate the development of this publishing model (at least to a certain extent) on a global level, the present study also indicates that broad regions might need to be further differentiated to gain even more analytical depth by taking into account the conditions of sub-regions or particular institutions.

Level of Seniority

Besides regionality, a closer look at the seniority level might be an issue for future research. Contrary to prior notions that seniority is no strong predictor for perceptions of or experiences with OA publishing ( Rodriguez, 2014 ), our data indicate that junior-level researchers have greatest interest in OA, but often lack the financial and institutional opportunity to actually choose this publication model. The power of norms and scientific cultures with regard to the establishment of an alternative publication model has already been discussed ( Harley et al., 2010 ). In our study, aligning with findings by Wakeling et al. (2019) , junior- and middle-level respondents place a strong emphasis on requirements of their scientific institution when choosing a publication outlet. That is, for researchers not holding a professorship yet, considerations regarding their lab culture, academic positions or promotion appear to play a major role. Interestingly, and in contrast to a study by Heaton et al. (2019) , the influence of peers is not considered relevant by our respondents. Nor does there appear to be any specific guidance on how to navigate an OA publication, although this kind of support—from mentors and editors alike—could be crucial for researchers at the beginning of their career ( Merga et al., 2018 ). At the same time, senior researchers—who are the mentors of younger colleagues—appear to have a less optimistic view on OA, taking into account the associated controversial discussions within the political and scientific system.

While enriching the scholarly debate about perceptions, attitudes and behaviours of researchers towards OA publishing, our findings have limitations that need to be considered. First and foremost, due to the small number of participants in the group discussions and interviews, the study is limited in its representativeness. Biomedical and health informatics shares important features of its scholarly practices with other disciplines such as the social sciences; most importantly the relevance of empirical work published in peer-reviewed journal articles ( Fry et al., 2009 ). However, due to the wide spread of OA within the discipline ( Severin et al., 2020 ), it is possible that some challenges are no longer relevant and thus underestimated in our study. Moreover, we studied members of one particular association, and it cannot be ruled out that there is a bias towards pro OA as the broader project context of the study was known to our participants. Hence, our findings need to be replicated with larger samples and contrasted with other disciplines before being generalized within and across research fields. We therefore encourage future research to use the manifold aspects documented in this study as the basis for a standardised representative survey to test their explanatory power and to further advance our knowledge about current trends in scholarly communication within and beyond the scientific community.

Taken together, the main findings of our study support previous research exploring the drivers and obstacles of Open Access publications, while fostering institutional frame conditions, the level of seniority and the geographical location of researchers as important analytical dimensions.

First of all, our study has reflected on the idea of science as a public good that should be open for everyone is at the core of science communication efforts ( Leßmöllmann, 2020 ). However, openness through free online access of scientific journal articles is more of an organisational or technical accessibility as the provided information is tailored for a highly specialized audience. It is therefore questionable whether OA publishing is really to discuss as science communication activities. In our study, this has been reflected as the concern about an information overload that could result from a strong promotion of Open Access initiatives in the future. It is to clearly state that without curation, explanation, and a translation into everyday language or contexts, OA availability remains rather an instrument of internal science communication—or even “only” as part of iterative knowledge generation processes. This is nevertheless of high importance, as OA creates an opportunity to keep up to date with all developments in the field, particularly for researchers from resource-limited regions and institutions.

Resources (or the lack thereof) are a second major issue raised by our participants. Scholars have already raised the question of whether OA is really the democratic medium it is supposed to be ( Dalton et al., 2020 ). Our study goes one step further by discussing OA in the light of science communication, where the ability for everyone's participation is a central objective ( Humm and Schrögel, 2020 ). In this sense, the question also arises whether a similar development of the OA movement can be assumed globally. According to our data, institutional frame conditions on the level of science policy actors are assigned a key role in this respect: they appear to be central drivers of OA, with individual researchers adapting to their overarching strategies while to some extent still being rooted in the traditional (subscription-based) publishing system.

Finally, our results indicate that researchers at early stages of their career (i.e., pre- and postdocs) could be the pioneering generation establishing OA models as respected alternatives besides subscription-based models. However, in order to advance in the scientific system, they must adhere strongly to the norms and guidelines of the respective institution ( Wakeling et al., 2019 ; Dalton et al., 2020 ). Our study thus reveals a gap for the development of strategies to balance intrinsic motivation in favour of OA and actual publication behaviour.

