Search

Legal Basis for Publishing Agreements A publishing agreement is a special contract with no requirements as to form that is usually concluded between an author and a publisher when publishing a contribution in a scholarly journal, an edited collection, or a monograph. It regulates the extent of the rights of use in the work that are granted to the publisher. Germany In Germany, publishing agreements are governed by Sections 31–44 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG) and by the German Publishing Act (VerlG) . Pursuant to Section 8 of the Publishing Act, an exclusive right of use is granted to the publisher unless otherwise specified. This right is known as the Verlagsrecht (publisher’s right). Irrespective of the rights granted to the publisher in the publishing agreement, Section 38 of the German Copyright Act gives authors of scientific contributions that result from research at least half of which was publicly funded and that appear in a collection that is published periodically at least twice a year the right to make the accepted manuscript version of the works available to the public in a repository 12 months after first publication. The right to self-archive the works applies even if the publishers were granted exclusive rights of use ( Brehm & Rücknagel, 2021 ). Austria In Austria , publishing agreements are considered to be a separate con­tract type and are regulated in Sections 1172 and seq. of the Austrian Civil Code (ABGB ). However, the most important provisions applicable to publishing agreements are laid down in the Austrian Copyright Act (UrhG ). Sections 23 and 24 and Sections 26–37 UrhG are particularly relevant. Under Section 1172 of the Austrian Civil Code, the author, or their legal successor, undertakes to entrust the work to a publisher for reproduction and distribution on its own account. In return, the publisher undertakes to reproduce and distribute the work. Unless otherwise agreed, it can be assumed that a right of use in the work pursuant to Section 26 UrhG has been granted to the publisher, and that this right is therefore exclusive (see Walter, 2008, p. 820 and seq. ). Further information about the legal situation in Austria in this regard can be found on the website of the Open Science Network Austria (OANA) . Switzerland In Switzerland , the conclusion of a publishing agreement is not subject to a certain form ( Art. 380 and seq. of the Swiss Code of Obligations, OR ). An email exchange or the sending of the manuscript by the author to the publisher with the request to publish it are deemed legally to be a publishing contract if the publisher publishes, or at least promises to publish, the work. Under the Swiss Copyright Act (CopA), exceptions to copyright apply even if the rights in question have been granted to a third party. One example is the exception to copyright in favour of use in enterprises ( Art. 19(1) point c CopA ). However, this exception is subject to various preconditions. The concept of prohibiting the granting of rights in respect of unknown rights of use is unknown in Swiss law. If "all copyrights" were granted before 1995, the now customary online rights are also affected. Further information on publishing agreements and legal questions in Switzerland can be found on the website of the Main Library of the University of Zurich . Agreements with Publishers Outside Germany In the case of agreements with publishers outside Germany, the same applies as in the case of German publishers. Should the agreements be available only in English, care must be taken not to grant the publisher exclusive rights . Zweitveröffentlichungsrecht für Wissenschaftler*innen Quelle: Brehm, E. (2021). Zweitveröffentlichungsrecht für Wissenschaftler*innen, open-access.network. https://doi.org/10.5446/51789 ( CC BY 3.0 DE ) Practical Tip Here you can find a German handout of the Communication, Information, Media Center (KIM) of the University of Konstanz on the topic of self-archiving as well as a German information page of the BMBF on the topic of self-archiving rights. Practical Tip Find further legal information regarding Austria here: Open Science Network Austria (OANA) (German). Depending on the publisher and the journal, the remaining rights may be more or less extensive or limited, although many publishers now expressly allow their authors to self-archive their contributions in a repository. An overview of publishers’ open access archiving policies can be found in the Open Policy Finder database. A fee may be agreed in the publishing agreement, and it is tacitly deemed to have been agreed if the delivery of a manuscript can usually be expected only on payment of a fee. However, a fee is not one of the essential contractual ob­ligations – the so-called cardinal obligations – under the publishing agreement. Although publishing law does not contain any provisions about rights other than reproduction and distribution, the publisher is, as a rule, also granted other exclusive rights of use (e.g. the right to make the work available to the public, which applies to publications on the Internet). The wording in the publishing agreement is decisive – and here contractual freedom applies. The various rights of use can be granted individually. Contractual provisions take precedence over dispositive statutory provisions. The following cases must be distinguished: The transfer of copyright In Germany ( Section 29 UrhG ) and Austria ( Section 23 UrhG ) copyright is not transferrable. In Switzerland, copyright is transferrable ( Art. 16 CopA ). Authors may transfer their rights to a publisher. Example: In the publishing agreement, "the author assigns copyright [the publisher] without limitation of space, time, or content". Licensing/rights of use Authors