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.
A PhD Comics introduction to open access

Open access (OA) is a set of principles and a range of practices through which research outputs are distributed online, free of access charges or other 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]


The main focus of the open access movement is "peer reviewed research literature". [2] Historically, this has centered mainly on print-based academic journals. Whereas non-open access journals cover publishing costs through access tolls such as subscriptions, site licenses or pay-per-view charges, open-access journals are characterised by funding models which do not require the reader to pay to read the journal's contents, relying instead on author fees or on public funding, subsidies and sponsorships. 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] monographs, [4] research reports and images. [5]

Since the revenue of most open access journals is earned from publication fees charged to the authors, OA publishers are motivated to increase their profits by accepting low-quality papers and by not performing thorough peer review. [6] [7] On the other hand, the prices for OA publications in the most prestigious journals have exceeded 5,000 US$, making such publishing model unaffordable to a large number of researchers. This increase in publishing cost has been called the "Open-Access Sequel to [the] Serials Crisis". [8]


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

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 other models and alternative terms are also used.

Gold OA

DOAJ growth.png
Number of Gold open access journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals [9] [10]
PMC growth.png
Number of Gold and Hybrid open access journals listed in PubMed Central [11] [12]

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]

Almost all gold OA publishers charge an article processing charge (APC), which is typically paid through institutional or grant funding. The majority of gold open access journals charging APCs follow an "author-pays" model, [13] although this is not an intrinsic property of gold OA. [14]

Green OA

Venn diagram highlighting the key features of different types of open access in scholarly publishing. Open Access colours Venn.svg
Venn diagram highlighting the key features of different types of open access in scholarly publishing.

Self-archiving by authors is permitted under green OA. Independently from publication by a publisher, the author also 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, where people can download the work without paying. [16]

Green OA is gratis for the author. Some publishers (less than 5% and decreasing as of 2014) may charge a fee for an additional service [16] such as a free license on the publisher-authored copyrightable portions of the printed version of an article.

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. [17] [18] 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. [19] Hybrid OA generally costs more than gold OA and can offer a lower quality of service. [20] A particularly controversial practice in hybrid open access journals is "double dipping", where both authors and subscribers are charged. [21]

Bronze OA

Bronze open access articles are free to read only on the publisher page, but lack a clearly identifiable license. [22] Such articles are typically not available for reuse.

Diamond/platinum OA

Journals which publish open access without charging authors article processing charges are sometimes referred to as diamond [23] [24] [25] or platinum [26] [27] OA. Since they do not charge either readers or authors directly, such publishers often require funding from external sources such as the sale of advertisements, academic institutions, learned societies, philanthropists or government grants. [28] [29] [30] Diamond OA journals are available for most disciplines, and are usually small (<25 articles per year) and more likely to be multilingual (38%). [25]

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. [32] [33] This has been done via existing social media sites (e.g. the #ICanHazPDF hashtag) as well as dedicated sites (e.g. Sci-Hub). [32] 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. [34] [35] [36] [37] However, the increased ease and scale from 2010 onwards have changed how many people treat subscription publications. [38]

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. [39] Gratis open access ( Lock-green.svg ) refers to online access free of charge, and libre open access ( Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg ) refers to online access free of charge plus some additional re-use rights. [39] 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; [40] all of which require as a minimum attribution of authorship to the original authors. [39] [41] 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. [42]


FAIR is an acronym for 'findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable', intended to more clearly define what is meant by the term 'open access' and make the concept easier to discuss. [43] [44] Initially proposed in March 2016, it has subsequently been endorsed by organisations such as the European Commission and the G20. [45] [46]


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 [47] ) 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 [48] [49] [50] giving focus to issues such as career incentives, research evaluation and business models for publicly funded research. Plan S and AmeliCA [51] (Open Knowledge for Latin America) caused a wave of debate in scholarly communication in 2019 and 2020. [52] [53]


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. [55] [56] [57] [58] With OA publishing, typically authors retain copyright to their work, and license its reproduction to the publisher. [59] 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). [60]

The most common licenses used in open access publishing are Creative Commons. [61] 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). [62] A range of more restrictive creative commons licenses are also used. More rarely, some of the smaller academic journals use custom open access licenses. [61] [63] 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. [64] [65] [66]


Since open access publication does not charge readers, there are many financial models used to cover costs by other means. [67] 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. Another source of funding for open access can be institutional subscribers. One example of this is the Subscribe to Open publishing model introduced by Annual Reviews; if the subscription revenue goal is met, the given journal's volume is published open access. [68]

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 DOAJ APCs.png
Article processing charges by gold OA journals in DOAJ

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] [23] [24] 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 $1,000–$3,000 ($5,380 for Nature Communications) ( [72] [54] [73] but can be under $10 [74] or over $5,000. [75] 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). [76] APCs can also depend on a journal's impact factor. [77] [78] [79] [80] Some publishers (e.g. eLife and Ubiquity Press) have released estimates of their direct and indirect costs that set their APCs. [81] [82] Hybrid OA generally costs more than gold OA and can offer a lower quality of service. [83] A particularly controversial practice in hybrid open access journals is "double dipping", where both authors and subscribers are charged. [21]

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). [84] [ failed verification ] This has led to the assessment that there is enough money "within the system" to enable full transition to OA. [84] 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. [85] Concern has been noted that increasing subscription journal prices will be mirrored by rising APCs, creating a barrier to less financially privileged authors. [86] [87] [88]

The inherent bias of the current APC-based OA publishing perpetuates this inequality through the 'Matthew effect' (the rich get richer and the poor get poorer). The switch from pay-to-read to pay-to-publish has left essentially the same people behind, with some academics not having enough purchasing power (individually or through their institutions) for either option. [89] 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" [23] [24] do not charge either readers or authors. [90] These journals use a variety of business models including subsidies, advertising, membership dues, endowments, or volunteer labour. [91] [85] Subsidising sources range from universities, libraries and museums to foundations, societies or government agencies. [91] Some publishers may cross-subsidise from other publications or auxiliary services and products. [91] For example, most APC-free journals in Latin America are funded by higher education institutions and are not conditional on institutional affiliation for publication. [85] Conversely, Knowledge Unlatched crowdsources funding in order to make monographs available open access. [92]

Estimates of prevalence vary, but approximately 10,000 journals without APC are listed in DOAJ [93] and the Free Journal Network. [94] [95] APC-free journals tend to be smaller and more local-regional in scope. [96] [97] Some also require submitting authors to have a particular institutional affiliation. [96]

Preprint use

Typical publishing workflow for an academic journal article (preprint, postprint, and published) with open access sharing rights per SHERPA/RoMEO Preprint postprint published.svg
Typical publishing workflow for an academic journal article (preprint, postprint, and published) with open access sharing rights per SHERPA/RoMEO

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. [98] [99] [100] 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. [101]

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. [102] 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. [103] 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. [104] 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. [105] 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. [103]


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, [106] 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 and 40% of journals, [108] [109] during which time an article is paywalled before permitting self-archiving (green OA) or releasing a free-to-read version (bronze OA). [110] [111] Embargo periods typically vary from 6–12 months in STEM and >12 months in humanities, arts and social sciences. [85] Embargo-free self-archiving has not been shown to affect subscription revenue, [112] and tends to increase readership and citations. [113] [114] Embargoes have been lifted on particular topics for either limited times or ongoing (e.g. Zika outbreaks [115] or indigenous health [116] ). Plan S includes zero-length embargoes on self-archiving as a key principle. [85]


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, [118] although others have argued that OA may raise the total cost of publication, [119] and further increase economic incentives for exploitation in academic publishing. [120] 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. [117] [121]

Stakeholders and concerned communities

A fictional thank you note from the future to contemporary researchers for sharing their research openly

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. [122] Some schemes exist for providing subscription scientific publications to those affiliated to institutions in developing countries at little or no cost. [123] 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". [124]

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. [125]

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. [126] 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.


