View source for Open access

{{Short description|Open access to scientific research}}
{{distinguish|Open source}}
{{other uses}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=October 2020}}
[[File:Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg|upright=0.5|thumb|Open access logo, originally designed by [[Public Library of Science]]]]
[[File:PhD Comics Open Access Week 2012.ogv|thumb|thumbtime=5:44|A [[Piled Higher and Deeper|''PhD Comics'']] introduction to open access]]

'''Open access''' ('''OA''') is a set of principles and a range of practices through which nominally [[copyright]]able publications are delivered to readers free of access charges or other barriers.<ref name="suber overview">{{Cite web |last=Suber |first=Peter |title=Open Access Overview |url=https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070519103647/http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm |archive-date=19 May 2007 |access-date=29 November 2014}}</ref> With open access strictly defined (according to the 2001 definition), or [[Gratis versus libre|libre]] open access, barriers to copying or reuse are also reduced or removed by applying an [[open license]] for copyright, which regulates post-publication uses of the work.<ref name="suber overview" />

The main focus of the open access movement has been on "[[peer review]]ed research literature", and more specifically on [[academic journal]]s.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Swan |first=Alma |date=2012 |title=Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access |url=https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215863 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190414001646/https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215863 |archive-date=14 April 2019 |access-date=14 April 2019 |website=UNESCO}}</ref> This is because:

* such publications [[academic journal publishing reform|have been]] a subject of [[serials crisis]], unlike [[newspaper]]s, [[magazine]]s and [[fiction writing]]. The main difference between these two groups is in [[demand elasticity]]: whereas an English literature curriculum can substitute ''[[Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone]]'' with a public domain alternative, such as ''[[Gulliver's Travels|A Voyage to Lilliput]],'' an [[emergency room]] [[physician]] treating a patient for a life-threatening [[urushiol]] poisoning cannot substitute the most recent, but [[paywalled]] review article on this topic<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Diedrich V, Zweerink K |title=Elder B. Plant Dermatitis |journal=Emerg Med Clin North Am. |date=2024 |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=613–638 |doi=10.1016/j.emc.2024.03.001 |pmid=38925778 |url=https://www.emed.theclinics.com/article/S0733-8627(24)00041-5/abstract}}</ref> with a 90-year-old copyright-expired article<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Hill GA, Mattacotti V |title=The Toxic Principle of the Poison Ivy |journal=Journal of the American Chemical Society |date=1934 |volume=56 |issue=12 |pages=2736–2738 |doi=10.1021/ja01327a064 |bibcode=1934JAChS..56.2736H |url=https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ja01327a064}}</ref> that was published before the invention of [[prednisone]] in 1954.

* the authors of research papers are not paid in any way, so they do not suffer any monetary losses, when they switch from [[Serials crisis#Big deal|behind paywall]] to open access publishing, especially, if they use [[diamond open access]] media.

* the cost of [[electronic publishing]], which has been the main form of distribution of [[academic journals|journal articles]] since {{circa|2000}}, is incommensurably smaller than the cost of on-paper publishing and distribution, which is still preferred by many readers of fiction.

Whereas non-open access journals cover publishing costs through [[Subscription business model|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]],<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Schöpfel |first1=Joachim |last2=Prost |first2=Hélène |year=2013 |title=Degrees of secrecy in an open environment. The case of electronic theses and dissertations |url=http://www.essachess.com/index.php/jcs/article/view/214 |url-status=live |journal=ESSACHESS – Journal for Communication Studies |volume=6 |issue=2(12) |pages=65–86 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140101042356/http://www.essachess.com/index.php/jcs/article/view/214 |archive-date=1 January 2014}}</ref> book chapters,<ref name="suber overview" /> [[monograph]]s,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Schwartz |first=Meredith |year=2012 |title=Directory of Open Access Books Goes Live |url=http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/04/academic-libraries/directory-of-open-access-books-goes-live/ |url-status=live |journal=Library Journal |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131004231707/http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/04/academic-libraries/directory-of-open-access-books-goes-live/ |archive-date=4 October 2013}}</ref> [[research report]]s and images.<ref name="esatc">{{Cite news |date=July 2014 |title=Terms and conditions for the use and redistribution of Sentinel data|publisher=European Space Agency |issue=version 1.0 |url=https://scihub.copernicus.eu/twiki/pub/SciHubWebPortal/TermsConditions/TC_Sentinel_Data_31072014.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=28 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200208083453/https://scihub.copernicus.eu/twiki/pub/SciHubWebPortal/TermsConditions/TC_Sentinel_Data_31072014.pdf |archive-date=8 February 2020}}</ref>

== Definitions ==
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, several other models and alternative terms are also used.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Simard |first1=Marc-André |last2=Ghiasi |first2=Gita |last3=Mongeon |first3=Philippe |last4=Larivière |first4=Vincent |date=2022-08-09 |editor-last=Baccini |editor-first=Alberto |title=National differences in dissemination and use of open access literature |journal=[[PLOS One]] |language=en |volume=17 |issue=8 |article-number=e0272730 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0272730 |doi-access=free |issn=1932-6203 |pmc=9362937 |pmid=35943972|bibcode=2022PLoSO..1772730S }}</ref>

==== Gold OA ====
{{multiple image
| direction = horizontal
| width = 218
| image1 = DOAJ growth.png
| caption1 = Number of gold open access journals listed in the [[Directory of Open Access Journals]]<ref>{{Cite web |date=1 May 2013 |title=DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals |url=http://doaj.org/doaj?func=byCountry&uiLanguage=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130501070724/http://doaj.org/doaj?func=byCountry&uiLanguage=en |archive-date=1 May 2013 |website=doaj.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Morrison |first=Heather |date=31 December 2018 |title=Dramatic Growth of Open Access |journal=Scholars Portal Dataverse |hdl=10864/10660}}</ref>
| image2 = PMC growth.png
| caption2 = Number of gold and hybrid open access journals listed in [[PubMed Central]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=PMC full journal list download |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/#csvfile |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190307203024/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/#csvfile |archive-date=7 March 2019 |access-date=10 March 2019 |website=National Center for Biotechnology Information}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=NLM Catalog |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/advanced |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190114073305/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/advanced |archive-date=14 January 2019 |access-date=10 March 2019 |website=National Center for Biotechnology Information}}</ref>
}}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.<ref name="suber overview" />
Many 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,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Schroter |first1=Sara |last2=Tite |first2=Leanne |date=2006 |title=Open access publishing and author-pays business models: a survey of authors' knowledge and perceptions |journal=[[Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine]] |volume=99 |issue=3 |pages=141–148 |doi=10.1177/014107680609900316  |pmc=1383760 |pmid=16508053}}</ref>
although this is not an intrinsic property of gold OA.<ref name="Eve pp. 1–42">{{cite book | last=Eve | first=Martin Paul | title= Open Access and the Humanities| chapter=Introduction, or why open access? | date=3 December 2023 | publisher=Cambridge Core | doi=10.1017/CBO9781316161012.003 | url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/open-access-and-the-humanities/introduction-or-why-open-access/31C49315B15F3366C9D3ECEFF72F15D6 | access-date=2020-12-30 | pages=1–42| isbn=978-1-107-09789-6 }}</ref>

==== Green OA ====

[[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.<ref name="Gadd">{{Cite journal |last1=Gadd |first1=Elizabeth |last2=Troll Covey |first2=Denise |date=1 March 2019 |title=What does 'green' open access mean? Tracking twelve years of changes to journal publisher self-archiving policies |url=https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/21555 |url-status=live |journal=Journal of Librarianship and Information Science |language=en |volume=51 |issue=1 |pages=106–122 |doi=10.1177/0961000616657406 |issn=0961-0006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011415/https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/What_does_green_open_access_mean_Tracking_twelve_years_of_changes_to_journal_publisher_self-archiving_policies/9491174 |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=28 August 2019 |s2cid=34955879}}</ref>

Green OA is free of charge for the author. Some publishers (less than 5% and decreasing as of 2014) may charge a fee for an additional service<ref name=Gadd/> such as a [[free license]] on the publisher-authored copyrightable portions of the printed version of an article.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Weaver |first=Roger |title=Subject Guides: Copyright: Keeping Control of Your Copyright |url=https://libguides.mst.edu/c.php?g=395171&p=2699951 |access-date=2024-04-22 |website=libguides.mst.edu |language=en}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bolick |first=Josh |year=2018 |title=Leveraging Elsevier's Creative Commons License Requirement to Undermine Embargoes |url=https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=scholcom |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240422180024/https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=scholcom |archive-date=2024-04-22 |access-date=2024-04-22 |website=digitalcommons.unl.edu |format=PDF |via=[[University of Nebraska–Lincoln]]}}</ref>

==== Hybrid OA ====
[[Hybrid open-access journal]]s contain a mixture of open access articles and closed access articles.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Laakso |first1=Mikael |last2=Björk |first2=Bo-Christer |date=2016 |title=Hybrid open access—A longitudinal study |journal=Journal of Informetrics |volume=10 |issue=4 |pages=919–932 |doi=10.1016/j.joi.2016.08.002 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Suber|2012|pp=140–141}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Suber2012">{{harvnb|Suber|2012|p=140}}</ref> Hybrid OA generally costs more than gold OA and can offer a lower quality of service.<ref name="auto">{{Cite web |last=Trust |first=Wellcome |date=23 March 2016 |title=Wellcome Trust and COAF Open Access Spend, 2014-15 |url=https://wellcometrust.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/wellcome-trust-and-coaf-open-access-spend-2014-15/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191027120604/https://wellcometrust.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/wellcome-trust-and-coaf-open-access-spend-2014-15/ |archive-date=27 October 2019 |access-date=27 October 2019 |website=Wellcome Trust Blog |language=en}}</ref> A particularly controversial practice in hybrid open access journals is "[[Double dipping (publishing)|double dipping]]", where both authors and subscribers are charged.<ref name="Open access double dipping policy">{{Cite web |title=Open access double dipping policy |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/open-access-policies/open-access-journals/double-dipping-policy |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011413/https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/open-access-policies/open-access-journals/double-dipping-policy |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=12 March 2018 |website=Cambridge Core}}</ref> For these reasons, hybrid open access journals have been called a "[[Mephistophelian]] invention",<ref>{{cite journal | pmc=5624290 | date=2017 | last1=Björk | first1=B. C. | title=Growth of hybrid open access, 2009–2016 | journal=PeerJ | volume=5 | article-number=e3878 | doi=10.7717/peerj.3878 | pmid=28975059 | doi-access=free }}</ref> and publishing in hybrid OA journals often do not qualify for funding under [[open access mandate]]s, as libraries already pay for subscriptions thus have no financial incentive to fund open access articles in such journals.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/publish/scholarly-publishing/radical-access/hybrid-open-choice-journals | title=Open choice vs open access: Why don't "hybrid" journals qualify for the open access fund? |website= Radical Access |publisher=SFU Library | date=26 July 2020 |first1=Ioana |last1=Liuta |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230831144635/https://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/publish/scholarly-publishing/radical-access/hybrid-open-choice-journals |archive-date= Aug 31, 2023 }}</ref>

==== Bronze OA ====
Bronze open access articles are free to read only on the publisher page, but lack a clearly identifiable license.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Piwowar |first1=Heather |last2=Priem |first2=Jason |last3=Larivière |first3=Vincent |last4=Alperin |first4=Juan Pablo |last5=Matthias |first5=Lisa |last6=Norlander |first6=Bree |last7=Farley |first7=Ashley |last8=West |first8=Jevin |last9=Haustein |first9=Stefanie |date=13 February 2018 |title=The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles |journal=PeerJ |volume=6 |article-number=e4375 |doi=10.7717/peerj.4375 |pmc=5815332 |pmid=29456894 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Such articles are typically not available for reuse.

==== Diamond/platinum OA ====
{{See also|Diamond open access}}
Journals that publish open access without charging authors article processing charges are sometimes referred to as diamond<ref name="fuchs2013" /><ref name="Gaj" /><ref name=":1" /> or platinum<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Machovec |first=George |year=2013 |title=An Interview with Jeffrey Beall on Open Access Publishing |journal=The Charleston Advisor |volume=15 |issue=1 |page=50 |doi=10.5260/chara.15.1.50}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Öchsner |first=A. |title=Introduction to Scientific Publishing |year=2013 |isbn=978-3-642-38645-9 |series=SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology |pages=23–29 |chapter=Publishing Companies, Publishing Fees, and Open Access Journals |publisher=Springer |location=Berlin, Heidelberg |doi=10.1007/978-3-642-38646-6_4}}</ref> 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 institution]]s, [[learned society|learned societies]], [[philanthropist]]s or [[government grant]]s.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Normand |first=Stephanie |date=4 April 2018 |title=Is Diamond Open Access the Future of Open Access? |url=https://theijournal.ca/index.php/ijournal/article/view/29482 |url-status=live |journal=The IJournal: Graduate Student Journal of the Faculty of Information |volume=3 |issue=2 |issn=2561-7397 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200529090738/https://theijournal.ca/index.php/ijournal/article/view/29482 |archive-date=29 May 2020 |access-date=25 June 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Rosenblum |first1=Brian |last2=Greenberg |first2=Marc |last3=Bolick |first3=Josh |last4=Emmett |first4=Ada |last5=Peterson |first5=A. Townsend |date=17 June 2016 |title=Subsidizing truly open access |journal=Science |volume=352 |issue=6292 |page=1405 |bibcode=2016Sci...352.1405P |doi=10.1126/science.aag0946 |issn=0036-8075 |pmid=27313033 |hdl-access=free |hdl=1808/20978 |s2cid=206650745}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=By |date=1 June 2017 |title=Diamond Open Access, Societies and Mission |url=https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/06/01/diamond-open-access-societies-mission/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190624133849/https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/06/01/diamond-open-access-societies-mission/ |archive-date=24 June 2019 |access-date=25 June 2019 |website=The Scholarly Kitchen}}</ref> There are now over 350 platinum OA journals with [[impact factors]] over a wide variety of academic disciplines, giving most academics options for OA with no APCs.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Pearce |first=Joshua M. |date=2022 |title=The Rise of Platinum Open Access Journals with Both Impact Factors and Zero Article Processing Charges |journal=Knowledge |language=en |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=209–224 |doi=10.3390/knowledge2020013 |issn=2673-9585|doi-access=free }}</ref> Diamond OA journals are available for most disciplines, and are usually small (<25 articles per year) and more likely to be multilingual (38%); thousands of such journals exist.<ref name=":1">{{Cite report|url=https://zenodo.org/record/4558704|title=OA Diamond Journals Study. Part 1: Findings|last1=Bosman|first1=Jeroen|last2=Frantsvåg|first2=Jan Erik|date=2021-03-09|doi=10.5281/zenodo.4558704|last3=Kramer|first3=Bianca|last4=Langlais|first4=Pierre-Carl|last5=Proudman|first5=Vanessa|journal=   }}</ref>

==== Black OA ====
{{See also|Shadow library}}[[File:Sci-hub downloads.png|thumb|Download rate for articles on [[Sci-Hub]] (black open access)<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Himmelstein |first1=Daniel S |last2=Romero |first2=Ariel Rodriguez |last3=Levernier |first3=Jacob G |last4=Munro |first4=Thomas Anthony |last5=McLaughlin |first5=Stephen Reid |last6=Greshake Tzovaras |first6=Bastian |last7=Greene |first7=Casey S |date=1 March 2018 |title=Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature |url=https://greenelab.github.io/scihub-manuscript/#fig:downloads |url-status=live |journal=eLife |volume=7 |article-number=e32822 |doi=10.7554/eLife.32822 |issn=2050-084X |pmc=5832410 |pmid=29424689 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190521022258/https://greenelab.github.io/scihub-manuscript/#fig:downloads |archive-date=21 May 2019 |access-date=21 May 2019 |doi-access=free }}</ref>]]
The growth of unauthorized digital copying by large-scale copyright infringement has enabled free access to [[paywall]]ed literature.<ref name=":17">{{Cite journal |last=Björk |first=Bo-Christer |date=2017 |title=Gold, green, and black open access |journal=Learned Publishing |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=173–175 |doi=10.1002/leap.1096 |issn=1741-4857 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Green |first=Toby |date=2017 |title=We've failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach |journal=Learned Publishing |volume=30 |issue=4 |pages=325–329 |doi=10.1002/leap.1116 |issn=1741-4857 |doi-access=free}}</ref> This has been done via existing social media sites (e.g. the [[ICanHazPDF|#ICanHazPDF]] hashtag) as well as dedicated sites (e.g. [[Sci-hub|Sci-Hub]]).<ref name=":17" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bohannon |first=John |date=28 April 2016 |title=Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.352.6285.508 |url-status=live |journal=Science |volume=352 |issue=6285 |pages=508–12 |doi=10.1126/science.352.6285.508 |issn=0036-8075 |pmid=27126020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190513024954/https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone |archive-date=13 May 2019 |access-date=17 May 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Greshake |first=Bastian |date=21 April 2017 |title=Looking into Pandora's Box: The Content of Sci-Hub and its Usage |journal=F1000Research |volume=6 |page=541 |doi=10.12688/f1000research.11366.1 |issn=2046-1402 |pmc=5428489 |pmid=28529712 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Jamali |first=Hamid R. |date=1 July 2017 |title=Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles |journal=Scientometrics |language=en |volume=112 |issue=1 |pages=241–254 |doi=10.1007/s11192-017-2291-4 |issn=1588-2861 |s2cid=189875585}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Swab |first1=Michelle |last2=Romme |first2=Kristen |date=1 April 2016 |title=Scholarly Sharing via Twitter: #icanhazpdf Requests for Health Sciences Literature |journal=Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association |language=en |volume=37 |issue=1 |doi=10.5596/c16-009 |issn=1708-6892 |doi-access=free}}</ref> However, the increased ease and scale from 2010 onwards have changed how many people treat subscription publications.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=McKenzie |first=Lindsay |date=27 July 2017 |title=Sci-Hub's cache of pirated papers is so big, subscription journals are doomed, data analyst suggests |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/sci-hub-s-cache-pirated-papers-so-big-subscription-journals-are-doomed-data-analyst |url-status=live |journal=Science |doi=10.1126/science.aan7164 |issn=0036-8075 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190517023044/https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/sci-hub-s-cache-pirated-papers-so-big-subscription-journals-are-doomed-data-analyst |archive-date=17 May 2019 |access-date=17 May 2019}}</ref>

=== Gratis and libre ===
{{main|Gratis versus libre}}
Similar to the [[free content]] definition, the terms [[Gratis versus libre|'gratis' and 'libre']] were used in the [[Budapest Open Access Initiative]] definition to distinguish between free to read versus free to reuse.<ref name="Gratis and Libre Open Access">{{Cite web |last=Suber |first=Peter |date=2008 |title=Gratis and Libre Open Access |url=https://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:4322580 |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20170310160505/https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4322580 |archive-date=10 March 2017 |access-date=3 December 2011}}</ref>

{{anchor|Free access}}Gratis open access ({{free access}}) refers to free online access, to read, free of charge, without re-use rights.<ref name="Gratis and Libre Open Access" />

{{anchor|Open access}}Libre open access ({{open access}}) also refers to free online access, to read, free of charge, plus some additional re-use rights,<ref name="Gratis and Libre Open Access" /> covering 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 license]]s;<ref name="Suber 2012 68–69">{{harvnb|Suber|2012|pp=68–69}}</ref> all of which require as a minimum [[Attribution (copyright)|attribution of authorship]] to the original authors.<ref name="Gratis and Libre Open Access" /><ref name="Suber statements">{{harvnb|Suber|2012|pp=7–8}}</ref> 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 mandate]]s did not enforce any copyright license and it was difficult to publish libre gold OA in legacy journals.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Balaji |first1=B. |last2=Dhanamjaya |first2=M. |date=2019 |title=Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures |journal=Publications |volume=7 |issue=1 |page=6 |doi=10.3390/publications7010006 |doi-access=free}}></ref> The biggest drawback of many Open Access licenses is a prohibition on [[data mining]].  For this reason, many [[big data]] studies of various technologies performed by [[economists]] ( as well as [[machine learning]] by [[computer scientists]]) are limited to [[patent analysis]], since the patent documents are not subject to copyright at all.

