The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review

Abstract

Ongoing debates surrounding Open Access to the scholarly literature are multifaceted and complicated by disparate and often polarised viewpoints from engaged stakeholders. At the current stage, Open Access has become such a global issue that it is critical for all involved in scholarly publishing, including policymakers, publishers, research funders, governments, learned societies, librarians, and academic communities, to be well-informed on the history, benefits, and pitfalls of Open Access. In spite of this, there is a general lack of consensus regarding the potential pros and cons of Open Access at multiple levels. This review aims to be a resource for current knowledge on the impacts of Open Access by synthesizing important research in three major areas: academic, economic and societal. While there is clearly much scope for additional research, several key trends are identified, including a broad citation advantage for researchers who publish openly, as well as additional benefits to the non-academic dissemination of their work. The economic impact of Open Access is less well-understood, although it is clear that access to the research literature is key for innovative enterprises, and a range of governmental and non-governmental services. Furthermore, Open Access has the potential to save both publishers and research funders considerable amounts of financial resources, and can provide some economic benefits to traditionally subscription-based journals. The societal impact of Open Access is strong, in particular for advancing citizen science initiatives, and leveling the playing field for researchers in developing countries. Open Access supersedes all potential alternative modes of access to the scholarly literature through enabling unrestricted re-use, and long-term stability independent of financial constraints of traditional publishers that impede knowledge sharing. However, Open Access has the potential to become unsustainable for research communities if high-cost options are allowed to continue to prevail in a widely unregulated high-cost options are allowed to continue to prevail in a widely unregulated scholarly publishing market. Open Access remains only one of the multiple challenges that the scholarly publishing system is currently facing. Yet, it provides one foundation for increasing engagement with researchers regarding ethical standards of publishing and the broader implications of 'Open Research'.

Open Science: What, Why, and How

“…Furthermore, in some countries including the United States, a large portion of research is paid for through (taxpayer funded) federal grants, leaving those same taxpayers wondering why they must pay twice for access to information from research. In terms of social justice, one of the biggest victims of for-profit publishing are researchers in developing nations, who lack institutional or personal access to much of the research literature (see Tennant et al, 2016, for an overview).…”

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

“…However, as history shows, such a process is non-traditional but nonetheless currently held in high regard. Practices such as self-publishing and predatory or deceptive publishing cast a shadow of doubt on the validity of research posted openly online that follow these models, including those with traditional scholarly imprints ( Fitzpatrick, 2011a; Tennant et al , 2016). The inertia hindering widespread adoption of new models of peer review can be ascribed to what is often termed “cultural inertia”, and affects many aspects of scholarly research.…”

“…This has led to the innovation and increasing popularity of digital-only publication venues that vet submissions based exclusively on the soundness of the research, often termed “mega-journals” (e.g., PLOS ONE , PeerJ , the Frontiers series). Such a flexibility in the filter function of peer review reduces, but does not eliminate, the role of peer review as a selective gatekeeper, and can be considered to be “impact neutral.” Due to such digital experimentations, ongoing discussions about peer review are intimately linked with contemporaneous developments in Open Access (OA) publishing and to broader changes in open scholarship ( Tennant et al , 2016). …”

The original descriptions of reptiles and their subspecies

“…Efforts have dramatically increased to support open access publishing to make the scientific literature freely accessible (Tennant et al 2016). Nevertheless, there are journals and other publications that are not accessible online, e.g.…”