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. [127]

In May 2005, 16 major Dutch universities cooperatively launched DAREnet, the Digital Academic Repositories, making over 47,000 research papers available. [128] From 2 June 2008, DAREnet has been incorporated into the scholarly portal NARCIS. [129] By 2019, NARCIS provided access to 360,000 open access publications from all Dutch universities, KNAW, NWO and a number of scientific institutes. [130]

In 2011, a group of universities in North America formed the Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI). [131] 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, [132] 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. [133]

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. [134] In 2015, the group expanded to include all eight New Zealand universities and was renamed the Australasian Open Access Support Group. [135] It was then renamed the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group Archived 10 February 2018 at the Wayback Machine , highlighting its emphasis on strategy. The awareness raising activities of the AOASG include presentations, workshops, blogs, and a webinar series Archived 5 February 2018 at the Wayback Machine on open access issues. [136]

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, [137] 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. [138]

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. [139] 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). [140] [141]

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 [142] 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. [143]

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". [144] [145] 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. [146] 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. [147] [148]

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. [149] Her work is described in her "15-year retrospective". [150]


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. [151] 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, such as those doing research in private companies, start-ups , and most hospitals, usually do not have access to publications behind paywalls, and OA publications is the only type that they can access in practice.

Even those who do not read scholarly articles benefit indirectly from open access. [152] 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. [153] 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. [154] While no library has subscriptions to every journal that might be of benefit, virtually all published research can be acquired via interlibrary loan. [155] 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, [156] the Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative, sponsored by the World Health Organization and part of Research4Life. HINARI, however, also has restrictions. For example, individual researchers may not register as users unless their institution has access, [157] 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). [157]

Many open access projects involve international collaboration. For example, the SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), [158] 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. [159] [160]


OA by year.png
The number and proportion of open access articles split between Gold, Green, Hybrid, Bronze and closed access (1950–2016) [161]
OA by subject.png
Ratios of article access types for different subjects (averaged 2009–2015) [161]
Share of hybrid open access (OA) articles in the subscription journals of the top three publishers. JCR, Journal Citation Reports. Reproduced Kim-2021f.png
Share of hybrid open access (OA) articles in the subscription journals of the top three publishers. JCR, Journal Citation Reports. Reproduced


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. [162] 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. [163] 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. [23] 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. [164] [165] [166] 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. [167]

In 2009, there were approximately 4,800 active open access journals, publishing around 190,000 articles. [168] As of February 2019, over 12,500 open access journals are listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals. [169]

Percentange of Open Access journal articles available from ACS (green), Elsevier (orange) and MDPI (blue) vs. the original publication year accrording to Web Of Science on on 2022-10-28 Percentange of Open Access journal articles available from ACS (green), Elsevier (orange) and MDPI (blue) vs. the original publication year accrording to Web Of Science on on 2022-10-28.png
Percentange of Open Access journal articles available from ACS (green), Elsevier (orange) and MDPI (blue) vs. the original publication year accrording to Web Of Science on on 2022-10-28
Gold OA vs green OA by institution for 2017 (size indicates number of outputs, colour indicates region). Note: articles may be both green and gold OA so x and y values do not sum to total OA. Gold vs green OA at individual universities.jpg
Interactive icon.svg
Gold OA vs green OA by institution for 2017 (size indicates number of outputs, colour indicates region). Note: articles may be both green and gold OA so x and y values do not sum to total OA.

A 2013-2018 report (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. [72] 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. [72] 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. [172] 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. [173] As of February 2019, over 4,500 institutional and cross-institutional repositories have been registered in ROAR. [174]

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 access 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. [180] [181]

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". [182]


OA articles are generally viewed online and downloaded more often than paywalled articles and that readership continues for longer. [176] [183] 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). [184] OA articles are more read on publication management programs such as Mendeley. [179] Open access practices can reduce publication delays, an obstacle which led some research fields such as high-energy physics to adopt widespread preprint access. [185]

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. [186] Open access articles are typically cited more often than equivalent articles requiring subscriptions. [2] [187] [188] [189] [190] This 'citation advantage' was first reported in 2001. [191] Two major studies dispute this claim, [192] [183] however the consensus of multiple studies support the effect, [175] [193] with measured OA citation advantage varying in magnitude between 1.3-fold to 6-fold depending on discipline. [189] [194]

Citation advantage is most pronounced in OA articles in hybrid journals (compared to the non-OA articles in those same journals), [195] and with articles deposited in green OA repositories. [162] Notably, green OA articles show similar benefits to citation counts as gold OA articles. [190] Articles in gold OA journals are typically cited at a similar frequency to paywalled articles. [196] Citation advantage increases the longer an article has been published. [176]


In addition to format academic citation, other forms of research impact (altmetrics) may be affected by OA publishing, [184] [190] constituting a significant "amplifier" effect for science published on such platforms. [197] Initial studies suggest that OA articles are more referenced in blogs, [198] on Twitter, [179] and on English Wikipedia. [197] The OA advantage in altmetrics may be smaller than the advantage in academic citations, although findings are mixed. [199] [190]

Journal impact factor

Journal impact factor (JIF) measures the average number of citations of articles in a journal over a two-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. [200] [201] In subscription journals, impact factor correlates with overall citation count, however this correlation is not observed in gold OA journals. [202]

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. [203] [204] Commonly reviewer comments are only revealed to the authors and reviewer identities kept anonymous. [205] [206] The rise of OA publishing has also given rise to experimentation in technologies and processes for peer review. [207] Increasing transparency of peer review and quality control includes posting results to preprint servers, [208] preregistration of studies, [209] open publishing of peer reviews, [210] open publishing of full datasets and analysis code, [211] [212] and other open science practices. [213] [214] [215] It is proposed that increased transparency of academic quality control processes makes audit of the academic record easier. [210] [216] 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. [217] [218] 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. [85]

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. The definitions of 'predatory', 'deceptive', or 'questionable' publishers/journals are often vague, opaque, and confusing, and can also include fully legitimate journals, such as those indexed by PubMed Central. [219] In this sense, Grudniewicz et al. [220] proposed a consensus definition that needs to be shared: "Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices."

