Open access (OA) refers to online research outputs that are free of all restrictions on access (e.g. access tolls) and free of many restrictions on use (e.g. certain copyright and license restrictions). 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, book chapters, and monographs. For scientific articles, the two most common methods of providing open access are publication in an open access journal and self-archiving.
Open access journals' are scholarly journals that are available online to the reader "without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself." They remove price barriers (e.g. subscription, licensing fees, pay-per-view fees) and most permission barriers (e.g. copyright and licensing restrictions). While open access journals are freely available to the reader, there are still costs associated with the publication and production of such journals. Some are subsidized, and some require payment on behalf of the author.
Some open access journals are subsidized and are financed by an academic institution, learned society or a government information center. Others are financed by payment of article processing charges by submitting authors, money typically made available to researchers by their institution or funding agency. Sometimes these two are referred to respectively as "gold" and "platinum" models to emphasize their distinction, although other times "gold" OA is used to refer to both paid and unpaid OA.
In 2009, there were approximately 4,800 active open access journals, publishing around 190,000 articles. As of October 2015, this had increased to over 10,000 open access journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, though this number has fallen to 9,500 in January 2017. A study of random journals from the citations indexes AHSCI, SCI and SSCI in 2013 came to the result that 88% of the journals were closed access and 12% were open access.
Advantages and disadvantages of open access have generated considerable discussion amongst scholars and publishers. 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 publishers, such as PLOS and BioMed Central.
- 1 Definitions
- 2 Models of open access
- 3 Implementation practices
- 4 Motivations for open access publishing
- 5 Criticism
- 6 History
- 7 Growth
- 8 Finding open access research online
- 9 See also
- 10 References
- 11 Further reading
- 12 External links
The term "open access" itself was first formulated in three public statements in the 2000s: the Budapest Open Access Initiative in February 2002, the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing in June 2003, and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities in October 2003, and the initial concept of open access refers to an unrestricted online access to scholarly research primarily intended for scholarly journal articles.
The Budapest statement defined open access as follows:
There are many degrees and kinds of wider and easier access to this literature. By 'open access' to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.
The Bethesda and Berlin statements add that for a work to be open access, users must be able to "copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship."
Despite these statements emerging in the 2000s, the idea and practise of providing free online access to journal articles began at least a decade before the term "open access" was formally coined. Computer scientists had been self-archiving in anonymous ftp archives since the 1970s and physicists had been self-archiving in arxiv since the 1990s. The Subversive Proposal to generalize the practice was posted in 1994.
Models of open access
This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Merge redundant content with section "Implementation practices". (May 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
There are multiple ways authors can provide open access to their work, and different degrees to which copyright is waived.
Gratis and libre open access
In order to reflect actual practice in providing two different degrees of open access, the further distinction between gratis open access and libre open access was added in 2006 by two of the co-drafters of the original BOAI definition. Gratis open access refers to online access free of charge (), and libre open access refers to online access free of charge plus some additional re-use rights (). Libre open access is equivalent to the definition of open access in the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. The re-use rights of libre OA are often specified by various specific Creative Commons licenses; these almost all require attribution of authorship to the original authors.
One way is to publish it and then self-archive it in a repository where it can be accessed for free,  such as their institutional repository, or a central repository such as PubMed Central. This is known as "green" open access. Some publishers require delays, or an embargo, on when a research output in a repository may be made open access.
Open access journals (gold)
A second way authors can make their work open access is by publishing it in such a way that makes their research output immediately available from the publisher. This is known as "gold" open access, and within the sciences this often takes the form of publishing an article in either an open access journal, or a hybrid open access journal. The latter is a journal whose business model is at least partially based on subscriptions, and only provide gold open access for those individual articles for which their authors (or their author's institution or funder) pay a specific fee for publication, often referred to as an article processing charge (APC). With a delayed open access journal, the content is made open access after a delay (typically 12 or 24 months).
Pure open access journals do not charge subscription fees, and may have one of a variety of business models. Many, however, do charge an article processing fee. However, the diamond open access model apart from being devoid of subscription fees for readers, is also devoid of APC.
The publisher of an open access journal is known as an "open access publisher", and the process, "open access publishing".
Internet and increased popularity
Widespread public access to the World Wide Web in the late 1990s and early 2000s fueled the open access movement, and prompted both the green open access way (self-archiving of non-open access journal articles) and the creation of open access journals (gold way). Conventional non-open access journals cover publishing costs through access tolls such as subscriptions, site licenses or pay-per-view charges. Some non-open access journals provide open access after an embargo period of 6–12 months or longer (see delayed open access journals). Active debate over the economics and reliability of various ways of providing open access continues among researchers, academics, librarians, university administrators, funding agencies, government officials, commercial publishers, editorial staff and society publishers, as open access gradually gains in acceptance.
There are various ways in which open access can be provided, with the two most common methods usually categorised as either gold or green open access.
Journals: gold open access
One option for authors who wish to make their work openly accessible is to publish in an open access journal ("gold open access"). There are many business models for open access journals. Open access can be provided by traditional publishers, who may publish open access as well as subscription-based journals, or dedicated open-access-only publishers such as Public Library of Science (PLOS) and BioMed Central.
Open access journals divide into those that charge publication fees (also known as an article processing charge) and those that do not.
Fee-based open access journals
Open access journals in which the author is responsible for the associate publication costs are commonly known as gold open access journals . The money might come from the author but more often comes from the author's research grant or employer. In cases of economic hardship, many journals will waive all or part of the fee, including authors from less developed economies). Journals charging publication fees normally take various steps to ensure that editors conducting peer review 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. While the payments are often incurred per article published (e.g. BMC journals or PLOS ONE), there are some journals that apply them per manuscript submitted (e.g. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics until recently) or per author (PeerJ). A 2013 study found that only 28% of journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) required payment by the authors; however, this figure was higher in journals with a scientific or medical focus (43% and 47% respectively), and lowest in journals publishing in the arts and humanities (0% and 4% respectively). Traditionally, many academic journals levied page charges, long before open access became a possibility.
Roughly 30% of gold open access journals have author fees to cover the cost of publishing (e.g. PLoS fees vary from $1,495 to $2,900) instead of reader subscription fees. Advertising revenue and/or funding from foundations and institutions are also used to provide funding.
There currently is a growing global debate regarding open access's ideology and ethics and its related Article Processing Charge fees (APC) as they are being created and managed by academic journal and monograph publisher conglomerates together with some national and international academic institutions and government bodies. One controversy is "double dipping", where both authors and subscribers are charged. Groups offering open access solutions[clarification needed] include the Publishers for Development and Research4Life projects and activities.
No-fee open access journals
No-fee open access journals, also known as platinum open access journal (and sometimes diamond open access journals), use a variety of business models. As summarized by Peter Suber: "Some no-fee OA journals have direct or indirect subsidies from institutions like universities, laboratories, research centers, libraries, hospitals, museums, learned societies, foundations, or government agencies. Some have revenue from a separate line of non-OA publications. Some have revenue from advertising, auxiliary services, membership dues, endowments, reprints, or a print or premium edition. Some rely, more than other journals, on volunteerism. Some undoubtedly use a combination of these means".
Self-archiving: green open access
Green open access journal publishers endorse immediate open access self-archiving by their authors. Open access self-archiving was first formally proposed in 1994 by Stevan Harnad in his "Subversive Proposal". However, self-archiving was already being done by computer scientists in their local FTP archives in the 1980s, later harvested into CiteSeer. What is deposited can be either a preprint, or the peer-reviewed postprint – either the author's refereed, revised final draft or the publisher's version of record.
To find out if a publisher or journal has given a green light to author self-archiving, the author can check the Publisher Copyright Policies and Self-Archiving list on the SHERPA/RoMEO web site. The EPrints site also provides a FAQ on self-archiving. Extensive details and links can also be found in the Open Access Archivangelism blog and the Eprints Open Access site.
Manner of distribution
Like the self-archived green open access articles, most gold open access journal articles are distributed via the World Wide Web, due to low distribution costs, increasing reach, speed, and increasing importance for scholarly communication. Open source software is sometimes used for open access repositories, open access journal websites, 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. Proponents of open access argue that Internet access barriers are relatively low in many circumstances, that efforts should be made to subsidize universal Internet access, whereas pay-for-access presents a relatively high additional barrier over and above Internet access itself.
The Directory of Open Access Journals lists a number of peer-reviewed open access journals for browsing and searching. Open access articles can also often be found with a web search, using any general search engine or those specialized for the scholarly and scientific literature, such as OAIster and Google Scholar.
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.