So, overall, our study speaks to the field of Open Access research as well as to the science of science communication by revealing a gap between science and practice, between normative perspectives and actual behaviours, between freedom of choices and path dependencies within scientific institutions. It demonstrates that the debate surrounding Open Access (and related concepts such as Open Science) must free itself from a simplistic, normatively loaden view that instantly connects the opening of scientific knowledge to preconceived benefits. Instead, it requires an analytical and theoretical differentiation of the drivers and obstacles of OA publishing and their implications for different stakeholders—across generations and regions.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

SK, MT, and RH conceived the initial idea and designed the study. EG developed the theoretical framework with input from SK and wrote the paper with input from SK, MT, and RH. SK, MS, and CM developed and conducted the interviews and group discussions, with support from MT. EG and SK analyzed the data. RH supervised the project. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This research has been funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under grant number HA 1438/17-1.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the two reviewers for their valuable comments and advice as well as to the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA) and their members for participating in the group discussions and interviews.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2020.587465/full#supplementary-material

1. ^ The order of the research questions has changed slightly from the original study plan. The study plan can be obtained on request from the first author.

2. ^ Unpublished technical report.

3. ^ For more information on IMIA visit https://imia-medinfo.org/wp/ .

4. ^ We used the video conference software of DFN, the German National Research and Education Network, based on Adobe Connect.

5. ^ The exact wording of the guidelines can be found in Appendix B .

6. ^ The coding scheme can be found in Appendix C .

Blankstein, M., and Wolff-Eisenberg, C. (2019). Ithaka S+ R US Faculty Survey 2018 . Available online at: http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp012j62s766q (accessed July 22, 2020).

Google Scholar

Bonfadelli, H., Fähnrich, B., Lüthje, C., Milde, J., Rhomberg, M., and Schäfer, M. S., (eds.). (2017). Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-12898-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002). Read the Budapest Open Access Initiative . Available online at: https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read (accessed July 22, 2020).

Dallmeier-Tiessen, S., Darby, R., Goerner, B, Hyppoelae, J, Igo-Kemenes, P., Kahn, D., et al. (2011). Highlights from the Soap Project Survey. What Scientists Think about Open Access publishing . Available online at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260v2 (accessed July 22, 2020).

Dalton, E. D., Tenopir, C., and Björk, B. C. (2020). Attitudes of North American academics toward open access scholarly journals. Libr. Acad. 20, 73–100. doi: 10.1353/pla.2020.0005

Dresing, T., and Pehl, T. (2015). Manual (on) Transcription: Transcription Conventions, Software Guides and Practical Hints for Qualitative Researchers. Marburg: dr. dresing et pehl GmbH.

Eger, T., Scheufen, M., and Meierrieks, D. (2015). The determinants of open access publishing: survey evidence from Germany. Eur. J. Law Econ. 39, 475–503. doi: 10.1007/s10657-015-9488-x

Fry, J., Oppenheim, C., Creaser, C., William, J., Mark, S., Sonya, W., et al. (2009). Communicating Knowledge: How and Why Researchers Publish and Disseminate their Findings . Available online at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/96d2/ce7ec23a614f1a078651515fe7dbdaacef0e.pdf (accessed 22 July, 2020).

Harley, D., Acord, S. K., Earl-Novell, S., Lawrence, S., and King, C. J. (2010). Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines . Berkley: Center for Studies in Higher Education.

Haux, R., Kuballa, S., Schulze, M., Böhm, C., Gefeller, O., Haaf, J., et al. (2016). Exploring possibilities for transforming established subscription-based scientific journals into open access journals. Present situation, transformation criteria, and exemplary implementation within Trans-O-MIM. Methods Inf. Med. 55, 481–487. doi: 10.3414/ME16-05-0010

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Heaton, R., Burns, D., and Thoms, B. L. (2019). Altruism or self-interest? Exploring the motivations of open access authors. Coll. Res. Lib. 80, 485–507. doi: 10.5860/crl.80.4.485

Hernández-Borges, A. A., Cabrera-Rodríguez, R., Montesdeoca-Melián, A., Martínez-Pineda, B., de Arcaya, M. L. T. A., and Jiménez-Sosa, A. (2006). Awareness and attitude of Spanish medical authors to Open Access publishing and the “author pays” model. J. Med. Lib. Assoc. 94, 449–451.

