Open access

Last updated
Open access logo, originally designed by Public Library of Science Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
Open access logo, originally designed by Public Library of Science

Open access (OA) is a mechanism by which research outputs are distributed online, free of cost or other access barriers. [1] With open access strictly defined (according to the 2001 definition), or libre open access, barriers to copying or reuse are also reduced or removed by applying an open license for copyright. [1]

Contents

The main focus of the open access movement is "peer reviewed research literature." [2] Historically, this has centered mainly on print-based academic journals. Conventional (non-open access) journals cover publishing costs through access tolls such as subscriptions, site licenses or pay-per-view charges. Open access can be applied to all forms of published research output, including peer-reviewed and non peer-reviewed academic journal articles, conference papers, theses, [3] book chapters, [1] and monographs. [4]

History

OA by year.png
The number and proportion of open access articles split between Gold, Green, Hybrid, Bronze and closed access (from 1950 - 2016). [5]
OA by subject.png
Ratios of article access types for different subjects (averaged 2009 - 2015). [5]

Extent

Various studies have investigated the extent of open access. A study published in 2010 showed that roughly 20% of the total number of peer-reviewed articles published in 2008 could be found openly accessible. [6] Another study found that by 2010, 7.9% of all academic journals with impact factors were gold open access journals and showed a broad distribution of Gold Open Access journals throughout academic disciplines. [7] A study of random journals from the citations indexes AHSCI, SCI and SSCI in 2013 came to the result that 88% of the journals were closed access and 12% were open access. [8] In August 2013, a study done for the European Commission reported that 50% of a random sample of all articles published in 2011 as indexed by Scopus were freely accessible online by the end of 2012. [9] [10] [11] A 2017 study by the Max Planck Society put the share of gold access articles in pure open access journals at around 13 percent of total research papers. [12]

In 2009, there were approximately 4,800 active open access journals, publishing around 190,000 articles. [13] As of February 2019, over 12,500 open access journals are listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals. [14]

Walt Crawford's report on Gold Open Access 2013-2018 (GOA4) found that in 2018 over 700,000 articles were published in gold open access in the world, of which 42% was in journals with no author-paid fees. The figure varies significantly depending on region and kind of publisher: 75% if university-run, over 80% in Latin America, but less than 25% in Western Europe. [15] However, Crawford's study did not count open access articles published in "hybrid" journals (subscription journals that allow authors to make their individual articles open in return for payment of a fee). More comprehensive analyses of the scholarly literature suggest that this resulted in a significant underestimation of the prevalence of author-fee-funded OA publications in the literature. [16] Crawford's study also found that although a minority of open access journals impose charges on authors, a growing majority of open access articles are published under this arrangement, particularly in the science disciplines (thanks to the enormous output of open access "mega journals," each of which may publish tens of thousands of articles in a year and are invariably funded by author-side charges—see Figure 10.1 in GOA4).

The Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR) indexes the creation, location and growth of open access open access repositories and their contents. [17] As of February 2019, over 4,500 institutional and cross-institutional repositories have been registered in ROAR. [18]

Definitions

There are a number of variants of open access publishing and different publishers may use one or more of these variants.

Colour naming system

Different open access types are currently commonly described using a colour system. The most commonly recognised names are "green", "gold", and "hybrid" open access; however a number of others terms are also used for additional models.

Gold OA

DOAJ growth.png
Number of Gold open access journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals. [19] [20]
PMC growth.png
Number of Gold and Hybrid open access journals listed in PubMed Central. [21] [22]

In the gold OA model, the publisher makes all articles and related content available for free immediately on the journal's website. In such publications, articles are licensed for sharing and reuse via creative commons licenses or similar. [1]

Green OA

Self-archiving by authors is permitted under green OA. The author posts the work to a website controlled by the author, the research institution that funded or hosted the work, or to an independent central open repository. [23]

If the author posts the near-final version of their work after peer review by a journal, the archived version is called a "postprint". This can be the accepted manuscript as returned by the journal to the author after successful peer review.

Hybrid OA

Hybrid open access journals, contain a mixture of open access articles and closed access articles. [24] [25] A publisher following this model is partially funded by subscriptions, and only provide open access for those individual articles for which the authors (or research sponsor) pay a publication fee. [26]

Bronze OA

Bronze open access articles are free to read on the publisher page, but lack a clearly identifiable license; [27] Such articles may not be available for reuse.

Diamond/platinum OA

Journals which publish open access without charging authors article processing charges are sometimes referred to as diamond [8] [28] or platinum [29] [30] OA. Since they do not charge either readers or authors directly, such publishers often require funding from external sources such as academic institutions, learned societies, philanthropists or government grants. [31] [32] [33]

Black OA

Download rate for articles on Sci-Hub (black open access). Sci-hub downloads.png
Download rate for articles on Sci-Hub (black open access).

The growth of unauthorized digital copying by large-scale copyright infringement has enabled free access to paywalled literature. [35] [36] In some ways this is a large-scale technical implementation of pre-existing practice, whereby those with access to paywalled literature would share copies with their contacts including. [37] [38] [39] [40] However the increased ease and scale from 2010 onwards have changed how many people treat subscription publications. [41]

Gratis and libre

Similar to the free content definition, the terms 'gratis' and 'libre' were used in the BOAI definition to distinguish between free to read versus free to reuse. [42] Gratis open access refers to online access free of charge ("free as in beer"), and libre open access refers to online access free of charge plus some additional re-use rights ("free as in freedom"). [42] Libre open access covers the kinds of open access defined in the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. The re-use rights of libre OA are often specified by various specific Creative Commons licenses; [43] almost all of these require attribution of authorship to the original authors. [42] [44] In 2012, the number of works under libre open access was considered to have been rapidly increasing for a few years, though most open access mandates did not enforce any copyright license and it was difficult to publish libre gold OA in legacy journals. [2] However, there are no costs nor restrictions for green libre OA as preprints can be freely self-deposited with a free license, and most open access repositories use Creative Commons licenses to allow reuse. [45]

FAIR

FAIR is an acronym for 'Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reuseable', intended to more clearly define what is meant by the term 'open access' and make the concept easier to discuss. [46] [47] Initially proposed in March 2016, it has subsequently been endorsed by organisations such as the European commission and the G20. [48] [49]

Features

The emergence of open science or open research has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly-debated topics.

Scholarly publishing invokes various positions and passions. For example, authors may spend hours struggling with diverse article submission systems, often converting document formatting between a multitude of journal and conference styles, and sometimes spend months waiting for peer review results. The drawn-out and often contentious societal and technological transition to Open Access and Open Science/Open Research, particularly across North America and Europe (Latin America has already widely adopted "Acceso Abierto" since before 2000 [50] ) has led to increasingly entrenched positions and much debate.

The area of (open) scholarly practices increasingly see a role for policy-makers and research funders [51] [52] [53] giving focus to issues such as career incentives, research evaluation and business models for publicly funded research. Plan S and AmeliCA [54] (Open Knowledge for Latin America) caused a wave of debate in scholarly communication around 2019. [55]

Licenses

Licenses used by gold and hybrid OA journals in DOAJ. DOAJ licenses.png
Licenses used by gold and hybrid OA journals in DOAJ.

Subscription-based publishing typically requires transfer of copyright from authors to the publisher so that the latter can monetise the process via dissemination and reproduction of the work. [57] [58] [59] [60] With OA publishing, typically authors retain copyright to their work, and license its reproduction to the publisher. [61] Retention of copyright by authors can support academic freedoms by enabling greater control of the work (e.g. for image re-use) or licensing agreements (e.g. to allow dissemination by others). [62]

The most commons licenses used in open access publishing are Creative Commons. [63] The widely used CC BY license is one of the most permissive, only requiring attribution to be allowed to use the material (and allowing derivations, commercial use). [64] A range of more restrictive creative commons licenses are also used. More rarely, some of the smaller academic journals use custom open access licenses. [63] [65] Some publishers (e.g. Elsevier) use "author nominal copyright" for OA articles, where the author retains copyright in name only and all rights are transferred to the publisher. [66] [67]

Funding

Since open access publication does not charge readers, there are many financial models used to cover costs by other means. [68] Open access can be provided by commercial publishers, who may publish open access as well as subscription-based journals, or dedicated open-access publishers such as Public Library of Science (PLOS) and BioMed Central.

Advantages and disadvantages of open access have generated considerable discussion amongst researchers, academics, librarians, university administrators, funding agencies, government officials, commercial publishers, editorial staff and society publishers. [69] Reactions of existing publishers to open access journal publishing have ranged from moving with enthusiasm to a new open access business model, to experiments with providing as much free or open access as possible, to active lobbying against open access proposals. There are many publishers that started up as open access-only publishers, such as PLOS, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Frontiers in... journals, MDPI and BioMed Central.

Article processing charges

Article processing charges by gold OA journals in DOAJ. name=Khing Phyo San>DOAJ. "Journal metadata". doaj.org. Retrieved 2019-05-18.
.mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:"\"""\"""'""'"}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
</ref> DOAJ APCs.png
Article processing charges by gold OA journals in DOAJ. name=Khing Phyo San>DOAJ. "Journal metadata". doaj.org. Retrieved 2019-05-18.</ref>

Some open access journals (under the gold, and hybrid models) generate revenue by charging publication fees in order to make the work openly available at the time of publication. [70] [8] [28] The money might come from the author but more often comes from the author's research grant or employer. [71] While the payments are typically incurred per article published (e.g. BMC or PLOS journals), some journals apply them per manuscript submitted (e.g. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics until recently) or per author (e.g. PeerJ).

Charges typically range from $1000–2000 [15] [56] but can be under $10 [72] or over $5000. [73] APCs vary greatly depending on subject and region and are most common in scientific and medical journals (43% and 47% respectively), and lowest in arts and humanities journals (0% and 4% respectively). [74] APCs also can also depend on a journal's impact factor. [75] [76] [77] [78] Some publishers (e.g. eLife and Ubiquity Press) have released estimates of their direct and indirect costs that set their APCs. [79] [80] Hybrid OA generally costs more than gold OA and can offer a lower quality of service. [81] A particularly controversial practice in hybrid open access journals is "double dipping", where both authors and subscribers are charged. [82]

By comparison, journal subscriptions equate to $3,500–$4,000 per article published by an institution, but are highly variable by publisher (and some charge page fees separately). [83] [ failed verification ] This has led to the assessment that there is enough money "within the system" to enable full transition to OA. [83] However, there is ongoing discussion about whether the change-over offers an opportunity to become more cost-effective or promotes more equitable participation in publication. [84] Concern has been noted that increasing subscription journal prices will be mirrored by rising APCs, creating a barrier to less financial privileged authors. [85] [86] [87] Some gold OA publishers will waive all or part of the fee for authors from less developed economies. Steps are normally taken to ensure that peer reviewers do not know whether authors have requested, or been granted, fee waivers, or to ensure that every paper is approved by an independent editor with no financial stake in the journal.[ citation needed ] The main argument against requiring authors to pay a fee, is the risk to the peer review system, diminishing the overall quality of scientific journal publishing.[ citation needed ]

Subsidized or no-fee

No-fee open access journals, also known as "platinum" or "diamond" [8] [28] do not charge either readers or authors. [88] These journals use a variety of business models including subsidies, advertising, membership dues, endowments, or volunteer labour. [89] [84] Subsidising sources range from universities, libraries and museums to foundations, societies or government agencies. [89] Some publishers may cross-subsidise from other publications or auxiliary services and products. [89] For example, most APC-free journals in Latin America are funded by higher education institutions and are not conditional on institutional affiliation for publication. [84] Conversely, Knowledge Unlatched crowdsources funding in order to make monographs available open access. [90]

Estimates of prevalence vary, but approximately 10,000 journals without APC are listed in DOAJ [91] and the Free Journal Network. [92] [93] APC-free journals tend to be smaller and more local-regional in scope. [94] [95] Some also require submitting authors to have a particular institutional affiliation. [94]

Preprint use

A "preprint" is typically a version of a research paper that is shared on an online platform prior to, or during, a formal peer review process. [96] [97] [98] Preprint platforms have become popular due to the increasing drive towards open access publishing and can be publisher- or community-led. A range of discipline-specific or cross-domain platforms now exist. [99]

Effect of preprints on later publication

A persistent concern surrounding preprints is that work may be at risk of being plagiarised or "scooped" - meaning that the same or similar research will be published by others without proper attribution to the original source - if publicly available but not yet associated with a stamp of approval from peer reviewers and traditional journals. [100] These concerns are often amplified as competition increases for academic jobs and funding, and perceived to be particularly problematic for early-career researchers and other higher-risk demographics within academia.