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. [221] [222] The rise of such journals since 2010 [223] [224] 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. [225] Although commonly associated with OA publishing models, subscription journals are also at risk of similar lax quality control standards and poor editorial policies. [226] [227] [228] OA publishers therefore aim to ensure quality via auditing by registries such as DOAJ, OASPA 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). [229] [230] Increased transparency of the peer review and publication process has been proposed as a way to combat predatory journal practices. [85] [210] [231]

Open irony

Open irony refers to the situation where a scholarly journal article advocates open access but the article itself is only accessible by paying a fee to the journal publisher to read the article. [232] [233] [234] This has been noted in many fields, with more than 20 examples appearing since around 2010, including in widely-read journals such as The Lancet , Science and Nature . A Flickr group collected screenshots of examples. In 2012 Duncan Hull proposed the Open Access Irony award to publicly humiliate journals that publish these kinds of papers. [235] Examples of these have been shared and discussed on social media using the hashtag #openirony (e.g. on Twitter). Typically these discussions are humorous exposures of articles/editorials that are pro-open access, but locked behind paywalls. The main concern that motivates these discussions is that restricted access to public scientific knowledge is slowing scientific progress. [234] The practice has been justified as important for raising awareness of open access. [236]


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. [238] [239] 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. [240]

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. [241] [242] [243] [173] [244] 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. [245] 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, [246] [247] self-archiving was already being practiced by some computer scientists in local FTP archives in the 1980s (later harvested by CiteSeer). [248] The SHERPA/RoMEO site maintains a list of the different publisher copyright and self-archiving policies [249] and the ROAR database hosts an index of the repositories themselves. [250] [251]

Representativeness in proprietary databases

Uneven coverage of journals in the major commercial citation index databases (such as Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed) [252] [253] [254] [255] has strong effects on evaluating both researchers and institutions (e.g. the UK Research Excellence Framework or Times Higher Education ranking [note 5] [256] [257] ). 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. [85] [65] However, there are not currently equal, comprehensive, multi-lingual, open source or non-commercial digital infrastructures. [258]


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, [259] open access journal websites, [260] 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) [261] 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. [262] [169]

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,, [263] and CORE [264] 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., [263] ). 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. [265]

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. [266] For example, Research Councils UK spent nearly £60m on supporting their open access mandate between 2013 and 2016. [267] New mandates are often announced during the Open Access Week, that takes place each year during the last full week of October.

The idea of mandating self-archiving was raised at least as early as 1998. [268] Since 2003 [269] efforts have been focused on open access mandating by the funders of research: governments, [270] research funding agencies, [271] and universities. [272] Some publishers and publisher associations have lobbied against introducing mandates. [273] [274] [275]

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]


As of March 2021, open-access mandates have been registered by over 100 research funders and 800 universities worldwide, compiled in the Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies. [276] As these sorts of mandates increase in prevalence, collaborating researchers may be affected by several at once. Tools such as SWORD can help authors manage sharing between repositories. [2]

Compliance rates with voluntary open access policies remain low (as low as 5%). [2] However it has been demonstrated that more successful outcomes are achieved by policies that are compulsory and more specific, such as specifying maximum permissible embargo times. [2] [277] Compliance with compulsory open-access mandates varies between funders from 27% to 91% (averaging 67%). [2] [278] From March 2021, Google Scholar started tracking and indicating compliance with funders' open-access mandates, although it only checks whether items are free-to-read, rather than openly licensed. [279]

Inequality and open access

Gender inequality

Gender inequality still exists in the modern system of scientific publishing. In terms of citation and authorship position, gender differences favoring men can be found in many disciplinaries such as political science, economics and neurology, and critical care research. For instance, in critical care research, 30.8% of the 18,483 research articles published between 2008 and 2018 were led by female authors and were more likely to be published in lower-impact journals than those led by male authors. [280] Such disparity can adversely affect the scientific career of women and underrate their scientific impacts for promotion and funding. Hence, for a healthy and fair scientific community, it is important to mitigate such gender inequality. It is suggested to help women in science by reducing systematic bias, inappropriate institutional practices or unequal domestic work. Increasing the number of female scientists and policies promoting gender equality may help close the gender gap in science. Besides, improving the visibility and representation of women in academic publishing is also essential because under-representation of women in scholarly literature can enlarge the gendered citation gap, even in the discipline that has more women than men. Open access (OA) publishing has many advantages in the present publishing system and can help female researchers increase their publications’ visibility and measure impact. OA publishing is a well-advocated practice for providing better accessibility to knowledge (especially for researchers in low- and middle-income countries) as well as increasing transparency along with the publishing procedure [21,22]. Publications’ visibility can be enhanced through OA publishing due to its high accessibility by removing paywalls compared to non-OA publishing.

Additionally, because of this high visibility, authors can receive more recognition for their works. OA publishing is also suggested to be advantageous in terms of citation number compared to non-OA publishing, but this aspect is still controversial within the scientific community. The association between OA and a higher number of citations may be because higher-quality articles are self-selected for publication as OA. Considering the gender-based issues in academia and the efforts to improve gender equality, OA can be an important factor when female researchers choose a place to publish their articles. With a proper supporting system and funding, OA publishing is shown to have increased female researchers’ productivity. [281]

High-income–low-income country inequality

A 2022 study has found "most OA articles were written by authors in high-income countries, and there were no articles in Mirror journals by authors in low-income countries." [282] "One of the great ironies of open access is that you grant authors around the world the ability to finally read the scientific literature that was completely closed off to them, but it ends up excluding them from publishing in the same journals" says Emilio Bruna, a scholar at the University of Florida in Gainesville. [283]

By country

See also


  1. "ASAPbio FAQ". Archived from the original on 31 August 2020. Retrieved 28 August 2019..
  2. "SHERPA/RoMEO". Archived from the original on 30 August 2019. Retrieved 28 August 2019. database.
  3. "The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics". Archived from the original on 31 August 2020. Retrieved 28 August 2019. 2015.
  4. "Plan S implementation guidelines". Archived from the original on 31 August 2020. Retrieved 28 August 2019., 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 rankings.

Related Research Articles

arXiv Online digital archive for preprints of scientific papers

arXiv is an open-access repository of electronic preprints and postprints approved for posting after moderation, but not peer review. It consists of scientific papers in the fields of mathematics, physics, astronomy, electrical engineering, computer science, quantitative biology, statistics, mathematical finance and economics, which can be accessed online. In many fields of mathematics and physics, almost all scientific papers are self-archived on the arXiv repository before publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Some publishers also grant permission for authors to archive the peer-reviewed postprint. Begun on August 14, 1991, passed the half-million-article milestone on October 3, 2008, and had hit a million by the end of 2014. As of April 2021, the submission rate is about 16,000 articles per month.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Preprint</span> Academic paper prior to journal publication

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 or after a paper is published in a journal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Academic publishing</span> Subfield of publishing which distributes academic research and scholarship

Academic publishing is the subfield of publishing which distributes academic research and scholarship. Most academic work is published in academic journal articles, books or theses. 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.