=== FAIR ===
{{Main|FAIR data}}
[[FAIR data|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.<ref name="FAIR principles 2016">{{Cite journal |last1=Wilkinson |first1=Mark D. |last2=Dumontier |first2=Michel |last3=Aalbersberg |first3=IJsbrand Jan |last4=Appleton |first4=Gabrielle |last5=Axton |first5=Myles |last6=Baak |first6=Arie |last7=Blomberg |first7=Niklas |last8=Boiten |first8=Jan-Willem |last9=da Silva Santos |first9=Luiz Bonino |last10=Bourne |first10=Philip E. |last11=Bouwman |first11=Jildau |display-authors=4 |date=15 March 2016 |title=The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship |journal=Scientific Data |volume=3 |page=160018 |bibcode=2016NatSD...360018W |doi=10.1038/sdata.2016.18 |oclc=961158301 |pmc=4792175 |pmid=26978244 |last12=Brookes |first12=Anthony J. |last13=Clark |first13=Tim |last14=Crosas |first14=Mercè |last15=Dillo |first15=Ingrid |last16=Dumon |first16=Olivier |last17=Edmunds |first17=Scott |last18=Evelo |first18=Chris T. |last19=Finkers |first19=Richard |last20=Gonzalez-Beltran |first20=Alejandra |last21=Gray |first21=Alasdair J.G. |last22=Groth |first22=Paul |last23=Goble |first23=Carole |last24=Grethe |first24=Jeffrey S. |last25=Heringa |first25=Jaap |last26='t Hoen |first26=Peter A.C |last27=Hooft |first27=Rob |last28=Kuhn |first28=Tobias |last29=Kok |first29=Ruben |last30=Kok |first30=Joost |last31=Lusher |first31=Scott J. |last32=Martone |first32=Maryann E. |last33=Mons |first33=Albert |last34=Packer |first34=Abel L. |last35=Persson |first35=Bengt |last36=Rocca-Serra |first36=Philippe |last37=Roos |first37=Marco |last38=van Schaik |first38=Rene |last39=Sansone |first39=Susanna-Assunta |last40=Schultes |first40=Erik |last41=Sengstag |first41=Thierry |last42=Slater |first42=Ted |last43=Strawn |first43=George |last44=Swertz |first44=Morris A. |last45=Thompson |first45=Mark |last46=van der Lei |first46=Johan |last47=van Mulligen |first47=Erik |last48=Velterop |first48=Jan |last49=Waagmeester |first49=Andra |last50=Wittenburg |first50=Peter |last51=Wolstencroft |first51=Katherine |last52=Zhao |first52=Jun |last53=Mons |first53=Barend|issue=1 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wilkinson |first1=Mark D. |last2=da Silva Santos |first2=Luiz Olavo Bonino |last3=Dumontier |first3=Michel |last4=Velterop |first4=Jan |last5=Neylon |first5=Cameron |last6=Mons |first6=Barend |date=1 January 2017 |title=Cloudy, increasingly FAIR; revisiting the FAIR Data guiding principles for the European Open Science Cloud |journal=Information Services & Use |volume=37 |issue=1 |pages=49–56 |doi=10.3233/ISU-170824 |issn=0167-5265 |doi-access=free |hdl=20.500.11937/53669|hdl-access=free }}</ref> Initially proposed in March 2016, it has subsequently been endorsed by organisations such as the [[European Commission]] and the [[G20]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=20 April 2016 |title=European Commission embraces the FAIR principles |url=https://www.dtls.nl/2016/04/20/european-commission-allocates-e2-billion-to-make-research-data-fair/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180720134337/https://www.dtls.nl/2016/04/20/european-commission-allocates-e2-billion-to-make-research-data-fair/ |archive-date=20 July 2018 |access-date=31 July 2019 |website=Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=G20 Leaders' Communique Hangzhou Summit |url=https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-16-2967_en.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190731041057/https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-16-2967_en.htm |archive-date=31 July 2019 |access-date=31 July 2019 |website=europa.eu}}</ref> Note, however, that FAIR principles include "A1.2: The protocol allows for an authentication and authorisation procedure where necessary."<ref>{{cite web | title=A1.2: The protocol allows for an authentication and authorisation procedure where necessary | website=GO FAIR | date=2022-06-14 | url=https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/a1-2-protocol-allows-authentication-authorisation-required/ }}</ref> This means that a FAIR dataset may be either closed (restricted access) or open (no access restrictions). So, only FAIR data without access restrictions are open access.

== Features ==

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

Scholarly publishing invokes various positions and passions. For example, authors may spend hours struggling with diverse article submission systems, often converting document formatting between a multitude of journal and conference styles, and sometimes spend months waiting for peer review results. The drawn-out and often contentious societal and technological transition to Open Access and Open Science/Open Research, particularly across North America and Europe (Latin America has already widely adopted "Acceso Abierto" since before 2000<ref name="Alperin 2015">{{Cite web |title=Hecho En Latinoamérica. Acceso Abierto, Revistas Académicas e Innovaciones Regionales |url=http://www.clacso.org.ar/libreria-latinoamericana/buscar_libro_detalle.php?id_libro=988&amp;campo=&amp;texto= |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200806005445/http://www.clacso.org.ar/libreria-latinoamericana/buscar_libro_detalle.php?id_libro=988&campo=&texto= |archive-date=6 August 2020 |access-date=31 August 2020}}</ref>) has led to increasingly entrenched positions and much debate.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Vuong|first1=Quan-Hoang|date=2018|title=The (ir)rational consideration of the cost of science in transition economies |journal=Nature Human Behaviour|volume=2|issue=1|page=5|doi=10.1038/s41562-017-0281-4|pmid=30980055 |s2cid=256707733 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

The area of (open) scholarly practices increasingly sees a role for policy-makers and research funders<ref name="Ross-Hellauer 2018">{{cite journal | doi=10.1177/2158244018816717 | title=Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea? | year=2018 | last1=Ross-Hellauer | first1=Tony | last2=Schmidt | first2=Birgit | last3=Kramer | first3=Bianca | journal=SAGE Open | volume=8 | issue=4 | article-number=2158244018816717 | doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Vincent‐Lamarre 2016">{{Cite journal |last1=Vincent-Lamarre |first1=Philippe |last2=Boivin |first2=Jade |last3=Gargouri |first3=Yassine |last4=Larivière |first4=Vincent |last5=Harnad |first5=Stevan |year=2016 |title=Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: The MELIBEA Score |url=https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/1/MelibeaFIN4.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology |volume=67 |issue=11 |pages=2815–2828 |arxiv=1410.2926 |doi=10.1002/asi.23601 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160923015455/http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/1/MelibeaFIN4.pdf |archive-date=23 September 2016 |access-date=28 August 2019 |s2cid=8144721}}</ref><ref name="Union 2019">{{Cite book |date=30 January 2019 |title=Future of Scholarly Publishing and Scholarly Communication: Report of the Expert Group to the European Commission. |publisher=Publications Office of the European Union |isbn=978-92-79-97238-6 |url=https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/464477b3-2559-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190603183000/https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/464477b3-2559-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1 |archive-date=3 June 2019 |access-date=28 August 2019}}</ref> giving focus to issues such as career incentives, research evaluation and business models for publicly funded research. [[Plan S]] and [[AmeliCA]]<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Aguado-López |first1=Eduardo |last2=Becerril-Garcia |first2=Arianna |date=2019-08-08 |title=AmeliCA before Plan S – The Latin American Initiative to develop a cooperative, non-commercial, academic led, system of scholarly communication |url=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2019/08/08/amelica-before-plan-s-the-latin-american-initiative-to-develop-a-cooperative-non-commercial-academic-led-system-of-scholarly-communication/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191101025852/https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2019/08/08/amelica-before-plan-s-the-latin-american-initiative-to-develop-a-cooperative-non-commercial-academic-led-system-of-scholarly-communication/ |archive-date=2019-11-01 |access-date=2022-11-26 |website=Impact of Social Sciences}}</ref> (Open Knowledge for Latin America) caused a wave of debate in scholarly communication in 2019 and 2020.<ref name="Johnson 2019">{{Cite journal |last=Johnson |first=Rob |year=2019 |title=From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication |journal=Insights: The UKSG Journal |volume=32 |article-number=5 |doi=10.1629/uksg.453 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|date=2020-09-01|title=The growth of open access publishing in geochemistry|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666277920300010|journal=Results in Geochemistry|language=en|volume=1|article-number=100001|doi=10.1016/j.ringeo.2020.100001|issn=2666-2779|last1=Pourret|first1=Olivier|last2=Irawan|first2=Dasapta Erwin|last3=Tennant|first3=Jonathan P.|last4=Hursthouse|first4=Andrew|last5=Van Hullebusch|first5=Eric D.|bibcode=2020ResGc...100001P |s2cid=219903509}}</ref>

=== Licenses ===
[[File:DOAJ licenses.png|thumb|Licenses used by gold and hybrid OA journals in DOAJ<ref name="Khing Phyo San">{{Cite web |last=DOAJ |title=Journal metadata |url=https://doaj.org/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160827194107/https://doaj.org/ |archive-date=27 August 2016 |access-date=18 May 2019 |website=doaj.org}}</ref>]]
Subscription-based publishing typically requires [[copyright transfer|transfer of copyright]] from authors to the [[academic publisher|publisher]] so that the latter can monetise the process via dissemination and reproduction of the work.<ref name="Matushek 2017">{{Cite journal |last=Matushek |first=Kurt J. |year=2017 |title=Take Another Look at the Instructions for Authors |journal=Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association |volume=250 |issue=3 |pages=258–259 |doi=10.2460/javma.250.3.258 |pmid=28117640 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Bachrach 1998">{{Cite journal |last1=Bachrach |first1=S. |last2=Berry |first2=R. S. |last3=Blume |first3=M. |last4=von Foerster |first4=T. |last5=Fowler |first5=A. |last6=Ginsparg |first6=P. |last7=Heller |first7=S. |last8=Kestner |first8=N. |last9=Odlyzko |first9=A. |last10=Okerson |first10=A. |last11=Wigington |first11=R. |year=1998 |title=Who Should Own Scientific Papers? |journal=Science |volume=281 |issue=5382 |pages=1459–60 |bibcode=1998Sci...281.1459B |doi=10.1126/science.281.5382.1459 |pmid=9750115 |last12=Moffat |first12=A. |s2cid=36290551}}</ref><ref name="Gadd 2003b">{{Cite journal |last1=Gadd |first1=Elizabeth |last2=Oppenheim |first2=Charles |last3=Probets |first3=Steve |year=2003 |title=RoMEO Studies 4: An Analysis of Journal Publishers" Copyright Agreements |url=http://eprints.rclis.org/4846/1/RoMEO%20Studies%204.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Learned Publishing |volume=16 |issue=4 |pages=293–308 |doi=10.1087/095315103322422053 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200728211841/http://eprints.rclis.org/4846/1/RoMEO%20Studies%204.pdf |archive-date=28 July 2020 |access-date=9 September 2019 |hdl=10150/105141|s2cid=40861778 }}</ref><ref name="Willinsky 2002">{{Cite journal |last=Willinsky |first=John |year=2002 |title=Copyright Contradictions in Scholarly Publishing |journal=First Monday |volume=7 |issue=11 |doi=10.5210/fm.v7i11.1006 |s2cid=39334346 |doi-access=free }}</ref> With OA publishing, typically authors retain copyright to their work, and [[license]] its reproduction to the publisher.<ref name="Carroll 2011">{{Cite journal |last=Carroll |first=Michael W. |year=2011 |title=Why Full Open Access Matters |journal=PLOS Biology |volume=9 |issue=11 |article-number=e1001210 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001210 |pmc=3226455 |pmid=22140361 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Retention of copyright by authors can support [[academic freedom]]s by enabling greater control of the work (e.g. for image re-use) or licensing agreements (e.g. to allow dissemination by others).<ref name="Davies 2015">{{Cite journal |last=Davies |first=Mark |year=2015 |title=Academic Freedom: A Lawyer's Perspective |url=http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/59929/3/Academic%20freedom%20Article%20%28final%20draft%20-%20preproof%29.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Higher Education |volume=70 |issue=6 |pages=987–1002 |doi=10.1007/s10734-015-9884-8 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191223173621/http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/59929/3/Academic%20freedom%20Article%20%28final%20draft%20-%20preproof%29.pdf |archive-date=23 December 2019 |access-date=28 August 2019 |s2cid=144222460}}</ref>

The most common licenses used in open access publishing are [[Creative Commons license|Creative Commons]].<ref name=":2">{{Cite SSRN |title=Open Access Publishing: A Literature Review |last=Frosio |first=Giancarlo F. |date=2014 |ssrn=2697412}}</ref> 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 and commercial use).<ref>{{Cite SSRN |title=Creative Commons Licenses: Empowering Open Access |last=Peters |first=Diane |last2=Margoni |first2=Thomas |date=10 March 2016 |ssrn=2746044}}</ref> A range of more restrictive Creative Commons licenses are also used. More rarely, some of the smaller academic journals use custom open access licenses.<ref name=":2" /><ref name="Dodds 2018">{{Cite journal |last=Dodds |first=Francis |year=2018 |title=The Changing Copyright Landscape in Academic Publishing |url=https://zenodo.org/record/1342712 |url-status=live |journal=Learned Publishing |volume=31 |issue=3 |pages=270–275 |doi=10.1002/leap.1157 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200204104703/https://zenodo.org/record/1342712 |archive-date=4 February 2020 |access-date=4 February 2020 |doi-access=free}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Morrison 2017">{{Cite journal |last=Morrison |first=Heather |year=2017 |title=From the Field: Elsevier as an Open Access Publisher |journal=The Charleston Advisor |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=53–59 |doi=10.5260/chara.18.3.53 |hdl-access=free |hdl=10393/35779}}</ref><ref name="Alperin 2017">{{Cite journal |last1=Pablo Alperin |first1=Juan |last2=Rozemblum |first2=Cecilia |year=2017 |title=The Reinterpretation of the Visibility and Quality of New Policies to Assess Scientific Publications |journal=Revista Interamericana de Bibliotecología |volume=40 |issue=3 |pages=231–241 |doi=10.17533/udea.rib.v40n3a04 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Frass 2013">{{cite book|author1=W. Frass |author2=J. Cross |author3=V. Gardner|year=2013|title=Open Access Survey: Exploring the Views of Taylor & Francis and Routledge Authors|url=https://files.taylorandfrancis.com/open-access-survey-march2013.pdf|publisher=Taylor & Francis/Routledge}}</ref>

=== Funding ===
Since open access publication does not charge readers, there are many financial models used to cover costs by other means.<ref>{{Cite web |year=2009–2012 |title=OA journal business models |url=http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_business_models |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151018182443/http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_business_models |archive-date=18 October 2015 |access-date=20 October 2015 |website=Open Access Directory}}</ref> 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 is the [[Subscribe to Open]] publishing model introduced by [[Annual Reviews (publisher)|Annual Reviews]]; if the subscription revenue goal is met, the given journal's volume is published open access.<ref>{{Cite web |date=11 March 2020 |title=Jisc supports Subscribe to Open model |url=https://www.researchinformation.info/news/jisc-supports-subscribe-open-model |access-date=6 October 2020 |website=Jisc}}</ref> The number of journals implementing this model grew from 192 in 2024 to 378 in 2025.<ref name="Naddaf"/>

Advantages and disadvantages of open access have generated considerable discussion amongst researchers, academics, librarians, university administrators, funding agencies, government officials, commercial [[publisher]]s, editorial staff and [[learned society|society]] publishers.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Markin |first=Pablo |date=25 April 2017 |title=The Sustainability of Open Access Publishing Models Past a Tipping Point |url=http://openscience.com/the-sustainability-of-open-access-publishing-models-past-a-tipping-point/ |access-date=26 April 2017 |website=[[OpenScience]] |archive-date=12 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112000414/https://openscience.com/the-sustainability-of-open-access-publishing-models-past-a-tipping-point/ }}</ref> 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 Media|Frontiers in...]] journals, [[MDPI]] and BioMed Central.