However, preprints in fact protect against scooping. [101] Considering the differences between traditional peer-review based publishing models and deposition of an article on a preprint server, "scooping" is less likely for manuscripts first submitted as preprints. In a traditional publishing scenario, the time from manuscript submission to acceptance and to final publication can range from a few weeks to years, and go through several rounds of revision and resubmission before final publication. [102] During this time, the same work will have been extensively discussed with external collaborators, presented at conferences, and been read by editors and reviewers in related areas of research. Yet, there is no official open record of that process (e.g., peer reviewers are normally anonymous, reports remain largely unpublished), and if an identical or very similar paper were to be published while the original was still under review, it would be impossible to establish provenance.

Preprints provide a time-stamp at the time of publication, which helps to establish the "priority of discovery" for scientific claims (Vale and Hyman 2016). This means that a preprint can act as proof of provenance for research ideas, data, code, models, and results. [103] The fact that the majority of preprints come with a form of permanent identifier, usually a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), also makes them easy to cite and track. Thus, if one were to be "scooped" without adequate acknowledgement, this would be a case of academic misconduct and plagiarism, and could be pursued as such.

There is no evidence that "scooping" of research via preprints exists, not even in communities that have broadly adopted the use of the arXiv server for sharing preprints since 1991. If the unlikely case of scooping emerges as the growth of the preprint system continues, it can be dealt with as academic malpractice. ASAPbio includes a series of hypothetical scooping scenarios as part of its preprint FAQ, finding that the overall benefits of using preprints vastly outweigh any potential issues around scooping. [note 1] Indeed, the benefits of preprints, especially for early-career researchers, seem to outweigh any perceived risk: rapid sharing of academic research, open access without author-facing charges, establishing priority of discoveries, receiving wider feedback in parallel with or before peer review, and facilitating wider collaborations. [101]

Archiving

The "green" route to OA refers to author self-archiving, in which a version of the article (often the peer-reviewed version before editorial typesetting, called "postprint") is posted online to an institutional and/or subject repository. This route is often dependent on journal or publisher policies, [note 2] which can be more restrictive and complicated than respective "gold" policies regarding deposit location, license, and embargo requirements. Some publishers require an embargo period before deposition in public repositories, [104] arguing that immediate self-archiving risks loss of subscription income.

Embargo periods

Length of embargo times for bronze Elsevier journals. Elsevier Embargo lengths.png
Length of embargo times for bronze Elsevier journals.

Embargoes are imposed by between 20-40% of journals, [106] [107] during which time an article is paywalled before permitting self-archiving (green OA) or releasing a free-to-read version (bronze OA). [108] [109] Embargo periods typically vary from 6–12 months in STEM and >12 months in humanities, arts and social sciences). [84] Embargo-free self-archiving has not been shown to affect subscription revenue, [110] and tends to increase readership and citations. [111] [112] Embargoes have been lifted on particular topics for either limited times or ongoing (e.g. Zika outbreaks [113] or indigenous health [114] ). Plan S includes zero-length embargoes on self-archiving as a key principle. [84]

Motivations

Open access (mostly green and gratis) began to be sought and provided worldwide by researchers when the possibility itself was opened by the advent of Internet and the World Wide Web. The momentum was further increased by a growing movement for academic journal publishing reform, and with it gold and libre OA.

The premises behind open access publishing are that there are viable funding models to maintain traditional peer review standards of quality while also making the following changes:

An obvious advantage of open access journals is the free access to scientific papers regardless of affiliation with a subscribing library and improved access for the general public; this is especially true in developing countries. Lower costs for research in academia and industry have been claimed in the Budapest Open Access Initiative, [116] although others have argued that OA may raise the total cost of publication, [117] and further increase economic incentives for exploitation in academic publishing. [118] The open access movement is motivated by the problems of social inequality caused by restricting access to academic research, which favor large and wealthy institutions with the financial means to purchase access to many journals, as well as the economic challenges and perceived unsustainability of academic publishing. [115] [119]

Stakeholders and concerned communities

The intended audience of research articles is usually other researchers. Open access helps researchers as readers by opening up access to articles that their libraries do not subscribe to. One of the great beneficiaries of open access may be users in developing countries, where currently some universities find it difficult to pay for subscriptions required to access the most recent journals. [120] Some schemes exist for providing subscription scientific publications to those affiliated to institutions in developing countries at little or no cost. [121] All researchers benefit from open access as no library can afford to subscribe to every scientific journal and most can only afford a small fraction of them – this is known as the "serials crisis". [122]

Open access extends the reach of research beyond its immediate academic circle. An open access article can be read by anyone – a professional in the field, a researcher in another field, a journalist, a politician or civil servant, or an interested layperson. Indeed, a 2008 study revealed that mental health professionals are roughly twice as likely to read a relevant article if it is freely available. [123]

Research funders and universities

Research funding agencies and universities want to ensure that the research they fund and support in various ways has the greatest possible research impact. [124] As a means of achieving this, research funders are beginning to expect open access to the research they support. Many of them (including all UK Research Councils) have already adopted open access mandates, and others are on the way to do so (see ROARMAP).

In the US, the 2008 NIH Public Access Policy, an open access mandate was put into law, and required that research papers describing research funded by the National Institutes of Health must be available to the public free through PubMed Central (PMC) within 12 months of publication.

Universities

A growing number of universities are providing institutional repositories in which their researchers can deposit their published articles. Some open access advocates believe that institutional repositories will play a very important role in responding to open access mandates from funders. [125]

In May 2005, 16 major Dutch universities cooperatively launched DAREnet, the Digital Academic Repositories, making over 47,000 research papers available. [126] From 2 June 2008, DAREnet has been incorporated into the scholarly portal NARCIS. [127] By 2019, NARCIS provided access to 360,000 open access publications from all Dutch universities, KNAW, NWO and a number of scientific institutes. [128]

In 2011, a group of universities in North America formed the Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI). [129] Starting with 21 institutions where the faculty had either established an open access policy or were in the process of implementing one, COAPI now has nearly 50 members. These institutions' administrators, faculty and librarians, and staff support the international work of the Coalition's awareness-raising and advocacy for open access.

In 2012, the Harvard Open Access Project released its guide to good practices for university open-access policies, [130] focusing on rights-retention policies that allow universities to distribute faculty research without seeking permission from publishers. Rights retention is currently being explored in the UK by UKSCL. [131]

In 2013 a group of nine Australian universities formed the Australian Open Access Strategy Group (AOASG) to advocate, collaborate, raise awareness, and lead and build capacity in the open access space in Australia. [132] In 2015, the group expanded to include all eight New Zealand universities and was renamed the Australasian Open Access Support Group. [133] It was then renamed the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group, highlighting its emphasis on strategy. The awareness raising activities of the AOASG include presentations, workshops, blogs, and a webinar series on open access issues. [134]

Libraries and librarians

As information professionals, librarians are often vocal and active advocates of open access. These librarians believe that open access promises to remove both the price barriers and the permission barriers that undermine library efforts to provide access to the scholarly record, [135] as well as helping to address the serials crisis. Many library associations have either signed major open access declarations, or created their own. For example, IFLA have produced a Statement on Open Access. [136]

Librarians also lead education and outreach initiatives to faculty, administrators, and others about the benefits of open access. For example, the Association of College and Research Libraries of the American Library Association has developed a Scholarly Communications Toolkit. [137] The Association of Research Libraries has documented the need for increased access to scholarly information, and was a leading founder of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC). [138] [139]

At most universities, the library manages the institutional repository, which provides free access to scholarly work by the university's faculty. The Canadian Association of Research Libraries has a program [140] to develop institutional repositories at all Canadian university libraries.

An increasing number of libraries provide publishing or hosting services for open access journals, with the Library Publishing Coalition as a membership organisation. [141]

In 2013, open access activist Aaron Swartz was posthumously awarded the American Library Association's James Madison Award for being an "outspoken advocate for public participation in government and unrestricted access to peer-reviewed scholarly articles". [142] [143] In March 2013, the entire editorial board and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Library Administration resigned en masse, citing a dispute with the journal's publisher. [144] One board member wrote of a "crisis of conscience about publishing in a journal that was not open access" after the death of Aaron Swartz. [145] [146]

The pioneer of the open access movement in France and one of the first librarians to advocate the self-archiving approach to open access worldwide is Hélène Bosc. [147] Her work is described in her "15-year retrospective". [148]

Public

Open access to scholarly research is argued to be important to the public for a number of reasons. One of the arguments for public access to the scholarly literature is that most of the research is paid for by taxpayers through government grants, who therefore have a right to access the results of what they have funded. This is one of the primary reasons for the creation of advocacy groups such as The Alliance for Taxpayer Access in the US. [149] Examples of people who might wish to read scholarly literature include individuals with medical conditions (or family members of such individuals) and serious hobbyists or 'amateur' scholars who may be interested in specialized scientific literature (e.g. amateur astronomers). Additionally, professionals in many fields may be interested in continuing education in the research literature of their field, and many businesses and academic institutions cannot afford to purchase articles from or subscriptions to much of the research literature that is published under a toll access model.

Even those who do not read scholarly articles benefit indirectly from open access. [150] For example, patients benefit when their doctor and other health care professionals have access to the latest research. As argued by open access advocates, open access speeds research progress, productivity, and knowledge translation. [151] Every researcher in the world can read an article, not just those whose library can afford to subscribe to the particular journal in which it appears. Faster discoveries benefit everyone. High school and junior college students can gain the information literacy skills critical for the knowledge age. Critics of the various open access initiatives claim that there is little evidence that a significant amount of scientific literature is currently unavailable to those who would benefit from it. [152] While no library has subscriptions to every journal that might be of benefit, virtually all published research can be acquired via interlibrary loan. [153] Note that interlibrary loan may take a day or weeks depending on the loaning library and whether they will scan and email, or mail the article. Open access online, by contrast is faster, often immediate, making it more suitable than interlibrary loan for fast-paced research.