PubMed Central (PMC) is a free digital repository that archives open access full-text scholarly articles that have been published in biomedical and life sciences journals. As one of the major research databases developed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), PubMed Central is more than a document repository. Submissions to PMC are indexed and formatted for enhanced metadata, medical ontology, and unique identifiers which enrich the XML structured data for each article. Content within PMC can be linked to other NCBI databases and accessed via Entrez search and retrieval systems, further enhancing the public's ability to discover, read and build upon its biomedical knowledge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Self-archiving</span> Authorial deposit of documents to provide open access

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hindawi (publisher)</span> Scientific and medical journal publisher

Hindawi is a publisher of peer-reviewed, open access, scientific journals currently active in scientific, technical, and medical (STM) literature. It was founded in 1997 in Cairo, Egypt, but purchased in 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, a publishing company based in the United States. The company has its headquarters in London, an office in Cairo, and a virtual office address in New York City.

A hybrid open-access journal is a subscription journal in which some of the articles are open access. This status typically requires the payment of a publication fee to the publisher in order to publish an article open access, in addition to the continued payment of subscriptions to access all other content. Strictly speaking, the term "hybrid open-access journal" is incorrect, possibly misleading, as using the same logic such journals could also be called "hybrid subscription journals". Simply using the term "hybrid access journal" is accurate.

Open peer review is the various possible modifications of the traditional scholarly peer review process. The three most common modifications to which the term is applied are:

  1. Open identities: Authors and reviewers are aware of each other's identity.
  2. Open reports: Review reports are published alongside the relevant article.
  3. Open participation: The wider community are able to contribute to the review process.

An open-access mandate is a policy adopted by a research institution, research funder, or government which requires or recommends 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.

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.

<i>PeerJ</i> Academic 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 initial financial backing of US$950,000 from O'Reilly Media's O'Reilly AlphaTech Ventures, and later funding from Sage Publishing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Predatory publishing</span> Fraudulent business model for scientific publications

Predatory publishing, also 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 editorial and publishing services that legitimate academic journals provide, whether open access or not. The phenomenon of "open access predatory publishers" was first noticed by Jeffrey Beall, when he described "publishers that are ready to publish any article for payment". However, criticisms about the label "predatory" have been raised. A lengthy review of the controversy started by Beall appears in The Journal of Academic Librarianship.

An article processing charge (APC), also known as a publication fee, is a fee which is sometimes charged to authors. Most commonly, it is involved in making a work available as open access (OA), in either a full OA journal or in a hybrid journal. This fee may be paid by the author, the author's institution, or their research funder. Sometimes, publication fees are also involved in traditional journals or for paywalled content. 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.

ScienceOpen is a website. It is freely accessible for all and offers hosting and promotional services within the platform for publishers and institutes. The organization is based in Berlin and has a technical office in Boston. It is a member of CrossRef, ORCID, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, STM Association and the Directory of Open Access Journals. The company was designated as one of “10 to Watch” by research advisory firm Outsell in its report “Open Access 2015: Market Size, Share, Forecast, and Trends.”

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open access in Germany</span> Overview of the culture and regulation of open access in Germany

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.

Open access scholarly communication of Norway can be searched via the Norwegian Open Research Archive (NORA). "A national repository consortium, BIBSYS Brage, operates shared electronic publishing system on behalf of 56 institutions." Cappelen Damm Akademisk, Nordic Open Access Scholarly Publishing, University of Tromsø, and Universitetsforlaget belong to the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. Norwegian signatories to the international "Open Access 2020" campaign, launched in 2016, include CRIStin, Norsk institutt for bioøkonomi, Norwegian Institute of Palaeography and Historical Philology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, University of Tromsø, University of Bergen, University of Oslo, and Wikimedia Norge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of open access</span>

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.

Plan S is an initiative for open-access science publishing launched in 2018 by "cOAlition S", a consortium of national research agencies and funders from twelve European countries. The plan requires scientists and researchers who benefit from state-funded research organisations and institutions to publish their work in open repositories or in journals that are available to all by 2021. The "S" stands for "shock".