==== Article processing charges ====
{{anchor|Author-pays model}}{{anchor|Fee-based}}
[[File:DOAJ APCs.png|thumb|Article processing charges by gold OA journals in DOAJ<ref name="Khing Phyo San"/>]]
{{see also|Article processing charge}}
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.<ref name="Socha">{{Cite web |last=Socha |first=Beata |date=20 April 2017 |title=How Much Do Top Publishers Charge for Open Access? |url=http://openscience.com/how-much-do-top-publishers-charge-for-open-access/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190219191851/https://openscience.com/how-much-do-top-publishers-charge-for-open-access/ |archive-date=19 February 2019 |access-date=26 April 2017 |website=openscience.com}}</ref><ref name="fuchs2013" /><ref name="Gaj">{{Cite journal |last=Gajović |first=S |date=31 August 2017 |title=Diamond Open Access in the quest for interdisciplinarity and excellence |journal=Croatian Medical Journal |volume=58 |issue=4 |pages=261–262 |doi=10.3325/cmj.2017.58.261 |pmc=5577648 |pmid=28857518}}</ref> The money might come from the author but more often comes from the author's [[research grant]] or employer.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Peter |first=Suber |title=Open access |date=2012 |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=978-0-262-30173-2 |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |oclc=795846161}}</ref> While the payments are typically incurred ''per article published'' (e.g. [[BMC journals|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]])<ref name="GOA4" /><ref name="Khing Phyo San"/><ref>{{Cite journal|doi = 10.6087/kcse.227|title = Influence of open access journals on the research community in Journal Citation Reports|year = 2021|last1 = Kim|first1 = Sang-Jun|last2 = Park|first2 = Kay Sook|journal = Science Editing|volume = 8| issue=1 |pages = 32–38|s2cid = 233380569|doi-access = free}}</ref> but can be under $10,<ref>{{Cite web |date=6 March 2012 |title=An efficient journal |url=http://blogs.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191118220214/http://blogs.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ |archive-date=18 November 2019 |access-date=27 October 2019 |website=The Occasional Pamphlet |language=en-US}}</ref> close to $5,000<ref>{{Cite web |title=Article processing charges |url=https://www.nature.com/ncomms/about/article-processing-charges |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191027110805/https://www.nature.com/ncomms/about/article-processing-charges |archive-date=27 October 2019 |access-date=27 October 2019 |publisher=Nature Communications |language=en}}</ref> or well over $10,000.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Publishing options |url=https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/publishing-options | publisher=Nature |language=en}}</ref> 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).<ref name="Kozak&Hartley">{{Cite journal |last1=Kozak |first1=Marcin |last2=Hartley |first2=James |date=December 2013 |title=Publication fees for open access journals: Different disciplines-different methods |journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology |volume=64 |issue=12 |pages=2591–2594 |doi=10.1002/asi.22972}}</ref> APCs can also depend on a journal's impact factor.<ref name="Björk 2015">{{Cite journal |last1=Björk |first1=Bo-Christer |last2=Solomon |first2=David |year=2015 |title=Article Processing Charges in OA Journals: Relationship between Price and Quality |journal=Scientometrics |volume=103 |issue=2 |pages=373–385 |doi=10.1007/s11192-015-1556-z |s2cid=15966412}}</ref><ref name="Lawson 2014">{{Citation|last=Lawson |first=Stuart |year=2014 |title=APC Pricing |publisher=Figshare |doi=10.6084/m9.figshare.1056280.v3}}</ref><ref name="Björk 2014">{{Cite web |title=Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges. |url=https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/developing-effective-market-for-open-access-article-processing-charges-mar14.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181003011716/https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/developing-effective-market-for-open-access-article-processing-charges-mar14.pdf |archive-date=3 October 2018 |access-date=28 August 2019}}</ref><ref name="Schönfelder 2018">{{Cite web|last=Schönfelder |first=Nina |year=2018 |title=APCs—Mirroring the Impact Factor or Legacy of the Subscription-Based Model? |url=https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/record/2931061 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191222093225/https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/record/2931061 |archive-date=22 December 2019 |access-date=28 August 2019}}</ref> Some publishers (e.g. [[eLife]] and [[Ubiquity Press]]) have released estimates of their direct and indirect costs that set their APCs.<ref>{{Cite web |date=29 September 2016 |title=Setting a fee for publication |url=https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/b6365b76/setting-a-fee-for-publication |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107002917/https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/b6365b76/setting-a-fee-for-publication |archive-date=7 November 2017 |access-date=27 October 2019 |website=eLife |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Ubiquity Press |url=https://www.ubiquitypress.com/site/publish/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191021065134/https://www.ubiquitypress.com/site/publish/ |archive-date=21 October 2019 |access-date=27 October 2019 |website=www.ubiquitypress.com}}</ref> Hybrid OA generally costs more than gold OA and can offer a lower quality of service.<ref name="auto"/> A particularly controversial practice in hybrid open access journals is "[[Double dipping (publishing)|double dipping]]", where both authors and subscribers are charged.<ref name="Open access double dipping policy"/>

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). This has led to the assessment that there is enough money "within the system" to enable full transition to OA.<ref name="Schimmer 2015">{{Cite journal |last1=Schimmer |first1=Ralf |last2=Geschuhn |first2=Kai Karin |last3=Vogler |first3=Andreas |year=2015 |title=Disrupting the Subscription Journals" Business Model for the Necessary Large-Scale Transformation to Open Access |journal=MPG.PuRe Repository |doi=10.17617/1.3}}</ref> 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.<ref name="TenMyths">{{Cite journal |last1=Vanholsbeeck |first1=Marc |last2=Thacker |first2=Paul |last3=Sattler |first3=Susanne |last4=Ross-Hellauer |first4=Tony |last5=Rivera-López |first5=Bárbara S. |last6=Rice |first6=Curt |last7=Nobes |first7=Andy |last8=Masuzzo |first8=Paola |last9=Martin |first9=Ryan |last10=Kramer |first10=Bianca |last11=Havemann |first11=Johanna |date=11 March 2019 |title=Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing |journal=Publications |volume=7 |issue=2 |page=34 |doi=10.3390/publications7020034 |doi-access=free |first12=Asura |last12=Enkhbayar |first13=Jacinto |last13=Davila |first14=Tom |last14=Crick |first15=Harry |last15=Crane |first16=Jonathan P. |last16=Tennant}}</ref> Concern has been noted that increasing subscription journal prices will be mirrored by rising APCs, creating a barrier to less financially privileged authors.<ref name="Björk 2017b">{{Cite journal |last=Björk |first=B. C. |year=2017 |title=Growth of Hybrid Open Access |journal=PeerJ |volume=5 |article-number=e3878 |doi=10.7717/peerj.3878 |pmc=5624290 |pmid=28975059 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Pinfield 2015">{{Cite journal |last1=Pinfield |first1=Stephen |last2=Salter |first2=Jennifer |last3=Bath |first3=Peter A. |year=2016 |title=The 'Total Cost of Publication" in a Hybrid Open-Access Environment: Institutional Approaches to Funding Journal Article-Processing Charges in Combination with Subscriptions |url=http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/81227/1/TCP%20and%20OA%20revised%20JASIST%20WRRO.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology |volume=67 |issue=7 |pages=1751–1766 |doi=10.1002/asi.23446 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190605221816/http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/81227/1/TCP%20and%20OA%20revised%20JASIST%20WRRO.pdf |archive-date=5 June 2019 |access-date=9 September 2019 |s2cid=17356533}}</ref><ref name="Green 2019">{{Cite journal |last=Green |first=Toby |year=2019 |title=Is Open Access Affordable? Why Current Models Do Not Work and Why We Need Internet-Era Transformation of Scholarly Communications |journal=Learned Publishing |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=13–25 |doi=10.1002/leap.1219|doi-access=free |s2cid=67869151 }}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Pourret|first1=Olivier|last2=Hedding|first2=David William|last3=Ibarra|first3=Daniel Enrique|last4=Irawan|first4=Dasapta Erwin|last5=Liu|first5=Haiyan|last6=Tennant|first6=Jonathan Peter|date=2021-06-10|title=International disparities in open access practices in the Earth Sciences|url=https://ese.arphahub.com/article/63663/|journal=European Science Editing|volume=47|article-number=e63663|doi=10.3897/ese.2021.e63663|s2cid=236300530|issn=2518-3354 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Some gold OA publishers will waive all or part of the fee for authors from [[Developing country|less developed economies]]. Steps are normally taken to ensure that [[peer review]]ers 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|date=June 2018}} 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|date=October 2019}}

====Subsidized or no-fee{{anchor|No-fee}}====
No-fee open access journals, also known as "platinum" or "diamond"<ref name="fuchs2013" /><ref name="Gaj" /> do not charge either readers or authors.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Koroso |first=Nesru H. |date=18 November 2015 |title=Diamond Open Access – UA Magazine |work=UA Magazine |url=https://www.ua-magazine.com/diamond-open-access/ |url-status=live |access-date=11 May 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181118173355/https://www.ua-magazine.com/diamond-open-access/ |archive-date=18 November 2018}}</ref> These journals use a variety of [[business model]]s including subsidies, advertising, membership dues, endowments, or volunteer labour.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Suber |first=Peter |date=2 November 2006 |title=No-fee open-access journals |url=http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/11-02-06.htm#nofee |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081208133232/http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/11-02-06.htm#nofee |archive-date=8 December 2008 |access-date=14 December 2008 |website=SPARC open access Newsletter}}</ref><ref name="TenMyths" /> Subsidising sources range from universities, libraries and museums to foundations, [[Learned society|societies]] or government agencies.<ref name=":3" /> Some publishers may cross-subsidise from other publications or auxiliary services and products.<ref name=":3" /> For example, most APC-free journals in Latin America are funded by higher education institutions and are not conditional on institutional affiliation for publication.<ref name="TenMyths" /> Conversely, [[Knowledge Unlatched]] crowdsources funding in order to make monographs available open access.<ref name="Montgomery">{{Cite journal |last=Montgomery |first=Lucy |date=2014 |title=Knowledge Unlatched:A Global Library Consortium Model for Funding Open Access Scholarly Books |journal=Cultural Science |volume=7 |issue=2 |hdl=20.500.11937/12680}}</ref>

Estimates of prevalence vary, but approximately 10,000 journals without APC are listed in DOAJ<ref>{{Cite web |title=DOAJ search |url=https://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filtered%22%3A%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22_type%22%3A%22journal%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22index.has_apc.exact%22%3A%22No%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%22query%22%3A%7B%22match_all%22%3A%7B%7D%7D%7D%7D%2C%22from%22%3A0%2C%22size%22%3A10%7D |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011412/https://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filtered%22%3A%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22_type%22%3A%22journal%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22index.has_apc.exact%22%3A%22No%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%22query%22%3A%7B%22match_all%22%3A%7B%7D%7D%7D%7D%2C%22from%22%3A0%2C%22size%22%3A10%7D |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=30 June 2019}}</ref> and the [[Free Journal Network]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Wilson |first=Mark |date=20 June 2018 |title=Introducing the Free Journal Network – community-controlled open access publishing |url=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/06/20/introducing-the-free-journal-network-community-controlled-open-access-publishing/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190424130626/https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2018/06/20/introducing-the-free-journal-network-community-controlled-open-access-publishing/ |archive-date=24 April 2019 |access-date=17 May 2019 |website=Impact of Social Sciences}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Is the EU's open access plan a tremor or an earthquake? |url=https://sciencebusiness.net/news/plan-s-blog-eus-open-access-plan-tremor-or-earthquake |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190517023027/https://sciencebusiness.net/news/plan-s-blog-eus-open-access-plan-tremor-or-earthquake |archive-date=17 May 2019 |access-date=17 May 2019 |website=Science{{!}}Business}}</ref> APC-free journals tend to be smaller and more local-regional in scope.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Bastian |first=Hilda |date=2 April 2018 |title=A Reality Check on Author Access to Open Access Publishing |url=https://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2018/04/02/a-reality-check-on-author-access-to-open-access-publishing/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191222142157/https://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2018/04/02/a-reality-check-on-author-access-to-open-access-publishing/ |archive-date=22 December 2019 |access-date=27 October 2019 |website=Absolutely Maybe |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Crotty |first=David |date=26 August 2015 |title=Is it True that Most Open Access Journals Do Not Charge an APC? Sort of. It Depends. |url=https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/08/26/do-most-oa-journals-not-charge-an-apc-sort-of-it-depends/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191212155529/https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/08/26/do-most-oa-journals-not-charge-an-apc-sort-of-it-depends/ |archive-date=12 December 2019 |access-date=27 October 2019 |website=The Scholarly Kitchen |language=en-US}}</ref> Some also require submitting authors to have a particular institutional affiliation.<ref name=":4" />

=== Preprint use ===
[[File:Preprint postprint published.svg|thumb|Typical publishing workflow for an academic journal article ([[preprint]], [[postprint]], and [[Version of record|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.<ref name="Ginsparg 2016">{{Cite journal |last=Ginsparg |first=P. |year=2016 |title=Preprint Déjà Vu |journal=The EMBO Journal |volume=35 |issue=24 |pages=2620–2625 |doi=10.15252/embj.201695531 |pmc=5167339 |pmid=27760783}}</ref><ref name="Tennant 2018b">{{Cite report |last1=Tennant |first1=Jonathan |last2=Bauin |first2=Serge |last3=James |first3=Sarah |last4=Kant |first4=Juliane |year=2018 |title=The Evolving Preprint Landscape: Introductory Report for the Knowledge Exchange Working Group on Preprints |doi=10.17605/OSF.IO/796TU }}</ref><ref name="Neylon 2017">{{Cite journal |last1=Neylon |first1=Cameron |last2=Pattinson |first2=Damian |last3=Bilder |first3=Geoffrey |last4=Lin |first4=Jennifer |year=2017 |title=On the Origin of Nonequivalent States: How We Can Talk about Preprints |journal=F1000Research |volume=6 |page=608 |doi=10.12688/f1000research.11408.1 |pmc=5461893 |pmid=28620459 |doi-access=free }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Balaji 2019">{{Cite journal |last1=Balaji |first1=B. |last2=Dhanamjaya |first2=M. |year=2019 |title=Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures |journal=Publications |volume=7 |issue=1 |page=6 |doi=10.3390/publications7010006 |doi-access=free}}</ref> The posting of pre-prints (or authors' manuscript versions) is consistent with the Green Open Access model.{{cn|date=March 2024}}

==== 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.<ref name="Bourne 2017">{{Cite journal |last1=Bourne |first1=Philip E. |last2=Polka |first2=Jessica K. |last3=Vale |first3=Ronald D. |last4=Kiley |first4=Robert |year=2017 |title=Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission |journal=PLOS Computational Biology |volume=13 |issue=5 |article-number=e1005473 |bibcode=2017PLSCB..13E5473B |doi=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005473 |pmc=5417409 |pmid=28472041 |doi-access=free }}</ref> 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.{{cn|date=March 2024}}

However, preprints, in fact, protect against scooping.<ref name="Sarabipour 2019b">{{Cite journal |last1=Sarabipour |first1=Sarvenaz |last2=Debat |first2=Humberto J. |last3=Emmott |first3=Edward |last4=Burgess |first4=Steven J. |last5=Schwessinger |first5=Benjamin |last6=Hensel |first6=Zach |year=2019 |title=On the Value of Preprints: An Early Career Researcher Perspective |journal=PLOS Biology |volume=17 |issue=2 |article-number=e3000151 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151 |pmc=6400415 |pmid=30789895 |doi-access=free }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Powell 2016">{{Cite journal |last=Powell |first=Kendall |year=2016 |title=Does It Take Too Long to Publish Research? |journal=Nature |volume=530 |issue=7589 |pages=148–151 |bibcode=2016Natur.530..148P |doi=10.1038/530148a |pmid=26863966 |doi-access=free |s2cid=1013588}}</ref> 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.{{cn|date=March 2024}}

Preprints provide a time-stamp at the time of publication, which helps to establish the "priority of discovery" for scientific claims.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Vale |first1=Ronald D |last2=Hyman |first2=Anthony A |date=2016-06-16 |title=Priority of discovery in the life sciences |journal=eLife |volume=5 |article-number=e16931 |doi=10.7554/eLife.16931 |doi-access=free |issn=2050-084X |pmc=4911212 |pmid=27310529}}</ref> This means that a preprint can act as proof of provenance for research ideas, data, code, models, and results.<ref name="Crick 2017">{{Cite journal |last1=Crick |first1=Tom |last2=Hall |first2=Benjamin A. |last3=Ishtiaq |first3=Samin |year=2017 |title=Reproducibility in Research: Systems, Infrastructure, Culture |journal=Journal of Open Research Software |volume=5 |issue=1 |page=32 |doi=10.5334/jors.73 |doi-access=free|arxiv=1503.02388 }}</ref> 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.<ref group="note">{{Cite web |title=ASAPbio FAQ |url=https://asapbio.org/preprint-info/preprint-faq#qe-faq-923 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011402/https://asapbio.org/preprint-info/preprint-faq#qe-faq-923 |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=28 August 2019}}.</ref> 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.<ref name="Sarabipour 2019b" />

=== Archiving ===

The "green" route to OA refers to author self-archiving, in which a version of the article (often the peer-reviewed version before editorial typesetting, called "postprint") is posted online to an institutional or subject repository. This route is often dependent on journal or publisher policies,<ref group="note">{{Cite web |title=SHERPA/RoMEO |url=http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190830211037/http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php |archive-date=30 August 2019 |access-date=28 August 2019}} database.</ref> 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,<ref name="Gadd 2019">{{Cite journal |last1=Gadd |first1=Elizabeth |last2=Troll Covey |first2=Denise |year=2019 |title=What Does "Green" Open Access Mean? Tracking Twelve Years of Changes to Journal Publisher Self-Archiving Policies |url=https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/21555 |url-status=live |journal=Journal of Librarianship and Information Science |volume=51 |issue=1 |pages=106–122 |doi=10.1177/0961000616657406 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011405/https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/What_does_green_open_access_mean_Tracking_twelve_years_of_changes_to_journal_publisher_self-archiving_policies/9491174 |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=28 August 2019 |s2cid=34955879}}</ref> arguing that immediate self-archiving risks loss of subscription income.