Humm, C., and Schrögel, P. (2020). Science for all? Practical recommendations on reaching underserved audiences. Front. Commun. 5:42. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2020.00042

Hyland, K. (2016). Academic Publishing: Issues and Challenges in the Construction of Knowledge . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Joung, K. H., Rowley, J., and Sbaffi, L. (2019). Medical and health sciences academics' behaviours and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals: a perspective from South Korea. Inform. Dev. 35, 191–202. doi: 10.1177/0266666917736360

Kuballa, S. (2017). Open Access publishing in the field of medical informatics. J. Med. Syst. 41, 1–6. doi: 10.1007/s10916-017-0729-0

Kuballa, S., Schulze, M., Mielke, C., Gefeller, O., and Haux, R. (2017). On incentives for Open Access publishing: a survey at IMIA's annual general assembly during HEC 2016. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 245, 901–904.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Kuballa, S., Schulze, M., Mielke, C., Taddicken, M., and Haux, R. (2019). Identification of influencing factors regarding the decision for or against an open access publication of scientists of medical informatics: description and first results of group discussions and interviews. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 264, 1248–1252. doi: 10.3233/shti190426

Kuballa, S., Taddicken, M., Schulze, M., Mielke, C., and Haux, R. (2020). Individual and Institutional Drivers of Open Access Publishing. A Two-Tier Study on the Perspective of International Medical Informatics Researchers. Unpublished Technical Report.

Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse . Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. Weinheim, Basel: Juventa.

Kurt, S. (2018). Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learn. Publ. 31, 141–147. doi: 10.1002/leap.1150

Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B. C., and Hedlund, T. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE 6:e20961. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020961

Leßmöllmann, A. (2020). “Current trends and future visions of (research on) science communication” in Science Communication , eds A. Leßmöllmann, M. Dascal, and T. Gloning (Berlin: De Gruyter), 657–688. doi: 10.1515/9783110255522-031

Lüthje, C. (2017). “Interne informelle Wissenschaftskommunikation”, in Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation , eds H. Bonfadelli, B. Fähnrich, C. Lüthje, J. Milde, M. Rhomberg, and M. S. Schäfer (Wiesbaden: Springer VS), 109–124. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-12898-2_6

Lwoga, E. T., and Questier, F. (2015). Open access behaviours and perceptions of health sciences faculty and roles of information professionals. Health Inform. Lib. J. 32, 37–49. doi: 10.1111/hir.12094

Max Planck Digital Library (2019). Open Access 2020. Be Informed . Available online at: https://oa2020.org/be-informed/ (accessed July 22, 2020).

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (2003). Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities . Available online at: https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration (accessed July 22, 2020).

Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution . Available online at: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173 (accessed July 22, 2020).

Merga, M., Mason, S., and Morris, J. (2018). Early career experiences of navigating journal article publication: lessons learned using an autoethnographic approach. Learn. Publ. 31, 381–389. doi: 10.1002/leap.1192

Moser, A., and Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis. Eur. J. Gen. Prac. 24, 9–18. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2017.1375091

O'Hanlon, R., McSweeney, J., and Stabler, S. (2020). Publishing habits and perceptions of Open Access publishing and public access amongst clinical and research fellows. J. Med. Lib. Assoc. 108, 47–58. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2020.751

Peekhaus, W. (2020). Revisiting perceptions of and experience with open-access publishing among faculty in library and information studies schools. Can. J. Inform. Lib. Sci. 43, 23–47. Available online at: muse.jhu.edu/article/753335

Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J, P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., et al. (2018). The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ 6:e4375. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4375

Politico (2016). All European Scientific Articles to be Freely Accessible by 2020. Press release 27 May 2016 . Available online at: https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/NLopenaccess.pdf (accessed July 22, 2020).