Policies and mandates
Many universities, research institutions and research funders have adopted mandates requiring their researchers to provide open access to their peer-reviewed research articles by self-archiving them in an open access repository. Research Councils UK spent nearly £60m on supporting their open access mandate between 2013 and 2016. Some publishers and publisher associations have lobbied against introducing mandates.
The idea of mandating self-archiving was mooted at least as early as 1998. Since 2003 efforts have been focused on open access mandating by the funders of research: governments, research funding agencies, and universities.
The Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies (ROARMAP) is a searchable international database charting the growth of open access mandates. As of December 2017, mandates have been registered by over 600 universities (including Harvard, MIT, Stanford, University College London, and University of Edinburgh) and over 100 research funders worldwide.
The "article processing charges" which are often used for open access journals shift the burden of payment from readers to authors (or their funders), which creates a new set of concerns. One concern is that if a publisher makes a profit from accepting papers, it has an incentive to accept anything submitted, rather than selecting and rejecting articles based on quality. This could be remedied, however, by charging for the peer-review rather than acceptance. Another concern is that institutional budgets may need to be adjusted in order to provide funding for the article processing charges required to publish in many open access journals (e.g. those published by BioMed Central). It has been argued that this may reduce the ability to publish research results due to lack of sufficient funds, leading to some research not becoming a part of the public record.
Unless discounts are available to authors from countries with low incomes or external funding is provided to cover the cost, article processing charges could exclude authors from developing countries or less well-funded research fields from publishing in open access journals. However, under the traditional model, the prohibitive costs of some non-open access journal subscriptions already place a heavy burden on the research community; and if green open access self-archiving eventually makes subscriptions unsustainable, the cancelled subscription savings can pay the gold open access publishing costs without the need to divert extra money from research. Moreover, many open access publishers offer discounts or publishing fee waivers to authors from developing countries or those suffering financial hardship. Self-archiving of non-open access publications provides a low cost alternative model.
Another concern is the redirection of money by major funding agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the Wellcome Trust from the direct support of research to the support of open access publication. Robert Terry, Senior Policy Advisor at the Wellcome Trust, has said that he feels that 1–2% of their research budget will change from the creation of knowledge to the dissemination of knowledge.
Research institutions could cover the cost of open access by converting to an open access journal cost-recovery model, with the institutions' annual tool access subscription savings being available to cover annual open access publication costs. A 2017 study by the Max Planck Society the annual turnovers of academic publishers amount to approximately EUR 7.6 billion. It is argued that this money comes predominantly from publicly funded scientific libraries as they purchase subscriptions or licenses in order to provide access to scientific journals for their members. The study was presented by the Max Planck Digital Library and found that subscription budgets would be sufficient to fund the open access publication charges.
Motivations for open access publishing
Open access itself (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. Electronic publishing created new benefits as compared to paper publishing but beyond that, it contributed to causing problems in traditional publishing models.
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 or "free to read".
- Rather than applying traditional notions of copyright to academic publications, they could be libre or "free to build upon".
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 has been claimed in the Budapest Open Access Initiative, although others have argued that OA may rise the total cost of publication. 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.
Stakeholders and concerned communities
The intended audience of research articles is usually other researchers. Open access helps researchers as readers by opening up access to articles that their libraries do not subscribe to. One of the great beneficiaries of open access may be users in developing countries, where currently some universities find it difficult to pay for subscriptions required to access the most recent journals. Some schemes exist for providing subscription scientific publications to those affiliated to institutions in developing countries at little or no cost. 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".
Open access extends the reach of research beyond its immediate academic circle. An open access article can be read by anyone – a professional in the field, a researcher in another field, a journalist, a politician or civil servant, or an interested layperson. Indeed, a 2008 study revealed that mental health professionals are roughly twice as likely to read a relevant article if it is freely available.
Author citation advantage
This section relies too much on references to primary sources. (March 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The main reason authors make their articles openly accessible is to maximize their research impact. There have been claims of higher citation rates for open access authors. The overall citation rates for a time period of 2 years (2010–2011) were 30% higher for subscription journals, but, after controlling for discipline, journal age and publisher location, the differences largely disappeared in most subcategories, except for those launched prior to 1996. A study in 2001 first reported an open access citation impact advantage,
Two major studies dispute the claim that open access articles lead to more citations. A randomized controlled trial of open access publishing involving 36 participating journals in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities found that open access articles (n=712) received significantly more downloads and reached a broader audience within the first year, yet were cited no more frequently, nor earlier, than subscription-access control articles (n=2533) within 3 years.
Many other studies, both major and minor and with varying degrees of methodological rigor, find that an open access article is more likely to be used and cited than one behind subscription barriers.
For example, a 2006 study in PLoS Biology found that articles published as immediate open access in PNAS were three times more likely to be cited than non-open access papers, and were also cited more than PNAS articles that were only self-archived. This result has been challenged as an artifact of authors self-selectively paying to publish their higher quality articles in hybrid open access journals, whereas a 2010 study found that the open access citation advantage was equally big whether self-archiving was self-selected or mandated.
A 2010 study of 27,197 articles in 1,984 journals used institutionally mandated open access instead of randomized open access to control for bias on the part of authors toward self-selectively making their better (hence more citeable) articles open access. The result was a replication of the repeatedly reported open access citation advantage, with the advantage being equal in size and significance whether the open access was self-selected or mandated.
A 2016 study reported that the odds of an open access journal being referenced on the English Wikipedia are 47% higher than for paywalled journals, and suggested that this constitutes a significant "amplifier" effect for science published on such platforms.
Scholars are paid by research funders and/or their universities to do research; the published article is the report of the work they have done, rather than an item for commercial gain. The more the article is used, cited, applied and built upon, the better for research as well as for the researcher's career. Open access can reduce publication delays, an obstacle which led some research fields such as high-energy physics to adopt widespread preprint access.
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."
Research funders and universities
Research funding agencies and universities want to ensure that the research they fund and support in various ways has the greatest possible research impact. As a means of achieving this, research funders are beginning to expect open access to the research they support. Many of them (including all seven UK Research Councils) have already adopted green open access self-archiving mandates, and others are on the way to do so (see ROARMAP).
In 2008, the NIH Public Access Policy, an open access mandate was put into law, and required that research papers describing research funded by the National Institutes of Health must be available to the public free through PubMed Central within 12 months of publication.
A growing number of universities are providing institutional repositories in which their researchers can deposit their published articles. Some open access advocates believe that institutional repositories will play a very important role in responding to open access mandates from funders. EnablingOpenScholarship (EPS) provides universities with OA policy-building.
In May 2005, 16 major Dutch universities cooperatively launched DAREnet, the Digital Academic Repositories, making over 47,000 research papers available to anyone with internet access. From 1 January 2007, at the completion of the DARE programme, KNAW Research Information has taken over responsibility for the DAREnet portal. On 2 June 2008, DAREnet has been incorporated into the scholarly portal NARCIS. At the end of 2009, NARCIS provided access to 185,000 open access publications from all Dutch universities, KNAW, NWO and a number of scientific institutes.
In 2011, a group of universities in North America formed the Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI). 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. Members agree to the following COAPI Principles:
- The immediate and barrier-free online dissemination of scholarly research resulting in faster growth of new knowledge, increased impact of research, and improved return on public research investments
- Developing and implementing institutional open access policies
- Sharing experiences and best practices in the development and implementation of Open Access Policies with individuals at institutions interested in cultivating cultures of open access
- Fostering a more open scholarly communication system through cultural and legislative change at the local, national, and international levels
In 2012, the Harvard Open Access Project released its guide to good practices for university open-access policies, focusing on rights-retention policies that allow universities to distribute faculty research without seeking permission from publishers.
In 2013 a group of nine Australian universities formed the Australian Open Access Support Group (AOASG) to advocate, collaborate, raise awareness, and lead and build capacity in the open access space in Australia. In 2015, the group expanded to include all eight New Zealand universities and was renamed the Australasian Open Access Support Group. 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.
Libraries and librarians
As information professionals, librarians are vocal and active advocates of open access. These librarians believe that open access promises to remove both the price barriers and the permission barriers that undermine library efforts to provide access to the scholarly record, as well as helping to address the serials crisis. Many library associations have either signed major open access declarations, or created their own. For example, the Canadian Library Association endorsed a Resolution on Open Access in June 2005.
Librarians also lead education and outreach initiatives to faculty, administrators, and others about the benefits of open access. For example, the Association of College and Research Libraries of the American Library Association has developed a Scholarly Communications Toolkit. 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).
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 to develop institutional repositories at all Canadian university libraries.