Low-income countries

In developing nations, open access archiving and publishing acquires a unique importance. Scientists, health care professionals, and institutions in developing nations often do not have the capital necessary to access scholarly literature, although schemes exist to give them access for little or no cost. Among the most important is HINARI, [154] the Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative, sponsored by the World Health Organization. HINARI, however, also has restrictions. For example, individual researchers may not register as users unless their institution has access, [155] and several countries that one might expect to have access do not have access at all (not even "low-cost" access) (e.g. South Africa). [155]

Many open access projects involve international collaboration. For example, the SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), [156] is a comprehensive approach to full open access journal publishing, involving a number of Latin American countries. Bioline International, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping publishers in developing countries is a collaboration of people in the UK, Canada, and Brazil; the Bioline International Software is used around the world. Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), is a collaborative effort of over 100 volunteers in 45 countries. The Public Knowledge Project in Canada developed the open-source publishing software Open Journal Systems (OJS), which is now in use around the world, for example by the African Journals Online group, and one of the most active development groups is Portuguese. This international perspective has resulted in advocacy for the development of open-source appropriate technology and the necessary open access to relevant information for sustainable development. [157] [158]

Effects on scholarly publishing

Article impact

Comparison of OA publications to non-OA publications for academic citations (n=44), HTML views (n=4), PDF downloads (n=3), twitter (n=2), Wikipedia (n=1). Open accecss citation advantage.png
Comparison of OA publications to non-OA publications for academic citations (n=44), HTML views (n=4), PDF downloads (n=3), twitter (n=2), Wikipedia (n=1).

Since published articles report on research that is typically funded by government or university grants, the more the article is used, cited, applied and built upon, the better for research as well as for the researcher's career. [165] [166]

Some professional organizations have encouraged use of open access: in 2001, the International Mathematical Union communicated to its members that "Open access to the mathematical literature is an important goal" and encouraged them to "[make] available electronically as much of our own work as feasible" to "[enlarge] the reservoir of freely available primary mathematical material, particularly helping scientists working without adequate library access". [167]

Readership

OA articles are generally viewed online and downloaded more often than paywalled articles and that readership continues for longer. [168] [169] Readership is especially higher in demographics that typically lack access to subscription journals (in addition to the general population, this includes many medical practitioners, patient groups, policymakers, non-profit sector workers, industry researchers, and independent researchers). [170] OA articles are more read on publication management programs such as Mendelay. [164] Open access practices can reduce publication delays, an obstacle which led some research fields such as high-energy physics to adopt widespread preprint access. [171]

Citation rate

Authors may use form language like this to request an open access license when submitting their work to a publisher Open access addendum for authors to publishers.pdf
Authors may use form language like this to request an open access license when submitting their work to a publisher
A 2013 interview on paywalls and open access with NIH Director Francis Collins and inventor Jack Andraka

A main reason authors make their articles openly accessible is to maximize their citation impact. [172] Open access articles typically are typically cited more often than equivalent articles requiring subscriptions. [2] [173] [174] [175] This 'citation advantage' was first reported in 2001. [176] Two major studies dispute this claim, [177] [169] however the consensus of multiple studies support the effect, [159] [178] with measured OA citation advantage varying in magnitude between 1.3-fold to 6-fold depending on discipline. [175] [179]

Citation advantage is most pronounced in OA articles in hybrid journals (compared to the non-OA articles in those same journals), [180] and with articles deposited in green OA repositories. [6] Articles in gold OA journals are typically cited a similar at a similar frequency to paywalled articles. [181] Citation advantage increases the longer an article has been published. [168]

Alt-metrics

In addition to format academic citation, other forms of research impact (altmetrics) may be affected by OA publishing, [170] constituting a significant "amplifier" effect for science published on such platforms. [182] Initial studies suggest that OA articles are more referenced in blogs, [183] on twitter, [164] and on English Wikipedia. [182] The OA advantage in altmetrics may be smaller than the advantage in academic citations. [184]

Journal impact factor

Journal impact factor (JIF) measures the average number of citations of articles in a journal over a 2-year window. It is commonly used as a proxy for journal quality, expected research impact for articles submitted to that journal, and of researcher success. [185] [186] In subscription journals, impact factor correlates with overall citation count, however this correlation is not observed in gold OA journals. [187]

Open access initiatives like Plan S typically call on a broader adoption and implementation of the Leiden Manifesto [note 3] and the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) alongside fundamental changes in the scholarly communication system. [note 4]

Peer review processes

Peer review of research articles prior to publishing has been common since the 18th century. [188] [189] Commonly reviewer comments are only revealed to the authors and reviewer identities kept anonymous. [190] [191] The rise of OA publishing has also given rise to experimentation in technologies and processes for peer review. [192] Increasing transparency of peer review and quality control includes posting results to preprint servers, [193] preregistration of studies, [194] open publishing of peer reviews, [195] open publishing of full datasets and analysis code, [196] [197] and other open science practices. [198] [199] [200] It is proposed that increased transparency of academic quality control processes makes audit of the academic record easier. [195] [201] Additionally, the rise of OA megajournals has made it viable for their peer review to focus solely on methodology and results interpretation whilst ignoring novelty. [202] [203] [203] Major criticisms of the influence of OA on peer review have included that if OA journals have incentives to publish as many articles as possible then peer review standards may fall (as aspect of predatory publishing), increased use of preprints may populate the academic corpus with un-reviewed junk and propaganda, and that reviewers may self-censor if their identity of open. Some advocates propose that readers will have increased skepticism of preprint studies - a traditional hallmark of scientific inquiry. [84]

Predatory publishing

Predatory publishers present themselves as academic journals but use lax or no peer review processes coupled with aggressive advertising in order to generate revenue from article processing charges from authors. In this way, predatory journals exploit the OA model by deceptively removing the main value added by the journal (peer review) and parasitize the OA movement, occasionally hijacking or impersonating other journals. [204] [205] The rise of such journals since 2010 [206] [207] has damaged the reputation of the OA publishing model as a whole, especially via sting operations where fake papers have been successfully published in such journals. [208] Although commonly associated with OA publishing models, subscription journals are also at risk of similar lax quality control standards and poor editorial policies. [209] [210] [211] OA publishers therefore aim to ensure quality via auditing by registries such as DOAJ and SciELO and comply to a standardised set of conditions. A blacklist of predatory publishers is also maintained by Cabell's blacklist (a successor to Beall's List). [212] [213] Increased transparency of the peer review and publication process has been proposed as a way to combat predatory journal practices. [84] [195] [214]

Infrastructure

Number of open access repositories listed in the Registry of Open Access Repositories. ROAR growth.png
Number of open access repositories listed in the Registry of Open Access Repositories.

Databases and repositories

Multiple databases exist for open access articles, journals and datasets. These databases overlap, however each has different inclusion criteria, which typically include extensive vetting for journal publication practices, editorial boards and ethics statements. The main databases of open access articles and journals are DOAJ and PMC. In the case of DOAJ, only fully gold open access journals are included, whereas PMC also hosts articles from hybrid journals.

There are also a number of preprint servers which host articles that have not yet been reviewed as open access copies. [216] [217] These articles are subsequently submitted for peer review by both open access or subscription journals, however the preprint always remains openly accessible. A list of preprint servers is maintained at ResearchPreprints. [218]

For articles that are published in closed access journals, some authors will deposit a postprint copy in an open access repository, where it can be accessed for free. [219] [220] [221] [17] [222] Most subscription journals place restrictions on which version of the work may be shared and/or require an embargo period following the original date of publication. What is deposited can therefore vary, either a preprint or the peer-reviewed postprint, either the author's refereed and revised final draft or the publisher's version of record, either immediately deposited or after several years. [223] Repositories may be specific to an institution, a discipline (e.g.arXiv), a scholarly society (e.g. MLA's CORE Repository), or a funder (e.g. PMC). Although the practice was first formally proposed in 1994, [224] [225] self-archiving was already being practiced by some computer scientists in local FTP archives in the 1980s (later harvested by CiteSeer). [226] The SHERPA/RoMEO site maintains a list of the different publisher copyright and self-archiving policies [227] and the ROAR database hosts an index of the repositories themselves. [228] [229]

Representativeness of proprietary databases

Uneven coverage of journals in the major commercial citation index databases (such as Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed) [230] [231] [232] [233] has strong effects on evaluating both researchers and institutions (e.g. the UK Research Excellence Framework or Times Higher Education ranking [note 5] [234] [235] ). While these databases primarily select based on process and content quality, there has been concern that their commercial nature may skew their assessment criteria and representation of journals outside of Europe and North America. [84] [236] However, there are not currently equal, comprehensive, multi-lingual, open source or non-commercial digital infrastructures. [237]

Distribution

Like the self-archived green open access articles, most gold open access journal articles are distributed via the World Wide Web, [1] due to low distribution costs, increasing reach, speed, and increasing importance for scholarly communication. Open source software is sometimes used for open access repositories, [238] open access journal websites, [239] and other aspects of open access provision and open access publishing.

Access to online content requires Internet access, and this distributional consideration presents physical and sometimes financial barriers to access.

There are various open access aggregators that list open access journals or articles. ROAD (the Directory of Open Access scholarly Resources) [240] synthesizes information about open access journals and is a subset of the ISSN register. SHERPA/RoMEO lists international publishers that allow the published version of articles to be deposited in institutional repositories. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) contains over 12,500 peer-reviewed open access journals for searching and browsing. [241] [14]

Open access articles can be found with a web search, using any general search engine or those specialized for the scholarly and scientific literature, such as Google Scholar, OAIster, openaccess.xyz, [242] base-search.net, [243] and CORE [244] Many open-access repositories offer a programmable interface to query their content. Some of them use a generic protocol, such as OAI-PMH (e.g., base-search.net [243] ). In addition, some repositories propose a specific API, such as the arXiv API, the Dissemin API, the Unpaywall/oadoi API, or the base-search API.

In 1998, several universities founded the Public Knowledge Project to foster open access, and developed the open-source journal publishing system Open Journal Systems, among other scholarly software projects. As of 2010, it was being used by approximately 5,000 journals worldwide. [245]

Several initiatives provide an alternative to the English language dominance of existing publication indexing systems, including Index Copernicus (Polish), SciELO (Portuguese, Spanish) and Redalyc (Spanish).