retain copyright but grant rights of use to third parties. Granting of an exclusive licence /exclusive rights of use: Authors undertake not to grant any other licences for the work in question. Example: "The author grants the publisher the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the work (the publisher’s right) without limitation of space and content for the duration of the statutory copyright." Granting of a non-exclusive licence/non-exclusive rights of use : Authors may grant other persons or organisations further non-exclusive licences/non-exclusive rights of use. Example: "For an online publication of the work, the publisher is granted a non-exclusive right of use without an obligation of use." Possibilities of Contractually Securing the Right to Self-Archive Works in Open Access Repositories In the case of publishing agreements concluded in the past, the question arises as to what provisions the agreement contains with regard to the author’s right to make the work available to the public online in parallel with publication . By contrast, when concluding new publishing agreements, there are various ways of contractually securing this right. Some authors who publish their articles in fee-based journals but who nonetheless want to retain the right to make the work available in open access in parallel with publication, cross out certain passages in the publishing agreement before signing it. Another possibility is to supplement the publishing agreement to be signed with addenda or text passa­ges in order to secure one’s rights to make the work available in open access . Many research performing organisations now expressly expect this. For example, the University of Zurich requires its researchers to obtain a legal guarantee from the publisher "to make the complete work accessible in ZORA [the institutional repository], if applicable after an embargo period." Crossing Out Words in the Publishing Agreement Authors can amend publishing agreements that restrict their right to self-ar­chive the work in a repository by clearly crossing out wording such as exclusive transfer of all rights or other restrictive formulations, for example exclusive rights of use or exploitation rights . It should be noted, in particular, that the term exclusive rights grants the publisher a legal position that, as a rule, excludes the authors from exploiting the works themselves. In an accompanying letter, authors should draw attention to the changes they have made to the contract. Should a contract be available only in electronic form, the words can be crossed out in the print copy. If only digital agreement to the terms of the contract is provided for, authors can request the publisher to make the contract available in print form. Addenda As an alternative to crossing out words, authors can attach an addendum to the publishing agreement in order to retain a non-exclusive right to deposit the work in an online repository. To acquire legal validity, this addendum must be countersigned by the publisher. The most well-known addendum is the SPARC Author's Addendum . It was developed by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) , an alliance of libraries in the USA and Canada that works to encourage the development of new models of scholarly communication that increase the dissemination of scholarly literature and reduce the financial pressure on libra­ries. The addendum comprises two parts: the actual addendum and instructi­ons for use. Via the Scholar’s Copyright Addendum Engine provided by Science Commons and SPARC, authors can automatically generate an addendum as required in one of three variants: Access – Reuse , Delayed Access , or Immediate Access . Access – Reuse means that the author retains sufficient rights to make the work available to the public under a Creative Commons Attribution Non­Commercial (CC BY-NC) licence in addition to publishing it with a publisher. Under the Delayed Access model, the author has the right to make their final version of the article (author’s accepted manuscript, AAM) available to the public online immediately, but they may not make the publisher’s version available until six months after the date of publication. By contrast, the Immediate Access option gives the author the right to make both the publisher’s version and the author’s accepted manuscript version available to the public online immediately. Examples of addenda "The publisher agrees that the author shall retain the non-exclusive right to deposit a digital copy of the document before/during/after publication by the publisher on an open access academic non-profit server for an unlimited period. The author undertakes to cite the original document on the academic non-profit server ." or "For an online publication of the work, the publisher is granted a non-exclusive right of use without an obligation of use. The author is free to make the work available to the public online in PDF form via their perso­nal website, an institutional server, or a suitable disciplinary repository." or (in jurisdictions where copyright is transferrable) "I hereby declare that I do not wish to transfer full copyright to [name of the publisher] but reserve the right to self-archive the article in full in an open access repository." A further example of an addendum is provided by MIT Libraries: Managing your Copyright . However, authors must be aware of the consequences when they retain only non-exclusive rights of use. This prevents them from making the contribution available under an open access licence, as the decision on licensing remains with the publisher. It is therefore preferable not to grant exclusive rights of use to the publisher in the first place . References Brehm, E., & Rücknagel, J. (2021). Zweitveröffentlichungsrecht für Wissenschaftler*innen . https://doi.org/10.5446/51789 Walter, M. M. (2008). Österreichisches Urheberrecht: Handbuch. 