==== Embargo periods ====
[[File:Elsevier Embargo lengths.png|thumb|upright|Length of embargo times for bronze [[Elsevier|Elsevier journals]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=Journal embargo finder |url=https://www.elsevier.com/en-au/about/open-science/open-access/journal-embargo-finder |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190518051616/https://www.elsevier.com/en-au/about/open-science/open-access/journal-embargo-finder |archive-date=18 May 2019 |access-date=17 May 2019 |website=www.elsevier.com}}</ref>]] [[Embargo (academic publishing)|Embargoes]] are imposed by between 20 and 40% of journals,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Laakso |first=Mikael |date=1 May 2014 |title=Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed |journal=Scientometrics |language=en |volume=99 |issue=2 |pages=475–494 |doi=10.1007/s11192-013-1205-3 |issn=1588-2861 |hdl-access=free |hdl=10138/157660 |s2cid=8225450}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Harnad |first=Stevan |title=Open access: what, where, when, how and why |date=2015 |url=https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/361704/ |work=Ethics, Science, Technology, and Engineering: An International Resource |editor-last=Holbrook |editor-first=J. Britt |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200805201244/https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/361704/ |others=Stevan Harnad, J. Britt Holbrook, Carl Mitcham |publisher=Macmillan Reference |language=en |access-date=6 January 2020 |archive-date=5 August 2020 |editor2-last=Mitcham |editor2-first=Carl |url-status=live}}</ref> during which time an article is paywalled before permitting self-archiving (green OA) or releasing a free-to-read version (bronze OA).<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Laakso |first1=Mikael |last2=Björk |first2=Bo-Christer |date=2013 |title=Delayed open access: An overlooked high-impact category of openly available scientific literature |journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology |language=en |volume=64 |issue=7 |pages=1323–1329 |doi=10.1002/asi.22856 |hdl-access=free |hdl=10138/157658}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bjork |first1=Bo-Christer |last2=Roos |first2=Annikki |last3=Lauri |first3=Mari |date=2009 |title=Scientific Journal Publishing: Yearly Volume and Open Access Availability |url=https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ837278 |url-status=live |journal=Information Research: An International Electronic Journal |language=en |volume=14 |issue=1 |issn=1368-1613 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200805203303/https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ837278 |archive-date=5 August 2020 |access-date=6 January 2020}}</ref> Embargo periods typically vary from 6–12 months in [[Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics|STEM]] and >12 months in [[humanities]], [[The arts|arts]] and [[social sciences]].<ref name="TenMyths" /> Embargo-free [[self-archiving]] has not been shown to affect [[Subscription business model|subscription revenue]],<ref name="Swan 2005">{{Cite journal |last1=Swan |first1=Alma |last2=Brown |first2=Sheridan |date=May 2005 |title=Open Access Self-Archiving: An Author Study |url=http://cogprints.org/4385/ |url-status=live |journal=Departmental Technical Report. UK FE and HE Funding Councils |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011404/http://cogprints.org/4385/ |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=28 August 2019}}</ref> and tends to increase readership and citations.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ottaviani |first=Jim |date=22 August 2016 |editor-last=Bornmann |editor-first=Lutz |title=The Post-Embargo Open Access Citation Advantage: It Exists (Probably), It's Modest (Usually), and the Rich Get Richer (of Course) |journal=PLOS ONE |language=en |volume=11 |issue=8 |article-number=e0159614 |bibcode=2016PLoSO..1159614O |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0159614 |issn=1932-6203 |pmc=4993511 |pmid=27548723|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Suber |first=Peter |date=2014 |title=The evidence fails to justify publishers' demand for longer embargo periods on publicly-funded research. |url=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/01/14/suber-embargoes-on-publicly-funded-research/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200304165051/https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/01/14/suber-embargoes-on-publicly-funded-research/ |archive-date=4 March 2020 |access-date=6 January 2020 |website=LSA impact blog |language=en-US}}</ref> Embargoes have been lifted on particular topics for either limited times or ongoing (e.g. Zika outbreaks<ref>{{Cite web |title=Global scientific community commits to sharing data on Zika |url=https://wellcome.ac.uk/press-release/global-scientific-community-commits-sharing-data-zika |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191221164316/https://wellcome.ac.uk/press-release/global-scientific-community-commits-sharing-data-zika |archive-date=21 December 2019 |access-date=6 January 2020 |website=wellcome.ac.uk |date=10 February 2016 |publisher=Wellcome}}</ref> or indigenous health<ref name=":16">{{Cite journal |title=About |url=https://www.mja.com.au/journal/about-us |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190405032059/https://www.mja.com.au/journal/about-us |archive-date=5 April 2019 |access-date=12 June 2019 |journal=Medical Journal of Australia |publisher=Australasian Medical Publishing Company}}</ref>). [[Plan S]] includes zero-length embargoes on self-archiving as a key principle.<ref name="TenMyths" />

== Motivations ==
{{Main|Academic journal publishing reform}}
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.{{cn|date=March 2024}}

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:
* Rather than making journal articles accessible through a [[subscription business model]], all academic publications could be made free to read and published with some other cost-recovery model, such as publication charges, subsidies, or charging subscriptions only for the print edition, with the online edition [[Gratis versus libre|gratis]] or "free to read".<ref name="Suber29-43">{{harvnb|Suber|2012|pp=29–43}}</ref>
* Rather than applying traditional notions of [[copyright]] to academic publications, they could be [[wikt:libre#Adjective|libre]] or "free to build upon".<ref name="Suber29-43" />

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]],<ref>{{Cite web |date=31 March 2015 |title=The Life and Death of an Open Access Journal: Q&A with Librarian Marcus Banks |url=https://poynder.blogspot.com.br/2015/03/the-life-and-death-of-open-access.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180524151752/https://poynder.blogspot.com.br/2015/03/the-life-and-death-of-open-access.html |archive-date=24 May 2018 |access-date=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.'"</ref> although others have argued that OA may raise the total cost of publication,<ref>{{Cite news |title=Gold open access in practice: How will universities respond to the rising total cost of publication? |newspaper=Impact of Social Sciences |date=25 March 2015 |url=http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/03/25/gold-open-access-in-practice-total-costs-of-publication/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160101215952/http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/03/25/gold-open-access-in-practice-total-costs-of-publication/ |archive-date=1 January 2016 |access-date=23 May 2018}}</ref> and further increase economic incentives for exploitation in academic publishing.<ref>{{Cite news |date=4 June 2018 |title=Reasoning and Interest: Clustering Open Access - LePublikateur |work=LePublikateur |url=https://www.lepublikateur.de/2018/06/04/reasoning-interest-open-access/ |url-status=live |access-date=5 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181018122613/https://www.lepublikateur.de/2018/06/04/reasoning-interest-open-access/ |archive-date=18 October 2018}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Suber29-43" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Tennant |first1=Jonathan P. |last2=Waldner |first2=François |last3=Jacques |first3=Damien C. |last4=Masuzzo |first4=Paola |last5=Collister |first5=Lauren B. |last6=Hartgerink |first6=Chris. H. J. |date=21 September 2016 |title=The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review |journal=F1000Research |volume=5 |page=632 |doi=10.12688/f1000research.8460.3 |pmc=4837983 |pmid=27158456 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

=== Stakeholders and concerned communities ===
[[File:Thank you for practicing Open Science - Igsi8c4BjI8.webm|thumb|thumbtime=0:47|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. 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]]".<ref>Van Orsdel, Lee C. & Born, Kathleen. 2005. {{Cite web |title=Periodicals Price Survey 2005: Choosing Sides |work=Library Journal |date=15 April 2005 |url=http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2005/04/publishing/periodicals-price-survey-2005-choosing-sides/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170630021651/http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2005/04/publishing/periodicals-price-survey-2005-choosing-sides/ |archive-date=30 June 2017 |access-date=18 October 2017}}</ref>

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 professional]]s are roughly twice as likely to read a relevant article if it is freely available.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hardisty |first1=David J. |last2=Haaga |first2=David A.F. |year=2008 |title=Diffusion of Treatment Research: Does Open Access Matter? |url=http://decisionsciences.columbia.edu/papers/hardisty-haaga-2008-preprint.pdf |journal=Journal of Clinical Psychology |volume=64 |issue=7 |pages=821–839 |citeseerx=10.1.1.487.5198 |doi=10.1002/jclp.20492 |pmid=18425790 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080528051630/http://decisionsciences.columbia.edu/papers/hardisty-haaga-2008-preprint.pdf |archive-date=28 May 2008 |access-date=22 April 2008}}</ref>

==== Research funders ====
{{See also|#Policies and mandates}}
{{Further|Open-access mandate#Instances}}

[[Research funding]] agencies and universities want to ensure that the research they fund and support in various ways has the greatest possible research impact.<ref>{{Cite web |title=DFID Research: DFID's Policy Opens up a World of Global Research |url=http://www.dfid.gov.uk/What-we-do/Research-and-evidence/case-studies/research-case-studies/2012/DFIDs-policy-opens-up-a-world-of-global-research/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130103141246/http://www.dfid.gov.uk/What-we-do/Research-and-evidence/case-studies/research-case-studies/2012/DFIDs-policy-opens-up-a-world-of-global-research/ |archive-date=3 January 2013 |website=dfid.gov.uk}}</ref> 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 mandate]]s, and others are on the way to do so (see [[ROARMAP]]).

==== Universities ====
A growing number of universities are providing institutional repositories in which their researchers can deposit their published articles. Some open access advocates believe that institutional repositories will play a very important role in responding to open-access mandates from funders.<ref>[http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html How To Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandates] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080316202403/http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?%2Farchives%2F369-guid.html |date=16 March 2008 }}. Openaccess.eprints.org (2 March 2008). Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref>

In May 2005, 16 major [[Dutch universities]] cooperatively launched [[Darenet|DAREnet]], the Digital Academic Repositories, making over 47,000 research papers available.<ref>Libbenga, Jan. (11 May 2005) [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/11/open_access_research/ Dutch academics declare research free-for-all] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170715102913/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/11/open_access_research/ |date=15 July 2017 }}. Theregister.co.uk. Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref> From 2 June 2008, DAREnet has been incorporated into the scholarly portal [[NARCIS (National Academic Research and Collaboration Information System)|NARCIS]].<ref>[http://www.narcis.info/ Portal NARCIS] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101105233251/http://www.narcis.info/ |date=5 November 2010 }}. Narcis.info. Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref> By 2019, NARCIS provided access to 360,000 open access publications from all Dutch universities, [[Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences|KNAW]], [[Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research|NWO]] and a number of scientific institutes.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Open and closed access scholarly publications in NARCIS per year of publication |url=https://www.narcis.nl/metrics/Language/en |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190426143211/https://www.narcis.nl/metrics/Language/en |archive-date=26 April 2019 |access-date=26 February 2019 |website=NARCIS}}</ref>

In 2011, a group of universities in North America formed the Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI) – SPARC |url=http://www.sparc.arl.org/COAPI |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151018182442/http://www.sparc.arl.org/COAPI |archive-date=18 October 2015 |access-date=20 October 2015 |website=arl.org}}</ref> 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,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Good practices for university open-access policies |url=https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/Good_practices_for_university_open-access_policies |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161005152857/https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/Good_practices_for_university_open-access_policies |archive-date=5 October 2016 |access-date=4 October 2016 |website=Harvard}}</ref> focusing on rights-retention policies that allow universities to distribute faculty research without seeking permission from publishers. As of November 2023, Rights retention policies are being adopted by an increasing number of UK universities as well.

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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=5 February 2013 |title=About the AOASG |url=http://aoasg.org.au/welcome-to-the-aoasg/about/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141220233015/http://aoasg.org.au/welcome-to-the-aoasg/about/ |archive-date=20 December 2014 |website=Australian Open Access Support Group}}</ref> In 2015, the group expanded to include all eight New Zealand universities and was renamed the Australasian Open Access Support Group.<ref>{{Cite web |date=17 August 2015 |title=Australian Open Access Support Group expands to become Australasian Open Access Support Group |url=http://aoasg.org.au/2015/08/17/australian-open-access-support-group-expands-to-become-australasian-open-access-support-group/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151117033048/http://aoasg.org.au/2015/08/17/australian-open-access-support-group-expands-to-become-australasian-open-access-support-group/ |archive-date=17 November 2015}}</ref> It was then renamed the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group, highlighting its emphasis on strategy. The awareness raising activities of the AOASG include presentations, workshops, blogs, and a webinar series on open access issues.<ref>{{Cite news |date=31 August 2016 |title=Creative Commons Australia partners with Australasian Open Access Strategy Group |work=Creative Commons Australia}}</ref>

==== Libraries and librarians ====
As information professionals, [[librarian]]s are often vocal and active advocates of open access. These librarians believe that open access promises to remove both the price and permission barriers that undermine library efforts to provide access to scholarship, as well as helping to address the [[serials crisis]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Suber |first=Peter |date=2003 |title=Removing the Barriers to Research: An Introduction to Open Access for Librarians |url=https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3715477 |url-status=live |journal=College & Research Libraries News |volume=62 |issue=2 |pages=92–94, 113 |doi=10.5860/crln.64.2.92 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180620180839/https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3715477 |archive-date=20 June 2018 |access-date=20 June 2018 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Open access provides a complement to library access services such as [[interlibrary loan]], supporting researchers' needs for immediate access to scholarship.<ref>{{Cite conference |last=Baich |first=Tina |date=2015 |title=Capturing the Benefits of Open Access in Interlibrary Loan |url=https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/7411 |conference=Brick & Click Libraries: An Academic Library Conference |location=Maryville, MO |doi=10.7912/C2KW2F}}</ref> Librarians and library associations also lead education and outreach initiatives to faculty, administrators, the library community, and the public about the benefits of open access.

Many library associations have either signed major open access declarations or created their own. For example, [[International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions|IFLA]] have produced a Statement on Open Access.<ref>{{Cite web |date=6 March 2019 |title=IFLA Statement on Open Access (2011) |url=https://www.ifla.org/publications/node/8890 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011403/https://www.ifla.org/publications/node/8890 |archive-date=31 August 2020 |website=IFLA}}</ref> 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).<ref>[http://www.sparc.arl.org/ Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130815193855/http://www.sparc.arl.org/|date=15 August 2013}}. Arl.org. Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref><ref>[http://scu.edu.au/library/index.php/138 Open Access for Scholarly Publishing] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140519213205/http://scu.edu.au/library/index.php/138|date=19 May 2014}}. Southern Cross University Library. Retrieved on 14 March 2014.</ref> Librarians and library associations also develop and share informational resources on scholarly publishing and open access to research; the Scholarly Communications Toolkit<ref>[http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/scholarlycomm/scholarlycommunicationtoolkit/toolkit.htm ALA] Scholarly Communication Toolkit {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050908035323/http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/scholarlycomm/scholarlycommunicationtoolkit/toolkit.htm|date=8 September 2005}}</ref> developed by the [[Association of College and Research Libraries]] of the [[American Library Association]] is one example of this work.

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<ref>[http://www.carl-abrc.ca/en/scholarly-communications/carl-institutional-repository-program.html CARL – Institutional Repositories Program] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130607213902/http://carl-abrc.ca/en/scholarly-communications/carl-institutional-repository-program.html|date=7 June 2013}}. Carl-abrc.ca. Retrieved on 12 June 2013.</ref> to develop institutional repositories at all Canadian university libraries. An increasing number of libraries provide [[Library publishing|publishing]] or hosting services for open access journals, with the Library Publishing Coalition as a membership organisation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Lippincott |first=Sarah |date=5 July 2016 |title=The Library Publishing Coalition: organizing libraries to enhance scholarly publishing |url=http://insights.uksg.org/jms/article/download/uksg.296/557 |url-status=live |journal=Insights |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=186–191 |doi=10.1629/uksg.296 |issn=2048-7754 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180721094209/https://insights.uksg.org/jms/article/download/uksg.296/557 |archive-date=21 July 2018 |access-date=2 September 2019 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

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".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kopfstein |first=Janus |date=13 March 2013 |title=Aaron Swartz to receive posthumous 'Freedom of Information' award for open access advocacy |url=https://www.theverge.com/2013/3/13/4099792/aaron-swartz-to-receive-posthumous-freedom-of-information-award-for |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130315223429/http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/13/4099792/aaron-swartz-to-receive-posthumous-freedom-of-information-award-for |archive-date=15 March 2013 |access-date=24 March 2013 |website=The Verge}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=17 January 2013 |title=James Madison Award |url=http://www.ala.org/awardsgrants/james-madison-award |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130322035516/http://www.ala.org/awardsgrants/james-madison-award |archive-date=22 March 2013 |access-date=24 March 2013 |publisher=Ala.org}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brandom |first=Russell |date=26 March 2013 |title=Entire library journal editorial board resigns, citing 'crisis of conscience' after death of Aaron Swartz |url=https://www.theverge.com/2013/3/26/4149752/library-journal-resigns-for-open-access-citing-aaron-swartz |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131231215050/http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/26/4149752/library-journal-resigns-for-open-access-citing-aaron-swartz |archive-date=31 December 2013 |access-date=1 January 2014 |website=The Verge}}</ref>  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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=New |first=Jake |date=27 March 2013 |title=Journal's Editorial Board Resigns in Protest of Publisher's Policy Toward Authors |url=http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/journals-editorial-board-resigns-in-protest-of-publishers-policy-toward-authors/43149 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140108055058/http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/journals-editorial-board-resigns-in-protest-of-publishers-policy-toward-authors/43149 |archive-date=8 January 2014 |website=The Chronicle of Higher Education}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Bourg |first=Chris |date=23 March 2013 |title=My short stint on the JLA Editorial Board |url=http://chrisbourg.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-short-stint-on-the-jla-editorial-board/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140824063817/http://chrisbourg.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/my-short-stint-on-the-jla-editorial-board/ |archive-date=24 August 2014 |website=Feral Librarian |quote=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}}</ref>

==== Public ====
The public may benefit from open access to scholarly research for many reasons. Advocacy groups such as [[Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition|SPARC]]'s Alliance for Taxpayer Access in the US argue that most scientific research is paid for by taxpayers through [[government grant]]s, who have a right to access the results of what they have funded.<ref>[http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/ ATA | The Alliance for Taxpayer Access] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927194105/http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/ |date=27 September 2007 }}. Taxpayeraccess.org (29 October 2011). Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref> Examples of people who might wish to read scholarly literature include individuals with medical conditions and their family members, serious hobbyists or "amateur" scholars (e.g. [[Amateur astronomy|amateur astronomers]]), and high school and [[junior college]] students. Additionally, professionals in many fields, such as those doing research in private companies, [[start-up]]s, and hospitals, may not have access to publications behind paywalls, and OA publications are the only type that they can access in practice.

Even those who do not read scholarly articles benefit indirectly from open access.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120213162340/http://eprints.rclis.org/handle/10760/6842 Open Access: Basics and Benefits]. Eprints.rclis.org. Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref> For example, patients benefit when their doctor and other [[health care]] professionals have access to the latest research. Advocates argue that open access speeds research progress, productivity, and knowledge translation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Eysenbach |first=Gunther |year=2006 |title=The Open Access Advantage |journal=J Med Internet Res |volume=8 |issue=2 |article-number=e8 |doi=10.2196/jmir.8.2.e8 |pmc=1550699 |pmid=16867971 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

==== Low-income countries ====
In developing nations, open access archiving and publishing acquires a unique importance.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Karlstrøm |first1=Henrik |last2=Aksnes |first2=Dag W |last3=Piro |first3=Fredrik N |title=Benefits of open access to researchers from lower-income countries: A global analysis of reference patterns in 1980–2020 |journal=[[Journal of Information Science]] |date=2024 |article-number=01655515241245952 |doi=10.1177/01655515241245952 |doi-access=free|hdl=11250/3130944 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Scientists, health care professionals, and institutions in developing nations often do not have the capital necessary to access scholarly literature.