Policies and mandates

Many universities, research institutions and research funders have adopted mandates requiring their researchers to make their research publications open access. [246] For example, Research Councils UK spent nearly £60m on supporting their open access mandate between 2013 and 2016. [247]

The idea of mandating self-archiving was raised at least as early as 1998. [248] Since 2003 [249] efforts have been focused on open access mandating by the funders of research: governments, [250] research funding agencies, [251] and universities. [252] Some publishers and publisher associations have lobbied against introducing mandates. [253] [254] [255]

In 2002, the University of Southampton's School of Electronics & Computer Science became one of the first schools to implement a meaningful mandatory open access policy, in which authors had to contribute copies of their articles to the school's repository. More institutions followed suit in the following years. [2] In 2007, Ukraine became the first country to create a national policy on open access, followed by Spain in 2009. Argentina, Brazil, and Poland are currently in the process of developing open access policies. Making master's and doctoral theses open access is an increasingly popular mandate by many educational institutions. [2]

Compliance

In order to chart which organisations have open access mandates, the Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies (ROARMAP) provides a searchable international database. As of February 2019, mandates have been registered by over 700 universities (including Harvard, MIT, Stanford, University College London, and University of Edinburgh) and over 100 research funders worldwide. [256]

As these sorts of mandates and policies increase in prevalence, researchers may be affected by multiple policies. New tools, such as SWORD (protocol), are being developed to help authors manage sharing between repositories. [2] UNESCO's policy document says, "In response to increasing incidents of this type, technical development work has been carried out to provide tools that enable the author to deposit an article once and for it to be copied into other repositories. [2] " There is a push to make more specific policy about allowed embargoes, rather than leaving it up to publishers. [2]

Compliance rates with voluntary open access policies remain low. [2] According to UNESCO's Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access, "Evidence has unequivocally demonstrated that to have real effect policies must be mandatory, whether institutional or funder policies. Mandatory policies at institutions succeed in accumulating content in their repositories, averaging 60% of total output after a couple of years of the policy being in place. [2] "

See also

Footnotes

  1. "ASAPbio FAQ"..
  2. "SHERPA/RoMEO". database.
  3. "The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics". 2015.
  4. "Plan S implementation guidelines"., February 2019.
  5. Publications in journals listed in the WoS has a large effect on the UK Research Excellence Framework. Bibliographic data from Scopus represents more than 36% of assessment criteria in the THE rankings.

Related Research Articles

In academic publishing, a preprint is a version of a scholarly or scientific paper that precedes formal peer review and publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly or scientific journal. The preprint may be available, often as a non-typeset version available free, before and/or after a paper is published in a journal.

Academic publishing is the subfield of publishing which distributes academic research and scholarship. Most academic work is published in academic journal article, book or thesis form. The part of academic written output that is not formally published but merely printed up or posted on the Internet is often called "grey literature". Most scientific and scholarly journals, and many academic and scholarly books, though not all, are based on some form of peer review or editorial refereeing to qualify texts for publication. Peer review quality and selectivity standards vary greatly from journal to journal, publisher to publisher, and field to field.

Academic journal peer-reviewed periodical relating to a particular academic discipline

An academic or scholarly journal is a periodical publication in which scholarship relating to a particular academic discipline is published. Academic journals serve as permanent and transparent forums for the presentation, scrutiny, and discussion of research. They are usually peer-reviewed or refereed. Content typically takes the form of articles presenting original research, review articles, and book reviews. The purpose of an academic journal, according to Henry Oldenburg, is to give researchers a venue to "impart their knowledge to one another, and contribute what they can to the Grand design of improving natural knowledge, and perfecting all Philosophical Arts, and Sciences."

PubMed Central (PMC) is a free digital repository that archives publicly accessible full-text scholarly articles that have been published within the biomedical and life sciences journal literature. As one of the major research databases within the suite of resources that have been developed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), PubMed Central is much more than just a document repository. Submissions into PMC undergo an indexing and formatting procedure which results in enhanced metadata, medical ontology, and unique identifiers which all enrich the XML structured data for each article on deposit. Content within PMC can easily be interlinked to many other NCBI databases and accessed via Entrez search and retrieval systems, further enhancing the public's ability to freely discover, read and build upon this portfolio of biomedical knowledge.

Self-archiving is the act of depositing a free copy of an electronic document online in order to provide open access to it. The term usually refers to the self-archiving of peer-reviewed research journal and conference articles, as well as theses and book chapters, deposited in the author's own institutional repository or open archive for the purpose of maximizing its accessibility, usage and citation impact. The term green open access has become common in recent years, distinguishing this approach from gold open access, where the journal itself makes the articles publicly available without charge to the reader.

MDPI is an organisational acronym used by two related organisations, Molecular Diversity Preservation International and Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, which were both co-founded by Shu-Kun Lin. The first organisation, Molecular Diversity Preservation International, founded in 1996, is primarily a chemical sample archive, with some scholarly publishing and conference activities. The second organisation, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, was founded in 2010, primarily as a publisher. All of MDPI's journals have been open access and since 2008 published under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY). It is a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, a participating publisher and supporter of the Initiative for Open Citations, and a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

An open-access mandate is a policy adopted by a research institution, research funder, or government which requires researchers—usually university faculty or research staff and/or research grant recipients—to make their published, peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers open access (1) by self-archiving their final, peer-reviewed drafts in a freely accessible institutional repository or disciplinary repository or (2) by publishing them in an open-access journal or both.

Scholarly peer review is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book. The peer review helps the publisher decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected.

A copyright transfer agreement or copyright assignment agreement is an agreement that transfers the copyright for a work from the copyright owner to another party. This is one legal option for publishers and authors of books, magazines, movies, television shows, video games, and other commercial artistic works who want to include and use a work of a second creator: for example, a video game developer who wants to pay an artist to draw a boss to include in a game. Another option is to license the right to include and use the work, rather than transferring the copyright.

Academic journal publishing reform is the advocacy for changes in the way academic journals are created and distributed in the age of the Internet and the advent of electronic publishing. Since the rise of the Internet, people have organized campaigns to change the relationships among and between academic authors, their traditional distributors and their readership. Most of the discussion has centered on taking advantage of benefits offered by the Internet's capacity for widespread distribution of reading material.

<i>PeerJ</i> open-access scientific journal

PeerJ is an open access peer-reviewed scientific mega journal covering research in the biological and medical sciences. It is published by a company of the same name that was co-founded by CEO Jason Hoyt and publisher Peter Binfield, with financial backing of US$950,000 from O'Reilly Media and O'Reilly AlphaTech Ventures. It was officially launched in June 2012, started accepting submissions on December 3, 2012, and published its first articles on February 12, 2013. The company is a member of CrossRef, CLOCKSS, ORCID, and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. The company's offices are in Corte Madera, and London.

Predatory publishing Fraudulent business model for scientific publications

Predatory publishing, sometimes called write-only publishing or deceptive publishing, is an exploitative academic publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy and without providing the other editorial and publishing services that legitimate academic journals provide, whether open access or not. They are regarded as predatory because scholars are tricked into publishing with them, although some authors may be aware that the journal is poor quality or even fraudulent. New scholars from developing countries are said to be especially at risk of being misled by predatory publishers. According to one study, 60% of articles published in predatory journals receive no citations over the five-year period following publication.

Jeffrey Beall American librarian

Jeffrey Beall is an American librarian, best known for drawing attention to "predatory open access publishing", a term he coined, and for creating what is now widely known as Beall's list, a list of potentially predatory open-access publishers. He is a critic of the open access publishing movement and particularly how predatory publishers use the open access concept, and is especially known for his blog Scholarly Open Access. He has also written on this topic in The Charleston Advisor, in Nature, in Learned Publishing, and elsewhere.

An article processing charge (APC), also known as a publication fee, is a fee which is sometimes charged to authors to make a work available open access in either an open access journal or hybrid journal. This fee may be paid by the author, the author's institution, or their research funder. Some publishers waive the fee in cases of hardship or geographic location, but this is not a widespread practice. An article processing charge does not guarantee that the author retains copyright to the work, or that it will be made available under a Creative Commons license.

Data publishing is the act of releasing research data in published form for (re)use by others. It is a practice consisting in preparing certain data or data set(s) for public use thus to make them available to everyone to use as they wish. This practice is an integral part of the open science movement. There is a large and multidisciplinary consensus on the benefits resulting from this practice.

The following is a timeline of the international movement for open access to scholarly communication.

Open access in Germany research in and of Germany that is online and free to read and reuse

Open access to scholarly communication in Germany has evolved rapidly since the early 2000s. Publishers Beilstein-Institut, Copernicus Publications, De Gruyter, Knowledge Unlatched, Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information, ScienceOpen, Springer Nature, and Universitätsverlag Göttingen belong to the international Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association.

History of open access

The idea and practise of providing free online access to journal articles began at least a decade before the term "open access" was formally coined. Computer scientists had been self-archiving in anonymous ftp archives since the 1970s and physicists had been self-archiving in arxiv since the 1990s. The Subversive Proposal to generalize the practice was posted in 1994.