1. Teil: Materielles Urheberrecht, Leistungsschutzrecht und Urhebervertragsrecht . Verlag Medien & Recht. Further Reading Brettschneider, P. (2020). Rechtsfragen beim Veröffentlichen - Rechtlichen Aspekten des Publizierens von Texten und Daten . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4018749 Brettschneider, P., & Universität Konstanz. (2020). Rechtsfragen beim Veröffentlichen . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrvnMLxGppI&t=1s Hirtle, P. (2006). Author Addenda. An Examination of Five Alternatives. D-Lib Magazine , 12 (11). https://doi.org/10.1045/november2006-hirtle Mantz, R. (2006). Open Access-Lizenzen und Rechtsübertragung bei Open Access-Werken. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen von Open Access-Publikationen (pp. 55–104). Universitätsverlag Göttingen. https://www.retosphere.de/files/Mantz,Open_Access-Lizenzen_und_Rechtsuebertragung_bei_Open_Access-Werken.pdf SPARC. (2006). Author Rights. Using the SPARC Author Addendum to secure your rights as the author of a journal article. https://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/SPARC-Author-Rights-Brochure-2006.pdf Spielkamp, M. & iRights.Lab (2015). Zweitveröffentlichungsrecht für Wissenschaftler. Geltende Rechtslage und Handlungsempfehlungen. Online verfügbar unter https://irights.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/zweitveroeffentlichungsrecht-20150425.pdf Steinhauer, E. W. (2007). Rechtsfragen und praktische Umsetzung von Open Access . https://kobra.uni-kassel.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/2007032317433/Kassel%20II.pdf?sequence=1 Thema Creative Commons + Lizenzen . (n.d.). IRights Info. https://irights.info/kategorie/themen/creative-commons-lizenzen Please note that the content presented here is intended for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice....

Intro The main takeaways from this article are: 1 Scholar-led and community-driven publishing are promising alternatives to publishing with a commercial publisher and make a valuable contribution to bibliodiversity. 2 Scholar-led and community-driven journals are characterised by particular potential for experimentation and critical questioning of scholarly publishing. 3 Scholar-led and community-driven journals face particular challenges when it comes to funding, positioning themselves within the respective scientific community, and activating important stakeholders. Definition The challenges of scholarly publishing are diverse. There are various formats and access possibilities, complex quality assurance processes, and several administration and governance models. The monopoly over the distribution of knowledge enjoyed by large commercial publishers is being increasingly confronted by researchers who are successfully mastering these challenges and publishing and distributing their research results themselves. The idea of quality-assured publishing by scientists themselves is actually not new. Rather, it goes back to professional associations and scholarly societies, which have always promoted and guided scholarly publishing. In the current open access ecosystem, two alternatives to the commercial publisher model can be distinguished: community-driven and scholar-led publishing. This distinction is purely descriptive and does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about the quality or relevance of publishing projects. The two models are simply subject to different circumstances and dynamics and, thus, possibly to a different action and values system (see Steiner, 2022 ). In addition, the dividing lines between the two models vary depending on the context (see Steiner, 2023 , on the divergent use of the terms in different publication cultures). At the same time, both models have great science policy relevance and contribute to important bibliodiversity in the scholarly publishing system. Further reading: Statements by science policymakers German Science and Humanities Council paper entitled "Recommendations on the Transformation of Academic Publishing: Towards Open Access" (January 2022). EUA Open Science Agenda 2025 (February 2022). The Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI): 20th Anniversary Recommendations (February 2022). Action Plan for Diamond Open Access (March 2022). Thesen zur Zukunft des wissenschaftsgeleiteten Open-Access-Publizierens [Theses on the Future of Scholar-Led Open Access Publishing] (September 2023). Community-driven Publishing Non-commercial publishing projects and initiatives that operate outside the realm of large publishers are subsumed under the term “community-driven publishing”. They usually avoid author-side publication charges (article processing charges [APCs], book-processing charges [BPCs]), which are commonly levied by commercial publishers, and instead give preference to consortial funding models. Primary responsibility, (trademark) rights, and organisational sovereignty are retained by the scientific community – that is, the scientific editors, the scientific institutions (universities, centres, scholarly societies, professional associations), or research infrastructures. Technical responsibility (i.e., the hosting of the web offerings, technical production, and distribution) is assumed by non-commercial infrastructures and service providers, and increasingly also by university presses and small and medium-sized publishers (see Schlosser, 2019 ). Scholar-led Publishing Besides this understanding of academic-led publishing as “community-driven publishing” (see Wrzesinski, 2023 ), various publishing projects and initiatives have established themselves as "scholar-led