Rodriguez, J. E. (2014). Awareness and attitudes about open access publishing: a glance at generational differences. J. Acad. Librarianship 40, 604–610. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2014.07.013

Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., and Huntington, P. (2004). Scholarly communication in the digital environment: what do authors want? Learn. Publ. 17, 261–273. doi: 10.1087/0953151042321680

Rowley, J., Johnson, F., Sbaffi, L., Frass, W., and Devine, E. (2017). Academics' behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals. J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 68, 1201–1211. doi: 10.1002/asi.23710

Schroter, S., Tite, L., and Smith, R. (2005). Perceptions on open access publishing: interviews with journal authors. Br. Med. J. 330, 656–759. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38359.695220.82

Severin, A., Egger, M., Eve, M. P., and Hürlimann, D. (2020). Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review. F1000Research 7:1925. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.17328.2

Sheikh, A. (2019). Faculty awareness, use and attitudes towards scholarly Open Access: a Pakistani perspective. J. Librarianship Inform. Sci. 51, 612–628. doi: 10.1177/0961000617742455

Singh, H. P. (2015). Knowledge and attitude of health researchers from India towards “Paying to Publish” and open access journals. Ind. Pediatr. 52, 252–253.

Solomon, D. J., and Björk, B.-C. (2012). Publication fees in open access publishing: sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 63, 98–107. doi: 10.1002/asi.21660

Spann, M., Stich, L., and Schmidt, K. M. (2017). Pay what you want as a pricing model for open access publishing? Commun. ACM 60, 29–31. doi: 10.1145/3140822

Spezi, V., Fry, J., Creaser, C., Probets, S., and White, S. (2013), Researchers' green open access practice: a cross-disciplinary analysis. J. Documen. 69, 334–359. doi: 10.1108/JD-01-2012-0008

Suber, P. (2009). Timeline of the Open Access Movement (Formerly Called the Timeline of the Free Online Scholarship Movement) . Available online at: http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Timeline (accessed July 22, 2020).

Swanberg, S. M., Thielen, J., and Bulgarelli, N. (2020). Faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory open access journals: a needs assessment study. J. Med. Lib. Assoc. 108:208. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2020.849

Tenopir, C., Dalton, E., Christian, L., Jones, M., McCabe, M., Smith, M., et al. (2017). Imagining a gold open access future: attitudes, behaviors, and funding scenarios among authors of academic scholarship. ACRL Publ. 78, 824–843. doi: 10.5860/crl.78.6.824

Tenopir, C., Dalton, E., Fish, A., Christian, L., Jones, M., and Smith, M. (2016). What motivates authors of scholarly articles? The importance of journal attributes and potential audience on publication choice. Publications 4:22. doi: 10.3390/publications4030022

Tenopir, C., Mays, R., and Wu, L. (2011). Journal article growth and reading patterns. N. Rev. Inform. Netw. 16, 4–22. doi: 10.1080/13614576.2011.566796

Wakeling, S., Spezi, V., Fry, J., Creaser, C., Pinfield, S., and Willett, P. (2019). Academic communities: the role of journals and open-access mega-journals in scholarly communication. J. Documen. 75, 120–139. doi: 10.1108/JD-05-2018-0067

Weingart, P. (2001). Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zur Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien. Weilerwist: Velbrück.

Zhu, Y. (2017). Who support Open Access publishing? Gender, discipline, seniority and other factors associated with academics' OA practice. Scientometrics 111, 557–579. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2316-z

Keywords: open access, science communication, attitudes, qualitative interviews, academic publishing

Citation: Greussing E, Kuballa S, Taddicken M, Schulze M, Mielke C and Haux R (2020) Drivers and Obstacles of Open Access Publishing. A Qualitative Investigation of Individual and Institutional Factors. Front. Commun. 5:587465. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2020.587465

Received: 26 July 2020; Accepted: 28 September 2020; Published: 26 October 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Greussing, Kuballa, Taddicken, Schulze, Mielke and Haux. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Esther Greussing, e.greussing@tu-braunschweig.de

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley Open Access Collection

How to do qualitative research?

Elaine denny.

1 Faculty of Health, Education and Life Sciences, Birmingham City University, Birmingham UK

Annalise Weckesser

Associated data.

Not applicable

Learning points

• The main methods used in qualitative research are interview, focus group and observation.
• Recruitment is purposive, or strategic, in that the aim is to achieve a sample that is relevant to the research question.
• Data are collected until saturation of themes and insights is reached.