An increasing number of libraries provide hosting services for open access journals. A 2008 survey by the Association of Research Libraries found that 65% of surveyed libraries either are involved in journal publishing, or are planning to become involved in the very near future.
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". 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. 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.
The pioneer of the open access movement in France and one of the first librarians to advocate the self-archiving approach to open access worldwide is Hélène Bosc. Her work is described in her "15-year retrospective".
Open access to scholarly research is argued to be important to the public for a number of reasons. One of the arguments for public access to the scholarly literature is that most of the research is paid for by taxpayers through government grants, who therefore have a right to access the results of what they have funded. This is one of the primary reasons for the creation of advocacy groups such as The Alliance for Taxpayer Access in the US. Examples of people who might wish to read scholarly literature include individuals with medical conditions (or family members of such individuals) and serious hobbyists or 'amateur' scholars who may be interested in specialized scientific literature (e.g. amateur astronomers). Additionally, professionals in many fields may be interested in continuing education in the research literature of their field, and many businesses and academic institutions cannot afford to purchase articles from or subscriptions to much of the research literature that is published under a toll access model.
Even those who do not read scholarly articles benefit indirectly from open access. For example, patients benefit when their doctor and other health care professionals have access to the latest research. As argued by open access advocates, open access speeds research progress, productivity, and knowledge translation. Every researcher in the world can read an article, not just those whose library can afford to subscribe to the particular journal in which it appears. Faster discoveries benefit everyone. High school and junior college students can gain the information literacy skills critical for the knowledge age. Critics of the various open access initiatives claim that there is little evidence that a significant amount of scientific literature is currently unavailable to those who would benefit from it. While no library has subscriptions to every journal that might be of benefit, virtually all published research can be acquired via interlibrary loan. Note that interlibrary loan may take a day or weeks depending on the loaning library and whether they will scan and email, or mail the article. Open access online, by contrast is faster, often immediate, making it more suitable than interlibrary loan for fast-paced research.
In developing nations, open access archiving and publishing acquires a unique importance. Scientists, health care professionals, and institutions in developing nations often do not have the capital necessary to access scholarly literature, although schemes exist to give them access for little or no cost. Among the most important is HINARI, the Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative, sponsored by the World Health Organization. HINARI, however, also has restrictions. For example, individual researchers may not register as users unless their institution has access, and several countries that one might expect to have access do not have access at all (not even "low-cost" access) (e.g. South Africa).
Many open access projects involve international collaboration. For example, the SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), is a comprehensive approach to full open access journal publishing, involving a number of Latin American countries. Bioline International, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping publishers in developing countries is a collaboration of people in the UK, Canada, and Brazil; the Bioline International Software is used around the world. Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), is a collaborative effort of over 100 volunteers in 45 countries. The Public Knowledge Project in Canada developed the open source publishing software Open Journal Systems (OJS), which is now in use around the world, for example by the African Journals Online group, and one of the most active development groups is Portuguese. This international perspective has resulted in advocacy for the development of open-source appropriate technology and the necessary open access to relevant information for sustainable development.
The main argument against open access, author's paid fee based journals, is the possible damage to the peer review system, diminishing the overall quality of scientific journal publishing. For example, in 2009, a hoax paper generated by a computer program was accepted for publication by a major publisher under the author-pays-for-publication model. In a similar incident, a staff writer for Science magazine and popular science publications targeted the open access system in 2013 by submitting to some such journals a deeply flawed paper on the purported effect of a lichen constituent. About 60% of those journals, including journals published by the major academic publishers Sage Publications and Elsevier the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals, accepted the faked medical paper, although journals published by notable open access publishers PLOS, BioMed Central, and Hindawi Publishing Corporation rejected the fake article. This study did not also submit the fake article journals published under a subscription model. As a result, this experiment was criticised for being not peer-reviewed itself and for having a flawed methodology and lack of a control group. Many newer open access journals also lack the reputation of their subscription counterparts, which have been in business for decades. This effect has been diminishing though since 2001, reflecting the emergence of high quality professional open access publishers such as PLOS and BioMed Central.
Opponents of the open access model continue to assert that the pay-for-access model is necessary to ensure that the publishers are adequately compensated for their work. Scholarly journal publishers that support pay-for-access claim that the "gatekeeper" role they play, maintaining a scholarly reputation, arranging for peer review, and editing and indexing articles, require economic resources that are not supplied under an open access model. Opponents claim that open access is not necessary to ensure fair access for developing nations; differential pricing or financial aid from developed countries or institutions can make access to proprietary journals affordable. Some critics also point out the lack of funding for author fees.
Lack of diversity
Open access does not mean there is access is equal to all. Some people have difficulties accessing the internet and, thus, the articles, but there is also inequality in terms of what is published and by whom. The lack of diversity in academia and research, in reviewers and publishers, and in librarians (those who help others find sources) leads to many people's voices being unheard.
Efforts before Internet
Many journals have been subsidized ever since the beginnings of scientific journals. It is common for those countries with developing higher educational and research facilities to subsidize the publication of the nation's scientific and academic researchers, and even to provide for others to publish in such journals, to build up the prestige of these journals and their visibility. Such subsidies have sometimes been partial, to reduce the subscription price, or total, for those readers in the respective countries, but are now often universal.
One early proponent of the publisher-pays model was the physicist Leó Szilárd. To help stem the flood of low-quality publications, he jokingly suggested in the 1940s that at the beginning of his career each scientist should be issued with 100 vouchers to pay for his papers. Closer to the present, but still ahead of its time, was Common Knowledge. This was an attempt to share information for the good of all, the brainchild of Brower Murphy, formerly of The Library Corporation. Both Brower and Common Knowledge are recognised in the Library Microcomputer Hall of Fame. One of Mahatma Gandhi's earliest publications, Hind Swaraj published in Gujarati in 1909 is recognised as the intellectual blueprint of India's freedom movement. The book was translated into English the next year, with a copyright legend that read "No Rights Reserved".
The modern open access movement (as a social movement) traces its history at least back to the 1950s, with the Letterist International (LI) placing anything in their journal Potlatch in the public domain. As the LI merged to form the Situationist International, Guy Debord wrote to Patrick Straram "All the material published by the Situationist International is, in principle, usable by everyone, even without acknowledgement, without the preoccupations of literary property." This was to facilitate détournement. It became much more prominent in the 1990s with the advent of the Digital Age. With the spread of the Internet and the ability to copy and distribute electronic data at no cost, the arguments for open access gained new importance. The fixed cost of producing the article is separable from the minimal marginal cost of the online distribution.
Early years of online open access
An explosion of interest and activity in open access journals has occurred since the 1990s, largely due to the widespread availability of Internet access. It is now possible to publish a scholarly article and also make it instantly accessible anywhere in the world where there are computers and Internet connections. The fixed cost of producing the article is separable from the minimal marginal cost of the online distribution.
These new possibilities emerged at a time when the traditional, print-based scholarly journals system was in a crisis. The number of journals and articles produced had been increasing at a steady rate; however the average cost per journal had been rising at a rate far above inflation for decades, and budgets at academic libraries have remained fairly static. The result was decreased access – ironically, just when technology has made almost unlimited access a very real possibility, for the first time. Libraries and librarians have played an important part in the open access movement, initially by alerting faculty and administrators to the serials crisis. The Association of Research Libraries developed the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), in 1997, an alliance of academic and research libraries and other organizations, to address the crisis and develop and promote alternatives, such as open access.
The first online-only, free-access journals (eventually to be called "open access journals") began appearing in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These journals typically used pre-existing infrastructure (such as e-mail or newsgroups) and volunteer labor and were developed without any intent to generate profit. Examples include Bryn Mawr Classical Review, Postmodern Culture, Psycoloquy, and The Public-Access Computer Systems Review.
Probably the earliest book publisher to provide open access was the National Academies Press, publisher for the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, and other arms of the National Academies. They have provided free online full-text editions of their books alongside priced, printed editions since 1994, and assert that the online editions promote sales of the print editions. As of June 2006 they had more than 3,600 books up online for browsing, searching, and reading.
While Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, Ajit Varki made it the first major biomedical journal to be freely available on the web in 1996. Varki wrote, "The vexing issue of the day is how to appropriately charge users for this electronic access. The nonprofit nature of the JCI allows consideration of a truly novel solution — not to charge anyone at all!" Other pioneers in open access publishing in the biomedical domain included BMJ, Journal of Medical Internet Research, and Medscape, who were created or made their content freely accessible in the late 90s.
