Fig 1.
Responses to the survey over time (8th September to 7th October 2016).
Fig 2.
Responses by discipline (HSS disciplines clustered).
Table 1.
Responses by discipline.
Fig 3.
Experiences with OPR by role.
Fig 4.
Experiences with OPR—science, technology and medicine (STM) vs. Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS).
Fig 5.
Levels of experience with OPR as author and/or reviewer.
Table 2.
Level of experience with OPR as author and/or reviewer.
Fig 6.
Overall satisfaction with peer review: Ware (2016, n = 2004) vs. OpenAIRE study (2016, n = 3001).
Table 3.
Overall satisfaction with peer review: Ware (2016, n = 2004) vs. OpenAIRE study (2016, n = 3001).
Fig 7.
General attitudes towards aspects of open science.
Table 4.
Contingency table of attitudes to open access to publications vs. open access to research data.
Table 5.
Contingency table of attitudes to open access to publications vs. OPR.
Table 6.
Contingency table of attitudes to open access to research data vs. OPR.
Fig 8.
“Will”X”make peer review better, worse, or have no effect?”.
Table 7.
Responses to statements on how peer review might be modified (sdv = standard deviation).
Fig 9.
Attitudes towards open identities.
Fig 10.
Attitudes to open reports.
Fig 11.
Attitudes to open participation.
Fig 12.
Attitudes towards other OPR traits.
Fig 13.
Degree of satisfaction with the peer review system across scientific disciplines.
Fig 14.
Views on OPR by scientific discipline.
Fig 15.
Responses by discipline regarding perceptions of reviewer’s willingness to review for journals which make reviewer identities open.
Fig 16.
Views by age group on whether OPR should be common scholarly practice.
Fig 17.
Comments on OPR–summarized sentiments.