Qualitative research begins with one or more relatively broad research questions that may be revised iteratively as the research is carried out to narrow the research aim or purpose. This is different from quantitative research, where a narrow research question is set at the start and remains fixed. For example, the aim of a study may be to explore the experiences of women who are pregnant while living with epilepsy. The initial research question may be ‘How do women with epilepsy experience pregnancy?’ However, from preliminary findings this may change to ‘How do women manage their epilepsy during pregnancy?’

There are three main methods used in qualitative research.

The first and most commonly used is interviewing. Semi‐structured interviews contain pre‐set, open‐ended questions, with further questions emerging from the discussion. Unstructured interviews cover a few issues in great depth, for example they can be used for life history narratives.

Focus groups are group discussions facilitated by a researcher, who will have guidelines to focus the group. Data collection consists of group interaction as well as discussion content. They can be stand alone, but more commonly are used to clarify or extend data collected by other methods.

Both interviews and focus groups tend to be flexible and non‐standardised, with greater interest in the participants' perspectives and experience than for quantitative research. However, it is important that flexibility does not result in asking leading questions.

Another method is observation, which is the act of watching social phenomena in real‐world settings, recording what people do, rather than what they profess to do. The observer may be part of the scene being observed (participant observation) or stand outside it (non‐participant).

Sampling for qualitative research tends to be purposive (that is recruitment on the basis of a shared experience that is relevant to the research question), convenience (based for example on accessibility or cost) or snowballing (where a few individuals from the target population will connect the researcher with their network). In the example above, women were purposefully recruited as pregnant, living with epilepsy and willing to be interviewed about how this impacted upon their lives (Weckesser & Denny. Soc Sci Med 2017:185;210–17).

The amount of data collected in qualitative research is not fixed or calculable, but continues until saturation is reached. That is, data are collected until emerging concepts have been explored and additional data are not producing fresh insights (Bryman. Social Research Methods , 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008). Generally speaking, the study sample size tends to be much smaller when compared with quantitative research.

Interviews and focus group discussions are usually audio‐recorded, with the consent of participants, and then transcribed verbatim. Written notes may also be made by the researcher for use in analysis. For the method of observation, extensive field notes are recorded during and after the event. Copious data are usually generated, which need to be organised for analysis, which is the focus of the next article in this series.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None declared. Completed disclosure of interests form available to view online as supporting information.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

Elaine Denny and Annalise Weckesser contributed equally to the paper.

USEFUL RESOURCES

Britten N. Qualitative research: qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ 1995;311:251–3.

Kitzinger J. Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ 1995;311:229.

Savage J. Participative observation: standing in the shoes of others? Qual Health Res 2000;3:324–39.

Supporting information

Appendix S1

Appendix S2

Denny E, Weckesser A. How to do qualitative research? . BJOG . 2022; 129 :1166–1167. 10.1111/1471-0528.17150 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

• Download PDF
• Share X Facebook Email LinkedIn
• Permissions

Negative Media Coverage as a Barrier to Accessing Care for Transgender Children and Adolescents

• 1 Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, Australia
• 2 Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
• 3 Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
• 4 Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
• Original Investigation Referrals to Child and Adolescent Gender Identity Clinics in Sweden Following Media Coverage Malin Indremo, MS; Anna Clara Jodensvi, MD; Hans Arinell, BSc; Johan Isaksson, PhD; Fotios C. Papadopoulos, PhD JAMA Network Open

The past decade has seen a marked increase in the visibility of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals within Western society. From press coverage of celebrities, such as Caitlyn Jenner, Elliot Page, and Chelsea Manning, to broader representation of fictional TGD characters within the mainstream media, public awareness and understanding of gender diversity have grown substantially. Many of these stories have helped to empower TGD people and to depathologize gender diversity. In our clinical experience, TGD individuals often identify media as a helpful source of information that can facilitate exploration of their identity and act as a trigger to seek assistance from health professionals. Consistent with the latter, we previously observed an association between increased TGD-related media coverage and higher numbers of young people presenting to specialist pediatric gender clinics. 1

However, recent years have also seen greater public discussion questioning the rights of TGD individuals to access public spaces (eg, toilets and changerooms) and to participate in certain occupations (eg, the military) and sporting activities, all of which has been echoed and amplified in the press. Similarly, there has been an increase in negative media coverage focused on clinics that specialize in the provision of gender-affirming health care to TGD children and adolescents. These reports have helped to stoke various concerns. For example, some have suggested that the growing number of referrals to such clinics is not owing to greater awareness of gender diversity and empowerment of TGD young people but is instead being driven by other factors such as peer influence, 2 while others have warned that the use of gender-affirming hormonal interventions in TGD young people represents an undue risk.