publishers". As a matter of principle, these publishers see themselves as non-commercial and independent. In addition, they often have a DIY character and organise the entire publishing process themselves. Not only do scholars take on the content-related work, but they also contribute the technical, practical, and administrative expertise needed to publish quality-assured contributions (see Moore, 2019 ). In this way, these self-administered projects avoid as far as possible participation by a superordinate publisher, a research institution, or institutional societies or associations. Practices and Principles: Suggestions and Tips for Publishers and Editors Scholar-led or community-driven journals are subject only to a limited extent to the constraints that apply to journals in the hands of commercial publishers. As they do not have to make a profit, they can be flexible and unconventional, for example when it comes to trying out new ways of publishing and disseminating scholarly content. In addition, thanks to their own form of governance, they can question certain basic assumptions of scholarly publishing. In what follows, we have compiled some suggestions and tips for publishers and editors of scholar-led and community-driven journals. Publishing Practices There are various areas in which scholar-led and community-driven journals try out new models. For example, they look for new publication formats that can be used instead of or in addition to the classical research article to disseminate scientific results. This includes, for example, the publication of preprints , research materials (e.g., field journals, notes, sketches) or other supplements. With these more experimental formats, greater transparency can be created for the actual research, reproducibility can be made easier, and the participation of third parties can be guided, and thus scientific discourse as a whole can be promoted. Other scholar-led and community-driven journals are trying out new and inclusive processes of quality assurance . Under the headings "open review" and "collaborative review", they are trying to open up the traditional anonymous peer-review system both in terms of naming and recruiting. Would it be possible to try out such a process of quality assurance for your journal? If so, your journal would contribute to transforming the review culture into one that puts collegial exchange and productive criticism centre stage. The diversity of formats and quality-assurance processes is reflected also in editorial workflows . Do you see possibilities for adapting your workflows to a diverse editorial team at various locations? This is becoming increasingly possible through the deployment of digital tools that are already widely used by scholar-led and community-led journals. They include editorial management systems (e.g., Open Journal Systems ), collaborative writing and editing tools (e.g., CryptPad, Etherpad), and cloud services (e.g., mostly local, institutional solutions). Last but not least, many scholarly publishing projects are actively involved in promoting digital sovereignty – that is, self-determination and autonomy over own data (see Pohle & Thiel, 2020 ). Within your journal, you can support and promote this desire for independence, for example by giving preference to open source services and tools that enable control over the (meta)data of persons and publications. In addition, you can critically question the widely used systems for measuring and evaluating relevance (e.g., the Impact Factor ), use alternative models (e.g., altmetrics ), or participate in new forms of measurement. The greatest possible openness and transparency of reuse also contributes to this. Are the contents of your journal licensed as freely as possible (e.g., under a "free licence", or a " licence approved for free cultural work ", which makes sense for scholarly literature)? Are the possibilities for reuse clearly communicated (e.g., easily findable on your website)? Practice Tip In the Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society series "Wissenschaftsgeleitete Zeitschriften: Workflows, Finanzierung und Governance" (Scholar-Led Journals: Workflows, Funding, and Governance), there are webinars on the topics "Nachhaltige Finanzierung und Organisation von Zeitschriften" (Sustainable Funding and Organisation of Journals) and "Workflows von Zeitschriften - von der Einreichung bis zur Kommunikation" (Journal Workflows – From Submission to Communication). Principles of Journal Administration Scholarly journals need a robust concept of organising and assuming responsibility. In the case of purely scholar-led or community-driven journals, these principles are based more on the scientific ethos of cooperation and collaboration than, for example, on competition for authors, citation frequencies, or consistent growth. These forms of publishing are also guided more strongly by values such as reliability and the common good. This identification of common ground or a common goal makes it easier in practice to involve your scientific community (see Moore & Adema, 2020 ). For example, you could consider whether your journal could become (more) actively involved in journal networks. The scholar-led.network in Germany or the international Free Journal Network offer their members a space for exchange and networking. In addition, alliances with other stakeholder groups in the wider environment of your journal may be useful. Do you have links to your scholarly society? To regional and supraregional scholarly libraries? To foundations that are sympathetic to your journalistic values and goals? And finally, various scholar-led and community driven journals are already showing how good and sustainable financial management is currently possible. You