References

Sources

Citations

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Suber, Peter. "Open Access Overview". Archived from the original on 2017-05-19. Retrieved 29 November 2014.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Swan, Alma (2012). "Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access". UNESCO. Retrieved 2019-04-14.
  3. Schöpfel, Joachim; Prost, Hélène (2013). "Degrees of secrecy in an open environment. The case of electronic theses and dissertations". ESSACHESS – Journal for Communication Studies. 6 (2(12)): 65–86. Archived from the original on 2014-01-01.
  4. Schwartz, Meredith (2012). "Directory of Open Access Books Goes Live". Library Journal. Archived from the original on October 4, 2013.
  5. 1 2 Piwowar, Heather; Priem, Jason; Larivière, Vincent; Alperin, Juan Pablo; Matthias, Lisa; Norlander, Bree; Farley, Ashley; West, Jevin; Haustein, Stefanie (2018-02-13). "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. ISSN   2167-8359. PMC   5815332 . PMID   29456894.
  6. 1 2 Björk, B. C.; Welling, P.; Laakso, M.; Majlender, P.; Hedlund, T.; Guðnason, G. N. (2010). Scalas, Enrico (ed.). "Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009". PLOS ONE. 5 (6): e11273. Bibcode:2010PLoSO...511273B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011273. PMC   2890572 . PMID   20585653.
  7. Cummings, J. (2013). "Open access journal content found in commercial full-text aggregation databases and journal citation reports". New Library World. 114 (3/4): 166–178. doi:10.1108/03074801311304078. hdl:2376/4903.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Fuchs, Christian; Sandoval, Marisol (2013). "The diamond model of open access publishing: Why policy makers, scholars, universities, libraries, labour unions and the publishing world need to take non-commercial, non-profit open access serious". TripleC. 13 (2): 428–443. doi:10.31269/triplec.v11i2.502.
  9. "Open access to research publications reaching 'tipping point'". Press Releases. europa.eu. Archived from the original on 2013-08-24. Retrieved 2013-08-25.
  10. "Proportion of Open Access Peer-Reviewed Papers at the European and World Levels—2004–2011" (PDF). Science-Metrix. August 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2013-09-03. Retrieved 2013-08-25.
  11. Van Noorden, Richard (2013). "Half of 2011 papers now free to read". Nature. 500 (7463): 386–7. Bibcode:2013Natur.500..386V. doi:10.1038/500386a. PMID   23969438.
  12. "Area-wide transition to open access is possible: A new study calculates a redeployment of funds in Open Access". www.mpg.de/en. Max Planck Gesellschaft. 27 April 2015. Archived from the original on 16 June 2017. Retrieved 2017-05-12.
  13. Björk, Bo-Christer (2011). "A Study of Innovative Features in Scholarly Open Access Journals". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 13 (4): e115. doi:10.2196/jmir.1802. PMC   3278101 . PMID   22173122.
  14. 1 2 "Directory of Open Access Journals". Directory of Open Access Journals. Retrieved 26 February 2019.
  15. 1 2 Walt Crawford (2019). Gold Open Access 2013-2018: Articles in Journals (GOA4) (PDF). Cites & Insights Books. ISBN   978-1-329-54713-1.
  16. Piwowar, H.; Priem, J.; Larivière, V.; Alperin, J. P.; Matthias, L.; Norlander, B.; Farley, A.; West, J.; Haustein, S. (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. PMC   5815332 . PMID   29456894.
  17. 1 2 "Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR)" Archived 2012-10-30 at the Wayback Machine . Roar.eprints.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  18. "Browse by Repository Type". Registry of Open Access Repositories. Retrieved 26 February 2019.
  19. "DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals". doaj.org. 2013-05-01. Archived from the original on 2019-03-10.
  20. Morrison, Heather (2018-12-31). "Dramatic Growth of Open Access". Scholars Portal Dataverse. hdl:10864/10660.
  21. "PMC full journal list download". www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Retrieved 2019-03-10.
  22. "NLM Catalog". www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Retrieved 2019-03-10.
  23. Gadd, Elizabeth; Troll Covey, Denise (2019-03-01). "What does 'green' open access mean? Tracking twelve years of changes to journal publisher self-archiving policies". Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 51 (1): 106–122. doi:10.1177/0961000616657406. ISSN   0961-0006.
  24. Laakso, Mikael; Björk, Bo-Christer (2016). "Hybrid open access—A longitudinal study". Journal of Informetrics. 10 (4): 919–932. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.08.002.
  25. Suber 2012 , pp. 140–141
  26. Suber 2012 , p. 140
  27. Piwowar, Heather; Priem, Jason; Larivière, Vincent; Alperin, Juan Pablo; Matthias, Lisa; Norlander, Bree; Farley, Ashley; West, Jevin; Haustein, Stefanie (13 February 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. PMID   29456894.
  28. 1 2 3 Gajović, S (31 August 2017). "Diamond Open Access in the quest for interdisciplinarity and excellence". Croatian Medical Journal. 58 (4): 261–262. doi:10.3325/cmj.2017.58.261. PMC   5577648 . PMID   28857518.
  29. Machovec, George (2013). "An Interview with Jeffrey Beall on Open Access Publishing". The Charleston Advisor. 15: 50. doi:10.5260/chara.15.1.50.
  30. Öchsner, A. (2013). "Publishing Companies, Publishing Fees, and Open Access Journals". Introduction to Scientific Publishing. SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology. pp. 23–29. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38646-6_4. ISBN   978-3-642-38645-9.
  31. Normand, Stephanie (2018-04-04). "Is Diamond Open Access the Future of Open Access?". The IJournal: Graduate Student Journal of the Faculty of Information. 3 (2). ISSN   2561-7397.
  32. Rosenblum, Brian; Greenberg, Marc; Bolick, Josh; Emmett, Ada; Peterson, A. Townsend (2016-06-17). "Subsidizing truly open access". Science. 352 (6292): 1405. Bibcode:2016Sci...352.1405P. doi:10.1126/science.aag0946. hdl:1808/20978. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   27313033.
  33. By (2017-06-01). "Diamond Open Access, Societies and Mission". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 2019-06-25.
  34. Himmelstein, Daniel S; Romero, Ariel Rodriguez; Levernier, Jacob G; Munro, Thomas Anthony; McLaughlin, Stephen Reid; Greshake Tzovaras, Bastian; Greene, Casey S (2018-03-01). "Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature". eLife. 7. doi:10.7554/eLife.32822. ISSN   2050-084X. PMC   5832410 . PMID   29424689.
  35. Björk, Bo-Christer (2017). "Gold, green, and black open access". Learned Publishing. 30 (2): 173–175. doi:10.1002/leap.1096. ISSN   1741-4857.
  36. Green, Toby (2017). "We've failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach". Learned Publishing. 30 (4): 325–329. doi:10.1002/leap.1116. ISSN   1741-4857.
  37. Bohannon, John (2016-04-28). "Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aaf5664. ISSN   0036-8075.
  38. Greshake, Bastian (2017-04-21). "Looking into Pandora's Box: The Content of Sci-Hub and its Usage". F1000Research. 6: 541. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11366.1. ISSN   2046-1402. PMC   5428489 . PMID   28529712.
  39. Jamali, Hamid R. (2017-07-01). "Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles". Scientometrics. 112 (1): 241–254. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2291-4. ISSN   1588-2861.
  40. Swab, Michelle; Romme, Kristen (2016-04-01). "Scholarly Sharing via Twitter: #icanhazpdf Requests for Health Sciences Literature". Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association. 37 (1). doi:10.5596/c16-009. ISSN   1708-6892.
  41. McKenzie, Lindsay (2017-07-27). "Sci-Hub's cache of pirated papers is so big, subscription journals are doomed, data analyst suggests". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aan7164. ISSN   0036-8075.
  42. 1 2 3 Suber, Peter (2008). "Gratis and Libre Open Access" . Retrieved 2011-12-03.
  43. Suber 2012 , pp. 68–69
  44. Suber 2012 , pp. 7–8
  45. Balaji, B.; Dhanamjaya, M. (2019). "Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures". Publications. 7: 6. doi:10.3390/publications7010006.>
  46. Wilkinson, Mark D.; Dumontier, Michel; Aalbersberg, IJsbrand Jan; Appleton, Gabrielle; et al. (15 March 2016). "The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship". Scientific Data. 3: 160018. Bibcode:2016NatSD...360018W. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18. OCLC   961158301. PMC   4792175 . PMID   26978244.
  47. Wilkinson, Mark D.; da Silva Santos, Luiz Olavo Bonino; Dumontier, Michel; Velterop, Jan; Neylon, Cameron; Mons, Barend (2017-01-01). "Cloudy, increasingly FAIR; revisiting the FAIR Data guiding principles for the European Open Science Cloud". Information Services & Use. 37 (1): 49–56. doi:10.3233/ISU-170824. hdl:20.500.11937/53669. ISSN   0167-5265.
  48. "European Commission embraces the FAIR principles". Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences. 2016-04-20. Retrieved 2019-07-31.
  49. "G20 Leaders' Communique Hangzhou Summit". europa.eu. Retrieved 2019-07-31.
  50. "Hecho En Latinoamérica. Acceso Abierto, Revistas Académicas e Innovaciones Regionales".
  51. Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Schmidt, Birgit; Kramer, Bianca. "Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea?". doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.26954v1.Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  52. Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe; Boivin, Jade; Gargouri, Yassine; Larivière, Vincent; Harnad, Stevan (2016). "Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: The MELIBEA Score" (PDF). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67 (11): 2815–2828. arXiv: 1410.2926 . doi:10.1002/asi.23601.
  53. "Future of Scholarly Publishing and Scholarly Communication : Report of the Expert Group to the European Commission". 2019-01-30.
  54. August 8th; publishing, 2019|Academic; Access, Open; S, Plan; Comments, Research policy|6 (2019-08-08). "AmeliCA before Plan S – The Latin American Initiative to develop a cooperative, non-commercial, academic led, system of scholarly communication". Impact of Social Sciences. Retrieved 2019-11-01.
  55. Johnson, Rob (2019). "From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication". Insights: The UKSG Journal. 32. doi:10.1629/uksg.453.
  56. 1 2 DOAJ. "Journal metadata". doaj.org. Retrieved 2019-05-18.
  57. Matushek, Kurt J. (2017). "Take Another Look at the Instructions for Authors". Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 250 (3): 258–259. doi:10.2460/javma.250.3.258. PMID   28117640.
  58. Bachrach, S.; Berry, R. S.; Blume, M.; von Foerster, T.; Fowler, A.; Ginsparg, P.; Heller, S.; Kestner, N.; Odlyzko, A.; Okerson, A.; Wigington, R.; Moffat, A. (1998). "Who Should Own Scientific Papers?". Science. 281 (5382): 1459–60. doi:10.1126/science.281.5382.1459. PMID   9750115.
  59. Gadd, Elizabeth; Oppenheim, Charles; Probets, Steve (2003). "RoMEO Studies 4: An Analysis of Journal Publishers" Copyright Agreements" (PDF). Learned Publishing. 16 (4): 293–308. doi:10.1087/095315103322422053. hdl:10150/105141.
  60. Willinsky, John (2002). "Copyright Contradictions in Scholarly Publishing". First Monday. 7 (11). doi:10.5210/fm.v7i11.1006.
  61. Carroll, Michael W. (2011). "Why Full Open Access Matters". PLOS Biology. 9 (11): e1001210. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001210. PMC   3226455 . PMID   22140361.
  62. Davies, Mark (2015). "Academic Freedom: A Lawyer's Perspective" (PDF). Higher Education. 70 (6): 987–1002. doi:10.1007/s10734-015-9884-8.
  63. 1 2 Frosio, Giancarlo F. (2014). "Open Access Publishing: A Literature Review". SSRN   2697412 .
  64. Peters, Diane; Margoni, Thomas (2016-03-10). "Creative Commons Licenses: Empowering Open Access". SSRN   2746044 .
  65. Dodds, Francis (2018). "The Changing Copyright Landscape in Academic Publishing". Learned Publishing. 31 (3): 270–275. doi:10.1002/leap.1157.
  66. Morrison, Heather (2017). "From the Field: Elsevier as an Open Access Publisher". The Charleston Advisor. 18 (3): 53–59. doi:10.5260/chara.18.3.53. hdl:10393/35779.
  67. "Open Access Survey: Exploring the Views of Taylor & Francis and Routledge Authors". 47.
  68. "OA journal business models". Open Access Directory. 2009–2012. Archived from the original on 2015-10-18. Retrieved 2015-10-20.