  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Suber, Peter. "Open Access Overview". Archived from the original on 19 May 2007. Retrieved 29 November 2014.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Swan, Alma (2012). "Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access". UNESCO. Archived from the original on 14 April 2019. Retrieved 14 April 2019.
  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 1 January 2014.
  4. Schwartz, Meredith (2012). "Directory of Open Access Books Goes Live". Library Journal. Archived from the original on 4 October 2013.
  5. "Terms and conditions for the use and redistribution of Sentinel data" (PDF). No. version 1.0. European Space Agency. July 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 February 2020. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
  6. Beall, Jeffrey. "What the Open-Access Movement Doesn't Want You to Know". AAUP. Retrieved 22 October 2021.
  7. Knox, Richard (3 October 2013). "Some Online Journals Will Publish Fake Science, For A Fee". NPR. Retrieved 22 October 2021.
  8. Khoo, Shaun Yon-Seng (2019). "Article Processing Charge Hyperinflation and Price Insensitivity: An Open Access Sequel to the Serials Crisis". Liber Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries. 29: 1–18. doi:10.18352/lq.10280. S2CID   164265611 . Retrieved 30 August 2022.
  9. "DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals". 1 May 2013. Archived from the original on 1 May 2013.
  10. Morrison, Heather (31 December 2018). "Dramatic Growth of Open Access". Scholars Portal Dataverse. hdl:10864/10660.
  11. "PMC full journal list download". Archived from the original on 7 March 2019. Retrieved 10 March 2019.
  12. "NLM Catalog". Archived from the original on 14 January 2019. Retrieved 10 March 2019.
  13. Schroter, Sara; Tite, Leanne (2006). "Open access publishing and author-pays business models: a survey of authors' knowledge and perceptions". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . 99 (3): 141–148. doi:10.1177/014107680609900316. PMC   1383760 . PMID   16508053.
  14. Eve, Martin Paul. Introduction, or why open access? (Chapter 1) - Open Access and the Humanities. Cambridge Core. pp. 1–42. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316161012.003. ISBN   9781107097896 . Retrieved 30 December 2020.
  15. Farquharson, Jamie Ian; Wadsworth, Fabian B. (31 July 2018). "Introducing Volcanica: The first diamond open-access journal for volcanology". Volcanica. 1 (1): i–ix. doi:10.30909/vol.01.01.i-ix. ISSN   2610-3540. S2CID   159022081.
  16. 1 2 Gadd, Elizabeth; Troll Covey, Denise (1 March 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 (1): 106–122. doi:10.1177/0961000616657406. ISSN   0961-0006. S2CID   34955879. Archived from the original on 31 August 2020. Retrieved 28 August 2019.
  17. 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 .
  18. Suber 2012 , pp. 140–141
  19. Suber 2012 , p. 140
  20. Trust, Wellcome (23 March 2016). "Wellcome Trust and COAF Open Access Spend, 2014-15". Wellcome Trust Blog. Archived from the original on 27 October 2019. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
  21. 1 2 "Open access double dipping policy". Cambridge Core. Archived from the original on 31 August 2020. Retrieved 12 March 2018.
  22. 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. PMC   5815332 . PMID   29456894.
  23. 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 .
  24. 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.
  25. 1 2 Bosman, Jeroen; Frantsvåg, Jan Erik; Kramer, Bianca; Langlais, Pierre-Carl; Proudman, Vanessa (9 March 2021). OA Diamond Journals Study. Part 1: Findings (Report). doi:10.5281/zenodo.4558704.
  26. Machovec, George (2013). "An Interview with Jeffrey Beall on Open Access Publishing". The Charleston Advisor. 15: 50. doi:10.5260/chara.15.1.50.
  27. 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.
  28. Normand, Stephanie (4 April 2018). "Is Diamond Open Access the Future of Open Access?". The IJournal: Graduate Student Journal of the Faculty of Information. 3 (2). ISSN   2561-7397. Archived from the original on 29 May 2020. Retrieved 25 June 2019.
  29. Rosenblum, Brian; Greenberg, Marc; Bolick, Josh; Emmett, Ada; Peterson, A. Townsend (17 June 2016). "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. S2CID   206650745.
  30. By (1 June 2017). "Diamond Open Access, Societies and Mission". The Scholarly Kitchen. Archived from the original on 24 June 2019. Retrieved 25 June 2019.
  31. Himmelstein, Daniel S; Romero, Ariel Rodriguez; Levernier, Jacob G; Munro, Thomas Anthony; McLaughlin, Stephen Reid; Greshake Tzovaras, Bastian; Greene, Casey S (1 March 2018). "Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature". eLife. 7. doi:10.7554/eLife.32822. ISSN   2050-084X. PMC   5832410 . PMID   29424689. Archived from the original on 21 May 2019. Retrieved 21 May 2019.
  32. 1 2 Björk, Bo-Christer (2017). "Gold, green, and black open access". Learned Publishing. 30 (2): 173–175. doi: 10.1002/leap.1096 . ISSN   1741-4857.
  33. 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.
  34. Bohannon, John (28 April 2016). "Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone". Science. 352 (6285): 508–12. doi:10.1126/science.352.6285.508. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   27126020. Archived from the original on 13 May 2019. Retrieved 17 May 2019.
  35. Greshake, Bastian (21 April 2017). "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.
  36. Jamali, Hamid R. (1 July 2017). "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. S2CID   189875585.
  37. Swab, Michelle; Romme, Kristen (1 April 2016). "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.
  38. McKenzie, Lindsay (27 July 2017). "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. Archived from the original on 17 May 2019. Retrieved 17 May 2019.
  39. 1 2 3 Suber, Peter (2008). "Gratis and Libre Open Access". Archived from the original on 10 March 2017. Retrieved 3 December 2011.
  40. Suber 2012 , pp. 68–69
  41. Suber 2012 , pp. 7–8
  42. Balaji, B.; Dhanamjaya, M. (2019). "Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures". Publications. 7: 6. doi: 10.3390/publications7010006 .>
  43. 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.
  44. Wilkinson, Mark D.; da Silva Santos, Luiz Olavo Bonino; Dumontier, Michel; Velterop, Jan; Neylon, Cameron; Mons, Barend (1 January 2017). "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.
  45. "European Commission embraces the FAIR principles". Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences. 20 April 2016. Archived from the original on 20 July 2018. Retrieved 31 July 2019.
  46. "G20 Leaders' Communique Hangzhou Summit". Archived from the original on 31 July 2019. Retrieved 31 July 2019.
  47. "Hecho En Latinoamérica. Acceso Abierto, Revistas Académicas e Innovaciones Regionales". Archived from the original on 6 August 2020. Retrieved 31 August 2020.
  48. Ross-Hellauer, Tony; Schmidt, Birgit; Kramer, Bianca. "Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea?". doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.26954v1. S2CID   49319171.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  49. 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. S2CID   8144721. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 September 2016. Retrieved 28 August 2019.
  50. Future of Scholarly Publishing and Scholarly Communication : Report of the Expert Group to the European Commission. 30 January 2019. ISBN   9789279972386. Archived from the original on 3 June 2019. Retrieved 28 August 2019.
  51. Aguado-López, Eduardo; Becerril-Garcia, Arianna (8 August 2019). "AmeliCA before Plan S – The Latin American Initiative to develop a cooperative, non-commercial, academic led, system of scholarly communication". Impact of Social Sciences. Archived from the original on 1 November 2019. Retrieved 26 November 2022.
  52. 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 .
  53. Pourret, Olivier; Irawan, Dasapta Erwin; Tennant, Jonathan P.; Hursthouse, Andrew; Van Hullebusch, Eric D. (1 September 2020). "The growth of open access publishing in geochemistry". Results in Geochemistry. 1: 100001. doi:10.1016/j.ringeo.2020.100001. ISSN   2666-2779. S2CID   219903509.
  54. 1 2 3 DOAJ. "Journal metadata". Archived from the original on 27 August 2016. Retrieved 18 May 2019.
  55. 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.
  56. 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. Bibcode:1998Sci...281.1459B. doi:10.1126/science.281.5382.1459. PMID   9750115. S2CID   36290551.
  57. 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. S2CID   40861778. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 July 2020. Retrieved 9 September 2019.
  58. Willinsky, John (2002). "Copyright Contradictions in Scholarly Publishing". First Monday. 7 (11). doi:10.5210/fm.v7i11.1006. S2CID   39334346.
  59. Carroll, Michael W. (2011). "Why Full Open Access Matters". PLOS Biology. 9 (11): e1001210. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001210. PMC   3226455 . PMID   22140361.