The study by Indremo and colleagues 3 highlights the potentially pernicious influence of such negative media coverage on TGD children and adolescents. In particular, the authors examined whether referral numbers to specialist pediatric gender clinics across Sweden changed after the airing of a controversial 2019 Swedish television documentary series that highlighted the recent increase in pediatric referral numbers, featured stories of young adults who came to regret the gender-affirming treatment they received as adolescents, and raised concerns about the scientific basis for such treatment. The documentary, which was subsequently criticized for its negative bias, led to widespread debate within the Swedish press and, as Indremo and colleagues 3 observed, was associated with a decrease in total referral numbers of children and adolescents by 31% over the subsequent 6 months. 3 Although the mechanisms underlying this decrease were not formally explored in their study, the authors reasonably speculated that both parents and referring health professionals may have been less likely to support a child or adolescent’s attendance at a specialist pediatric gender clinic following the documentary. 3

In this way, one of the critical outcomes associated with negative media coverage on TGD young people is likely to be reduced access to gender-affirming health care. Such care, which is recommended by leading professional organizations, such as the Endocrine Society 4 and the American Academy of Pediatrics, 5 is associated with improved mental health in a population that is known to be at high risk of developing mental health problems compared with their cisgender peers. 4 - 6 Therefore, by decreasing the number of young people referred for gender-affirming care, negative media coverage may result in worse mental health among a vulnerable group of society who already face numerous barriers and risks in accessing such care. 7

Negative media portrayals of TGD individuals are likely to be associated with other adverse consequences beyond simply reducing referral rates. First, TGD youth qualitatively report that negative news stories can directly harm their mental well-being by triggering feelings of depression, anxiety, and fear. 8 Consistent with this, more frequent exposure to negative TGD-related media has been associated with higher rates of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. 9 Second, negative media coverage may be associated with impairing access to treatment even among TGD young people who have already been referred to specialist clinical services. For example, with media reports undermining parental support for gender affirming care, some TGD young people may find themselves lacking the consent of their parents to commence hormonal treatment even though it has been recommended by their treating health professionals. After all, parental consent is required for initiation of hormonal treatment not only in TGD young people not yet mature or old enough to legally consent for themselves, but is also mandatory in some jurisdictions for any transgender or gender diverse individual younger than 18 years. 10 Third, it is clear that some TGD youth, when faced with difficulties accessing gender-affirming care from health professionals, may take matters into their own hands to self-initiate hormone treatment (eg, after sourcing hormones via the internet or from unlicensed or illegal sources). 7 Lacking appropriate medical oversight, such self-medication practices are dangerous and further increase the risk of harm. Last but not least, media that question the legitimacy of gender diversity or depict TGD identities as inherently pathological may contribute to disbelief and mistrust of TGD individuals within broader society and thus perpetuate the transphobia that still plagues the lives of TGD people worldwide. This transphobia may manifest as family rejection, social exclusion, discrimination, bullying, and violence, all of which contribute to poorer health and well-being.

Looking ahead, the work by Indremo and colleagues 3 raises important questions that could be addressed by future studies. For example, while their research focused on the outcomes associated with a Swedish documentary series, it would be helpful to examine whether similar media coverage in other countries has been associated with similar decreases in referral numbers and whether particular types of media stories are more prone to having this association. At the same time, it is unclear whether the apparent outcome associated with the Swedish documentary was to temporarily delay individual referrals or permanently suppress them altogether. Finally, social media is obviously a key source of information (and misinformation) for many individuals nowadays, and examining the associations of negative (and positive) social media with referral rates would also be important.