  69. Markin, Pablo (25 April 2017). "The Sustainability of Open Access Publishing Models Past a Tipping Point". OpenScience . Retrieved 26 April 2017.
  70. Socha, Beata (20 April 2017). "How Much Do Top Publishers Charge for Open Access?". openscience.com. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
  71. Peter, Suber (2012). Open access. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN   9780262301732. OCLC   795846161.
  72. "An efficient journal". The Occasional Pamphlet. 2012-03-06. Retrieved 2019-10-27.
  73. "Article processing charges". nature.com. Nature Communications. Archived from the original on 2019-10-27. Retrieved 2019-10-27.
  74. Kozak, Marcin; Hartley, James (Dec 2013). "Publication fees for open access journals: Different disciplines-different methods". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64 (12): 2591–2594. doi:10.1002/asi.22972.
  75. Björk, Bo-Christer; Solomon, David (2015). "Article Processing Charges in OA Journals: Relationship between Price and Quality". Scientometrics. 103 (2): 373–385. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1556-z.
  76. Lawson, Stuart (2014). "APC Pricing". Figshare. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.1056280.v3.Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  77. "Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges" (PDF).
  78. Schönfelder, Nina (2018). "APCs—Mirroring the Impact Factor or Legacy of the Subscription-Based Model?".Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  79. "Setting a fee for publication". eLife. 2016-09-29. Retrieved 2019-10-27.
  80. "Ubiquity Press". www.ubiquitypress.com. Retrieved 2019-10-27.
  81. Trust, Wellcome (2016-03-23). "Wellcome Trust and COAF Open Access Spend, 2014-15". Wellcome Trust Blog. Retrieved 2019-10-27.
  82. "Open access double dipping policy". Cambridge Core.
  83. 1 2 Schimmer, Ralf; Geschuhn, Kai Karin; Vogler, Andreas (2015). "Disrupting the Subscription Journals" Business Model for the Necessary Large-Scale Transformation to Open Access". doi:10.17617/1.3.Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  84. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Vanholsbeeck, Marc; Thacker, Paul; Sattler, Susanne; Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Rivera-López, Bárbara S.; Rice, Curt; Nobes, Andy; Masuzzo, Paola; Martin, Ryan; Kramer, Bianca; Havemann, Johanna; Enkhbayar, Asura; Davila, Jacinto; Crick, Tom; Crane, Harry; Tennant, Jonathan P. (2019-03-11). "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing". Publications. 7 (2): 34. doi: 10.3390/publications7020034 .
  85. Björk, B. C. (2017). "Growth of Hybrid Open Access". PeerJ. 5: e3878. doi:10.7717/peerj.3878. PMC   5624290 . PMID   28975059.
  86. Pinfield, Stephen; Salter, Jennifer; Bath, Peter A. (2016). "The 'Total Cost of Publication" in a Hybrid Open-Access Environment: Institutional Approaches to Funding Journal Article-Processing Charges in Combination with Subscriptions" (PDF). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67 (7): 1751–1766. doi:10.1002/asi.23446.
  87. Green, Toby (2019). "Is Open Access Affordable? Why Current Models Do Not Work and Why We Need Internet-Era Transformation of Scholarly Communications". Learned Publishing. 32: 13–25. doi:10.1002/leap.1219.
  88. Koroso, Nesru H. (18 November 2015). "Diamond Open Access - UA Magazine". UA Magazine.
  89. 1 2 3 Suber, Peter (November 2, 2006). "No-fee open-access journals". SPARC open access Newsletter.
  90. Montgomery, Lucy (2014). "Knowledge Unlatched:A Global Library Consortium Model for Funding Open Access Scholarly Books". Cultural Science. 7 (2). hdl:20.500.11937/12680.
  91. "DOAJ search".
  92. Wilson, Mark (2018-06-20). "Introducing the Free Journal Network – community-controlled open access publishing". Impact of Social Sciences. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  93. "Is the EU's open access plan a tremor or an earthquake?". Science|Business. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  94. 1 2 Bastian, Hilda (2018-04-02). "A Reality Check on Author Access to Open Access Publishing". Absolutely Maybe. Retrieved 2019-10-27.
  95. Crotty, David (2015-08-26). "Is it True that Most Open Access Journals Do Not Charge an APC? Sort of. It Depends". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 2019-10-27.
  96. Ginsparg, P. (2016). "Preprint Déjà Vu". The EMBO Journal. 35 (24): 2620–2625. doi:10.15252/embj.201695531. PMC   5167339 . PMID   27760783.
  97. Tennant, Jonathan; Bauin, Serge; James, Sarah; Kant, Juliane (2018). "The Evolving Preprint Landscape: Introductory Report for the Knowledge Exchange Working Group on Preprints". doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/796TU.Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  98. Neylon, Cameron; Pattinson, Damian; Bilder, Geoffrey; Lin, Jennifer (2017). "On the Origin of Nonequivalent States: How We Can Talk about Preprints". F1000Research. 6: 608. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11408.1. PMC   5461893 . PMID   28620459.
  99. Balaji, B.; Dhanamjaya, M. (2019). "Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures". Publications. 7: 6. doi:10.3390/publications7010006.
  100. Bourne, Philip E.; Polka, Jessica K.; Vale, Ronald D.; Kiley, Robert (2017). "Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission". PLOS Computational Biology. 13 (5): e1005473. Bibcode:2017PLSCB..13E5473B. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005473. PMC   5417409 . PMID   28472041.
  101. 1 2 Sarabipour, Sarvenaz; Debat, Humberto J.; Emmott, Edward; Burgess, Steven J.; Schwessinger, Benjamin; Hensel, Zach (2019). "On the Value of Preprints: An Early Career Researcher Perspective". PLOS Biology. 17 (2): e3000151. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151. PMC   6400415 . PMID   30789895.
  102. Powell, Kendall (2016). "Does It Take Too Long to Publish Research?". Nature. 530 (7589): 148–151. Bibcode:2016Natur.530..148P. doi:10.1038/530148a. PMID   26863966.
  103. Crick, Tom; Hall, Benjamin A.; Ishtiaq, Samin (2017). "Reproducibility in Research: Systems, Infrastructure, Culture". Journal of Open Research Software. 5. doi:10.5334/jors.73.
  104. Gadd, Elizabeth; Troll Covey, Denise (2019). "What Does "Green" Open Access Mean? Tracking Twelve Years of Changes to Journal Publisher Self-Archiving Policies". Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 51: 106–122. doi:10.1177/0961000616657406.
  105. "Journal embargo finder". www.elsevier.com. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  106. Laakso, Mikael (2014-05-01). "Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed". Scientometrics. 99 (2): 475–494. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1205-3. hdl:10138/157660. ISSN   1588-2861.
  107. Harnad, Stevan (2015), Holbrook, J. Britt; Mitcham, Carl (eds.), Stevan Harnad, J. Britt Holbrook, Carl Mitcham, "Open access: what, where, when, how and why", Ethics, Science, Technology, and Engineering: An International Resource, Macmillan Reference, retrieved 2020-01-06
  108. Laakso, Mikael; Björk, Bo-Christer (2013). "Delayed open access: An overlooked high-impact category of openly available scientific literature". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64 (7): 1323–1329. doi:10.1002/asi.22856. hdl:10138/157658.
  109. Bjork, Bo-Christer; Roos, Annikki; Lauri, Mari (2009). "Scientific Journal Publishing: Yearly Volume and Open Access Availability". Information Research: An International Electronic Journal. 14 (1). ISSN   1368-1613.
  110. Swan, Alma; Brown, Sheridan (May 2005). "Open Access Self-Archiving: An Author Study". Departmental Technical Report. UK FE and HE Funding Councils.
  111. Ottaviani, Jim (2016-08-22). Bornmann, Lutz (ed.). "The Post-Embargo Open Access Citation Advantage: It Exists (Probably), It's Modest (Usually), and the Rich Get Richer (of Course)". PLOS ONE. 11 (8): e0159614. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1159614O. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159614. ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   4993511 . PMID   27548723.
  112. Suber, Peter (2014). "The evidence fails to justify publishers' demand for longer embargo periods on publicly-funded research". LSA impact blog. Retrieved 2020-01-06.
  113. "Global scientific community commits to sharing data on Zika". wellcome.ac.uk. Wellcome. Retrieved 2020-01-06.
  114. "About". Medical Journal of Australia. Australasian Medical Publishing Company. Retrieved 2019-06-12.
  115. 1 2 3 Suber 2012 , pp. 29–43
  116. "The Life and Death of an Open Access Journal: Q&A with Librarian Marcus Banks". 2015-03-31., "As the BOAI text expressed it, “the overall costs of providing open access to this literature are far lower than the costs of traditional forms of dissemination.”"
  117. "Gold open access in practice: How will universities respond to the rising total cost of publication?".
  118. "Reasoning and Interest: Clustering Open Access - LePublikateur". LePublikateur. 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2018-06-05.
  119. Tennant, Jonathan P.; Waldner, François; Jacques, Damien C.; Masuzzo, Paola; Collister, Lauren B.; Hartgerink, Chris. H. J. (2016-09-21). "The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review". F1000Research. 5: 632. doi:10.12688/f1000research.8460.3. PMC   4837983 . PMID   27158456.
  120. Sivaraj, S., et al. 2008. "Resource Sharing among Engineering College Libraries in Tamil Nadu in a Networking System" Archived 2012-12-24 at the Wayback Machine . Library Philosophy and Practice.
  121. "Developing World Access to Leading Research" Archived 2013-12-01 at the Wayback Machine . research4life.org. Retrieved on 2012-11-19.
  122. Van Orsdel, Lee C. & Born, Kathleen. 2005. "Library Journal". Archived from the original on 2017-06-30. Retrieved 2017-10-18. "Periodicals Price Survey 2005: Choosing Sides"] Library Journal, 15 April 2005. Retrieved on 2012-11-19.
  123. Hardisty, David J.; Haaga, David A.F. (2008). "Diffusion of Treatment Research: Does Open Access Matter?" (PDF). Journal of Clinical Psychology. 64 (7): 821–839. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.487.5198 . doi:10.1002/jclp.20492. PMID   18425790. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2008-05-28.
  124. "DFID Research: DFID's Policy Opens up a World of Global Research". dfid.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 2013-01-03.
  125. How To Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandates Archived 2008-03-16 at the Wayback Machine . Openaccess.eprints.org (2008-03-02). Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  126. Libbenga, Jan. (2005-05-11) Dutch academics declare research free-for-all Archived 2017-07-15 at the Wayback Machine . Theregister.co.uk. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  127. Portal NARCIS. Narcis.info. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  128. "Open and closed access scholarly publications in NARCIS per year of publication". NARCIS. Retrieved 26 February 2019.
  129. "Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI) – SPARC". arl.org. Archived from the original on 2015-10-18. Retrieved 2015-10-20.
  130. "Good practices for university open-access policies". Harvard. Archived from the original on 5 October 2016. Retrieved 4 October 2016.
  131. Baldwin, Julie; Pinfield, Stephen (13 July 2018). "The UK Scholarly Communication Licence: Attempting to Cut through the Gordian Knot of the Complexities of Funder Mandates, Publisher Embargoes and Researcher Caution in Achieving Open Access". Publications. 6 (3): 31. doi:10.3390/publications6030031.
  132. "About the AOASG". Australian Open Access Support Group. 2013-02-05. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20.
  133. "Australian Open Access Support Group expands to become Australasian Open Access Support Group". 2015-08-17. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17.
  134. "Creative Commons Australia partners with Australasian Open Access Strategy Group". Creative Commons Australia. 2016-08-31.
  135. Suber, Peter (2003). "Removing the Barriers to Research: An Introduction to Open Access for Librarians". College & Research Libraries News. 62 (2): 92–94, 113. doi:10.5860/crln.64.2.92.
  136. "IFLA Statement on Open Access (2011)". IFLA. 6 March 2019.
  137. ALA Scholarly Communication Toolkit Archived September 8, 2005, at the Wayback Machine