could examine in your respective context whether different sources of funding can make your journal more independent (see Waidlein et al., 2021 ). Can you integrate consortial models (see KOALA ), micro-funding (see Quartz OA ; SciPost ), association structures, or publishing partnerships into your business model? This succeeds all the better if synergies can be created and used through collaborative work, for example by building joint research infrastructures (see Bosman et al., 2021a ). In Germany, efforts are being made to build up and strengthen publishing infrastructures (see CRAFT-OA ). Particular Challenges As a scholar-led or community-driven journal, you will encounter particular challenges, especially compared with journals published by a publishing house and with commercial actors (see Fokusgruppe scholar-led.network 2021 ). These challenges start, first, with funding: there are financial, infrastructural, and non-material gaps in the funding landscape, which are being filled only hesitantly and often as a result of intensive efforts on the part of the journals themselves (see above). Second, you will also have to make an active effort to strategically occupy your place within the research community and the other publishing projects. This relates both to the content and the administrative and technical set-up of your journal. And finally, third, you will encounter responsibility deficits in disciplines and institutions. Especially as a new and interdisciplinary journal, you will have to invest more time in order for essential stakeholders to feel committed to you. Ultimately, it is the task of the research institutions, the research infrastructures, the research funders, and the scholarly societies to build up capacities for scholar-led and community-driven publishing (see Bosman et al., 2021b ) and to strengthen their effectivity and economic efficiency. Links https://graphite.page/scholar-led-manifesto/ https://open-access.network/vernetzen/open-access-projekte https://diamasproject.eu/ The scholar-led.network Manifesto The focus group scholar-led.network has published a manifesto that summarises its central critique of the current system of scholarly publishing in the German-speaking area and identifies fields of action for fair, systematic, and diverse publishing. Pratice Tip The following publication provides practical tips for scholar-led publishing: Wrzesinski, M. (2023). Wissenschaftsgeleitetes Publizieren. Sechs Handreichungen mit Praxistipps und Perspektiven [Scholar-Led Publishing. Six Guides With Practice Tips and Perspectives] . Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8169418 References Bosman, J., Frantsvåg, J. E., Kramer, B., Langlais, P.-C., & Proudman, V. (2021a). OA Diamond Journals Study. Part 1: Findings . Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4558704 Bosman, J., Frantsvåg, J. E., Kramer, B., Langlais, P.-C., & Proudman, V. (2021b). OA Diamond Journals Study. Part 2: Recommendations. Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/record/4562790 Fokusgruppe scholar-led.network. (2021). Das scholar-led.network-Manifest. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5521553 Moore, S. (2019). Open *by* whom? On the meaning of ‘scholar-led’. ScholarLed Blog, 24 . October. https://blog.scholarled.org/on-the-meaning-of-scholar-led/ Moore, S., & Adema, J. (2020). Community governance explored . Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM). https://doi.org/10.21428/785a6451.20a5c646 Pohle, J., & Thiel, T. (2020). Digital sovereignty. Internet Policy Review , 9 (4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1532 Schlosser, M. (2019). Academy-owned? Academic-led? Community-led? What’s at stake in the words we use to describe new publishing paradigms. Library Publishing Coalition Blog . https://librarypublishing.org/alpd19-academy-owned-academic-led-community-led/ Steiner, T. (2022). Pluralities: Scholar-led publishing und Open Access. Open-Media-Studies-Blog. https://zfmedienwissenschaft.de/online/open-media-studies-blog/pluralities-scholar-led-publishing-und-open-access Steiner, T. (2023, 4 July). Lost in translation? Revisiting notions of community- and scholar-led publishing in international contexts. ScholarLed Blog . https://blog.scholarled.org/lost-in-translation-revisiting-notions-of-community-and-scholar-led-publishing-in-international-contexts/ Waidlein, N., Wrzesinski, M., Dubois, F., & Katzenbach, C. (2021). Working with budget and funding options to make open access journals sustainable . Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4558790 Wrzesinski, M. (2023). Wissenschaftsgeleitetes Publizieren. Sechs Handreichungen mit Praxistipps und Perspektiven . Alexander von Humboldt Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8169418 Further Reading Adema, J., & Moore, S. A. (2018). Collectivity and collaboration: imagining new forms of communality to create resilience in scholar-led publishing. Insights 31 (0), 3. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.399 Adema J., & Moore S. A. (2021). Scaling Small; Or How to Envision New Relationalities for Knowledge Production, Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 16 (1), 27-45. doi: https://doi.org/10.16997/wpcc.918 Hopf, D., Dellmann, S., Hauschke, C., & und Tullney., M. (2022). Wirkungen von Open Access. Literaturstudie über empirische Arbeiten 2010–2021 . Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB). https://doi.org/10.34657/7666 Ottina, D. (2013). From Sustainable Publishing To Resilient Communications. TripleC, 11 (2), 604-613. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v11i2.528 Shearer, K., Chan, L., Kuchma, I., & Mounier, P. (2020). Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3752923 ,...