Many open access projects involve international collaboration. For example, the [[SciELO]] (Scientific Electronic Library Online),<ref>[http://www.scielo.org/index.php?lang=en Scientific Electronic Library Online] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050831151907/http://www.scielo.org/index.php?lang=en |date=31 August 2005 }}. SciELO. Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref> is a comprehensive approach to full open access journal publishing, involving a number of [[Latin America]]n 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 software|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]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Pearce |first=J. M. |year=2012 |title=The case for open source appropriate technology |journal=Environment, Development and Sustainability |volume=14 |issue=3 |pages=425–431 |doi=10.1007/s10668-012-9337-9 |bibcode=2012EDSus..14..425P |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>A. J. Buitenhuis, et al., "[http://nciia.org/sites/default/files/pearce.pdf Open Design-Based Strategies to Enhance Appropriate Technology Development] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180725131916/http://nciia.org/sites/default/files/pearce.pdf |date=25 July 2018 }}", ''Proceedings of the 14th Annual National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance Conference : Open'', 25–27 March 2010, pp.1–12.</ref>

== History ==
{{summarize|History of open access|date=May 2018}}
{{main|History of open access}}

{{multiple image
| direction         = vertical
| width             = 440
| image1            = OA by year.png
| caption1          = The number and proportion of open access articles split between Gold, Green, Hybrid, Bronze and closed access (1950–2016)<ref name="Piwowar2018">{{Cite journal |last1=Piwowar |first1=Heather |last2=Priem |first2=Jason |last3=Larivière |first3=Vincent |last4=Alperin |first4=Juan Pablo |last5=Matthias |first5=Lisa |last6=Norlander |first6=Bree |last7=Farley |first7=Ashley |last8=West |first8=Jevin |last9=Haustein |first9=Stefanie |date=13 February 2018 |title=The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles |journal=PeerJ |volume=6 |article-number=e4375 |doi=10.7717/peerj.4375 |issn=2167-8359 |pmc=5815332 |pmid=29456894 |doi-access=free }}</ref>
| image2            = OA by subject.png
| caption2          = Ratios of article access types for different subjects (averaged 2009–2015)<ref name="Piwowar2018" />
}}

[[File:Share of hybrid open access articles in journal of top three publishers.png|Share of hybrid open access (OA) articles in the subscription journals of the top three publishers. JCR, Journal Citation Reports. Reproduced|thumb]]

=== Extent ===
Various studies have investigated the extent of open access. A study published in 2010 showed that roughly 20% of the total number of peer-reviewed articles published in 2008 could be found openly accessible.<ref name="doi10.1371/journal.pone.0011273">{{Cite journal |last1=Björk |first1=B. C. |last2=Welling |first2=P. |last3=Laakso |first3=M. |last4=Majlender |first4=P. |last5=Hedlund |first5=T. |last6=Guðnason |first6=G. N. |year=2010 |editor-last=Scalas |editor-first=Enrico |title=Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009 |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=5 |issue=6 |article-number=e11273 |bibcode=2010PLoSO...511273B |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0011273 |pmc=2890572 |pmid=20585653|doi-access=free }}</ref> Another study found that by 2010, 7.9% of all academic journals with [[impact factor]]s were gold open access journals and showed a broad distribution of Gold Open Access journals throughout academic disciplines.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cummings |first=J. |year=2013 |title=Open access journal content found in commercial full-text aggregation databases and journal citation reports |journal=New Library World |volume=114 |issue=3/4 |pages=166–178 |doi=10.1108/03074801311304078 |hdl-access=free |hdl=2376/4903}}</ref> A study of random journals from the [[citation index|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.<ref name="fuchs2013">{{Cite journal |last1=Fuchs |first1=Christian |last2=Sandoval |first2=Marisol |year=2013 |title=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 |journal=TripleC |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=428–443 |doi=10.31269/triplec.v11i2.502 |doi-access=free}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Open access to research publications reaching 'tipping point' |url=http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-786_en.htm?locale=en |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130824231615/http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-786_en.htm?locale=en |archive-date=24 August 2013 |access-date=25 August 2013 |website=Press Releases |publisher=europa.eu}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=August 2013 |title=Proportion of Open Access Peer-Reviewed Papers at the European and World Levels—2004–2011 |url=http://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/SM_EC_OA_Availability_2004-2011.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130903142257/http://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/SM_EC_OA_Availability_2004-2011.pdf |archive-date=3 September 2013 |access-date=25 August 2013 |publisher=Science-Metrix}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Van Noorden |first=Richard |year=2013 |title=Half of 2011 papers now free to read |journal=Nature |volume=500 |issue=7463 |pages=386–7 |bibcode=2013Natur.500..386V |doi=10.1038/500386a |pmid=23969438 |doi-access=free}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Max Planck Gesellschaft">{{Cite web |date=27 April 2015 |title=Area-wide transition to open access is possible: A new study calculates a redeployment of funds in Open Access |url=https://www.mpg.de/9202262/area-wide-transition-open-access |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170616161356/https://www.mpg.de/9202262/area-wide-transition-open-access |archive-date=16 June 2017 |access-date=12 May 2017 |website=www.mpg.de/en |publisher=Max Planck Gesellschaft}}</ref>

In 2009, there were approximately 4,800 active open access journals, publishing around 190,000 articles.<ref name="Björk2011">{{Cite journal |last=Björk |first=Bo-Christer |year=2011 |title=A Study of Innovative Features in Scholarly Open Access Journals |journal=Journal of Medical Internet Research |volume=13 |issue=4 |pages=e115 |doi=10.2196/jmir.1802 |pmc=3278101 |pmid=22173122 |doi-access=free }}</ref> As of February 2019, over 12,500 open access journals are listed in the [[Directory of Open Access Journals]].<ref name="Directory of Open Access Journals">{{Cite web |title=Directory of Open Access Journals |url=https://doaj.org/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160827194107/https://doaj.org/ |archive-date=27 August 2016 |access-date=26 February 2019 |publisher=Directory of Open Access Journals}}</ref>

[[File:Gold vs green OA at individual universities.jpg|thumb
|<div style="float:left;margin-right:0.5em">[[File:interactive icon.svg|18px|link=File:Gold vs green OA at individual universities by year.webm|The image above is animated when clicked|alt=The image above is interactive when clicked]]</div> 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.<ref>{{Cite Q|Q99410785|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Institutions' open access over time: Evolution of green and gold OA|url=https://storage.googleapis.com/oaspa_talk_files/institution_scatter.html|access-date=2021-10-13|website=storage.googleapis.com|publisher=Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative}}</ref> |link=File:Gold vs green OA at individual universities by year.webm]]

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.<ref name="GOA4" /> 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.<ref name="GOA4">{{Cite book |last=Walt Crawford |url=https://waltcrawford.name/goa4.pdf |title=Gold Open Access 2013-2018: Articles in Journals (GOA4) |publisher=Cites & Insights Books |year=2019 |isbn=978-1-329-54713-1 |access-date=30 August 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190506181508/https://waltcrawford.name/goa4.pdf |archive-date=6 May 2019 |url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Piwowar |first1=H. |last2=Priem |first2=J. |last3=Larivière |first3=V. |last4=Alperin |first4=J. P. |last5=Matthias |first5=L. |last6=Norlander |first6=B. |last7=Farley |first7=A. |last8=West |first8=J. |last9=Haustein |first9=S. |year=2018 |title=The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles |journal=PeerJ |volume=6 |article-number=e4375 |doi=10.7717/peerj.4375 |pmc=5815332 |pmid=29456894 |doi-access=free }}</ref> 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).

According to [[Scopus]] database in August, 2024, 46.2% of works, indexed therein and published in 2023, had some form of open access. More than half of the OA publications (27.5% of all indexed works in 2023) were in fully Gold Open Access sources, 16.7% of all were in Green OA sources (i.e. which allow for self-archiving by authors), 9.2 % in Hybrid Gold OA sources (such as journals, which have open access and behind-paywall articles in the same issue), and 10.6 % were in Bronze OA sources (free-to-read on the publishers' websites).<ref>{{cite web |title=Scopus Advanced Search |url-access=registration|url=https://www.scopus.com/results/results.uri?sort=plf-f&src=s&sid=7c069198c393343d11b72b903c0e4a02&sot=a&sdt=a&sl=14&s=PUBYEAR+%3D+2023&origin=searchadvanced&editSaveSearch=&txGid=45ccd8149540fa063d893d60c4e835dc&sessionSearchId=7c069198c393343d11b72b903c0e4a02&limit=10 }}{{registration required}}</ref>

[[File:Percentage of Open Access articles from 8 oldest journal publishers, WebOfScience data.png|thumb|Percentage of Open Access articles from 8 oldest journal publishers. The data were extracted from Web of Science database on 2023-01-30.]]
The adoption of Open Access publishing varies significantly from publisher to publisher, as shown in Fig. OA-Plot, where only the oldest (traditional) publishers are shown, but not the newer publishers, that use the Open Access model exclusively. This plot shows, that since 2010 the [[Institute of Physics]] has the largest percentage of OA publications, while the [[American Chemical Society]] has the lowest. Both the [[IOP Publishing|IOP]] and the [[American Chemical Society|ACS]] are non-profit publishers. The increase in OA percentage for articles published before ca. 1923 is related to the expiration of a 100-year [[copyright term]]. Some publishers (e.g. [[IOP Publishing|IOP]] and [[American Chemical Society|ACS]] made many such articles available as Open Access, while others ([[Elsevier]] in particular) did not.

The [[Registry of Open Access Repositories]] (ROAR) indexes the creation, location and growth of open access [[Open-access repository|open access-repositories]] and their contents.<ref name="roar2">[http://roar.eprints.org/ "Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR)"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121030222530/http://roar.eprints.org/|date=30 October 2012}}. Roar.eprints.org. Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref> As of February 2019, over 4,500 institutional and cross-institutional repositories have been registered in ROAR.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Browse by Repository Type |url=http://roar.eprints.org/view/type/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011403/http://roar.eprints.org/view/type/ |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=26 February 2019 |website=Registry of Open Access Repositories}}</ref>

== Effects on scholarly publishing ==

=== Article impact ===
[[File:Open access citation advantage.png|thumb|Comparison of OA publications to non-OA publications for academic citations (n=44),<ref name="mckiernan">{{Cite journal |last1=McKiernan |first1=Erin C |last2=Bourne |first2=Philip E |last3=Brown |first3=C Titus |last4=Buck |first4=Stuart |last5=Kenall |first5=Amye |last6=Lin |first6=Jennifer |last7=McDougall |first7=Damon |last8=Nosek |first8=Brian A |last9=Ram |first9=Karthik |last10=Soderberg |first10=Courtney K |last11=Spies |first11=Jeffrey R |date=7 July 2016 |editor-last=Rodgers |editor-first=Peter |title=How open science helps researchers succeed |journal=eLife |volume=5 |article-number=e16800 |doi=10.7554/eLife.16800 |issn=2050-084X |pmc=4973366 |pmid=27387362 |doi-access=free }}</ref> HTML views (n=4),<ref name=":10">{{Cite journal |last1=Wang |first1=Xianwen |last2=Liu |first2=Chen |last3=Mao |first3=Wenli |last4=Fang |first4=Zhichao |date=1 May 2015 |title=The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention |journal=Scientometrics |language=en |volume=103 |issue=2 |pages=555–564 |arxiv=1503.05702 |bibcode=2015arXiv150305702W |doi=10.1007/s11192-015-1547-0 |issn=1588-2861 |s2cid=14827780}}</ref><ref name=":12">{{Cite journal |last=Davis |first=Philip M. |date=30 March 2011 |title=Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing |journal=The FASEB Journal |volume=25 |issue=7 |pages=2129–2134 |doi=10.1096/fj.11-183988 |doi-access=free |issn=0892-6638 |pmid=21450907 |s2cid=205367842}}</ref><ref name=":13">{{Cite journal |last=Davis |first=Philip M. |date=2010 |title=Does open access lead to increased readership and citations? A randomized controlled trial of articles published in APS journals |journal=The Physiologist |volume=53 |issue=6 |pages=197, 200–201 |issn=0031-9376 |pmid=21473414}}</ref><ref name=":14">{{Cite journal |last1=Davis |first1=Philip M. |last2=Lewenstein |first2=Bruce V. |last3=Simon |first3=Daniel H. |last4=Booth |first4=James G. |last5=Connolly |first5=Mathew J. L. |date=31 July 2008 |title=Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial |journal=BMJ |language=en |volume=337 |issue=jul31 1 |pages=a568 |doi=10.1136/bmj.a568 |issn=0959-8138 |pmc=2492576 |pmid=18669565}}</ref> PDF downloads (n=3),<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" /><ref name=":14" /> Twitter (n=2),<ref name=":6"/><ref name=":10"/> Wikipedia (n=1)<ref name=":8" />]]
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.<ref name="uk">[http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/28-guid.html Maximising the Return on the UK's Public Investment in Research – Open Access Archivangelism] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170702065339/http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?%2Farchives%2F28-guid.html|date=2 July 2017}}. Openaccess.eprints.org (14 September 2005). Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref><ref>Garfield, E. (1988) [http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v11p354y1988.pdf Can Researchers Bank on Citation Analysis?] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051025161152/http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v11p354y1988.pdf|date=25 October 2005}} ''Current Comments'', No. 44, 31 October 1988</ref>

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".<ref name="imu">{{Cite web |last=Committee on Electronic Information and Communication (CEIC) of the [[International Mathematical Union]] |date=15 May 2001 |title=Call to All Mathematicians |url=http://cr.yp.to/bib/imu-call.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110607051055/http://cr.yp.to/bib/imu-call.html |archive-date=7 June 2011}}</ref>

==== Readership ====
OA articles are generally viewed online and downloaded more often than paywalled articles and that readership continues for longer.<ref name=":10"/><ref name=":9" /> 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).<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last=ElSabry |first=ElHassan |date=1 August 2017 |title=Who needs access to research? Exploring the societal impact of open access |url=https://journals.openedition.org/rfsic/3271 |url-status=live |journal=Revue française des sciences de l'information et de la communication |language=en |issue=11 |doi=10.4000/rfsic.3271 |issn=2263-0856 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011404/https://journals.openedition.org/rfsic/3271 |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=3 January 2020 |doi-access=free}}</ref> OA articles are more read on publication management programs such as Mendeley.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last=Adie |first=Euan |date=24 October 2014 |title=Attention! A study of open access vs non-open access articles |url=https://figshare.com/articles/Attention_A_study_of_open_access_vs_non_open_access_articles/1213690 |url-status=live |journal=Figshare |language=en |doi=10.6084/m9.figshare.1213690.v1 |s2cid=155854134 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200103050320/https://figshare.com/articles/Attention_A_study_of_open_access_vs_non_open_access_articles/1213690 |archive-date=3 January 2020 |access-date=3 January 2020}}</ref> Open access practices can reduce publication delays, an obstacle which led some research fields such as high-energy physics to adopt widespread preprint access.<ref>{{Cite arXiv |eprint=0906.5418 |class=cs.DL |first1=Anne |last1=Gentil-Beccot |first2=Salvatore |last2=Mele |title=Citing and Reading Behaviours in High-Energy Physics. How a Community Stopped Worrying about Journals and Learned to Love Repositories |last3=Brooks |first3=Travis |year=2009}}</ref>

==== Citation rate ====
{{See also|FUTON bias}}
[[File:Open access addendum for authors to publishers.pdf|thumb|right|Authors may use form language like this to request an open access license when submitting their work to a publisher.]]
[[File:How Open Access Empowered a 16-Year-Old to Make Cancer Breakthrough.ogv|thumb|A 2013 interview on [[paywall]]s and open access with [[National Institutes of Health|NIH]] Director [[Francis Collins]] and inventor [[Jack Andraka]]]]