The first free scientific online archive was arXiv.org, started in 1991, initially a preprint service for physicists, initiated by Paul Ginsparg. Self-archiving has become the norm in physics, with some sub-areas of physics, such as high-energy physics, having a 100% self-archiving rate. The prior existence of a "preprint culture" in high-energy physics is one major reason why arXiv has been successful. arXiv now includes papers from related disciplines including computer science, mathematics, nonlinear sciences, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, and statistics. However, computer scientists mostly self-archive on their own websites and have been doing so for even longer than physicists. arXiv now includes postprints as well as preprints. The two major physics publishers, American Physical Society and Institute of Physics Publishing, have reported that arXiv has had no effect on journal subscriptions in physics; even though the articles are freely available, usually before publication, physicists value their journals and continue to support them.
Computer scientists had been self-archiving on their own FTP sites and then their websites since even earlier than the physicists, as was revealed when Citeseer began harvesting their papers in the late 1990s. Citeseer is a computer science archive that harvests, Google-style, from distributed computer science websites and institutional repositories, and contains almost twice as many papers as arXiv. The 1994 "Subversive Proposal" was to extend self-archiving to all other disciplines; from it arose CogPrints (1997) and eventually the OAI-compliant generic GNU Eprints.org software in 2000.
One of the very first online journals, GeoLogic, Terra NOVA, was published by Paul Browning and started in 1989. It was not a discrete journal but an electronic section of TerraNova. The journal ceased to be open access in 1997 due to a change in the policy of the editors (EUG) and publishing house (Blackwell).
In 1997, the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) made Medline, the most comprehensive index to medical literature on the planet, freely available in the form of PubMed. Usage of this database increased a tenfold when it became free, strongly suggesting that prior limits on usage were impacted by lack of access. While indexes are not the main focus of the open access movement, Medline is important in that it opened up a whole new form of use of scientific literature – by the public, not just professionals. The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR),[not in citation given] one of the first open access journals in medicine, was created in 1998, publishing its first issue in 1999.
In 1998, the American Scientist Open Access Forum was launched (and first called the "September98 Forum"). One of the more unusual models is utilized by the Journal of Surgical Radiology, which uses the net profits from external revenue to provide compensation to the editors for their continuing efforts.
In the biological and geological sciences, paleontology came into the forefront in 1998 with Palaeontologia electronica, Their first issue received 100,000 hits from an estimated 3,000 readers, comparable to the subscription numbers of their peer print journals. One challenge to digital-only biological journals was the lack of protection afforded by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to scientific names published in formats other than paper, but this was overcome by revisions to the Code in 1999 (effective January 1, 2000).
One of the first humanities journals published in open access is CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture founded at the University of Alberta in 1998 with its first issue published in March 1999 and since 2000 published by Purdue University Press.
In 1999, Harold Varmus of the NIH proposed a journal called E-biomed, intended as an open access electronic publishing platform combining a preprint server with peer-reviewed articles. E-biomed later saw light in a revised form as PubMed Central, a postprint archive.
The number of open access journals increased by an estimated 500% during the 2000-2009 decade. Also, the average number of articles that were published per open access journal per year increased from approximately 20 to 40 during the same period, resulting in that the number of open access articles increased by 900% during that decade.
In 2000, BioMed Central, a for-profit open access publisher with now dozens of open access journals, was launched by what was then the Current Science Group (the founder of the Current Opinion series, and now known as the Science Navigation Group). In some ways, BioMed Central resembles Harold Varmus' original E-biomed proposal more closely than does PubMed Central. As of October 2013 BioMed Central publishes over 250 journals.
In 2001, 34,000 scholars around the world signed "An Open Letter to Scientific Publishers", calling for "the establishment of an online public library that would provide the full contents of the published record of research and scholarly discourse in medicine and the life sciences in a freely accessible, fully searchable, interlinked form". Scientists signing the letter also pledged not to publish in or peer-review for non-open access journals. This led to the establishment of the Public Library of Science, an advocacy organization. However, most scientists continued to publish and review for non-open access journals. PLoS decided to become an open access publisher aiming to compete at the high quality end of the scientific spectrum with commercial publishers and other open access journals, which were beginning to flourish. Critics have argued that, equipped with a $10 million grant, PLoS competes with smaller open access journals for the best submissions and risks destroying what it originally wanted to foster. PLOS launched its first open access journal, PLOS Biology in 2003, with PLOS Medicine following in 2004, and PLOS One in 2006.
The first major international statement on open access was the Budapest Open Access Initiative in February 2002, launched by the Open Society Institute. This provided the first definition of open access, and has a growing list of signatories. Two further statements followed: the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing in June 2003 and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities in October 2003. Also in 2003, the World Summit on the Information Society included open access in its Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action.
In 2006, a Federal Research Public Access Act was introduced in US Congress by senators John Cornyn and Joe Lieberman. The act continues to be brought up every year since then, but has never made it past committee.
The year 2007 recorded some backlash from non-OA publishers.
Perhaps the first dedicated publisher of open access monographs in the humanities was re.press who published their first title in that 2006. Two years later in 2008 Open Humanities Press, another publisher of humanities monographs, was launched. Most recently, the Open Library of Humanities launched in September 2015.
In 2008, USENIX, the advanced computing systems association, implemented an open access policy for their conference proceedings. In 2011 they added audio and video recordings of paper presentations to the material to which they provide open access.
In 2013, John Holdren, Barack Obama's director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, issued a memorandum directing United States' Federal Agencies with more than $100 million in annual R&D expenditures to develop plans within six months to make the published results of federally funded research freely available to the public within one year of publication. As of March 2015, two agencies had made their plans public: the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.
In 2013, the UK Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) proposed adopting a mandate that in order to be eligible for submission to the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) all peer-reviewed journal articles submitted after 2014 must be deposited in the author's institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication, regardless of whether the article is published in a subscription journal or in an open access journal. HEFCE expresses no journal preference, places no restriction on authors' choice and requires the deposit itself to be immediate, irrespective of whether the publisher imposes an embargo (for an allowable embargo period that remains to be decided) on the date at which access to the deposit can be made open. The HEFCE/REF mandate proposal complements the recent Research Councils UK (RCUK) mandate that requires all articles resulting from RCUK funding to be made open access by 6 months after publication at the latest (12 months for arts and humanities articles).
HEFCE also provided grants to universities in England wishing to participate in the Pilot Collection of Knowledge Unlatched, a not-for-profit organisation enabling humanities and social sciences monographs to become open access. The Pilot Collection ran from October 2013 to February 2014 and 297 libraries and institutions worldwide participated in 'unlatching' the collection of 28 titles. 61 of these participating institutions were university libraries in England eligible for the HEFCE grant of 50% towards the $1195 participation fee.
The Indian Council of Agricultural Research had adopted an Open Access policy for its publications on 13 September 2013 and announced that each ICAR institute would set-up an open access institutional repository. One such repository is eprints@cmfri, an open access institutional repository of the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute which was set-up on 25 February 2010 well before the policy was adopted. However, since March 2010, the ICAR is making available its two flagship journals under Open Access on its website and later through an online platform called Indian Agricultural Research Journals using Open Journal Systems.
In May 2016 the European Union announced that "all scientific articles in Europe must be freely accessible as of 2020" and that the Commission will "develop and encourage measures for optimal compliance with the provisions for open access to scientific publications under Horizon 2020". Some ask such measures to include the usage of free and open-source software.
By March 2018, a search of MEDLINE indicated that ~21% of all human/animal articles indexed are available freely through PubMed Central, or directly from the journal. Within veterinary medicine specifically, research indicates the number is higher, at ~27%.
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. Another study found that by 2010, 7.9% of all academic journals with impact factors were gold open access journals and showed a broad distribution of Gold Open Access journals throughout academic disciplines. 8.5% of the journal literature could be found free at the publishers’ sites (gold open access), of which 62% in full open access journals, 14% in delayed-access subscription journals, and 24% as individually open articles in otherwise subscription journals. For an additional 11.9% of the articles, open access full text copies were available via green open access in either subject-based repositories (43%), institutional repositories (24%) or on the home pages of the authors or their departments (33%). These copies were further classified into exact copies of the published article (38%), manuscripts as accepted for publishing (46%) or manuscripts as submitted (15%).
In the 2010 study, of all scientific fields chemistry had the lowest overall share of open access (13%), while Earth Sciences had the highest (33%). In medicine, biochemistry and chemistry gold publishing in open access journals was more common than author self-archiving. In all other fields self-archiving was more common.
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. 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.
A study on the development of publishing of open access journals from 1993 to 2009  published in 2011 suggests that, measured both by the number of journals as well as by the increases in total article output, direct gold open access journal publishing has seen rapid growth particularly between the years 2000 and 2009. It was estimated that there were around 19,500 articles published open access in 2000, while the number has grown to 191,850 articles in 2009. The journal count for the year 2000 is estimated to have been 740, and 4769 for 2009; numbers which show considerable growth, albeit at a more moderate pace than the article-level growth. These findings support the notion that open access journals have increased both in numbers and in average annual output over time.