  138. Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition Archived 2013-08-15 at the Wayback Machine . Arl.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  139. Open Access for Scholarly Publishing Archived 2014-05-19 at the Wayback Machine . Southern Cross University Library. Retrieved on 2014-03-14.
  140. CARL – Institutional Repositories Program Archived 2013-06-07 at the Wayback Machine . Carl-abrc.ca. Retrieved on 2013-06-12.
  141. Lippincott, Sarah (2016-07-05). "The Library Publishing Coalition: organizing libraries to enhance scholarly publishing". Insights. 29 (2): 186–191. doi:10.1629/uksg.296. ISSN   2048-7754.
  142. Kopfstein, Janus (2013-03-13). "Aaron Swartz to receive posthumous 'Freedom of Information' award for open access advocacy". The Verge. Archived from the original on 2013-03-15. Retrieved 2013-03-24.
  143. "James Madison Award". Ala.org. 2013-01-17. Archived from the original on 2013-03-22. Retrieved 2013-03-24.
  144. Brandom, Russell (2013-03-26). "Entire library journal editorial board resigns, citing 'crisis of conscience' after death of Aaron Swartz". The Verge. Archived from the original on 2013-12-31. Retrieved 2014-01-01.
  145. New, Jake (2013-03-27). "Journal's Editorial Board Resigns in Protest of Publisher's Policy Toward Authors". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on 2014-01-08.
  146. Bourg, Chris (2013-03-23). "My short stint on the JLA Editorial Board". Feral Librarian. Archived from the original on 2014-08-24. It was just days after Aaron Swartz' death, and I was having a crisis of conscience about publishing in a journal that was not open access
  147. Poynder, Richard (2009). "The Open Access Interviews: Hélène Bosc" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2013-10-23.
  148. Open Access to scientific communication. Open-access.infodocs.eu. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  149. ATA | The Alliance for Taxpayer Access Archived 2007-09-27 at the Wayback Machine . Taxpayeraccess.org (2011-10-29). Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  150. Open Access: Basics and Benefits. Eprints.rclis.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  151. Eysenbach, Gunther (2006). "The Open Access Advantage". J Med Internet Res. 8 (2): e8. doi:10.2196/jmir.8.2.e8. PMC   1550699 . PMID   16867971.
  152. 1 2 3 Davis, Philip M. (2010). "Does open access lead to increased readership and citations? A randomized controlled trial of articles published in APS journals". The Physiologist. 53 (6): 197, 200–201. ISSN   0031-9376. PMID   21473414.
  153. Goodman, D (2004). "The Criteria for Open Access". Serials Review. 30 (4): 258–270. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2004.09.009. hdl:10760/6167.
  154. World Health Organization Archived 2012-01-27 at the Wayback Machine Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative
  155. 1 2 World Health Organization Archived 2009-04-22 at the Wayback Machine : Eligibility
  156. Scientific Electronic Library Online Archived 2005-08-31 at the Wayback Machine . SciELO. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  157. Pearce, J. M. (2012). "The case for open source appropriate technology". Environment, Development and Sustainability. 14 (3): 425–431. doi:10.1007/s10668-012-9337-9.
  158. A. J. Buitenhuis, et al., "Open Design-Based Strategies to Enhance Appropriate Technology Development", Proceedings of the 14th Annual National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance Conference : Open, March 25–27th 2010, pp.1–12.
  159. 1 2 McKiernan, Erin C; Bourne, Philip E; Brown, C Titus; Buck, Stuart; Kenall, Amye; Lin, Jennifer; McDougall, Damon; Nosek, Brian A; Ram, Karthik; Soderberg, Courtney K; Spies, Jeffrey R (2016-07-07). Rodgers, Peter (ed.). "How open science helps researchers succeed". eLife. 5: e16800. doi:10.7554/eLife.16800. ISSN   2050-084X. PMC   4973366 . PMID   27387362.
  160. 1 2 Wang, Xianwen; Liu, Chen; Mao, Wenli; Fang, Zhichao (2015-05-01). "The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention". Scientometrics. 103 (2): 555–564. arXiv: 1503.05702 . Bibcode:2015arXiv150305702W. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1547-0. ISSN   1588-2861.
  161. 1 2 Davis, Philip M. (2011-03-30). "Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing". The FASEB Journal. 25 (7): 2129–2134. doi:10.1096/fj.11-183988. ISSN   0892-6638. PMID   21450907.
  162. 1 2 Davis, Philip M.; Lewenstein, Bruce V.; Simon, Daniel H.; Booth, James G.; Connolly, Mathew J. L. (2008-07-31). "Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial". BMJ. 337: a568. doi:10.1136/bmj.a568. ISSN   0959-8138. PMC   2492576 . PMID   18669565.
  163. Adie, Euan (2014-10-24). "Attention! A study of open access vs non-open access articles". Figshare. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.1213690.v1.
  164. 1 2 3 Adie, Euan (2014-10-24). "Attention! A study of open access vs non-open access articles". Figshare. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.1213690.v1.
  165. Maximising the Return on the UK's Public Investment in Research – Open Access Archivangelism Archived 2017-07-02 at the Wayback Machine . Openaccess.eprints.org (2005-09-14). Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  166. Garfield, E. (1988) Can Researchers Bank on Citation Analysis? Archived 2005-10-25 at the Wayback Machine Current Comments, No. 44, October 31, 1988
  167. Committee on Electronic Information and Communication (CEIC) of the International Mathematical Union (15 May 2001). "Call to All Mathematicians". Archived from the original on 7 June 2011.
  168. 1 2 Wang, Xianwen; Liu, Chen; Mao, Wenli; Fang, Zhichao (2015-05-01). "The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention". Scientometrics. 103 (2): 555–564. arXiv: 1503.05702 . Bibcode:2015arXiv150305702W. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1547-0. ISSN   1588-2861.
  169. 1 2 Davis, P. M. (2011). "Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing". The FASEB Journal . 25 (7): 2129–34. doi:10.1096/fj.11-183988. PMID   21450907.
  170. 1 2 ElSabry, ElHassan (2017-08-01). "Who needs access to research? Exploring the societal impact of open access". Revue française des sciences de l'information et de la communication (11). doi:10.4000/rfsic.3271. ISSN   2263-0856.
  171. Gentil-Beccot, Anne; Mele, Salvatore; Brooks, Travis (2009). "Citing and Reading Behaviours in High-Energy Physics. How a Community Stopped Worrying about Journals and Learned to Love Repositories". arXiv: 0906.5418 [cs.DL].
  172. Swan, Alma (2006) The culture of Open Access: researchers’ views and responses Archived 2012-05-22 at the Wayback Machine . In: Neil Jacobs (Ed.) Open access: key strategic, technical and economic aspects, Chandos.
  173. Piwowar, Heather; Priem, Jason; Larivière, Vincent; Alperin, Juan Pablo; Matthias, Lisa; Norlander, Bree; Farley, Ashley; West, Jevin; Haustein, Stefanie (2018-02-13). "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. ISSN   2167-8359. PMC   5815332 . PMID   29456894.
  174. Swan, Alma (2010). "The Open Access citation advantage: Studies and results to date". eprints.soton.ac.uk. Alma Swan.
  175. 1 2 Tennant, Jonathan P.; Waldner, François; Jacques, Damien C.; Masuzzo, Paola; Collister, Lauren B.; Hartgerink, Chris. H. J. (2016-09-21). "The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review". F1000Research. 5: 632. doi:10.12688/f1000research.8460.3. ISSN   2046-1402. PMC   4837983 . PMID   27158456.
  176. Online or Invisible? Steve Lawrence; NEC Research Institute Archived 2007-03-16 at the Wayback Machine . Citeseer.ist.psu.edu. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  177. Davis, P. M; Lewenstein, B. V; Simon, D. H; Booth, J. G; Connolly, M. J L (2008). "Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial". BMJ. 337: a568. doi:10.1136/bmj.a568. PMC   2492576 . PMID   18669565.
  178. Effect of OA on citation impact: a bibliography of studies Archived 2017-11-02 at the Wayback Machine . Opcit.eprints.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  179. Swan, Alma (2010). "The Open Access citation advantage: Studies and results to date". eprints.soton.ac.uk. Alma Swan.
  180. Eysenbach, Gunther (2006-05-16). Tenopir, Carol (ed.). "Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles". PLoS Biology. 4 (5): e157. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157. ISSN   1545-7885. PMC   1459247 . PMID   16683865.
  181. Björk, Bo-Christer; Solomon, David (2012-07-17). "Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact". BMC Medicine. 10 (1): 73. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-73. ISSN   1741-7015. PMC   3398850 . PMID   22805105.
  182. 1 2 Teplitskiy, M.; Lu, G.; Duede, E. (2016). "Amplifying the impact of open access: Wikipedia and the diffusion of science". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68 (9): 2116. arXiv: 1506.07608 . doi:10.1002/asi.23687.
  183. Shema, Hadas; Bar-Ilan, Judit; Thelwall, Mike (2014-01-15). "Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65 (5): 1018–1027. doi:10.1002/asi.23037. ISSN   2330-1635.
  184. Alhoori, Hamed; Ray Choudhury, Sagnik; Kanan, Tarek; Fox, Edward; Furuta, Richard; Giles, C. Lee (2015-03-15). "On the Relationship between Open Access and Altmetrics".Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  185. Gargouri, Yassine; Hajjem, Chawki; Lariviere, Vincent; Gingras, Yves; Carr, Les; Brody, Tim; Harnad, Stevan (2018). "The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects". arXiv: 1801.08992 . Bibcode:2018arXiv180108992L.Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  186. Curry, Stephen (2018). "Let's Move beyond the Rhetoric: It's Time to Change How We Judge Research". Nature. 554 (7691): 147. Bibcode:2018Natur.554..147C. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-01642-w. PMID   29420505.
  187. Chua, SK; Qureshi, Ahmad M; Krishnan, Vijay; Pai, Dinker R; Kamal, Laila B; Gunasegaran, Sharmilla; Afzal, MZ; Ambawatta, Lahiru; Gan, JY; Kew, PY; Winn, Than (2017-03-02). "The impact factor of an open access journal does not contribute to an article's citations". F1000Research. 6: 208. doi:10.12688/f1000research.10892.1. ISSN   2046-1402. PMC   5464220 . PMID   28649365.
  188. Csiszar, Alex (2016). "Peer Review: Troubled from the Start". Nature. 532 (7599): 306–308. Bibcode:2016Natur.532..306C. doi:10.1038/532306a. PMID   27111616.
  189. Moxham, Noah; Fyfe, Aileen (2018). "The Royal Society and the Prehistory of Peer Review, 1665–1965" (PDF). The Historical Journal. 61 (4): 863–889. doi:10.1017/S0018246X17000334.
  190. Tennant, Jonathan P.; Dugan, Jonathan M.; Graziotin, Daniel; Jacques, Damien C.; Waldner, François; Mietchen, Daniel; Elkhatib, Yehia; B. Collister, Lauren; Pikas, Christina K.; Crick, Tom; Masuzzo, Paola (2017-11-29). "A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review". F1000Research. 6: 1151. doi:10.12688/f1000research.12037.3. ISSN   2046-1402. PMC   5686505 . PMID   29188015.
  191. Tennant, Jonathan P. (2018-10-01). "The state of the art in peer review". FEMS Microbiology Letters. 365 (19). doi:10.1093/femsle/fny204. ISSN   0378-1097. PMC   6140953 . PMID   30137294.
  192. Noorden, Richard Van (2019-03-04). "Peer-review experiments tracked in online repository". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00777-8.
  193. Penfold, Naomi C.; Polka, Jessica K. (2019-09-10). "Technical and social issues influencing the adoption of preprints in the life sciences". doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.27954v1.Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  194. Nosek, Brian A.; Ebersole, Charles R.; DeHaven, Alexander C.; Mellor, David T. (2018-03-12). "The preregistration revolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (11): 2600–2606. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114. ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   5856500 . PMID   29531091.
  195. 1 2 3 Ross-Hellauer, Tony (2017-08-31). "What is open peer review? A systematic review". F1000Research. 6: 588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. ISSN   2046-1402. PMC   5437951 . PMID   28580134.