A main reason authors make their articles openly accessible is to maximize their [[citation impact]].<ref>Swan, Alma (2006) [http://www.woodheadpublishing.com/en/book.aspx?bookID=1719&ChandosTitle=1 The culture of Open Access: researchers' views and responses] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120522085011/http://www.woodheadpublishing.com/en/book.aspx?bookID=1719&ChandosTitle=1 |date=22 May 2012}}. In: Neil Jacobs (Ed.) ''Open access: key strategic, technical and economic aspects'', Chandos.</ref> Open access articles are typically [[Citation|cited]] more often than equivalent articles requiring subscriptions.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Piwowar |first1=Heather |last2=Priem |first2=Jason |last3=Larivière |first3=Vincent |last4=Alperin |first4=Juan Pablo |last5=Matthias |first5=Lisa |last6=Norlander |first6=Bree |last7=Farley |first7=Ashley |last8=West |first8=Jevin |last9=Haustein |first9=Stefanie |date=13 February 2018 |title=The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles |journal=PeerJ |language=en |volume=6 |article-number=e4375 |doi=10.7717/peerj.4375 |issn=2167-8359 |pmc=5815332 |pmid=29456894 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Swan |first=Alma |date=2010 |others=Alma Swan |title=The Open Access citation advantage: Studies and results to date |url=https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/268516/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200103050318/https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/268516/ |archive-date=3 January 2020 |access-date=3 January 2020 |website=eprints.soton.ac.uk |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":7">{{Cite journal |last1=Tennant |first1=Jonathan P. |last2=Waldner |first2=François |last3=Jacques |first3=Damien C. |last4=Masuzzo |first4=Paola |last5=Collister |first5=Lauren B. |last6=Hartgerink |first6=Chris. H. J. |date=21 September 2016 |title=The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review |journal=F1000Research |volume=5 |page=632 |doi=10.12688/f1000research.8460.3 |issn=2046-1402 |pmc=4837983 |pmid=27158456 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|date=2021-06-01|title=The open access advantage for studies of human electrophysiology: Impact on citations and Altmetrics|journal=International Journal of Psychophysiology|language=en|volume=164|pages=103–111|doi=10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.03.006|issn=0167-8760|last1=Clayson|first1=Peter E.|last2=Baldwin|first2=Scott A.|last3=Larson|first3=Michael J.|pmid=33774077|s2cid=232409668|doi-access=free}}</ref> This 'citation advantage' was first reported in 2001.<ref>[http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/online-nature01/ Online or Invisible? Steve Lawrence; NEC Research Institute] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070316145522/http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/online-nature01/|date=16 March 2007}}. Citeseer.ist.psu.edu. Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref> Although two major studies dispute this claim,<ref name="Davis 2008">{{Cite journal |last1=Davis |first1=P. M |last2=Lewenstein |first2=B. V |last3=Simon |first3=D. H |last4=Booth |first4=J. G |last5=Connolly |first5=M. J L |year=2008 |title=Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial |journal=BMJ |volume=337 |issue=jul31 1 |pages=a568 |doi=10.1136/bmj.a568 |pmc=2492576 |pmid=18669565}}</ref><ref name=":9">{{Cite journal |last=Davis |first=P. M. |year=2011 |title=Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing |journal=[[The FASEB Journal]] |volume=25 |issue=7 |pages=2129–34 |doi=10.1096/fj.11-183988 |doi-access=free |pmid=21450907 |s2cid=205367842}}</ref> the consensus of multiple studies support the effect,<ref name="mckiernan" /><ref name="autogenerated3">[http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html Effect of OA on citation impact: a bibliography of studies] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171102234006/http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html|date=2 November 2017}}. Opcit.eprints.org. Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref> with measured OA citation advantage varying in magnitude between 1.3-fold to 6-fold depending on discipline.<ref name=":7" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Swan |first=Alma |date=2010 |others=Alma Swan |title=The Open Access citation advantage: Studies and results to date |url=https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/268516/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200103050318/https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/268516/ |archive-date=3 January 2020 |website=eprints.soton.ac.uk |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Clayson 103–111">{{Cite journal |last1=Clayson |first1=Peter E. |last2=Baldwin |first2=Scott A. |last3=Larson |first3=Michael J. |date=2021-06-01 |title=The open access advantage for studies of human electrophysiology: Impact on citations and Altmetrics |journal=International Journal of Psychophysiology |language=en |volume=164 |pages=103–111 |doi=10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2021.03.006 |pmid=33774077 |s2cid=232409668 |issn=0167-8760|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Citation advantage is most pronounced in OA articles in hybrid journals (compared to the non-OA articles in those same journals),<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Eysenbach |first=Gunther |date=16 May 2006 |editor-last=Tenopir |editor-first=Carol |editor-link=Carol Tenopir |title=Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles |journal=PLOS Biology |language=en |volume=4 |issue=5 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157 |issn=1545-7885 |pmc=1459247 |pmid=16683865 |doi-access=free |article-number=e157}}</ref> and with articles deposited in green OA repositories.<ref name="doi10.1371/journal.pone.0011273" /> Notably, green OA articles show similar benefits to citation counts as gold OA articles.<ref name="Clayson 103–111"/><ref name=":11" /> Articles in gold OA journals are typically cited at a similar frequency to paywalled articles.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Björk |first1=Bo-Christer |last2=Solomon |first2=David |date=17 July 2012 |title=Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact |journal=BMC Medicine |volume=10 |issue=1 |page=73 |doi=10.1186/1741-7015-10-73 |issn=1741-7015 |pmc=3398850 |pmid=22805105 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Citation advantage increases the longer an article has been published.<ref name=":10" />

==== Altmetrics ====
In addition to format academic [[citation]], other forms of research impact ([[altmetrics]]) may be affected by OA publishing,<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":11" /> constituting a significant "amplifier" effect for science published on such platforms.<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal |last1=Teplitskiy |first1=M. |last2=Lu |first2=G. |last3=Duede |first3=E. |year=2016 |title=Amplifying the impact of open access: Wikipedia and the diffusion of science |journal=Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology |volume=68 |issue=9 |page=2116 |arxiv=1506.07608 |doi=10.1002/asi.23687 |s2cid=10220883}}</ref> Initial studies suggest that OA articles are more referenced in blogs,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Shema |first1=Hadas |last2=Bar-Ilan |first2=Judit |last3=Thelwall |first3=Mike |date=15 January 2014 |title=Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics |journal=Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology |volume=65 |issue=5 |pages=1018–1027 |doi=10.1002/asi.23037 |issn=2330-1635 |s2cid=31571840}}</ref> on Twitter,<ref name=":6" /> and on English Wikipedia.<ref name=":8" /> The OA advantage in altmetrics may be smaller than the advantage in academic citations, although findings are mixed.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Alhoori |first1=Hamed |last2=Ray Choudhury |first2=Sagnik |last3=Kanan |first3=Tarek |last4=Fox |first4=Edward |last5=Furuta |first5=Richard |last6=Giles |first6=C. Lee |date=15 March 2015 |title=On the Relationship between Open Access and Altmetrics |journal=IConference 2015 Proceedings |url=https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/73451 |url-status=live |language=English |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200103052404/https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/73451 |archive-date=3 January 2020 |access-date=3 January 2020}}</ref><ref name=":11" /><ref name="Clayson 103–111"/>

=== Journal impact factor ===
{{See also|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.<ref name="Lariviere 2018">{{Cite arXiv |last1=Gargouri |first1=Yassine |last2=Hajjem |first2=Chawki |last3=Lariviere |first3=Vincent |last4=Gingras |first4=Yves |last5=Carr |first5=Les |last6=Brody |first6=Tim |last7=Harnad |first7=Stevan |year=2018 |title=The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects |class=cs.DL |eprint=1801.08992}}</ref><ref name="Curry 2018">{{Cite journal |last=Curry |first=Stephen |year=2018 |title=Let's Move beyond the Rhetoric: It's Time to Change How We Judge Research |journal=Nature |volume=554 |issue=7691 |page=147 |bibcode=2018Natur.554..147C |doi=10.1038/d41586-018-01642-w |pmid=29420505 |doi-access=free}}</ref> In subscription journals, impact factor correlates with overall citation count, however this correlation is not observed in gold OA journals.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Chua |first1=SK |last2=Qureshi |first2=Ahmad M |last3=Krishnan |first3=Vijay |last4=Pai |first4=Dinker R |last5=Kamal |first5=Laila B |last6=Gunasegaran |first6=Sharmilla |last7=Afzal |first7=MZ |last8=Ambawatta |first8=Lahiru |last9=Gan |first9=JY |last10=Kew |first10=PY |last11=Winn |first11=Than |date=2 March 2017 |title=The impact factor of an open access journal does not contribute to an article's citations |journal=F1000Research |volume=6 |page=208 |doi=10.12688/f1000research.10892.1 |issn=2046-1402 |pmc=5464220 |pmid=28649365 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Open access initiatives like [[Plan S]] typically call on a broader adoption and implementation of the [[Leiden Manifesto]]<ref group="note">{{Cite web |title=The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics |url=http://www.leidenmanifesto.org/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011418/http://www.leidenmanifesto.org/ |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=28 August 2019}} 2015.</ref> and the [[San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment]] (DORA) alongside fundamental changes in the scholarly communication system.<ref group="note">{{Cite web |title=Plan S implementation guidelines |url=https://www.coalition-s.org/feedback/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011423/https://www.coalition-s.org/feedback-on-the-implementation-guidance-of-plan-s-generates-large-public-response/ |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=28 August 2019}}, February 2019.</ref>

=== Peer review processes ===

{{See also|Scholarly peer review}}

[[Scholarly peer review|Peer review]] of research articles prior to publishing has been common since the 18th century.<ref name="Csiszar 2016">{{Cite journal |last=Csiszar |first=Alex |year=2016 |title=Peer Review: Troubled from the Start |journal=Nature |volume=532 |issue=7599 |pages=306–308 |bibcode=2016Natur.532..306C |doi=10.1038/532306a |pmid=27111616 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Moxham 2017">{{Cite journal |last1=Moxham |first1=Noah |last2=Fyfe |first2=Aileen |year=2018 |title=The Royal Society and the Prehistory of Peer Review, 1665–1965 |url=https://kar.kent.ac.uk/65042/3/Peer%20review%20v30%20AAM%20SUBMTD.pdf |url-status=live |journal=The Historical Journal |volume=61 |issue=4 |pages=863–889 |doi=10.1017/S0018246X17000334 |s2cid=164984479 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011420/https://kar.kent.ac.uk/65042/3/Peer%20review%20v30%20AAM%20SUBMTD.pdf |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=28 August 2019}}</ref> Commonly reviewer comments are only revealed to the authors and reviewer identities kept anonymous.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Tennant |first1=Jonathan P. |last2=Dugan |first2=Jonathan M. |last3=Graziotin |first3=Daniel |last4=Jacques |first4=Damien C. |last5=Waldner |first5=François |last6=Mietchen |first6=Daniel |last7=Elkhatib |first7=Yehia |last8=B. Collister |first8=Lauren |last9=Pikas |first9=Christina K. |last10=Crick |first10=Tom |last11=Masuzzo |first11=Paola |date=29 November 2017 |title=A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review |journal=F1000Research |volume=6 |page=1151 |doi=10.12688/f1000research.12037.3 |issn=2046-1402 |pmc=5686505 |pmid=29188015 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tennant |first=Jonathan P. |date=1 October 2018 |title=The state of the art in peer review |url= https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article/365/19/fny204/5078345|journal=FEMS Microbiology Letters |language=en |volume=365 |issue=19 |doi=10.1093/femsle/fny204 |issn=0378-1097 |pmc=6140953 |pmid=30137294 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200224175402/https://academic.oup.com/femsle/article/365/19/fny204/5078345 |archive-date=24 February 2020 |access-date=3 January 2020}}</ref> The rise of OA publishing has also given rise to experimentation in technologies and processes for peer review.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Noorden |first=Richard Van |date=4 March 2019 |title=Peer-review experiments tracked in online repository |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00777-8 |url-status=live |journal=Nature |language=en |doi=10.1038/d41586-019-00777-8 |s2cid=86845470 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191212063450/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00777-8 |archive-date=12 December 2019 |access-date=3 January 2020}}</ref> Increasing transparency of peer review and quality control includes posting results to [[preprint server]]s,<ref>{{cite journal | doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.1008565 | title=Technical and social issues influencing the adoption of preprints in the life sciences | year=2020 | last1=Penfold | first1=Naomi C. | last2=Polka | first2=Jessica K. | journal=PLOS Genetics | volume=16 | issue=4 | article-number=e1008565 | pmid=32310942 | pmc=7170218 | doi-access=free }}</ref> [[Preregistration (pharmaceutical)|preregistration]] of studies,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Nosek |first1=Brian A. |last2=Ebersole |first2=Charles R. |last3=DeHaven |first3=Alexander C. |last4=Mellor |first4=David T. |date=12 March 2018 |title=The preregistration revolution |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |language=en |volume=115 |issue=11 |pages=2600–2606 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1708274114 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=5856500 |pmid=29531091|bibcode=2018PNAS..115.2600N |doi-access=free }}</ref> [[open peer review|open publishing of peer reviews]],<ref name=":15">{{Cite journal |last=Ross-Hellauer |first=Tony |date=31 August 2017 |title=What is open peer review? A systematic review |journal=F1000Research |language=en |volume=6 |page=588 |doi=10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 |issn=2046-1402 |pmc=5437951 |pmid=28580134 |doi-access=free }}</ref> open publishing of full datasets and analysis code,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Munafò |first1=Marcus R. |last2=Nosek |first2=Brian A. |last3=Bishop |first3=Dorothy V. M. |last4=Button |first4=Katherine S. |last5=Chambers |first5=Christopher D. |last6=Percie du Sert |first6=Nathalie |last7=Simonsohn |first7=Uri |last8=Wagenmakers |first8=Eric-Jan |last9=Ware |first9=Jennifer J. |last10=Ioannidis |first10=John P. A. |date=10 January 2017 |title=A manifesto for reproducible science |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |language=en |volume=1 |issue=1 |page=0021 |doi=10.1038/s41562-016-0021 |pmid=33954258 |pmc=7610724 |issn=2397-3374 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Pawlik |first1=Mateusz |last2=Hütter |first2=Thomas |last3=Kocher |first3=Daniel |last4=Mann |first4=Willi |last5=Augsten |first5=Nikolaus |date=1 July 2019 |title=A Link is not Enough – Reproducibility of Data |journal=Datenbank-Spektrum |language=en |volume=19 |issue=2 |pages=107–115 |doi=10.1007/s13222-019-00317-8 |issn=1610-1995 |pmc=6647556 |pmid=31402850}}</ref> and other open science practices.<ref name="Munafò 2017b">{{Cite journal |last1=Munafò |first1=Marcus R. |last2=Nosek |first2=Brian A. |last3=Bishop |first3=Dorothy V. M. |last4=Button |first4=Katherine S. |last5=Chambers |first5=Christopher D. |last6=Percie Du Sert |first6=Nathalie |last7=Simonsohn |first7=Uri |last8=Wagenmakers |first8=Eric-Jan |last9=Ware |first9=Jennifer J. |last10=Ioannidis |first10=John P. A. |year=2017 |title=A Manifesto for Reproducible Science |url=https://dare.uva.nl/personal/pure/en/publications/a-manifesto-for-reproducible-science(3534b98f-a374-496b-9ad1-e61539477d66).html |url-status=live |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |volume=1 |issue=1 |page=0021 |doi=10.1038/s41562-016-0021 |pmid=33954258 |pmc=7610724 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011429/https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=3534b98f-a374-496b-9ad1-e61539477d66 |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=25 September 2019 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Bowman 2018">{{Cite journal |last1=Bowman |first1=Nicholas David |last2=Keene |first2=Justin Robert |year=2018 |title=A Layered Framework for Considering Open Science Practices |journal=Communication Research Reports |volume=35 |issue=4 |pages=363–372 |doi=10.1080/08824096.2018.1513273 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="McKiernan 2016">{{Cite journal |last1=McKiernan |first1=E. C. |last2=Bourne |first2=P. E. |last3=Brown |first3=C. T. |last4=Buck |first4=S. |last5=Kenall |first5=A. |last6=Lin |first6=J. |last7=McDougall |first7=D. |last8=Nosek |first8=B. A. |last9=Ram |first9=K. |last10=Soderberg |first10=C. K. |last11=Spies |first11=J. R. |year=2016 |title=Point of View: How Open Science Helps Researchers Succeed |journal=eLife |volume=5 |doi=10.7554/eLife.16800 |pmc=4973366 |pmid=27387362 |last12=Thaney |first12=K. |last13=Updegrove |first13=A. |last14=Woo |first14=K. H. |last15=Yarkoni |first15=T. |doi-access=free }}</ref> It is proposed that increased transparency of academic quality control processes makes audit of the academic record easier.<ref name=":15" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wicherts |first=Jelte M. |date=29 January 2016 |title=Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals |journal=PLOS ONE |language=en |volume=11 |issue=1 |article-number=e0147913 |bibcode=2016PLoSO..1147913W |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0147913 |issn=1932-6203 |pmc=4732690 |pmid=26824759|doi-access=free }}</ref> Additionally, the rise of OA [[Mega journal|megajournals]] has made it viable for their peer review to focus solely on methodology and results interpretation whilst ignoring novelty.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Brembs |first=Björn |date=12 February 2019 |title=Reliable novelty: New should not trump true |journal=PLOS Biology |language=en |volume=17 |issue=2 |article-number=e3000117 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117 |issn=1545-7885 |pmc=6372144 |pmid=30753184 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Spezi 263–283">{{Cite journal |last1=Spezi |first1=Valerie |last2=Wakeling |first2=Simon |last3=Pinfield |first3=Stephen |last4=Creaser |first4=Claire |last5=Fry |first5=Jenny |last6=Willett |first6=Peter |date=13 March 2017 |title=Open-access mega-journals |journal=Journal of Documentation |language=en |volume=73 |issue=2 |pages=263–283 |doi=10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082 |issn=0022-0418 |doi-access=free}}</ref> 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 is open. Some advocates propose that readers will have increased skepticism of preprint studies - a traditional hallmark of scientific inquiry.<ref name="TenMyths" />