The development of the number of active open access journals and the number of research articles published in them during the period 1993–2009 is shown in the figure above. If these gold open access growth curves are extrapolated to the next two decades, the Laakso et al. (Björk) curve would reach 60% in 2022, and the Springer curve would reach 50% in 2029 as shown in the figure below (the reference provides a more optimistic interpretation which does not match with the values shown in the figure).
The Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR) indexes the creation, location and growth of open access open access repositories and their contents. As of December 2017, over 4,500 institutional and cross-institutional repositories have been registered in ROAR.
Finding open access research online
There are various open access aggregators that index open access journals or articles. ROAD synthesizes information about open access journals and is a subset of the ISSN registry. The OALibrary provides open and free access to a large database of scientific research papers, covering all topics. Users may browse to find open access journals by country or by subject. 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 8,000 open access journals of varying open access policies that scholars can search and browse. The Open Archives Initiative (OAI) lists 2937 conforming repositories. Searching each open access repository individually is impractical. The resources in these repositories can be harvested, using the OAI Protocol and aggregated into online systems which in-turn provide access to millions of resources from a single online location.
Several initiatives provide an alternative to the American and English language dominance of existing publication indexing systems, including Index Copernicus (Polish), SciELO (Portuguese, Spanish) and Redalyc (Spanish).
- Access to knowledge movement
- Creative Commons
- Digital rights
- FUTON bias
- Guerilla Open Access
- List of open-access projects
- Open access monograph
- Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association
- Open Access Week
- Open content
- Open data
- Open publishing (different from "open access" publishing)
- Public domain
- Public Knowledge
- Right to Internet access
- Sci-Hub, a guerilla open-access website providing infringing copies of paywalled papers
- Category:Open access by country
Related to journals
- Copyright policies of academic publishers
- Directory of Open Access Journals
- List of open access journals (Category)
- Mega journal
- Open access mandate
- Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association
- Overlay journal
- Predatory open access publishing
- Software platforms to run open access journals
- Suber, Peter. "Open Access Overview" Archived 2007-05-19 at the Wayback Machine.. Earlham.edu. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Schöpfel, Joachim; Prost, Hélène (2013). "Degrees of secrecy in an open environment. The case of electronic theses and dissertations". ESSACHESS – Journal for Communication Studies. 6 (2). ISSN 1775-352X. Archived from the original on 2014-01-01.
- Meredith Schwartz (April 13, 2012). "Directory of Open Access Books Goes Live". Library Journal. Archived from the original on October 4, 2013.
- Suber, Peter. "Open Access Overview". Retrieved 29 November 2014.
- Suber, Peter (2012). Open access. MIT Press. pp. 138–139. ISBN 9780262517638.
- Machovec, George (2013). "An Interview with Jeffrey Beall on Open Access Publishing". The Charleston Advisor. 15: 50–50. doi:10.5260/chara.15.1.50.
- Öchsner, A. (2013). "Publishing Companies, Publishing Fees, and Open Access Journals". Introduction to Scientific Publishing. SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology. p. 23. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38646-6_4. ISBN 978-3-642-38645-9.
- Harris, Siân (August 2012). "Moving towards an open access future: the role of academic libraries" (PDF). Sage Publications. Retrieved 2018-03-16.
- Björk, Bo-Christer (2011). "A Study of Innovative Features in Scholarly Open Access Journals". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 13 (4): e115. doi:10.2196/jmir.1802. ISSN 1438-8871.
- "Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)". DOAJ. Retrieved 20 October 2015.
- Fuchs, Christian & Marisol Sandoval (2013). "The diamond model of open access publishing: why policy makers, scholars, universities, libraries, labour unions and the publishing world need to take non-commercial, non-profit open access serious". tripleC. 11 (2). ISSN 1726-670X.
- Suber 2012, pp. 7–8
- "Read the Budapest Open Access Initiative". Budapest Open Access Initiative. Archived from the original on 19 October 2013. Retrieved 23 October 2013.
- "Google Groups". groups.google.com. Retrieved 2018-03-04.
- Suber, Peter. 2008."Gratis and Libre Open Access". Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Suber 2012, pp. 68–69
- Eve, Martin (2014). Open access and the humanities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 9–10. ISBN 9781107484016. full text
- Harnad, S. 2007. "The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition" Archived 2010-03-12 at the Wayback Machine.. In: ''The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age'', pp. 99–105, L'Harmattan. Retrieved 2011-12-03.
- Harnad, S.; Brody, T.; Vallières, F. O.; Carr, L.; Hitchcock, S.; Gingras, Y.; Oppenheim, C.; Stamerjohanns, H.; Hilf, E. R. (2004). "The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access". Serials Review. 30 (4): 310–314. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2004.09.013.
- "Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR)" Archived 2012-10-30 at the Wayback Machine.. Roar.eprints.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Fortier, Rose; James, Heather G.; Jermé, Martha G.; Berge, Patricia; Del Toro, Rosemary (14 May 2015). "Demystifying Open Access Workshop". e-Publications@Marquette. e-Publications@Marquette. Archived from the original on 18 May 2015. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
- " SPARC Europe – Embargo Periods Archived 2015-11-18 at the Wayback Machine.. Retrieved on 2015-10-18.
- Jeffery, Keith G. 2006. "Open Access: An Introduction" Archived 2010-08-30 at the Wayback Machine.. Ercim News, 64, January 2006. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Directory of Open Access Journals Archived 2016-05-03 at the Wayback Machine.. DOAJ. Retrieved on 2012-11-05.
- Suber, Peter (2012). Open access. MIT Press. pp. 140–141.
- Suber 2012, p. 140
- Socha, Beata (20 April 2017). "How Much Do Top Publishers Charge for Open Access?". OpenScience. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
- Koroso, Nesru H. (18 November 2015). "Diamond Open Access - UA Magazine". UA Magazine.
- Markin, Pablo (25 April 2017). "The Sustainability of Open Access Publishing Models Past a Tipping Point". OpenScience. Retrieved 26 April 2017.
- "OA journal business models". Open Access Directory. 2009–2012. Archived from the original on 2015-10-18. Retrieved 2015-10-20.
- Christian Fuchs, and Marisol Sandoval 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 for a Global Sustainable Information Society, vol. 11 (2013), no. 2
- Srećko Gajović Diamond Open Access in the quest for interdisciplinarity and excellence, Croatian Medical Journal vol. 58 (2017), no. 4, pp. 261-261
- Kozak, Marcin; Hartley, James (Dec 2013). "Publication fees for open access journals: Different disciplines-different methods". Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology. 64 (12): 2591–2594. doi:10.1002/asi.22972. Retrieved 29 November 2014.
- "Publication Fees" Archived 2012-09-15 at WebCite. Plos.org. Retrieved on 2016-01-23.
- Kember, Sarah. "Opening Out from Open Access: Writing and Publishing in Response to Neoliberalism". ADANewMedia. Retrieved 12 March 2018.
- Kember, Sarah. "How Open is Open Access?". The Bookseller. Retrieved 12 March 2018.
- Page, Benedicte. "Angry publishers debate OA monographs at IPG". The Bookseller. Retrieved 12 March 2018.
- INASP. "Publishers for Development". Publishers for Development. Retrieved 12 March 2018.
- Research4Life. Research4Life http://www.research4life.org/. Retrieved 12 March 2018. Missing or empty
- Double dipping policy
- Suber, Peter (November 2, 2006). "No-fee open-access journals". SPARC open access Newsletter.
- "Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving" Archived 2011-09-02 at the Wayback Machine.. www.sherpa.org Retrieved on 2012-11-13.
- Ann Shumelda Okerson and James J. O'Donnell (eds). 1995. "Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing" Archived 2012-09-12 at the Wayback Machine.. Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Poynder, Richard. 2004. "Poynder On Point: Ten Years After" Archived 2011-09-26 at the Wayback Machine.. Information Today, 21(9), October 2004. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Harnad, S. 2007."Re: when did the Open Access movement "officially" begin" Archived 2016-09-13 at the Wayback Machine.. American Scientist Open Access Forum, 27 June 2007. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- SHERPA/RoMEO – Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving Archived 2007-11-11 at the Wayback Machine.. Sherpa.ac.uk. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Self-Archiving FAQ Archived 2005-07-07 at the Wayback Machine.. Eprints.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Open Access Archivangelism Archived 2006-08-13 at the Wayback Machine.. Openaccess.eprints.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Open Access Archived 2015-10-13 at the Wayback Machine.. Eprints.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Budapest Open Access Initiative, FAQ Archived 2006-07-03 at the Wayback Machine.. Earlham.edu (2011-09-13). Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Public Knowledge Project. "Open Journal Systems" Archived 2013-03-01 at the Wayback Machine.. Retrieved on 2012-11-13.