Intro Open Access in 60 Sekunden Quelle: Brinken, H., Hauss, J. & Rücknagel, J. (2021). Open Access in 60 Sekunden, open-access.network. https://doi.org/10.5446/50831 ( CC BY 3.0 DE ) The Key Takeaways From This Article Are 1 Open Access is an alternative (and better) type of scientific publishing. 2 There are various funding and licensing models for Open Access. 3 Open Access is a central aspect of Open Science. Definition In a nutshell: open access means free access to scholarly literature on the Internet. The most commonly invoked definition of open access comes from the so-called Budapest Declaration (2002) . Thus, the aim of open access is to make scholarly literature freely accessible and reusable for everyone – that is, free of charge and, as far as possible, free of technical and legal barriers. The Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) requires that, to qualify as open access, a contribution must not only be usable free of charge, but also users must be permitted "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." (Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, 2003) . "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." Budapest Open Access Initiative Declaration, 2002 ; emphasis added Why Open Access? Open access offers numerous benefits: Source: based on Brinken, H. (2021). 10 Gründe für Open Access. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4643859 ( CC BY 4.0 International ) It is important to know that scholarly research is for the most part publicly funded. The results of this publicly funded research should therefore also be publicly accessible. Open access publications are immediately and easily accessible free of charge and reusable. This free and fast access to scientific findings expedites the scholarly communication process, thereby enhancing efficiency in research and innovation. This also fosters the international and interdisciplinary collaboration between and the networking of researchers. Open access significantly increases the citation frequency and thus also the visibility of research findings ( Swan, 2010; Li et al., 2018 ). Another important factor is that, in the case of open access publications, authors retain their rights to exploit the works instead of assigning these rights exclusively to a publisher. Thus, an open access publication can be redistributed and reused easily by others. Open Access Publication Find an introduction here. Finding Open Access Publications Numerous search engines specialise in Open Access. Here is an overview of how to find free scientific literature. Paths to Open Access There are two basic strategies for implementing open access: green and gold . Gold open access refers to the publication of scholarly works as articles in open access journals , as open access monographs , or as contributions to open access collections or conference proceedings. Green open access – also known as self-archiving – refers to making preprints or post-prints of works published with a publisher or in a journal available to the public by depositing them in a repository . Source: based on Oberländer, A. (2020). Open Access – Es ist nicht alles Gold, was glänzt. In: Open Science. Von Daten zu Publikationen. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4018594 ( CC BY 4.0 International ) Funding Video on the Funding of Open Access Articles Source: Becklas Dorow, C., Hauss, J. (2026). Funding Open Access Articles – What Are the Options?. Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB), open-access.network. https://doi.org/10.5446/73596 ( CC BY 3.0 DE ) Whereas open access publications are similar to conventional publications in many respects – for example, with regard to peer review – the big difference between them is the way they are funded . In the conventional publishing system, a publication benefits from public funds three times: As mentioned above, researchers are usually paid from public funds. During the publication process, works undergo quality assurance procedu­res, for example, peer review. Peer reviews are conducted by other resear­chers, who are not as a rule paid for doing so by the publishers or journals. And finally, libraries and institutes have to subscribe to the journals or purchase the books from the publishers in order to be able to make them available to their members. By contrast, open access meets the demand to make the results of publicly funded research freely accessible for everyone. Researchers who work at institutions with more limited budgets also benefit from this, as do interested parties who are not affiliated with an institution. Because readers can use open access publications free of charge, these publications must be funded elsewhe­re. The so-called author-pays model, whereby authors pay article processing charges (APCs) or book processing charges (BPCs) for the publication of their works, is widely used. Many institutions now offer to pay these costs for their members, for example, via publication funds or participation in consortia. However, the majority of open access journals (over 70% of the journals indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, DOAJ ) are free of charge both for readers and authors. These journals are financed, for example, via professional