=== Predatory publishing ===

[[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.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=2020-06-15|title=Comments on "Factors affecting global flow of scientific knowledge in environmental sciences" by Sonne et al. (2020)|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969719364502|journal=Science of the Total Environment|language=en|volume=721|article-number=136454|doi=10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136454|issn=0048-9697|last1=Pourret|first1=Olivier|last2=Irawan|first2=Dasapta Erwin|last3=Tennant|first3=Jonathan P.|last4=Wien|first4=Charlotte|last5=Dorch|first5=Bertil F.|pmid=31924309|bibcode=2020ScTEn.72136454P|s2cid=210150077}}</ref> In this sense, Grudniewicz et al.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Grudniewicz|first1=Agnes|last2=Moher|first2=David|last3=Cobey|first3=Kelly D.|last4=Bryson|first4=Gregory L.|last5=Cukier|first5=Samantha|last6=Allen|first6=Kristiann|last7=Ardern|first7=Clare|last8=Balcom|first8=Lesley|last9=Barros|first9=Tiago|last10=Berger|first10=Monica|last11=Ciro|first11=Jairo Buitrago|date=2019-12-12|title=Predatory journals: no definition, no defence|journal=Nature|language=en|volume=576|issue=7786|pages=210–212|doi=10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y|pmid=31827288|bibcode=2019Natur.576..210G|s2cid=209168864|issn=0028-0836|doi-access=free|hdl=11584/281794|hdl-access=free}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dadkhah |first1=Mehdi |last2=Borchardt |first2=Glenn |date=1 June 2016 |title=Hijacked Journals: An Emerging Challenge for Scholarly Publishing |url=https://academic.oup.com/asj/article/36/6/739/2664479 |url-status=live |journal=Aesthetic Surgery Journal |language=en |volume=36 |issue=6 |pages=739–741 |doi=10.1093/asj/sjw026 |issn=1090-820X |pmid=26906349 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190608193750/https://academic.oup.com/asj/article/36/6/739/2664479 |archive-date=8 June 2019 |access-date=5 January 2020 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dadkhah |first1=Mehdi |last2=Maliszewski |first2=Tomasz |last3=Teixeira da Silva |first3=Jaime A. |date=24 June 2016 |title=Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics, and predatory publishing: actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics |journal=Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=353–362 |doi=10.1007/s12024-016-9785-x |issn=1547-769X |pmid=27342770 |s2cid=38963478}}</ref> The rise of such journals since 2010<ref name="Shen 2015">{{Cite journal |last1=Shen |first1=Cenyu |last2=Björk |first2=Bo-Christer |year=2015 |title='Predatory" Open Access: A Longitudinal Study of Article Volumes and Market Characteristics |journal=BMC Medicine |volume=13 |issue=1 |page=230 |doi=10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2 |pmc=4589914 |pmid=26423063 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Perlin 2018">{{Cite journal |last1=Perlin |first1=Marcelo S. |last2=Imasato |first2=Takeyoshi |last3=Borenstein |first3=Denis |year=2018 |title=Is Predatory Publishing a Real Threat? Evidence from a Large Database Study |journal=Scientometrics |volume=116 |issue=1 |pages=255–273 |doi=10.1007/s11192-018-2750-6 |hdl-access=free |hdl=10183/182710 |s2cid=4998464|url=http://americanae.aecid.es/americanae/es/registros/registro.do?tipoRegistro=MTD&idBib=2674999 }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Bohannon 2013">{{Cite journal |last=Bohannon |first=John |year=2013 |title=Who's Afraid of Peer Review? |journal=Science |volume=342 |issue=6154 |pages=60–65 |bibcode=2013Sci...342...60B |doi=10.1126/science.342.6154.60 |pmid=24092725 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Although commonly associated with OA publishing models, subscription journals are also at risk of similar lax quality control standards and poor editorial policies.<ref name="Olivarez 2018">{{Cite journal |last1=Olivarez |first1=Joseph |last2=Bales |first2=Stephen |last3=Sare |first3=Laura |last4=Vanduinkerken |first4=Wyoma |year=2018 |title=Format Aside: Applying Beall's Criteria to Assess the Predatory Nature of Both OA and Non-OA Library and Information Science Journals |journal=College & Research Libraries |volume=79 |issue=1 |doi=10.5860/crl.79.1.52 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Shamseer 2017">{{Cite journal |last1=Shamseer |first1=Larissa |last2=Moher |first2=David |last3=Maduekwe |first3=Onyi |last4=Turner |first4=Lucy |last5=Barbour |first5=Virginia |last6=Burch |first6=Rebecca |last7=Clark |first7=Jocalyn |last8=Galipeau |first8=James |last9=Roberts |first9=Jason |last10=Shea |first10=Beverley J. |year=2017 |title=Potential Predatory and Legitimate Biomedical Journals: Can You Tell the Difference? A Cross-Sectional Comparison |journal=BMC Medicine |volume=15 |issue=1 |page=28 |doi=10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9 |pmc=5353955 |pmid=28298236 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Eisen |first=Michael |date=3 October 2013 |title=I confess, I wrote the Arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription based journals |url=http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180924121850/http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439 |archive-date=24 September 2018 |access-date=5 January 2020 |website=www.michaeleisen.org}}</ref> OA publishers therefore aim to ensure quality via auditing by registries such as [[DOAJ]], [[Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association|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]]).<ref name="Silver 2017">{{Cite journal |last=Silver |first=Andrew |year=2017 |title=Pay-to-View Blacklist of Predatory Journals Set to Launch |journal=Nature |doi=10.1038/nature.2017.22090}}</ref><ref name="Strinzel 2019">{{cite journal | doi=10.1128/mBio.00411-19 | title=Blacklists and Whitelists to Tackle Predatory Publishing: A Cross-Sectional Comparison and Thematic Analysis | year=2019 | last1=Strinzel | first1=Michaela | last2=Severin | first2=Anna | last3=Milzow | first3=Katrin | last4=Egger | first4=Matthias | journal=mBio | volume=10 | issue=3 | article-number=e00411-19 | pmid=31164459 | pmc=6550518 }}</ref> Increased transparency of the peer review and publication process has been proposed as a way to combat predatory journal practices.<ref name="TenMyths" /><ref name=":15" /><ref name="Polka 2018">{{Cite journal |last1=Polka |first1=Jessica K. |last2=Kiley |first2=Robert |last3=Konforti |first3=Boyana |last4=Stern |first4=Bodo |last5=Vale |first5=Ronald D. |year=2018 |title=Publish Peer Reviews |journal=Nature |volume=560 |issue=7720 |pages=545–547 |bibcode=2018Natur.560..545P |doi=10.1038/d41586-018-06032-w |pmid=30158621 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

=== 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.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Hull |first1=Duncan |title=The Open Access Irony Awards: Naming and shaming them |url=https://duncan.hull.name/2012/02/15/open-irony/ |website=O'Really? |date=15 February 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Duncan |first1=Green |title=Whatever happened to the Academic Spring? (Or the irony of hiding papers on transparency and accountability behind a paywall) |url=https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/whatever-happened-to-the-academic-spring-or-the-irony-of-being-prevented-from-reading-papers-on-transparency-and-accountability/ |website=From Poverty to Power |date=7 August 2013 |access-date=30 October 2020 |archive-date=20 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201020235834/https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/whatever-happened-to-the-academic-spring-or-the-irony-of-being-prevented-from-reading-papers-on-transparency-and-accountability/ |url-status=usurped }}</ref><ref name="Open Access to Publications to Expa">{{cite journal |last1=Marwick |first1=Ben |title=Open Access to Publications to Expand Participation in Archaeology |journal=Norwegian Archaeological Review |date=29 October 2020 |volume=53 |issue=2 |pages=163–169 |doi=10.1080/00293652.2020.1837233|s2cid=228961066 |url=http://osf.io/v9kfy/ }}</ref> 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 (journal)|Science]]'' and ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]''. In 2012 Duncan Hull proposed the Open Access Irony award to publicly humiliate journals that publish these kinds of papers.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Schultz |first1=Teresa Auch |title=Practicing What You Preach: Evaluating Access of Open Access Research |journal=The Journal of Electronic Publishing |date=2 March 2018 |volume=21 |issue=1 |doi=10.3998/3336451.0021.103|doi-access=free |hdl=2027/spo.3336451.0021.103 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Examples of these have been shared and discussed on social media using the [[hashtag]] #openirony. 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.<ref name="Open Access to Publications to Expa"/> The practice has been justified as important for raising awareness of open access.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Eve |first1=Martin Paul |title=How ironic are the open access irony awards? |url=https://eve.gd/2013/10/21/how-ironic-are-the-open-access-irony-awards/ |website=Martin Paul Eve |language=en |date=21 October 2013|doi=10.59348/zg970-89g70 }}</ref>

== Infrastructure ==
[[File:ROAR growth.png|thumb|Number of open access repositories listed in the [[Registry of Open Access Repositories]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=Browse by Year |url=http://roar.eprints.org/view/year/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190324132436/http://roar.eprints.org/view/year/ |archive-date=24 March 2019 |access-date=10 March 2019 |website=roar.eprints.org |publisher=Registry of Open Access Repositories}}</ref>|alt=]]

=== 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 [[PubMed Central|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 server]]s which host articles that have not yet been reviewed as open access copies.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Peiperl |first1=Larry |date=16 April 2018 |title=Preprints in medical research: Progress and principles |journal=PLOS Medicine |volume=15 |issue=4 |article-number=e1002563 |doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002563 |issn=1549-1676 |pmc=5901682 |pmid=29659580 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Elmore |first=Susan A. |year=2018 |title=Preprints: What Role do These Have in Communicating Scientific Results? |journal=Toxicologic Pathology |volume=46 |issue=4 |pages=364–365 |doi=10.1177/0192623318767322 |pmc=5999550 |pmid=29628000}}</ref> These articles are subsequently submitted for peer review by both open access and subscription journals, however the preprint always remains openly accessible. A list of preprint servers is maintained at ResearchPreprints.<ref>{{Cite web |date=9 March 2017 |title=A List of Preprint Servers |url=https://researchpreprints.com/2017/03/09/a-list-of-preprint-servers/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190309101709/http://researchpreprints.com/2017/03/09/a-list-of-preprint-servers/ |archive-date=9 March 2019 |access-date=10 March 2019 |website=Research Preprints}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Eve |first=Martin |title=Open access and the humanities |title-link=wikisource:Open access and the humanities/Chapter 1 |date=2014 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-107-48401-6 |location=Cambridge |pages=9–10}}</ref><ref>[[Stevan Harnad|Harnad, S]]. 2007. [http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15753 "The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100312170036/http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15753/|date=12 March 2010}}. In: ''The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age'', pp. 99–105, L'Harmattan. Retrieved 3 December 2011.</ref><ref name="greenandgold2">{{Cite journal |last1=Harnad |first1=S. |last2=Brody |first2=T. |last3=Vallières |first3=F. O. |last4=Carr |first4=L. |last5=Hitchcock |first5=S. |last6=Gingras |first6=Y. |last7=Oppenheim |first7=C. |last8=Stamerjohanns |first8=H. |last9=Hilf |first9=E. R. |year=2004 |title=The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access |journal=Serials Review |volume=30 |issue=4 |pages=310–314 |doi=10.1016/j.serrev.2004.09.013}}</ref><ref name="roar2" /><ref name="DemystifyingOpenAccess2">{{Cite web |last1=Fortier |first1=Rose |last2=James |first2=Heather G. |last3=Jermé |first3=Martha G. |last4=Berge |first4=Patricia |last5=Del Toro |first5=Rosemary |date=14 May 2015 |title=Demystifying Open Access Workshop |url=http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=rsch_inst |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150518162648/http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=rsch_inst |archive-date=18 May 2015 |access-date=18 May 2015 |website=e-Publications@Marquette }}</ref> Most subscription journals place restrictions on which version of the work may be shared or require an [[Embargo (academic publishing)|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.<ref name="Embargos2">[http://sparceurope.org/embargoes/ " SPARC Europe – Embargo Periods] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151118022056/http://sparceurope.org/embargoes/|date=18 November 2015}}. Retrieved on 18 October 2015.</ref> Repositories may be specific to an [[Institutional repository|institution]], a [[Disciplinary repository|discipline]] (e.g.[[arXiv]]), a [[scholarly society]] (e.g. [[Modern Language Association|MLA]]'s CORE Repository), or a funder (e.g. PMC). Although the practice was first formally proposed in 1994,<ref>Ann Shumelda Okerson and James J. O'Donnell (eds). 1995. [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/subversive.pdf "Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120912184229/http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/subversive.pdf|date=12 September 2012}}. Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref><ref>Poynder, Richard. 2004. [https://www.infotoday.com/it/oct04/poynder.shtml "Poynder On Point: Ten Years After"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110926210259/http://www.infotoday.com/IT/oct04/poynder.shtml|date=26 September 2011}}. ''[[Information Today]]'', 21(9), October 2004. Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref> self-archiving was already being practiced by some computer scientists in local [[FTP]] archives in the 1980s (later harvested by [[CiteSeer]]).<ref>[[Stevan Harnad|Harnad, S]]. 2007.[http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/6519.html "Re: when did the Open Access movement "officially" begin"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160913192955/http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/6519.html|date=13 September 2016}}. [[American Scientist Open Access Forum]], 27 June 2007. Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref> The [[SHERPA/RoMEO]] site maintains a list of the different publisher copyright and self-archiving policies<ref>[http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php SHERPA/RoMEO – Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071111124111/http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php|date=11 November 2007}}. Sherpa.ac.uk. Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref> and the [[ROAR Registry of Open Access Repositories|ROAR]] database hosts an index of the repositories themselves.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Evaluating Institutional Repository Deployment in American Academe Since Early 2005: Repositories by the Numbers, Part 2 |url=http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september07/mcdowell/09mcdowell.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170811013843/http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september07/mcdowell/09mcdowell.html |archive-date=11 August 2017 |access-date=10 March 2019 |website=www.dlib.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dawson |first1=Patricia H. |last2=Yang |first2=Sharon Q. |date=1 October 2016 |title=Institutional Repositories, Open Access and Copyright: What Are the Practices and Implications? |url=http://eprints.rclis.org/32654/1/IRpaper_postprint_pdf.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Science & Technology Libraries |volume=35 |issue=4 |pages=279–294 |doi=10.1080/0194262X.2016.1224994 |issn=0194-262X |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180719125239/http://eprints.rclis.org/32654/1/IRpaper_postprint_pdf.pdf |archive-date=19 July 2018 |access-date=11 July 2019 |s2cid=63819187}}</ref>

==== Representativeness in proprietary databases ====
Uneven coverage of journals in the major commercial citation index databases (such as [[Web of Science]], [[Scopus]], and [[PubMed]])<ref name="Mongeon 2016">{{Cite journal |last1=Mongeon |first1=Philippe |last2=Paul-Hus |first2=Adèle |year=2016 |title=The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis |journal=Scientometrics |volume=106 |issue=1 |pages=213–228 |arxiv=1511.08096 |doi=10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 |s2cid=17753803}}</ref><ref name="Falagas 2008b">{{Cite journal |last1=Falagas |first1=Matthew E. |last2=Pitsouni |first2=Eleni I. |last3=Malietzis |first3=George A. |last4=Pappas |first4=Georgios |year=2008 |title=Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and Weaknesses |journal=The FASEB Journal |volume=22 |issue=2 |pages=338–342 |doi=10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF |doi-access=free |pmid=17884971|s2cid=303173 }}</ref><ref name="Harzing 2016">{{Cite journal |last1=Harzing |first1=Anne-Wil |last2=Alakangas |first2=Satu |year=2016 |title=Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A Longitudinal and Cross-Disciplinary Comparison |journal=Scientometrics |volume=106 |issue=2 |pages=787–804 |doi=10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9 |s2cid=207236780 |url=https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/18511/1/gsscowos.pdf |access-date=27 March 2021 |archive-date=23 June 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210623222207/https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/18511/1/gsscowos.pdf }}</ref><ref name="Ràfols 2016">{{Cite SSRN |title=On the Dominance of Quantitative Evaluation in 'Peripheral" Countries: Auditing Research with Technologies of Distance |last=Robinson-Garcia |first=Nicolas |last2=Chavarro |first2=Diego Andrés |date=28 May 2016 |ssrn=2818335 |last3=Molas-Gallart |first3=Jordi |last4=Ràfols |first4=Ismael}}</ref> has strong effects on evaluating both researchers and institutions (e.g. the UK [[Research Excellence Framework]] or [[Times Higher Education World University Rankings|Times Higher Education ranking]]<ref group="note">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 [[Times Higher Education World University Rankings|THE rankings]].</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=England |first=Higher Funding Council of |title=Clarivate Analytics will provide citation data during REF 2021 - REF 2021 |url=https://www.ref.ac.uk/news/clarivate-analytics-will-provide-citation-data-during-ref-2021/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011423/https://www.ref.ac.uk/news/clarivate-analytics-will-provide-citation-data-during-ref-2021/ |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=4 January 2020 |website=Higher Education Funding Council for England |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=7 September 2018 |title=World University Rankings 2019: methodology |url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2019-methodology |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191211120737/https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2019-methodology |archive-date=11 December 2019 |access-date=4 January 2020 |website=Times Higher Education (THE) |language=en}}</ref>). 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.<ref name="TenMyths" /><ref name="Alperin 2017" /> At the time of that study in 2018, there were no  comprehensive, open source or non-commercial academic databases.<ref name="Okune 2018">{{Cite book |last1=Okune |first1=Angela |last2=Hillyer |first2=Rebecca |last3=Albornoz |first3=Denisse |last4=Posada |first4=Alejandro |last5=Chan |first5=Leslie |chapter=Whose Infrastructure? Towards Inclusive and Collaborative Knowledge Infrastructures in Open Science |year=2018 |title=22nd International Conference on Electronic Publishing |volume=Connecting the Knowledge Commons: From Projects to Sustainable Infrastructure |doi=10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2018.31 |doi-access=free}}</ref> However, in more recent years, [[The Lens]] emerged as a suitable outside-paywalls universal academic database.

=== Distribution ===
{{See also|Scientific journal#Electronic publishing}}

Like the self-archived green open access articles, most gold open access journal articles are distributed via the [[World Wide Web]],<ref name="suber overview" /> due to low distribution costs, increasing reach, speed, and increasing importance for scholarly communication. [[Open source software]] is sometimes used for [[Open-access repository|open-access repositories]],<ref name="BOAI FAQ">[http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm Budapest Open Access Initiative, FAQ] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060703153606/http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm|date=3 July 2006}}. Earlham.edu (13 September 2011). Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref> [[:Category:Publication management software|open access journal websites]],<ref>Public Knowledge Project. [http://pkp.sfu.ca/?q=ojs "Open Journal Systems"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130301152503/http://pkp.sfu.ca/?q=ojs|date=1 March 2013}}. Retrieved on 13 November 2012.</ref> 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. [[Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources|ROAD]] (the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources)<ref>{{Cite web |title=Welcome - ROAD |url=http://road.issn.org/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170515214110/http://road.issn.org/ |archive-date=15 May 2017 |access-date=12 May 2017 |website=road.issn.org}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Martin |first=Greg |title=Research Guides: Open Access: Finding Open Access Content |url=https://mcphs.libguides.com/open_access/finding |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180908130856/https://mcphs.libguides.com/open_access/finding |archive-date=8 September 2018 |access-date=12 May 2017 |website=mcphs.libguides.com}}</ref><ref name="Directory of Open Access Journals" />

Open access articles can be found with a [[Web search timeline|web search]], using any general [[search engine]] or those specialized for the scholarly and scientific literature, such as [[Google Scholar]], [[OAIster]], [[BASE (search engine)|base-search.net]],<ref name="base-search">{{Cite web |title=BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine &#124; What is BASE? |url=http://www.base-search.net/about/en/ |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160216120421/http://www.base-search.net/about/en/ |archive-date=16 February 2016 |access-date=16 January 2018}}</ref> and [[CORE (research service)|CORE]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=Search CORE |url=https://core.ac.uk/search/ |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160312113305/https://core.ac.uk/search/ |archive-date=12 March 2016 |access-date=11 March 2016}}</ref> Many open-access repositories offer a programmable interface to query their content. Some of them use a generic protocol, such as [[Protocol for Metadata Harvesting|OAI-PMH]] (e.g., base-search.net<ref name="base-search" />). 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Edgar |first1=Brian D. |last2=Willinsky |first2=John |date=14 June 2010 |title=A survey of scholarly journals using open journal systems |journal=Scholarly and Research Communication |volume=1 |issue=2 |doi=10.22230/src.2010v1n2a24 |issn=1923-0702 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