- Edgar, Brian D.; Willinsky, John (14 June 2010). "A survey of scholarly journals using open journal systems". Scholarly and Research Communication. 1 (2). ISSN 1923-0702.
- About the Repository – ROARMAP. Roarmap.eprints.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- "RCUK Open Access Block Grant analysis - Research Councils UK". www.rcuk.ac.uk. Retrieved 2018-02-12.
- Palazzo, Alex (27 August 2007). "PRISM – a new lobby against open access". Science Blogs. Archived from the original on 22 October 2013. Retrieved 17 October 2013.
- Basken, Paul (5 January 2012). "Science-Journal Publishers Take Fight Against Open-Access Policies to Congress". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on 17 October 2013. Retrieved 17 October 2013.
- Albanese, Andrew (15 February 2013). "Publishers Blast New Open Access Bill, FASTR". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 17 October 2013. Retrieved 17 October 2013.
- American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum: Re: Savings from Convertin Archived 2005-12-10 at the Wayback Machine.. Ecs.soton.ac.uk. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM archives – 2003 (#710) Archived 2007-01-11 at the Wayback Machine.. Listserver.sigmaxi.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Recommendations For Uk Open-Access Provision Policy Archived 2006-01-07 at the Wayback Machine.. Ecs.soton.ac.uk (1998-11-05). Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- "Open Access". RCUK. Archived from the original on 26 December 2015. Retrieved 19 December 2015.
- Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed Archived 2011-05-01 at the Wayback Machine.. D-Lib Magazine 16 (7/8)
- "Article-processing charges FAQ". BioMed Central. 1970-01-01. Archived from the original on 2011-11-26. Retrieved 2014-01-01.
- Eftekhari, A (2012) Open Access Dream. Critic Pen. Archived May 5, 2013, at the Wayback Machine.
- Harnad, S. (2011). "Gold Open Access Publishing Must Not Be Allowed to Retard the Progress of Green Open Access Self-Archiving". Logos. 21 (3–4): 86–93. doi:10.1163/095796511x559972. Archived from the original on 2011-09-01.
- Corrado, E. (Spring 2005). The importance of Open Access, Open Source, and Open Standards for libraries Archived 2011-12-16 at the Wayback Machine.. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship.
- Open Access Now. "Interview – Wellcome support for Open Access". Archived from the original on August 21, 2009. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
- Harnad, S (2007) "The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition" Archived 2017-01-23 at the Wayback Machine.. In: Anna Gacs. The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age. L'Harmattan. 99–106. Retrieved 2012-11-19.
- "Area-wide transition to open access is possible: A new study calculates a redeployment of funds in Open Access". www.mpg.de/en. Max Planck Gesellschaft. 27 April 2015. Archived from the original on 16 June 2017. Retrieved 2017-05-12.
- Suber 2012, pp. 29–43
- "The Life and Death of an Open Access Journal: Q&A with Librarian Marcus Banks"., "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.”"
- "Gold open access in practice: How will universities respond to the rising total cost of publication?".
- Tennant, Jonathan P.; Waldner, François; Jacques, Damien C.; Masuzzo, Paola; Collister, Lauren B.; Hartgerink, Chris. H. J. (2016-09-21). "The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review". F1000Research. 5: 632. doi:10.12688/f1000research.8460.3. PMC . PMID 27158456. Archived from the original on 2017-01-06.
- Sivaraj, S., et al. 2008. "Resource Sharing among Engineering College Libraries in Tamil Nadu in a Networking System" Archived 2012-12-24 at the Wayback Machine.. Library Philosophy and Practice.
- "Developing World Access to Leading Research" Archived 2013-12-01 at the Wayback Machine.. research4life.org. Retrieved on 2012-11-19.
- Van Orsdel, Lee C. & Born, Kathleen. 2005. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2017-06-30. Retrieved 2017-10-18. "Periodicals Price Survey 2005: Choosing Sides"] Library Journal, 15 April 2005. Retrieved on 2012-11-19.
- Hardisty, David J.; Haaga, David A.F. (2008). "Diffusion of Treatment Research: Does Open Access Matter?" (PDF). Journal of Clinical Psychology. 64 (7): 821–839. doi:10.1002/jclp.20492. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2008-05-28.
- Swan, Alma (2006) The culture of Open Access: researchers’ views and responses Archived 2012-05-22 at the Wayback Machine.. In: Neil Jacobs (Ed.) Open access: key strategic, technical and economic aspects, Chandos.
- Eysenbach, G. (2006). "Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles". PLoS Biology. 4 (5): e157. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157. PMC . PMID 16683865.
- Björk, Bo-Christer; Solomon, David (2012). "Open access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact". BMC Medicine. 10: 73. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-73. PMC . PMID 22805105.
- Online or Invisible? Steve Lawrence; NEC Research Institute Archived 2007-03-16 at the Wayback Machine.. Citeseer.ist.psu.edu. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Davis, P. M; Lewenstein, B. V; Simon, D. H; Booth, J. G; Connolly, M. J L (2008). "Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial". BMJ. 337: a568. doi:10.1136/bmj.a568. PMC . PMID 18669565.
- Davis, P. M. (2011). "Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing". The FASEB Journal. 25 (7): 2129–34. doi:10.1096/fj.11-183988. PMID 21450907.
- Effect of OA on citation impact: a bibliography of studies Archived 2017-11-02 at the Wayback Machine.. Opcit.eprints.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Eysenbach, G. (2006). "Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles". PLoS Biology. 4 (5): e157. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157. PMC . PMID 16683865.
- Gaulé, P.; Maystre, N. (2011). "Getting cited: Does open access help?". Research Policy. 40 (10): 1332–1338. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.025.
- Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Brody, T., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2010). Futrelle, Robert P, ed. "Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research". PLoS ONE. 5 (10): e13636. arXiv: . Bibcode:2010PLoSO...513636G. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013636. PMC . PMID 20976155. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "j1" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- Teplitskiy, M.; Lu, G.; Duede, E. (2016). "Amplifying the impact of open access: Wikipedia and the diffusion of science". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. arXiv: . doi:10.1002/asi.23687.
- Maximising the Return on the UK's Public Investment in Research – Open Access Archivangelism Archived 2017-07-02 at the Wayback Machine.. Openaccess.eprints.org (2005-09-14). Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Garfield, E. (1988) Can Researchers Bank on Citation Analysis? Archived 2005-10-25 at the Wayback Machine. Current Comments, No. 44, October 31, 1988
- Gentil-Beccot, Anne; Salvatore Mele, Travis Brooks (2009) Citing and Reading Behaviours in High-Energy Physics: How a Community Stopped Worrying about Journals and Learned to Love Repositories. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Committee on Electronic Information and Communication (CEIC) of the International Mathematical Union (15 May 2001). "Call to All Mathematicians". Archived from the original on 7 June 2011.
- "DFID Research: DFID's Policy Opens up a World of Global Research". dfid.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 2013-01-03.
- How To Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandates Archived 2008-03-16 at the Wayback Machine.. Openaccess.eprints.org (2008-03-02). Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Enabling Open Scholarship (EOS) Archived 2010-06-15 at the Wayback Machine.. openscholarship.org
- Libbenga, Jan. (2005-05-11) Dutch academics declare research free-for-all Archived 2017-07-15 at the Wayback Machine.. Theregister.co.uk. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Portal NARCIS. Narcis.info. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- "Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI) – SPARC". arl.org. Archived from the original on 2015-10-18. Retrieved 2015-10-20.
- "COAPI Principles" (PDF). SPARC. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 July 2014. Retrieved 19 July 2014.
- "Good practices for university open-access policies". Harvard. Archived from the original on 5 October 2016. Retrieved 4 October 2016.
- "About the AOASG". Australian Open Access Support Group. Archived from the original on 2014-12-20.
- Officer, Executive. "Australian Open Access Support Group expands to become Australasian Open Access Support Group". Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-15.
- "Creative Commons Australia partners with Australasian Open Access Strategy Group". Creative Commons Australia. 2016-08-31.
- Peter Suber, "Introduction to Open Access for Librarians". Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- SPARC-OAForum@arl.org Archived 2011-07-16 at the Wayback Machine.. Mx2.arl.org (2005-06-19). Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- ALA Scholarly Communication Toolkit Archived September 8, 2005, at the Wayback Machine.
- Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition Archived 2013-08-15 at the Wayback Machine.. Arl.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Open Access for Scholarly Publishing Archived 2014-05-19 at the Wayback Machine.. Southern Cross University Library. Retrieved on 2014-03-14.
- CARL – Institutional Repositories Program Archived 2013-06-07 at the Wayback Machine.. Carl-abrc.ca. Retrieved on 2013-06-12.
- Suber, Peter. (2008-04-03) Peter Suber, Open Access News Archived 2011-06-05 at the Wayback Machine.. Earlham.edu. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Hahn, Karla. "Research Library Publishing Services: New Options for University Publishing" (PDF). Association of Research Libraries. Association of Research Libraries. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 September 2013. Retrieved 9 July 2013.
- Kopfstein, Janus (2013-03-13). "Aaron Swartz to receive posthumous 'Freedom of Information' award for open access advocacy". The Verge. Archived from the original on 2013-03-15. Retrieved 2013-03-24.
- "James Madison Award". Ala.org. 2013-01-17. Archived from the original on 2013-03-22. Retrieved 2013-03-24.
- [%= data.comment.created_on %] (2013-03-26). "Entire library journal editorial board resigns, citing 'crisis of conscience' after death of Aaron Swartz". The Verge. Archived from the original on 2013-12-31. Retrieved 2014-01-01.
- "Journal's Editorial Board Resigns in Protest of Publisher's Policy Toward Authors – Wired Campus – Blogs – The Chronicle of Higher Education". Chronicle.com. Archived from the original on 2014-01-08. Retrieved 2014-01-01.
- "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". Chrisbourg.wordpress.com. Archived from the original on 2014-08-24. Retrieved 2014-08-09.
- Poynder, Richard (2009) The Open Access Interviews: Helene Bosc. Open and Shut 2009 (3) "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2013-10-23. Retrieved 2013-09-06.
- Open Access to scientific communication. Open-access.infodocs.eu. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- ATA | The Alliance for Taxpayer Access Archived 2007-09-27 at the Wayback Machine.. Taxpayeraccess.org (2011-10-29). Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Open Access: Basics and Benefits. Eprints.rclis.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Eysenbach, Gunther (2006). "The Open Access Advantage". J Med Internet Res. 8 (2): e8. doi:10.2196/jmir.8.2.e8. Archived from the original on 2017-10-19.
- Davis, P. M. (2010). "Does Open Access Lead to Increased Readership and Citations? A Randomized Controlled Trial of Articles Published in APS Journals". The Physiologist. 53: 197–201. Archived from the original on December 7, 2010.
- Goodman, D (2004). "The Criteria for Open Access". Serials Review. 30 (4): 258–270. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2004.09.009. Archived from the original on 2012-03-22.
- World Health Organization Archived 2012-01-27 at the Wayback Machine. Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative
- World Health Organization Archived 2009-04-22 at the Wayback Machine.: Eligibility
- Scientific Electronic Library Online Archived 2005-08-31 at the Wayback Machine.. SciELO. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Pearce, J. M. (2012). "The case for open source appropriate technology". Environment, Development and Sustainability. 14 (3): 425–431. doi:10.1007/s10668-012-9337-9.
- A. J. Buitenhuis, et al., "Open Design-Based Strategies to Enhance Appropriate Technology Development", Proceedings of the 14th Annual National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance Conference : Open, March 25–27th 2010, pp.1–12.
- Gilbert, Natasha (15 June 2009). "Editor will quit over hoax paper". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2009.571.
- Bohannon, John (4 October 2013). "Who's afraid of peer review?". Science. 342 (6154): 60–65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60.
- Eve, Martin (3 October 2013). "What's "open" got to do with it?". Martin Eve. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
- Michael, Eisen (3 October 2013). "I confess, I wrote the Arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription-based journals". it is NOT junk. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
- Björk, Bo-Christer; Solomon, David (2012). "Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact". BMC Medicine. 10: 73. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-73. PMC . PMID 22805105.
- Vogel, Gretchen (January 14, 2011). "Quandary: Scientists Prefer Reading Over Publishing 'open-access' Papers". Science. Retrieved 2012-11-13.
- Hathcock, April (8 February 2016). "Open But Not Equal: Open Scholarship for Social Justice". At The Intersection. Retrieved 2018-03-16.
- Roh, Charlotte (1 February 2016). "Library publishing and diversity values: Changing scholarly publishing through policy and scholarly communication education". College & Research Libraries News. 77 (2): 82–85. doi:10.5860/crln.77.2.9446.
- WLN: Library Microcomputer Hall of Fame. wiredlibrarian.com. last modified November 08, 2005
- "Would Gandhi have been a Wikipedian?". The Indian Express. 17 January 2012. Archived from the original on 9 December 2012. Retrieved 26 January 2012.
- MacKenzie Wark, Kenneth. "Treating All Culture As Collective Property And A Gift". Freeebay. Archived from the original on 2014-08-14. Retrieved 14 August 2014.
- Jacobs, Neil (2006). Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects. Elsevier. pp. 24–25. ISBN 9781780632117.
- Savla, U (2004). "Reflecting on 80 years of excellence". J. Clin. Invest. 114: 1006–16. doi:10.1172/JCI23290. PMC . PMID 15489943.
- Varki, A (1996). "The times they are still a'changing: keeping up with the times". J Clin Invest. 97 (1): 1–1. doi:10.1172/JCI118375. PMC . PMID 8550819.
- Eysenbach, Gunther (15 May 2006). "The Open Access Advantage". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 8 (2): e8. doi:10.2196/jmir.8.2.e8.
- Till, James E., 2001. "Predecessors of preprint servers". Arxiv.org, 4 February 2001. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Self-Archiving FAQ Archived 2017-06-06 at the Wayback Machine.. Eprints.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Swan, Alma. 2005. "Open access self-archiving: an Introduction" Archived 2012-12-06 at the Wayback Machine.. Eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk. Retrieved on 2012-11-13.
- Ann Shumelda Okerson and James J. O'Donnell (eds). 1995. "Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing" Archived 2012-09-12 at the Wayback Machine.. Association of Research Libraries. Arl.org (2008-07-23). Retrieved on 2012-11-13.
- Tansley, Robert and Harnad, Stevan. 2000. "In Brief" Archived 2016-01-05 at the Wayback Machine. D-Lib, 6(10), October 2000. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- See https://web.archive.org/web/19981206115144/http://www.gly.bris.ac.uk/WWW/TerraNova/www/www.html (especially if the link in some other footnote -- for Terra NOVA -- the one that says "failed verification, August 2013" -- which iirc displays as "[not in citation given]" -- seems to be a dead link)
- "TerraNova"[not in citation given]
- Lindberg, D.A.B. & Humphreys B.L.; Humphreys (2008). "Rising Expectations: Access to Biomedical Information". Yearb Med Inform. 3 (1): 165–172. PMC . PMID 18587496.
- JMIR Home Archived 2015-01-17 at the Wayback Machine.. Jmir.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Archives Of American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum@Listserver.Sigmaxi.Org Archived 2015-06-17 at the Wayback Machine.. Amsci-forum.amsci.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- "Journal of Surgical Radiology"[not in citation given]
- "Palaeontologia Electronica".
- Polly, P. David. "Who Reads Palaeontologia Electronica Anyway?". Palaeontologia Electronica.
- "Home page". CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture. Archived from the original on 29 December 2015. Retrieved 20 December 2015.
- Varmus, Harold. "E-BIOMED: A Proposal for Electronic Publications in the Biomedical Sciences". Archived from the original on December 5, 2012. Retrieved 20 December 2015.
- PubMed Central: An NIH-Operated Site for Electronic Distribution of Life Sciences Research Reports. Nih.gov (1999-08-30). Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- "BioMed Central | about us|Press releases". Web.archive.org. Archived from the original on 2011-06-04. Retrieved 2014-08-09.
- Suber, Peter (9 February 2009). "Open-Access Timeline". legacy.earlham.edu. Retrieved 2018-03-16.
- Interview with Vitek Tracz: Essential for Science Archived 2015-09-24 at the Wayback Machine.. Infotoday.com. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- "About us". BioMed Central. Archived from the original on 15 October 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
- "List of Open Letter signers" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-09-15. Retrieved 2014-08-09.
- Public Library of Science: Read the Open Letter. www.plos.org
- Brown, Patrick O.; Eisen, Michael B.; Varmus, Harold E. (2003). "Why PLoS Became a Publisher". PLoS Biology. 1: E36. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0000036. PMC . PMID 14551926.
- Butler, Declan (2006). "Open-access journal hits rocky times". Nature. 441 (7096): 914. Bibcode:2006Natur.441..914B. doi:10.1038/441914a. PMID 16791161.