associations, academic institutions, or – in kind – by voluntary work ( Morrison, 2018 ). Especially against the backdrop of the sometimes horrendous prices that conventional publishers charge for journal subscriptions, open access can make an important contribution to sustainably easing the pressure on strained library budgets, while at the same time considerably improving the literature supply. Licensing In addition to toll-free access to scholarly findings, the second key component of open access is their widest possible reuse. It is up to the authors themselves to decide what degree of freedom of use of their works they wish to allow. By granting usage licences, authors specify the rights that third parties have when using their research findings. The now widely used Creative Commons (CC) licences are well suited for this purpose. The use of the CC BY licence is particularly recommended. It grants everyone a free, worldwide right of access to the publication as well as the right to reuse it, for example, by copying, distributing, transmitting, publicly displaying, or adapting it. Those who reuse content must give appropriate credit to the author of the work. Note, however, that it is not possible for authors to grant open licences if they have already granted the rights of use in question exclusively to a publisher. How exactly do Creative Commons licenses work? Source: Brinken, H., Hauss, J. & Rücknagel, J. (2021). How exactly do Creative Commons licenses work? open-access.network. https://doi.org/ 10.5446/53471 ( CC BY 3.0 DE ) Political Standpoints Find an introduction here. Open Access Policies Find an introdution here. Practical Tip Scientists can actively support the change to open science through their own publishing behavior. This practical tip "Supporting Open Access" explains how. Who Supports Open Access? Open access is promoted and requested or demanded both by policymakers at European and national level (top down) and on the initiative of committed scholars and scientists, professional societies, infrastructure facilities, and publishers (bottom up). Thus, universities and research institutions have adopted open access policies in which they encourage their members to publish their works open access. Open access is also often enshrined as an obligation, or at least as a request, in the grant conditions of third-party funders . In a diverse landscape of open access journals, publishers, and repositories, most conventional scholarly publishers now offer open access models or are pursuing transformative aspirations. Open Science Open access is an element of much of what can be subsumed under the umbrella term open science ( Watson, 2015 ). Following Neuschäfer (2015) , open science bundles strategies and procedures that aim to make all elements of the scientific process openly accessible, transparent, and reusable. This means that not only scholarly publications should be freely available in accordance with the open access model but also, among other things, research data (through open access and research data management ), research software, and teaching materials (through open educational resources, OER). An exact description of the elements of open science can be found on the German-language website openscienceASAP . Open science is based on the principles of transparency, reproducibility, reusability, and open communication ( Open Science AG, n.d. ). Thus, open science is an important element of ensuring good scientific practice. open-access.network ( CC BY 4.0 International ) References Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. (2003). https://openaccess.mpg.de/67605/berlin_declaration_engl.pdf Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002). Budapest Open Access Initiative Declaration . (2002). https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read Li, Y., Wu, C., Yan, E., & Li, K. (2018). Will open access increase journal CiteScores? An empirical investigation over multiple disciplines. PloS One , 13(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201885 Morrison, H. (2018, January 31). DOAJ APC information as of Jan 31, 2018. Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir Les Savoirs Communs. Open Access Scholarship / Littérature Savante En Libre Accès. https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2018/02/06/doaj-apc-information-as-of-jan-31-2018/ Neuschäfer, M. (2015, November 18). Mission Statement der deutschsprachigen Open Science AG. Ag-OpenScience.De. https://ag-openscience.de/ag-mission-statement/ Oberländer, A. (2020). Open Access – Es ist nicht alles Gold, was glänzt. In: Open Science. Von Daten zu Publikationen. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4018594 Open Science AG. (n.d.). Open Science . https://ag-openscience.de/open-science/ Swan, A. (2010). The Open Access citation advantage: Studies and results to date. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/268516/ Watson, M. (2015). When will ‘open science’ become simply ‘science’? Genome Biology, 16 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0669-2 Further Readings Suber, P. (2012). Open Access . The MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access , Open Access https://archive.org/details/9780262517638OpenAccess...