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 ==
{{Main|Open access mandate}}
Many universities, research institutions and research funders have adopted mandates requiring their researchers to make their research publications open access.<ref>{{harvnb|Suber|2012|pp=77–78}}</ref> For example, Research Councils UK spent nearly £60m on supporting their open access mandate between 2013 and 2016.<ref>{{Cite web |title=RCUK Open Access Block Grant analysis - Research Councils UK |url=http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/rcuk-open-access-block-grant-analysis/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011424/http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/redirect/?newurl=%2F |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=12 February 2018 |website=www.rcuk.ac.uk}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Harnad |first=Stevan |title=Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ? |url=https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0010.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051210134951/http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0010.html |archive-date=10 December 2005 |publisher=University of Southampton}}</ref> Since 2003<ref>{{Cite web |title=(#710) What Provosts Need to Mandate |url=http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind03&L=american-scientist-open-access-forum&F=l&S=&P=91229 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070111122801/http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind03&L=american-scientist-open-access-forum&F=l&S=&P=91229 |archive-date=11 January 2007 |website=American Scientist Open Access Forum Archives |publisher=Listserver.sigmaxi.org}}</ref> efforts have been focused on open access mandating by the funders of research: governments,<ref>{{Cite web |date=5 November 1998 |title=Recommendations For UK Open-Access Provision Policy |url=http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/UKSTC.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060107102525/http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/UKSTC.htm |archive-date=7 January 2006 |publisher=Ecs.soton.ac.uk}}</ref> research funding agencies,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Open Access |url=http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151226210902/http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/ |archive-date=26 December 2015 |access-date=19 December 2015 |website=RCUK}}</ref> and universities.<ref name="roarmap">[https://web.archive.org/web/20140916163300/http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/type/institutional=5Fmandate.html About the Repository – ROARMAP]. Roarmap.eprints.org. Retrieved on 3 December 2011.</ref> Some publishers and publisher associations have lobbied against introducing mandates.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Palazzo |first=Alex |date=27 August 2007 |title=PRISM – a new lobby against open access |url=http://scienceblogs.com/transcript/2007/08/27/prism-a-new-lobby-against-open/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131022101548/http://scienceblogs.com/transcript/2007/08/27/prism-a-new-lobby-against-open/ |archive-date=22 October 2013 |access-date=17 October 2013 |website=Science Blogs}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Basken |first=Paul |date=5 January 2012 |title=Science-Journal Publishers Take Fight Against Open-Access Policies to Congress |url=http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/science-journal-publishers-take-fight-against-open-access-policies-to-congress/39545 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017150639/http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/science-journal-publishers-take-fight-against-open-access-policies-to-congress/39545 |archive-date=17 October 2013 |access-date=17 October 2013 |website=The Chronicle of Higher Education}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Albanese |first=Andrew |date=15 February 2013 |title=Publishers Blast New Open Access Bill, FASTR |url=http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyright/article/55988-publishers-blast-new-open-access-bill-fastr.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017213922/http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyright/article/55988-publishers-blast-new-open-access-bill-fastr.html |archive-date=17 October 2013 |access-date=17 October 2013 |website=Publishers Weekly}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

In the US, the [[NIH Public Access Policy]] has required since 2008 that 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. In 2022, US President [[Joe Biden|Joe Biden's]] [[Office of Science and Technology Policy]] issued a memorandum calling for the removal of the 12-month embargo.<ref>{{Cite web |title=OSTP Issues Guidance to Make Federally Funded Research Freely Available Without Delay {{!}} OSTP |url=https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/08/25/ostp-issues-guidance-to-make-federally-funded-research-freely-available-without-delay/ |access-date=2023-03-16 |website=The White House |date=25 August 2022 |language=en-US}}</ref> By the end of 2025, US federal agencies must require all results (papers, documents and data) produced as a result of US government-funded research to be available to the public immediately upon publication.<ref>{{Cite web |title=White House requires immediate public access to all U.S.-funded research papers by 2025 |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/white-house-requires-immediate-public-access-all-u-s--funded-research-papers-2025 |access-date=2023-01-30 |website=www.science.org |language=en}}</ref>

In 2023, the Council of the [[European Union]] recommended the implementation of an open-access and not-for-profit model for research publishing by the [[European Commission]] and member states. These recommendations are not legally binding and received mixed reactions. While welcomed by some members of the academic community, [[Academic publishing|publishers]] argued that the suggested model is unrealistic due to the lack of crucial funding details. Furthermore, the council's recommendations raised concerns within the publishing industry regarding the potential implications, and they also emphasized the importance of research integrity and the need for member states to address [[Predatory publishing|predatory journals]] and [[paper mill]]s.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sanderson |first=Katharine |date=2023-06-02 |title=EU council's 'no pay' publishing model draws mixed response |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01810-7 |journal=Nature |language=en |doi=10.1038/d41586-023-01810-7|pmid=37264131 |s2cid=259023820 }}</ref>

In 2024, the [[Gates Foundation]] announced a "preprint-centric" open access policy, and their intention to stop paying APCs.<ref name="Lenharo 2024 b052">{{cite journal | last=Lenharo | first=Mariana | title=Will the Gates Foundation's preprint-centric policy help open access? | journal=Nature | publisher=Nature Publishing Group | date=2024-04-04 | doi=10.1038/d41586-024-00996-8 | pmid=38575826 | url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00996-8 | access-date=2024-04-06}}</ref> In 2024, the government of Japan also announced a Green open access policy, requiring that government-funded research be made freely available on institutional preprint repositories from April 2025.<ref name="Chawla 2024">{{cite journal | last=Singh Chawla | first=Dalmeet | title=Japan's push to make all research open access is taking shape | journal=Nature | date=2024-05-30 | issn=0028-0836 | doi=10.1038/d41586-024-01493-8 | page=| pmid=38822103 }}</ref>

=== Compliance ===
As of March 2021, [[open-access mandate]]s have been registered by over 100 research funders and 800 universities worldwide, compiled in the [[Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Browse by Policymaker Type|url=http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/policymaker_type/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190312001632/http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/policymaker_type/|archive-date=12 March 2019|access-date=5 March 2019|website=ROARMAP}}</ref> As these sorts of mandates increase in prevalence, collaborating researchers may be affected by several at once. Tools such as [[SWORD (protocol)|SWORD]] can help authors manage sharing between repositories.<ref name=":0" />

Compliance rates with ''voluntary'' open access policies remain low (as low as 5%).<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Pontika|first1=Nancy|last2=Rozenberga|first2=Dace|date=2015-03-05|title=Developing strategies to ensure compliance with funders' open access policies|journal=Insights: The UKSG Journal|language=en|volume=28|issue=1|pages=32–36|doi=10.1629/uksg.168|issn=2048-7754 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Compliance with compulsory open-access mandates varies between funders from 27% to 91% (averaging 67%).<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite web|last1=Kirkman|first1=Noreen|last2=Haddow|first2=Gaby|date=2020-06-15|title=Compliance with the first funder open access policy in Australia|url=https://informationr.net/ir/25-2/paper857.html|access-date=2021-04-03|website=informationr.net|language=en}}</ref> 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.<ref name="2103Nature" />

== Inequality and open access ==
=== Gender inequality ===
Gender inequality favoring men can be found in many disciplines, including political science, economics and neurology, and critical care research.<ref name=":18" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Vranas |first1=Kelly C. |last2=Ouyang |first2=David |last3=Lin |first3=Amber L. |last4=Slatore |first4=Christopher G. |last5=Sullivan |first5=Donald R. |last6=Kerlin |first6=Meeta Prasad |last7=Liu |first7=Kathleen D. |last8=Baron |first8=Rebecca M. |last9=Calfee |first9=Carolyn S. |last10=Ware |first10=Lorraine B. |last11=Halpern |first11=Scott D. |last12=Matthay |first12=Michael A. |last13=Herridge |first13=Margaret S. |last14=Mehta |first14=Sangeeta |last15=Rogers |first15=Angela J. |date=2020-04-01 |title=Gender Differences in Authorship of Critical Care Literature |journal=American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine |volume=201 |issue=7 |pages=840–847 |doi=10.1164/rccm.201910-1957OC |issn=1073-449X |pmc=7124723 |pmid=31968182}}</ref> Open access publishing may improve the visibility of female researchers both inside and outside academia, but without deliberate support of female researchers, open access publishing may exacerbate gender inequality.<ref name=":18">{{cite journal |author1=Gemma Derrick |author2= Alesia Ann Zuccala  |author3= Georgiana Turculet |title=Open Access Publishing Probabilities Based on Gender and Authorship Structures in Vietnam |date=5 October 2021 |volume=9 |doi=10.3390/publications9040045 |journal=Publications|issue= 4 |page= 45 |doi-access= free }}</ref>

=== 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."<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Smith|first1=Audrey C.|last2=Merz|first2=Leandra|last3=Borden|first3=Jesse B.|last4=Gulick|first4=Chris K.|last5=Kshirsagar|first5=Akhil R.|last6=Bruna|first6=Emilio M.|date=2022-02-04|title=Assessing the effect of article processing charges on the geographic diversity of authors using Elsevier's "Mirror Journal" system|journal=Quantitative Science Studies|volume=2|issue=4|pages=1123–1143|doi=10.1162/qss_a_00157|s2cid=244600816|issn=2641-3337|doi-access=free}}</ref> "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.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kwon|first=Diana|date=2022-02-16|title=Open-access publishing fees deter researchers in the global south|url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00342-w|journal=Nature|language=en|doi=10.1038/d41586-022-00342-w|pmid=35177842|s2cid=246943816}}</ref>

==By country==
{{Div col|colwidth=20em|rules=yes|gap=2em}}
* [[Open access in Australia|Australia]]
* [[Open access in Austria|Austria]]
* [[Open access in Belgium|Belgium]]
* [[Open access in Canada|Canada]]
* [[Open access in China|China]]
* [[Open access in Denmark|Denmark]]
* [[Open access in France|France]]
* [[Open access in Germany|Germany]]
* [[Open access in Greece|Greece]]
* [[Open access in Hungary|Hungary]]
* [[Open access in India|India]]
* [[Open access in the Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]
* [[Open access in Italy|Italy]]
* [[Open access in Japan|Japan]]
* [[Open access in the Netherlands|Netherlands]]
* [[Open access in New Zealand|New Zealand]]
* [[Open access in Norway|Norway]]
* [[Open access in Poland|Poland]]
* [[Open access in Portugal|Portugal]]
* [[Open access in Russia|Russia]]
* [[Open access in South Africa|South Africa]]
* [[Open access in Spain|Spain]]
* [[Open access in Sweden|Sweden]]
* [[Open access in Ukraine|Ukraine]]
{{div col end}}

== See also ==
{{div col|colwidth=30em}}
* [[Access to knowledge movement]]
* [[Altmetrics]]
* [[Copyright policies of academic publishers]]
* [[Freedom of information]]
* [[Guerilla Open Access]]
* [[Lists of academic journals]]
* [[List of open access journals]]
* [[Open Access Button]]
* [[Open access monograph]]
* [[Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association]]
* [[Open Access Week]]
* [[Open data]]
* [[Open educational resources]]
* [[Open government]]
* [[Open Journal Systems]]
* [[Predatory open access publishing]]
* [[Right to Internet access]]
* [[:Category:Open access journals|Category:Open access journals]]
* [[:Category:Open access by country|Category:Open access by country]]
* [[:Category:Publication management software|Category:Publication management software]]
{{div col end}}

== Notes ==
{{Reflist|group=note}}

== References ==
<references>
<ref name="2103Nature">{{cite journal | last=Van Noorden | first=Richard | title=Do you obey public-access mandates? Google Scholar is watching | journal=Nature | date=2021-03-31 | issn=0028-0836 | doi=10.1038/d41586-021-00873-8 | page=| pmid=33790439 | s2cid=232481789 }}</ref>
<ref name="Naddaf">{{cite journal | last=Naddaf | first=Miryam | title=UK Royal Society adopts 'subscribe to open' publishing model | journal=Nature | publisher=Nature Publishing Group | date=2025-08-06 | volume=644 | issue=8076 | pages=316–317 | doi=10.1038/d41586-025-02483-0 | bibcode=2025Natur.644..316N | url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02483-0 | access-date=2025-09-19}}</ref>
</references>

=== Sources ===
* {{CC-notice|cc=by4|url=https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7020034|author(s)=Tennant JP, Crane H, Crick T, Davila J, Enkhbayar A, Havemann J, Kramer B, Martin R, Masuzzo P, Nobes A, Rice C, Rivera-López BS, Ross-Hellauer T, Sattler S, Thacker P, Vanholsbeeck M.}}
* {{Free-content attribution
| title = Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access
| author = Swan, Alma
| publisher = UNESCO
| page numbers = 45-48
| source = UNESCO
| documentURL = https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215863
| license statement URL =
| license = CC-BY-SA
}}

==Further reading==
* [[Robert Darnton|Darnton, Robert]], "The Dream of a Universal Library" (review of [[Peter Baldwin (professor)|Peter Baldwin]], ''Athena Unbound: Why and How Scholarly Knowledge Should Be Free for All'', [[MIT Press]], 2023, 405 pp.), ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXX, no. 20 (21 December 2023), pp. 73–74. Reviewer [[Robert Darnton|Darnton]] writes: "[[Peter Baldwin (professor)|Baldwin]] warns: [[scientific journal|journal]] publishers are gouging their customers, scholarly [[monograph]]s reach a tiny audience, [[libraries]] are floundering under [[budget]] pressures, [[Academic staff|academic]]s are pursuing [[career]]s rather than [[truth]], and readers are not getting all the [[information]] they deserve." (p. 74.) Writes Darnton: "Most scientific research is subsidized by the federal government." Under a 2022 [[White House]] directive, "As of December 31, 2025, all agencies... must require immediate open access... The [[G7]] leaders took a similar stand on May 14, 2023, as did the [[European Council]] on May 23. The tide is turning in favor of unrestricted access, but the countervailing forces are so complex that the future remains cloudy." (p. 73.) 
* {{Cite book |last=Suber |first=Peter |url=https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Open_Access_%28the_book%29 |title=Open access |publisher=[[MIT Press]] |year=2012 |isbn=978-0-262-51763-8 |edition=The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series |location=Cambridge, Mass.|author-link=Peter Suber |access-date=20 October 2015}}<!-- This book is CC-BY. The link given is to a page which directs users to various versions of the book and to further notes. -->
* Kirsop, Barbara, and Leslie Chan. (2005) [https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/4416 Transforming access to research literature for developing countries.] Serials Reviews, 31(4): 246–255.
* {{Cite journal |last1=Laakso |first1=Mikael |last2=Welling |first2=Patrik |last3=Bukvova |first3=Helena |last4=Nyman |first4=Linus |last5=Björk |first5=Bo-Christer |last6=Hedlund |first6=Turid |year=2011 |title=The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009 |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=6 |issue=6 |article-number=e20961 |bibcode=2011PLoSO...620961L |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0020961 |pmc=3113847 |pmid=21695139|doi-access=free }}
* {{Cite journal |last1=Hajjem |first1=C. |last2=Harnad |first2=S |author-link2=Stevan Harnad |last3=Gingras |first3=Y. |year=2005 |title=Ten-Year Cross-Disciplinary Comparison of the Growth of Open Access and How It Increases Research Citation Impact |url=http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11688/ |journal=IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin |volume=28 |issue=4 |pages=39–47 |arxiv=cs/0606079 |bibcode=2006cs........6079H}}
* {{Cite journal |last1=Tötösy |last2=de Zepetnek |first2=S. |last3=Joshua |first3=Jia |year=2014 |title=Electronic Journals, Prestige, and the Economics of Academic Journal Publishing |journal=CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture |volume=16 |issue=1 |page=2014 |doi=10.7771/1481-4374.2426 |doi-access=free}}
* [https://poynder.blogspot.com/ "Open and Shut?"] [[Blog]] on open access by Richard Poynder, a freelance journalist, who has done a [https://richardpoynder.co.uk/the-state-of-open-access.html series of interviews] with a few of the leaders of the open access movement.
* {{Cite web |last=Mietchen |first=Daniel |date=15 January 2014 |title=Wikimedia and Open Access — a rich history of interactions |url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/01/15/wikimedia-and-open-access/ |access-date=10 January 2015 |website=Wikimedia Blog |publisher=Wikimedia Foundation}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Okerson, Ann |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=InDgAAAAMAAJ |title=Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing |last2=O'Donnell, James (Eds.) |date=June 1995 |publisher=[[Association of Research Libraries]] |isbn=978-0-918006-26-4 |location=Washington, DC}}.
* {{Cite book |last=Willinsky, John |url=http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262512664_Download_the_full_text.pdf |title=The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship |publisher=[[MIT Press]] |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-262-51266-4 |location=Cambridge, MA |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131105133741/http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262512664_Download_the_full_text.pdf |archive-date=5 November 2013}}
* {{Cite web |year=2012 |title=Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications |url=http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120619050440/http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf |archive-date=19 June 2012 |access-date=15 July 2012 |publisher=Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings |location=United Kingdom}}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20130116065504/http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/mmproceedings/138guedon.shtml In Oldenburg's Long Shadow: Librarians, Research Scientists, Publishers, and the Control of Scientific Publishing]
* {{Cite web |last=Glyn Moody |date=17 June 2016 |title=Open access: All human knowledge is there—so why can't everybody access it? |url=https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/what-is-open-access-free-sharing-of-all-human-knowledge/ |access-date=20 June 2016 |website=Ars Technica}}

== External links ==
{{Commons category|Open access (publishing)}}
{{Wikiversity|WikiJournal of Science}}
{{Wikiversity|WikiJournal of Medicine}}
{{Scholia|topic}}
{{Library resources box}}
<!--======================== {{No more links}} ============================
 | PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS IN ADDING MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. Wikipedia |
 | is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising. |
 | |
 | Excessive or inappropriate links WILL BE DELETED. |
 | See [[Wikipedia:External links]] & [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details. |
 | |
 | If there are already plentiful links, please propose additions or |
 | replacements on this article's discussion page, or submit your link |
 | to the relevant category at the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org) |
 | and link back to that category using the {{dmoz}} template. |
 ======================= {{No more links}} =============================-->
* [http://oad.simmons.edu/ OAD]: [[Open Access Directory]], an "open-access, wiki-based, community-updated encyclopedia of OA factual lists" (started by [[Peter Suber]] and Robin Peek). {{oclc|757073363}}. Published by [[Simmons School of Library and Information Science]] in US.
* [[Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association|OASPA: Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association]], a community of organisations engaged in open scholarship with a mission to encourage and enable open access as the predominant model of communication for scholarly outputs
* [https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/Open_Access_Tracking_Project OATP]: [[Open Access Tracking Project]], a crowd-sourced tagging project providing real-time alerts about new OA developments and organizing knowledge of the field (started by Peter Suber). {{oclc|1040261573}}
* [https://goap.info/ GOAP]: [[UNESCO]]'s Global Open Access Portal, providing "status of open access to scientific information around the world"

{{Open access navbox}}
{{Open navbox}}
{{Academic publishing}}
{{Property navbox}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Open Access (Publishing)}}
[[Category:Open access (publishing)|*]]
[[Category:Academic publishing]]
[[Category:Social movements]]
[[Category:Electronic publishing]]
[[Category:Scholarly communication]]
[[Category:Free culture movement]]
[[Category:Articles containing video clips]]
[[Category:Open access journals| ]]