  60. Davies, Mark (2015). "Academic Freedom: A Lawyer's Perspective" (PDF). Higher Education. 70 (6): 987–1002. doi:10.1007/s10734-015-9884-8. S2CID   144222460. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 December 2019. Retrieved 28 August 2019.
  61. 1 2 Frosio, Giancarlo F. (2014). "Open Access Publishing: A Literature Review". SSRN   2697412.
  62. Peters, Diane; Margoni, Thomas (10 March 2016). "Creative Commons Licenses: Empowering Open Access". SSRN   2746044.
  63. Dodds, Francis (2018). "The Changing Copyright Landscape in Academic Publishing". Learned Publishing. 31 (3): 270–275. doi: 10.1002/leap.1157 . Archived from the original on 4 February 2020. Retrieved 4 February 2020.
  64. 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 .
  65. 1 2 Pablo Alperin, Juan; Rozemblum, Cecilia (2017). "The Reinterpretation of the Visibility and Quality of New Policies to Assess Scientific Publications". Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología. 40: 231–241. doi: 10.17533/udea.rib.v40n3a04 .
  66. W. Frass; J. Cross; V. Gardner (2013). Open Access Survey: Exploring the Views of Taylor & Francis and Routledge Authors (PDF). Taylor & Francis/Routledge.
  67. "OA journal business models". Open Access Directory. 2009–2012. Archived from the original on 18 October 2015. Retrieved 20 October 2015.
  68. "Jisc supports Subscribe to Open model". Jisc. 11 March 2020. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  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?". Archived from the original on 19 February 2019. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
  71. Peter, Suber (2012). Open access. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN   9780262301732. OCLC   795846161.
  72. 1 2 3 Walt Crawford (2019). Gold Open Access 2013-2018: Articles in Journals (GOA4) (PDF). Cites & Insights Books. ISBN   978-1-329-54713-1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 May 2019. Retrieved 30 August 2019.
  73. Kim, Sang-Jun; Park, Kay Sook (2021). "Influence of open access journals on the research community in Journal Citation Reports". Science Editing. 8: 32–38. doi:10.6087/kcse.227. S2CID   233380569.
  74. "An efficient journal". The Occasional Pamphlet. 6 March 2012. Archived from the original on 18 November 2019. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
  75. "Article processing charges". Nature Communications. Archived from the original on 27 October 2019. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
  76. Kozak, Marcin; Hartley, James (December 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.
  77. 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. S2CID   15966412.
  78. Lawson, Stuart (2014). "APC Pricing". Figshare. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.1056280.v3.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  79. "Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 October 2018. Retrieved 28 August 2019.
  80. Schönfelder, Nina (2018). "APCs—Mirroring the Impact Factor or Legacy of the Subscription-Based Model?". Archived from the original on 22 December 2019. Retrieved 28 August 2019.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  81. "Setting a fee for publication". eLife. 29 September 2016. Archived from the original on 7 November 2017. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
  82. "Ubiquity Press". Archived from the original on 21 October 2019. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
  83. Trust, Wellcome (23 March 2016). "Wellcome Trust and COAF Open Access Spend, 2014-15". Wellcome Trust Blog. Archived from the original on 27 October 2019. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
  84. 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}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  85. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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. (11 March 2019). "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing". Publications. 7 (2): 34. doi: 10.3390/publications7020034 .
  86. Björk, B. C. (2017). "Growth of Hybrid Open Access". PeerJ. 5: e3878. doi:10.7717/peerj.3878. PMC   5624290 . PMID   28975059.
  87. 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. S2CID   17356533. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 June 2019. Retrieved 9 September 2019.
  88. 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. S2CID   67869151.
  89. Pourret, Olivier; Hedding, David William; Ibarra, Daniel Enrique; Irawan, Dasapta Erwin; Liu, Haiyan; Tennant, Jonathan Peter (10 June 2021). "International disparities in open access practices in the Earth Sciences". European Science Editing. 47: e63663. doi:10.3897/ese.2021.e63663. ISSN   2518-3354. S2CID   236300530.
  90. Koroso, Nesru H. (18 November 2015). "Diamond Open Access - UA Magazine". UA Magazine. Archived from the original on 18 November 2018. Retrieved 11 May 2018.
  91. 1 2 3 Suber, Peter (2 November 2006). "No-fee open-access journals". SPARC open access Newsletter. Archived from the original on 8 December 2008. Retrieved 14 December 2008.
  92. 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.
  93. "DOAJ search". Archived from the original on 31 August 2020. Retrieved 30 June 2019.
  94. Wilson, Mark (20 June 2018). "Introducing the Free Journal Network – community-controlled open access publishing". Impact of Social Sciences. Archived from the original on 24 April 2019. Retrieved 17 May 2019.
  95. "Is the EU's open access plan a tremor or an earthquake?". Science|Business. Archived from the original on 17 May 2019. Retrieved 17 May 2019.
  96. 1 2 Bastian, Hilda (2 April 2018). "A Reality Check on Author Access to Open Access Publishing". Absolutely Maybe. Archived from the original on 22 December 2019. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
  97. Crotty, David (26 August 2015). "Is it True that Most Open Access Journals Do Not Charge an APC? Sort of. It Depends". The Scholarly Kitchen. Archived from the original on 12 December 2019. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
  98. Ginsparg, P. (2016). "Preprint Déjà Vu". The EMBO Journal. 35 (24): 2620–2625. doi:10.15252/embj.201695531. PMC   5167339 . PMID   27760783.
  99. 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}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  100. 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.
  101. Balaji, B.; Dhanamjaya, M. (2019). "Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures". Publications. 7: 6. doi: 10.3390/publications7010006 .
  102. 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.
  103. 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.
  104. 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. S2CID   1013588.
  105. Crick, Tom; Hall, Benjamin A.; Ishtiaq, Samin (2017). "Reproducibility in Research: Systems, Infrastructure, Culture". Journal of Open Research Software. 5: 32. doi: 10.5334/jors.73 .
  106. 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. S2CID   34955879. Archived from the original on 31 August 2020. Retrieved 28 August 2019.
  107. "Journal embargo finder". Archived from the original on 18 May 2019. Retrieved 17 May 2019.
  108. Laakso, Mikael (1 May 2014). "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. S2CID   8225450.
  109. 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, archived from the original on 5 August 2020, retrieved 6 January 2020
  110. 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 .
  111. 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. Archived from the original on 5 August 2020. Retrieved 6 January 2020.
  112. Swan, Alma; Brown, Sheridan (May 2005). "Open Access Self-Archiving: An Author Study". Departmental Technical Report. UK FE and HE Funding Councils. Archived from the original on 31 August 2020. Retrieved 28 August 2019.
  113. Ottaviani, Jim (22 August 2016). 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.
  114. Suber, Peter (2014). "The evidence fails to justify publishers' demand for longer embargo periods on publicly-funded research". LSA impact blog. Archived from the original on 4 March 2020. Retrieved 6 January 2020.
  115. "Global scientific community commits to sharing data on Zika". Wellcome. Archived from the original on 21 December 2019. Retrieved 6 January 2020.
  116. "About". Medical Journal of Australia. Australasian Medical Publishing Company. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 12 June 2019.
  117. 1 2 3 Suber 2012 , pp. 29–43
  118. "The Life and Death of an Open Access Journal: Q&A with Librarian Marcus Banks". 31 March 2015. Archived from the original on 24 May 2018. Retrieved 23 May 2018., "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.'"
  119. "Gold open access in practice: How will universities respond to the rising total cost of publication?". 25 March 2015. Archived from the original on 1 January 2016. Retrieved 23 May 2018.
  120. "Reasoning and Interest: Clustering Open Access - LePublikateur". LePublikateur. 4 June 2018. Archived from the original on 18 October 2018. Retrieved 5 June 2018.
  121. Tennant, Jonathan P.; Waldner, François; Jacques, Damien C.; Masuzzo, Paola; Collister, Lauren B.; Hartgerink, Chris. H. J. (21 September 2016). "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.