- Budapest Open Access Initiative Archived 2014-07-16 at the Wayback Machine.. Soros.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing Archived 2012-03-11 at the Wayback Machine.. Earlham.edu. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- "Declaration of principles". 12 December 2003. Archived from the original on 15 October 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
- Robin Peek, The Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006 Archived 2009-01-27 at the Wayback Machine., May 8, 2006
- Federal Research Public Access Act Archived 2015-12-22 at the Wayback Machine.. Arl.org. Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- S. 1373 [111th]: Federal Research Public Access Act of 2009 Archived 2015-12-22 at the Wayback Machine.. GovTrack.us (2009-06-25). Retrieved on 2011-12-03.
- Owen Dyer (2007). "Publishers hire PR heavyweight to defend themselves against open access". BMJ. 334: 227. doi:10.1136/bmj.39112.439051.DB. PMC . PMID 17272546.
- "Essentials of Glycobiology". Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. October 3, 2011. Archived from the original on August 27, 2011. Retrieved January 4, 2012.
- "USENIX Supports Open Access". USENIX. Archived from the original on 30 May 2014. Retrieved 20 May 2014.
- "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-10. Retrieved 2016-03-12. Whitehouse.gov. Retrieved on 2013-2-26.
-  Roarmap.eprints.org. Retrieved on 2013-2-26
- U.S. Department of Energy (2014-07-24). "Public Access Plan" Archived 2017-05-31 at the Wayback Machine.. Department of Energy Website. Retrieved 2015-13-19.
- National Science Foundation. "Public Access to Results of NSF-funded Research" Archived 2015-03-19 at the Wayback Machine.. NSF Website. Retrieved 2015-13-19.
- "Open access and submission to the REF post-2014" (PDF). HEFCE. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 20 December 2015.
- Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives: Improving the UK Research Assessment Exercise whilst making it cheaper and easier. Ariadne 35 "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2013-02-20. Retrieved 2013-02-27.
- "RCUK Policy on Open Access and Supporting Guidelines" (PDF). RCUK. RCUK. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 January 2016. Retrieved 20 December 2015.
- HEFCE Press Release https://web.archive.org/web/20141010051535/http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/newsarchive/2013/news85263.html
- Knowledge Unlatched Pilot Progress Summary Report http://collections.knowledgeunlatched.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/KU_Pilot_Progress_Summary_Report4.pdf
- "ICAR adopts Open Access Policy | Indian Council of Agricultural Research". icar.org.in. Archived from the original on 2015-12-22. Retrieved 2015-12-22.
- "ICAR adopts Open Access policy | Agricultural Information Management Standards (AIMS)". aims.fao.org. Archived from the original on 2015-12-22. Retrieved 2015-12-22.
- "Welcome to Eprints@CMFRI". roar.eprints.org. 2010-02-25. Archived from the original on 2015-12-22. Retrieved 2015-12-22.
- "ICAR Journals in Open Access | Indian Council of Agricultural Research". www.icar.org.in. Archived from the original on 2015-11-09. Retrieved 2015-12-22.
- "DBT and DST Open Access Policy: Policy on open access to DBT and DST funded research" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 December 2015. Retrieved 20 December 2015.
- Hendrikx, Michiel (27 May 2016). "All European scientific articles to be freely accessible by 2020" (PDF) (Press release). The Netherlands: Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 August 2016. Retrieved 2016-08-07.
- Council of the European Union (2016-05-27). Council conclusions on the transition towards an Open Science system, adopted by the Council at its 3470th meeting held on 27 May 2016. Archived from the original on 5 July 2016.
- Albers, Erik (2 June 2016). "There is no open science without the use of open standards and free software". blog.3rik.cc. Archived from the original on 14 August 2016. Retrieved 2016-08-07.
- Nault AJ. Open access of publications by veterinary faculty in the United States and Canada. J Vet Med Educ. 2011 Spring;38(1):33-41.
- Björk, B. C.; Welling, P.; Laakso, M.; Majlender, P.; Hedlund, T.; Guðnason, G. N. (2010). Scalas, Enrico, ed. "Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009". PLoS ONE. 5 (6): e11273. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011273. PMC . PMID 20585653.
- Cummings, J. (2013). "Open access journal content found in commercial full-text aggregation databases and journal citation reports". New Library World. 114 (3/4): 166–178. doi:10.1108/03074801311304078.
- "Open access to research publications reaching 'tipping point'". Press Releases. europa.eu. Archived from the original on 2013-08-24. Retrieved 2013-08-25.
- "Proportion of Open Access Peer-Reviewed Papers at the European and World Levels—2004–2011" (PDF). Science-Metrix. August 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2013-09-03. Retrieved 2013-08-25.
- Van Noorden, Richard (2013). "Half of 2011 papers now free to read". Nature. 500 (7463): 386–7. Bibcode:2013Natur.500..386V. doi:10.1038/500386a. PMID 23969438.
- Laakso, M.; Welling, P.; Bukvova, H.; Nyman, L.; Björk, B. C.; Hedlund, T. (2011). Hermes-Lima, Marcelo, ed. "The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009". PLoS ONE. 6 (6): e20961. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020961. PMC . PMID 21695139.
- Poynder, Richard (2011). Open Access By Numbers Archived 2017-07-02 at the Wayback Machine. Open and Shut June 19, 2011
- "Browse by Country". Registry of Open Access Repositories. Archived from the original on 7 June 2014. Retrieved 20 May 2014.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2017-07-10. Retrieved 2017-12-15.
- Open Access: Finding Open Access Content
- These online systems include, but are not limited to: openaccess.xyz Archived 2016-03-02 at the Wayback Machine., base-search.net Archived 2016-02-16 at the Wayback Machine., core.ac.uk Archived 2016-03-12 at the Wayback Machine. and oaister.worldcat.org Archived 2014-08-03 at the Wayback Machine..
- Suber, Peter (2012). Open access (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-51763-8. Retrieved 2015-10-20.
- Kirsop, Barbara, and Leslie Chan. (2005) Transforming access to research literature for developing countries. Serials Reviews, 31(4): 246–255.
- Laakso, Mikael; Welling, Patrik; Bukvova, Helena; Nyman, Linus; Björk, Bo-Christer; Hedlund, Turid (2011). "The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009". PLoS ONE. 6 (6): e20961. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020961. PMC . PMID 21695139.
- Hajjem, C.; Harnad, S; Gingras, Y. (2005). "Ten-Year Cross-Disciplinary Comparison of the Growth of Open Access and How It Increases Research Citation Impact". IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin. 28 (4): 39–47. Analyzed 1,307,038 articles published across 12 years (1992–2003) in 10 disciplines; OA articles have consistently more citations (25%–250% varying with discipline and year).
- Tötösy; de Zepetnek, S.; Joshua, Jia (2014). "Electronic Journals, Prestige, and the Economics of Academic Journal Publishing". CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture. 16 (1): 2014. doi:10.7771/1481-4374.2426.
- "Open and Shut?" Blog on open access by Richard Poynder, a freelance journalist, who has done a series of interviews with a few of the leaders of the open access movement.
- Mietchen, Daniel (15 January 2014). "Wikimedia and Open Access — a rich history of interactions". Wikimedia Blog. Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved 10 January 2015.
- Green, Toby (2017) We've failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach. Learned Publishing, September 2017
- 5 Tips for Keeping Your Finger on the Open Access Pulse, US: Copyright Clearance Center, 18 January 2018
- Okerson, Ann; O'Donnell, James (Eds.) (June 1995). Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. ISBN 0-918006-26-0. .
- Willinsky, John (2006). The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship (PDF). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262512664.
- Bergstrom, Theodore C.; Carl T. Bergstrom (May 2, 2004). "Will open access compete away monopoly profits in journal publishing?" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-07-20.
- "Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications" (PDF). United Kingdom: Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings. 2012. Retrieved 15 July 2012.
- In Oldenburg's Long Shadow: Librarians, Research Scientists, Publishers, and the Control of Scientific Publishing
- Why A Fake Article Titled "Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs?" Was Accepted By 17 Medical Journals. "A Harvard scientist wanted to see exactly how easy it is to get medical research published. In some cases, $500 is pretty much all it takes." By Elizabeth Segran, Fast Company (magazine)
- Glyn Moody (June 17, 2016). "Open access: All human knowledge is there—so why can't everybody access it?". Ars Technica. Retrieved June 20, 2016.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Open access (publishing).|
|Library resources about
- 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.
- 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)
- GOAP: UNESCO's Global Open Access Portal, providing "status of open access to scientific information around the world"