  196. Munafò, Marcus R.; Nosek, Brian A.; Bishop, Dorothy V. M.; Button, Katherine S.; Chambers, Christopher D.; Percie du Sert, Nathalie; Simonsohn, Uri; Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan; Ware, Jennifer J.; Ioannidis, John P. A. (2017-01-10). "A manifesto for reproducible science". Nature Human Behaviour. 1 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021. ISSN   2397-3374.
  197. Pawlik, Mateusz; Hütter, Thomas; Kocher, Daniel; Mann, Willi; Augsten, Nikolaus (2019-07-01). "A Link is not Enough – Reproducibility of Data". Datenbank-Spektrum. 19 (2): 107–115. doi:10.1007/s13222-019-00317-8. ISSN   1610-1995. PMC   6647556 . PMID   31402850.
  198. Munafò, Marcus R.; Nosek, Brian A.; Bishop, Dorothy V. M.; Button, Katherine S.; Chambers, Christopher D.; Percie Du Sert, Nathalie; Simonsohn, Uri; Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan; Ware, Jennifer J.; Ioannidis, John P. A. (2017). "A Manifesto for Reproducible Science". Nature Human Behaviour. 1. doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021.
  199. Bowman, Nicholas David; Keene, Justin Robert (2018). "A Layered Framework for Considering Open Science Practices". Communication Research Reports. 35 (4): 363–372. doi:10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273.
  200. McKiernan, E. C.; Bourne, P. E.; Brown, C. T.; Buck, S.; Kenall, A.; Lin, J.; McDougall, D.; Nosek, B. A.; Ram, K.; Soderberg, C. K.; Spies, J. R.; Thaney, K.; Updegrove, A.; Woo, K. H.; Yarkoni, T. (2016). "Point of View: How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed". eLife. 5. doi:10.7554/eLife.16800. PMC   4973366 . PMID   27387362.
  201. Wicherts, Jelte M. (2016-01-29). "Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals". PLOS ONE. 11 (1): e0147913. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1147913W. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147913. ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   4732690 . PMID   26824759.
  202. Brembs, Björn (2019-02-12). "Reliable novelty: New should not trump true". PLOS Biology. 17 (2): e3000117. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117. ISSN   1545-7885. PMC   6372144 . PMID   30753184.
  203. 1 2 Spezi, Valerie; Wakeling, Simon; Pinfield, Stephen; Creaser, Claire; Fry, Jenny; Willett, Peter (2017-03-13). "Open-access mega-journals". Journal of Documentation. 73 (2): 263–283. doi:10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082. ISSN   0022-0418.
  204. Dadkhah, Mehdi; Borchardt, Glenn (2016-06-01). "Hijacked Journals: An Emerging Challenge for Scholarly Publishing". Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 36 (6): 739–741. doi:10.1093/asj/sjw026. ISSN   1090-820X. PMID   26906349.
  205. Dadkhah, Mehdi; Maliszewski, Tomasz; Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A. (2016-06-24). "Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics, and predatory publishing: actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics". Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology. 12 (3): 353–362. doi:10.1007/s12024-016-9785-x. ISSN   1547-769X. PMID   27342770.
  206. Shen, Cenyu; Björk, Bo-Christer (2015). "'Predatory" Open Access: A Longitudinal Study of Article Volumes and Market Characteristics". BMC Medicine. 13: 230. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2. PMC   4589914 . PMID   26423063.
  207. Perlin, Marcelo S.; Imasato, Takeyoshi; Borenstein, Denis (2018). "Is Predatory Publishing a Real Threat? Evidence from a Large Database Study". Scientometrics. 116: 255–273. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2750-6. hdl:10183/182710.
  208. Bohannon, John (2013). "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?". Science. 342 (6154): 60–65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60. PMID   24092725.
  209. Olivarez, Joseph; Bales, Stephen; Sare, Laura; Vanduinkerken, Wyoma (2018). "Format Aside: Applying Beall's Criteria to Assess the Predatory Nature of Both OA and Non-OA Library and Information Science Journals". College & Research Libraries. 79. doi:10.5860/crl.79.1.52.
  210. Shamseer, Larissa; Moher, David; Maduekwe, Onyi; Turner, Lucy; Barbour, Virginia; Burch, Rebecca; Clark, Jocalyn; Galipeau, James; Roberts, Jason; Shea, Beverley J. (2017). "Potential Predatory and Legitimate Biomedical Journals: Can You Tell the Difference? A Cross-Sectional Comparison". BMC Medicine. 15 (1): 28. doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9. PMC   5353955 . PMID   28298236.
  211. Eisen, Michael (2013-10-03). "I confess, I wrote the Arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription based journals". www.michaeleisen.org. Retrieved 2020-01-05.
  212. Silver, Andrew (2017). "Pay-to-View Blacklist of Predatory Journals Set to Launch". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22090.
  213. Strinzel, Michaela; Severin, Anna; Milzow, Katrin; Egger, Matthias. "'Blacklists" and 'Whitelists" to Tackle Predatory Publishing : A Cross-Sectional Comparison and Thematic Analysis". doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.27532v1.Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  214. Polka, Jessica K.; Kiley, Robert; Konforti, Boyana; Stern, Bodo; Vale, Ronald D. (2018). "Publish Peer Reviews". Nature. 560 (7720): 545–547. Bibcode:2018Natur.560..545P. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-06032-w. PMID   30158621.
  215. "Browse by Year". roar.eprints.org. Registry of Open Access Repositories. Retrieved 2019-03-10.
  216. Editors, on behalf of the PLOS Medicine; Peiperl, Larry (2018-04-16). "Preprints in medical research: Progress and principles". PLOS Medicine. 15 (4): e1002563. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002563. ISSN   1549-1676. PMC   5901682 . PMID   29659580.CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link)
  217. Elmore, Susan A. (2018). "Preprints: What Role do These Have in Communicating Scientific Results?". Toxicologic Pathology. 46 (4): 364–365. doi:10.1177/0192623318767322. PMC   5999550 . PMID   29628000.
  218. "A List of Preprint Servers". Research Preprints. 2017-03-09. Retrieved 2019-03-10.
  219. Eve, Martin (2014). Open access and the humanities  . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 9–10. ISBN   9781107484016.
  220. Harnad, S. 2007. "The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition" Archived 2010-03-12 at the Wayback Machine . In: ''The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age'', pp. 99–105, L'Harmattan. Retrieved 2011-12-03.
  221. Harnad, S.; Brody, T.; Vallières, F. O.; Carr, L.; Hitchcock, S.; Gingras, Y.; Oppenheim, C.; Stamerjohanns, H.; Hilf, E. R. (2004). "The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access". Serials Review. 30 (4): 310–314. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2004.09.013.
  222. Fortier, Rose; James, Heather G.; Jermé, Martha G.; Berge, Patricia; Del Toro, Rosemary (14 May 2015). "Demystifying Open Access Workshop". e-Publications@Marquette. e-Publications@Marquette. Archived from the original on 18 May 2015. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
  223. " SPARC Europe – Embargo Periods Archived 2015-11-18 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved on 2015-10-18.
  224. Ann Shumelda Okerson and James J. O'Donnell (eds). 1995. "Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing" Archived 2012-09-12 at the Wayback Machine . Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  225. Poynder, Richard. 2004. "Poynder On Point: Ten Years After" Archived 2011-09-26 at the Wayback Machine . Information Today , 21(9), October 2004. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  226. Harnad, S. 2007."Re: when did the Open Access movement "officially" begin" Archived 2016-09-13 at the Wayback Machine . American Scientist Open Access Forum, 27 June 2007. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  227. SHERPA/RoMEO – Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving Archived 2007-11-11 at the Wayback Machine . Sherpa.ac.uk. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  228. "Evaluating Institutional Repository Deployment in American Academe Since Early 2005: Repositories by the Numbers, Part 2". www.dlib.org. Retrieved 2019-03-10.
  229. Dawson, Patricia H.; Yang, Sharon Q. (2016-10-01). "Institutional Repositories, Open Access and Copyright: What Are the Practices and Implications?" (PDF). Science & Technology Libraries. 35 (4): 279–294. doi:10.1080/0194262X.2016.1224994. ISSN   0194-262X.
  230. Mongeon, Philippe; Paul-Hus, Adèle (2016). "The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis". Scientometrics. 106: 213–228. arXiv: 1511.08096 . doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.
  231. Falagas, Matthew E.; Pitsouni, Eleni I.; Malietzis, George A.; Pappas, Georgios (2008). "Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and Weaknesses". The FASEB Journal. 22 (2): 338–342. doi:10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF. PMID   17884971.
  232. Harzing, Anne-Wil; Alakangas, Satu (2016). "Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A Longitudinal and Cross-Disciplinary Comparison". Scientometrics. 106 (2): 787–804. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9.
  233. Robinson-Garcia, Nicolas; Chavarro, Diego Andrés; Molas-Gallart, Jordi; Ràfols, Ismael (2016-05-28). "On the Dominance of Quantitative Evaluation in 'Peripheral" Countries: Auditing Research with Technologies of Distance". SSRN   2818335 .
  234. England, Higher Funding Council of. "Clarivate Analytics will provide citation data during REF 2021 - REF 2021". Higher Education Funding Council for England. Retrieved 2020-01-04.
  235. "World University Rankings 2019: methodology". Times Higher Education (THE). 2018-09-07. Retrieved 2020-01-04.
  236. "The Reinterpretation of the Visibility and Quality of New Policies to Assess Scientific Publications". doi:10.17533/udea.rib.v40n3a04.Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  237. Okune, Angela; Hillyer, Rebecca; Albornoz, Denisse; Posada, Alejandro; Chan, Leslie (2018). "Whose Infrastructure? Towards Inclusive and Collaborative Knowledge Infrastructures in Open Science". doi:10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2018.31.Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  238. Budapest Open Access Initiative, FAQ Archived 2006-07-03 at the Wayback Machine . Earlham.edu (2011-09-13). Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  239. Public Knowledge Project. "Open Journal Systems" Archived 2013-03-01 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved on 2012-11-13.
  240. "Welcome - ROAD". road.issn.org.
  241. Martin, Greg. "Research Guides: Open Access: Finding Open Access Content". mcphs.libguides.com.
  242. Archived 2016-03-02 at the Wayback Machine
  243. 1 2 Archived 2016-02-16 at the Wayback Machine
  244. Archived 2016-03-12 at the Wayback Machine
  245. Edgar, Brian D.; Willinsky, John (14 June 2010). "A survey of scholarly journals using open journal systems". Scholarly and Research Communication. 1 (2). doi:10.22230/src.2010v1n2a24. ISSN   1923-0702.
  246. Suber 2012 , pp. 77–78
  247. "RCUK Open Access Block Grant analysis - Research Councils UK". www.rcuk.ac.uk. Retrieved 2018-02-12.
  248. Harnad, Stevan. "Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?". University of Southampton. Archived from the original on 2005-12-10.
  249. "(#710) What Provosts Need to Mandate". American Scientist Open Access Forum Archives. Listserver.sigmaxi.org. Archived from the original on 2007-01-11.
  250. "Recommendations For UK Open-Access Provision Policy". Ecs.soton.ac.uk. 1998-11-05. Archived from the original on 2006-01-07.
  251. "Open Access". RCUK. Archived from the original on 26 December 2015. Retrieved 19 December 2015.
  252. About the Repository – ROARMAP. Roarmap.eprints.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
  253. Palazzo, Alex (27 August 2007). "PRISM – a new lobby against open access". Science Blogs. Archived from the original on 22 October 2013. Retrieved 17 October 2013.
  254. Basken, Paul (5 January 2012). "Science-Journal Publishers Take Fight Against Open-Access Policies to Congress". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on 17 October 2013. Retrieved 17 October 2013.
  255. Albanese, Andrew (15 February 2013). "Publishers Blast New Open Access Bill, FASTR". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 17 October 2013. Retrieved 17 October 2013.
  256. "Browse by Policymaker Type". ROARMAP. Retrieved 5 March 2019.

Further reading