  122. Sivaraj, S., et al. 2008. "Resource Sharing among Engineering College Libraries in Tamil Nadu in a Networking System" Archived 24 December 2012 at the Wayback Machine . Library Philosophy and Practice.
  123. "Developing World Access to Leading Research" Archived 1 December 2013 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved on 19 November 2012.
  124. Van Orsdel, Lee C. & Born, Kathleen. 2005. "Periodicals Price Survey 2005: Choosing Sides". Library Journal. 15 April 2005. Archived from the original on 30 June 2017. Retrieved 18 October 2017.
  125. 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 . doi:10.1002/jclp.20492. PMID   18425790. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 May 2008. Retrieved 22 April 2008.
  126. "DFID Research: DFID's Policy Opens up a World of Global Research". Archived from the original on 3 January 2013.
  127. How To Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandates Archived 16 March 2008 at the Wayback Machine . (2 March 2008). Retrieved on 3 December 2011.
  128. Libbenga, Jan. (11 May 2005) Dutch academics declare research free-for-all Archived 15 July 2017 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved on 3 December 2011.
  129. Portal NARCIS Archived 5 November 2010 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved on 3 December 2011.
  130. "Open and closed access scholarly publications in NARCIS per year of publication". NARCIS. Archived from the original on 26 April 2019. Retrieved 26 February 2019.
  131. "Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI) – SPARC". Archived from the original on 18 October 2015. Retrieved 20 October 2015.
  132. "Good practices for university open-access policies". Harvard. Archived from the original on 5 October 2016. Retrieved 4 October 2016.
  133. 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 .
  134. "About the AOASG". Australian Open Access Support Group. 5 February 2013. Archived from the original on 20 December 2014.
  135. "Australian Open Access Support Group expands to become Australasian Open Access Support Group". 17 August 2015. Archived from the original on 17 November 2015.
  136. "Creative Commons Australia partners with Australasian Open Access Strategy Group". Creative Commons Australia. 31 August 2016.
  137. 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 . Archived from the original on 20 June 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018.
  138. "IFLA Statement on Open Access (2011)". IFLA. 6 March 2019. Archived from the original on 31 August 2020.
  139. ALA Scholarly Communication Toolkit Archived 8 September 2005 at the Wayback Machine
  140. Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition Archived 15 August 2013 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved on 3 December 2011.
  141. Open Access for Scholarly Publishing Archived 19 May 2014 at the Wayback Machine . Southern Cross University Library. Retrieved on 14 March 2014.
  142. CARL – Institutional Repositories Program Archived 7 June 2013 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved on 12 June 2013.
  143. Lippincott, Sarah (5 July 2016). "The Library Publishing Coalition: organizing libraries to enhance scholarly publishing". Insights. 29 (2): 186–191. doi: 10.1629/uksg.296 . ISSN   2048-7754. Archived from the original on 21 July 2018. Retrieved 2 September 2019.
  144. Kopfstein, Janus (13 March 2013). "Aaron Swartz to receive posthumous 'Freedom of Information' award for open access advocacy". The Verge. Archived from the original on 15 March 2013. Retrieved 24 March 2013.
  145. "James Madison Award". 17 January 2013. Archived from the original on 22 March 2013. Retrieved 24 March 2013.
  146. Brandom, Russell (26 March 2013). "Entire library journal editorial board resigns, citing 'crisis of conscience' after death of Aaron Swartz". The Verge. Archived from the original on 31 December 2013. Retrieved 1 January 2014.
  147. New, Jake (27 March 2013). "Journal's Editorial Board Resigns in Protest of Publisher's Policy Toward Authors". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on 8 January 2014.
  148. Bourg, Chris (23 March 2013). "My short stint on the JLA Editorial Board". Feral Librarian. Archived from the original on 24 August 2014. 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
  149. Poynder, Richard (2009). "The Open Access Interviews: Hélène Bosc" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 October 2013.
  150. Open Access to scientific communication. Retrieved on 3 December 2011.
  151. ATA | The Alliance for Taxpayer Access Archived 27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine . (29 October 2011). Retrieved on 3 December 2011.
  152. Open Access: Basics and Benefits. Retrieved on 3 December 2011.
  153. 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.
  154. 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.
  155. 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.
  156. World Health Organization Archived 27 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative
  157. 1 2 World Health Organization Archived 22 April 2009 at the Wayback Machine : Eligibility
  158. Scientific Electronic Library Online Archived 31 August 2005 at the Wayback Machine . SciELO. Retrieved on 3 December 2011.
  159. 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 .
  160. 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, 25–27 March 2010, pp.1–12.
  161. 1 2 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. ISSN   2167-8359. PMC   5815332 . PMID   29456894.
  162. 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.
  163. 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 .
  164. "Open access to research publications reaching 'tipping point'". Press Releases. Archived from the original on 24 August 2013. Retrieved 25 August 2013.
  165. "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 3 September 2013. Retrieved 25 August 2013.
  166. 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.
  167. "Area-wide transition to open access is possible: A new study calculates a redeployment of funds in Open Access". Max Planck Gesellschaft. 27 April 2015. Archived from the original on 16 June 2017. Retrieved 12 May 2017.
  168. 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.
  169. 1 2 "Directory of Open Access Journals". Directory of Open Access Journals. Archived from the original on 27 August 2016. Retrieved 26 February 2019.
  170. Chun-Kai (Karl) Huang; Cameron Neylon; Richard Hosking; Lucy Montgomery; Katie S Wilson; Alkim Ozaygen; Chloe Brookes-Kenworthy (14 September 2020). "Meta-Research: Evaluating the impact of open access policies on research institutions". eLife . 9. doi:10.7554/ELIFE.57067. ISSN   2050-084X. PMC   7536542 . PMID   32924933. Wikidata   Q99410785.
  171. "Institutions' open access over time: Evolution of green and gold OA". Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative. Retrieved 13 October 2021.
  172. 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.
  173. 1 2 "Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR)" Archived 30 October 2012 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved on 3 December 2011.
  174. "Browse by Repository Type". Registry of Open Access Repositories. Archived from the original on 31 August 2020. Retrieved 26 February 2019.
  175. 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 (7 July 2016). Rodgers, Peter (ed.). "How open science helps researchers succeed". eLife. 5: e16800. doi:10.7554/eLife.16800. ISSN   2050-084X. PMC   4973366 . PMID   27387362.
  176. 1 2 3 4 Wang, Xianwen; Liu, Chen; Mao, Wenli; Fang, Zhichao (1 May 2015). "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. S2CID   14827780.
  177. 1 2 Davis, Philip M. (30 March 2011). "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. S2CID   205367842.
  178. 1 2 Davis, Philip M.; Lewenstein, Bruce V.; Simon, Daniel H.; Booth, James G.; Connolly, Mathew J. L. (31 July 2008). "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.
  179. 1 2 3 4 Adie, Euan (24 October 2014). "Attention! A study of open access vs non-open access articles". Figshare. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.1213690.v1. S2CID   155854134. Archived from the original on 3 January 2020. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
  180. Maximising the Return on the UK's Public Investment in Research – Open Access Archivangelism Archived 2 July 2017 at the Wayback Machine . (14 September 2005). Retrieved on 3 December 2011.
  181. Garfield, E. (1988) Can Researchers Bank on Citation Analysis? Archived 25 October 2005 at the Wayback Machine Current Comments, No. 44, 31 October 1988
  182. 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.
  183. 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. S2CID   205367842.
  184. 1 2 ElSabry, ElHassan (1 August 2017). "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. Archived from the original on 31 August 2020. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
  185. 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].
