Open access (OA) publishing refers to making research outputs freely available online. The two most common types of OA publishing are gold and green OA. In gold OA, the final published version of an article is made freely available online, with publication costs typically covered by the author, institution, or funding body. In green OA, authors deposit a version of their work in an open repository, often after an embargo period. This version may be the pre-print, post-print, or the final published version. The third type - diamond OA, where journals are free to both authors and readers and typically supported by academic institutions or organizations, is another form.

Venn diagram highlighting the different levels of open access in scholarly publishing, as a function of cost to the readers and authors, copyright retention, and peer review. Adapted from Farquharson, J.I. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21598179 , CC BY 4.0

OA publishing provides numerous benefits to all stakeholders by enhancing the accessibility of scientific publications and allowing rapid dissemination of knowledge. It fosters public engagement with research results, aligning with ethical considerations to ensure that publicly funded research is available to the public.

Despite its advantages, OA publishing faces challenges, such as funding for publication fees and ensuring the quality and integrity of OA publications. The 'publish or perish' attitude may lead to a focus on quantity over quality, with researchers seeking fast publication options in predatory journals that misuse the author-pays model without providing genuine peer review and editorial services, potentially leading to the dissemination of unreliable research. Additionally, the increasing volume of OA publications may contribute to information overload, making it challenging for the scientific community and the public to navigate the vast amount of available literature.

OA publishing has also introduced new approaches to peer review. Open peer review, where the identities of authors and reviewers are disclosed, aims to enhance accountability and foster constructive feedback. Post-publication peer review allows continuous evaluation after initial publication, and some Internet platforms offer crowdsourced peer review, inviting input from a broader audience. 

Proper recognition of contributions to research processes and alignment of the scientific reward system with the goals of open science are major challenges. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (SF-DORA) has been widely adopted, but practical progress has been slow (Hatch & Curry, 2020). The main theoretical problem is providing a principled account of how open science contributions, such as preparing a dataset to FAIR standards, equate to more traditional quantifiable contributions like authorship, citations, or grant success. Stakeholders responsible for research evaluations and funding decisions should work on accommodating and supporting open science practices to properly acknowledge and value them. Numerous research publishers have incorporated alternative metrics, but there is still room for further recognition of the diverse ways research contributes and has an impact.

ROSiE General Guidelines on Responsible Open Science guides different stakeholders regarding responsible dissemination and publication of research outputs:

4.4.1. Researchers have an ethical and social responsibility to make their research results open to peers and to the public in a timely manner. 
4.4.2. Policymakers, Research Funding Organisations, and Research Performing Organisations should promote open access models that incur no costs for the researchers and readers.
4.4.3. Research Funding Organisations, and Research Performing Organisations should provide guidelines to support researchers in finding reputable publishers to avoid supporting predatory practices.
4.4.4. Publishers and researchers are encouraged to use Creative Commons (CC) licenses, meaning authors retain their rights under predefined conditions.
4.4.5. Preprints are an important element of open science; however, preprints should be treated according to their status, not as peer-reviewed publications. Papers deposited on preprint platforms have not been subjected to formal quality control, such as peer review, and thus should be read carefully, especially by non-experts.

Before moving to the next task, please, read Unit 2.4. "Identifying Open Access Journals for Sharing Your Work", pp. 20 – 30 from the UNESCO book "Sharing Your Work in Open Access".

References

1. Hatch, A. & Curry, S. (2020). Changing how we evaluate research is difficult, but not impossible. eLife 9, e58654. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58654