Finally, it is worth highlighting the role and responsibility of media organizations in ensuring that stories depicting health care for TGD young people are fair, balanced, nuanced, and accurate. Too often, reporting in this sphere has fallen short of these standards and lacked the voices of TGD young people who have benefitted from gender-affirming care or the perspectives of health professionals with expertise in providing such care. Perhaps this is understandable, given the myriad stories competing for audiences’ attention across various media platforms and the apparent need to maximize views, clicks, and likes via sensationalist reporting. However, when it comes to reporting that pertains to the health of TGD young people, who are, after all, one of the most vulnerable subgroups within our society, perhaps our media should recall one of the core tenets of health care and ensure their stories ‘First, do no harm.’

Published: February 2, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38623

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License . © 2022 Pang KC et al. JAMA Network Open .

Corresponding Author: Ken C. Pang, PhD, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, 50 Flemington Rd, Parkville, VIC, Australia ( [email protected] ).

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Pang also reported being a member of the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health and its research committee. Dr Steensma reported being a member of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

See More About

Pang KC , Hoq M , Steensma TD. Negative Media Coverage as a Barrier to Accessing Care for Transgender Children and Adolescents. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(2):e2138623. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38623

Manage citations:

© 2024

Select Your Interests

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Get the latest research based on your areas of interest.

Others also liked.

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

• You are here:
• American Chemical Society
• Discover Chemistry
• News Releases

ACS Publications and French consortium together support open access publishing

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON, June 21, 2024 — The Publications Division of the American Chemical Society (ACS) is pleased to announce it has signed a memorandum of understanding with Couperin, an academic consortium representing more than 250 universities and other educational and research institutions across France. This memorandum lays the groundwork for a new agreement covering ACS’ portfolio of hybrid journals, which combine open access (OA) and subscription-access content. 

The agreement is the first of its kind between ACS Publications and an academic consortium. In addition to granting participating institutions within the Couperin consortium full reading access to ACS journals, upon commencement the agreement will also provide authors with support for zero-embargo green OA (ZEGOA). This means that eligible corresponding authors at these institutions will be able to immediately self-archive their accepted manuscript in the repository of their choice for their articles published within ACS’ hybrid journals.  

“We're delighted to lay the groundwork for this trailblazing agreement, which has been developed in close partnership with Couperin to meet the most pressing needs of authors in France,” says ACS Publications President James Milne. “As more research funders and institutions encourage or require researchers to self-archive their accepted manuscripts, agreements of this kind will become increasingly important — and by including access to subscription content, faculty and students also benefit from unfettered access to the latest trusted research in chemistry.” 

Subject to completion of French public market procedures, the agreement between Couperin and ACS Publications is expected to commence the middle of this year and run through the end of 2026. 

The American Chemical Society (ACS) is a nonprofit organization chartered by the U.S. Congress. ACS’ mission is to advance the broader chemistry enterprise and its practitioners for the benefit of Earth and all its people. The Society is a global leader in promoting excellence in science education and providing access to chemistry-related information and research through its multiple research solutions, peer-reviewed journals, scientific conferences, eBooks and weekly news periodical Chemical & Engineering News . ACS journals are among the most cited, most trusted and most read within the scientific literature; however, ACS itself does not conduct chemical research. As a leader in scientific information solutions, its CAS division partners with global innovators to accelerate breakthroughs by curating, connecting and analyzing the world’s scientific knowledge. ACS’ main offices are in Washington, D.C., and Columbus, Ohio.

The Couperin Consortium is an association of French higher education and research establishments that aims to develop access to scientific and technical information for the scientific community, by facilitating national negotiations on digital documentary resources and supporting open science. 

To automatically receive press releases from the American Chemical Society, contact newsroom@acs.org .

Note: ACS does not conduct research, but publishes and publicizes peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Media Contact

ACS Newsroom newsroom@acs.org

Accept & Close The ACS takes your privacy seriously as it relates to cookies. We use cookies to remember users, better understand ways to serve them, improve our value proposition, and optimize their experience. Learn more about managing your cookies at Cookies Policy .

1155 Sixteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA |  service@acs.org  | 1-800-333-9511 (US and Canada) | 614-447-3776 (outside North America)

• Terms of Use
• Accessibility

Copyright © 2024 American Chemical Society