  186. Swan, Alma (2006) The culture of Open Access: researchers’ views and responses Archived 22 May 2012 at the Wayback Machine . In: Neil Jacobs (Ed.) Open access: key strategic, technical and economic aspects, Chandos.
  187. 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. ISSN   2167-8359. PMC   5815332 . PMID   29456894.
  188. Swan, Alma (2010). "The Open Access citation advantage: Studies and results to date". Alma Swan. Archived from the original on 3 January 2020. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
  189. 1 2 Tennant, Jonathan P.; Waldner, François; Jacques, Damien C.; Masuzzo, Paola; Collister, Lauren B.; Hartgerink, Chris. H. J. (21 September 2016). "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.
  190. 1 2 3 4 Clayson, Peter E.; Baldwin, Scott A.; Larson, Michael J. (1 June 2021). "The open access advantage for studies of human electrophysiology: Impact on citations and Altmetrics". International Journal of Psychophysiology. 164: 103–111. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.03.006. ISSN   0167-8760. PMID   33774077. S2CID   232409668.
  191. Online or Invisible? Steve Lawrence; NEC Research Institute Archived 16 March 2007 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved on 3 December 2011.
  192. 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.
  193. Effect of OA on citation impact: a bibliography of studies Archived 2 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved on 3 December 2011.
  194. Swan, Alma (2010). "The Open Access citation advantage: Studies and results to date". Alma Swan. Archived from the original on 3 January 2020.
  195. Eysenbach, Gunther (16 May 2006). 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.
  196. Björk, Bo-Christer; Solomon, David (17 July 2012). "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.
  197. 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. S2CID   10220883.
  198. Shema, Hadas; Bar-Ilan, Judit; Thelwall, Mike (15 January 2014). "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. S2CID   31571840.
  199. Alhoori, Hamed; Ray Choudhury, Sagnik; Kanan, Tarek; Fox, Edward; Furuta, Richard; Giles, C. Lee (15 March 2015). "On the Relationship between Open Access and Altmetrics". IConference 2015 Proceedings. Archived from the original on 3 January 2020. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
  200. 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}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  201. 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.
  202. 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 (2 March 2017). "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.
  203. Csiszar, Alex (2016). "Peer Review: Troubled from the Start". Nature. 532 (7599): 306–308. Bibcode:2016Natur.532..306C. doi: 10.1038/532306a . PMID   27111616.
  204. 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. S2CID   164984479. Archived (PDF) from the original on 31 August 2020. Retrieved 28 August 2019.
  205. 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 (29 November 2017). "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.
  206. Tennant, Jonathan P. (1 October 2018). "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. Archived from the original on 24 February 2020. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
  207. Noorden, Richard Van (4 March 2019). "Peer-review experiments tracked in online repository". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00777-8. S2CID   86845470. Archived from the original on 12 December 2019. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
  208. Penfold, Naomi C.; Polka, Jessica K. (10 September 2019). "Technical and social issues influencing the adoption of preprints in the life sciences". PLOS Genetics. 16 (4): e1008565. doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.27954v1. PMC   7170218 . PMID   32310942.
  209. Nosek, Brian A.; Ebersole, Charles R.; DeHaven, Alexander C.; Mellor, David T. (12 March 2018). "The preregistration revolution". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (11): 2600–2606. Bibcode:2018PNAS..115.2600N. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1708274114 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   5856500 . PMID   29531091.
  210. 1 2 3 Ross-Hellauer, Tony (31 August 2017). "What is open peer review? A systematic review". F1000Research. 6: 588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. ISSN   2046-1402. PMC   5437951 . PMID   28580134.
  211. 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. (10 January 2017). "A manifesto for reproducible science". Nature Human Behaviour. 1 (1): 0021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021 . ISSN   2397-3374. PMC   7610724 . PMID   33954258.
  212. Pawlik, Mateusz; Hütter, Thomas; Kocher, Daniel; Mann, Willi; Augsten, Nikolaus (1 July 2019). "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.
  213. 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: 0021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021 . PMC   7610724 . PMID   33954258. Archived from the original on 31 August 2020. Retrieved 25 September 2019.
  214. 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 .
  215. 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.
  216. Wicherts, Jelte M. (29 January 2016). "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.
  217. Brembs, Björn (12 February 2019). "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.
  218. Spezi, Valerie; Wakeling, Simon; Pinfield, Stephen; Creaser, Claire; Fry, Jenny; Willett, Peter (13 March 2017). "Open-access mega-journals". Journal of Documentation. 73 (2): 263–283. doi: 10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082 . ISSN   0022-0418.
  219. Pourret, Olivier; Irawan, Dasapta Erwin; Tennant, Jonathan P.; Wien, Charlotte; Dorch, Bertil F. (15 June 2020). "Comments on "Factors affecting global flow of scientific knowledge in environmental sciences" by Sonne et al. (2020)". Science of the Total Environment. 721: 136454. Bibcode:2020ScTEn.721m6454P. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136454. ISSN   0048-9697. PMID   31924309. S2CID   210150077.
  220. Grudniewicz, Agnes; Moher, David; Cobey, Kelly D.; Bryson, Gregory L.; Cukier, Samantha; Allen, Kristiann; Ardern, Clare; Balcom, Lesley; Barros, Tiago; Berger, Monica; Ciro, Jairo Buitrago (12 December 2019). "Predatory journals: no definition, no defence". Nature. 576 (7786): 210–212. Bibcode:2019Natur.576..210G. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y. ISSN   0028-0836. PMID   31827288. S2CID   209168864.
  221. Dadkhah, Mehdi; Borchardt, Glenn (1 June 2016). "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. Archived from the original on 8 June 2019. Retrieved 5 January 2020.
  222. Dadkhah, Mehdi; Maliszewski, Tomasz; Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A. (24 June 2016). "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. S2CID   38963478.
  223. 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.
  224. 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 . S2CID   4998464.
  225. Bohannon, John (2013). "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?". Science. 342 (6154): 60–65. Bibcode:2013Sci...342...60B. doi: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60 . PMID   24092725.
  226. 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 .
  227. 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.
  228. Eisen, Michael (3 October 2013). "I confess, I wrote the Arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription based journals". Archived from the original on 24 September 2018. Retrieved 5 January 2020.
  229. Silver, Andrew (2017). "Pay-to-View Blacklist of Predatory Journals Set to Launch". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22090.
  230. Strinzel, Michaela; Severin, Anna; Milzow, Katrin; Egger, Matthias (2019). "'Blacklists" and 'Whitelists" to Tackle Predatory Publishing : A Cross-Sectional Comparison and Thematic Analysis". mBio. 10 (3). doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.27532v1. PMC   6550518 . PMID   31164459.
  231. 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.
  232. Hull, Duncan (15 February 2012). "The Open Access Irony Awards: Naming and shaming them". O'Really?.
  233. Duncan, Green (7 August 2013). "Whatever happened to the Academic Spring? (Or the irony of hiding papers on transparency and accountability behind a paywall)". From Poverty to Power.
  234. 1 2 Marwick, Ben (29 October 2020). "Open Access to Publications to Expand Participation in Archaeology". Norwegian Archaeological Review. 53 (2): 163–169. doi:10.1080/00293652.2020.1837233. S2CID   228961066.
  235. Schultz, Teresa Auch (2 March 2018). "Practicing What You Preach: Evaluating Access of Open Access Research". The Journal of Electronic Publishing. 21 (1). doi:10.3998/3336451.0021.103.
  236. Eve, Martin Paul (21 October 2013). "How ironic are the open access irony awards?". Martin Paul Eve.
  237. "Browse by Year". Registry of Open Access Repositories. Archived from the original on 24 March 2019. Retrieved 10 March 2019.
  238. Peiperl, Larry (16 April 2018). "Preprints in medical research: Progress and principles". PLOS Medicine. 15 (4): e1002563.