Editing Open access (section)

== Effects on scholarly publishing ==

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

Some professional organizations have encouraged use of open access: in 2001, the [[International Mathematical Union]] communicated to its members that "Open access to the mathematical literature is an important goal" and encouraged them to "[make] available electronically as much of our own work as feasible" to "[enlarge] the reservoir of freely available primary mathematical material, particularly helping scientists working without adequate library access".<ref name="imu">{{Cite web |last=Committee on Electronic Information and Communication (CEIC) of the [[International Mathematical Union]] |date=15 May 2001 |title=Call to All Mathematicians |url=http://cr.yp.to/bib/imu-call.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110607051055/http://cr.yp.to/bib/imu-call.html |archive-date=7 June 2011}}</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

=== Journal impact factor ===
{{See also|Impact factor}}

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

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

=== Peer review processes ===

{{See also|Scholarly peer review}}

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

=== Predatory publishing ===

[[Predatory publishing|Predatory publishers]] present themselves as academic journals but use lax or no peer review processes coupled with aggressive advertising in order to generate revenue from article processing charges from authors. The definitions of 'predatory', 'deceptive', or 'questionable' publishers/journals are often vague, opaque, and confusing, and can also include fully legitimate journals, such as those indexed by PubMed Central.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=2020-06-15|title=Comments on "Factors affecting global flow of scientific knowledge in environmental sciences" by Sonne et al. (2020)|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969719364502|journal=Science of the Total Environment|language=en|volume=721|pages=136454|doi=10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136454|issn=0048-9697|last1=Pourret|first1=Olivier|last2=Irawan|first2=Dasapta Erwin|last3=Tennant|first3=Jonathan P.|last4=Wien|first4=Charlotte|last5=Dorch|first5=Bertil F.|pmid=31924309|bibcode=2020ScTEn.72136454P|s2cid=210150077}}</ref> In this sense, Grudniewicz et al.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Grudniewicz|first1=Agnes|last2=Moher|first2=David|last3=Cobey|first3=Kelly D.|last4=Bryson|first4=Gregory L.|last5=Cukier|first5=Samantha|last6=Allen|first6=Kristiann|last7=Ardern|first7=Clare|last8=Balcom|first8=Lesley|last9=Barros|first9=Tiago|last10=Berger|first10=Monica|last11=Ciro|first11=Jairo Buitrago|date=2019-12-12|title=Predatory journals: no definition, no defence|journal=Nature|language=en|volume=576|issue=7786|pages=210–212|doi=10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y|pmid=31827288|bibcode=2019Natur.576..210G|s2cid=209168864|issn=0028-0836|doi-access=free|hdl=11584/281794|hdl-access=free}}</ref> proposed a consensus definition that needs to be shared: "Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices."

In this way, predatory journals exploit the OA model by deceptively removing the main value added by the journal (peer review) and parasitize the OA movement, occasionally hijacking or impersonating other journals.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dadkhah |first1=Mehdi |last2=Borchardt |first2=Glenn |date=1 June 2016 |title=Hijacked Journals: An Emerging Challenge for Scholarly Publishing |url=https://academic.oup.com/asj/article/36/6/739/2664479 |url-status=live |journal=Aesthetic Surgery Journal |language=en |volume=36 |issue=6 |pages=739–741 |doi=10.1093/asj/sjw026 |issn=1090-820X |pmid=26906349 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190608193750/https://academic.oup.com/asj/article/36/6/739/2664479 |archive-date=8 June 2019 |access-date=5 January 2020 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dadkhah |first1=Mehdi |last2=Maliszewski |first2=Tomasz |last3=Teixeira da Silva |first3=Jaime A. |date=24 June 2016 |title=Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics, and predatory publishing: actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics |journal=Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=353–362 |doi=10.1007/s12024-016-9785-x |issn=1547-769X |pmid=27342770 |s2cid=38963478}}</ref> The rise of such journals since 2010<ref name="Shen 2015">{{Cite journal |last1=Shen |first1=Cenyu |last2=Björk |first2=Bo-Christer |year=2015 |title='Predatory" Open Access: A Longitudinal Study of Article Volumes and Market Characteristics |journal=BMC Medicine |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=230 |doi=10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2 |pmc=4589914 |pmid=26423063 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Perlin 2018">{{Cite journal |last1=Perlin |first1=Marcelo S. |last2=Imasato |first2=Takeyoshi |last3=Borenstein |first3=Denis |year=2018 |title=Is Predatory Publishing a Real Threat? Evidence from a Large Database Study |journal=Scientometrics |volume=116 |issue=1 |pages=255–273 |doi=10.1007/s11192-018-2750-6 |hdl-access=free |hdl=10183/182710 |s2cid=4998464|url=http://americanae.aecid.es/americanae/es/registros/registro.do?tipoRegistro=MTD&idBib=2674999 }}</ref> has damaged the reputation of the OA publishing model as a whole, especially via sting operations where fake papers have been successfully published in such journals.<ref name="Bohannon 2013">{{Cite journal |last=Bohannon |first=John |year=2013 |title=Who's Afraid of Peer Review? |journal=Science |volume=342 |issue=6154 |pages=60–65 |bibcode=2013Sci...342...60B |doi=10.1126/science.342.6154.60 |pmid=24092725 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Although commonly associated with OA publishing models, subscription journals are also at risk of similar lax quality control standards and poor editorial policies.<ref name="Olivarez 2018">{{Cite journal |last1=Olivarez |first1=Joseph |last2=Bales |first2=Stephen |last3=Sare |first3=Laura |last4=Vanduinkerken |first4=Wyoma |year=2018 |title=Format Aside: Applying Beall's Criteria to Assess the Predatory Nature of Both OA and Non-OA Library and Information Science Journals |journal=College & Research Libraries |volume=79 |issue=1 |doi=10.5860/crl.79.1.52 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Shamseer 2017">{{Cite journal |last1=Shamseer |first1=Larissa |last2=Moher |first2=David |last3=Maduekwe |first3=Onyi |last4=Turner |first4=Lucy |last5=Barbour |first5=Virginia |last6=Burch |first6=Rebecca |last7=Clark |first7=Jocalyn |last8=Galipeau |first8=James |last9=Roberts |first9=Jason |last10=Shea |first10=Beverley J. |year=2017 |title=Potential Predatory and Legitimate Biomedical Journals: Can You Tell the Difference? A Cross-Sectional Comparison |journal=BMC Medicine |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=28 |doi=10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9 |pmc=5353955 |pmid=28298236 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Eisen |first=Michael |date=3 October 2013 |title=I confess, I wrote the Arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription based journals |url=http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180924121850/http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439 |archive-date=24 September 2018 |access-date=5 January 2020 |website=www.michaeleisen.org}}</ref> OA publishers therefore aim to ensure quality via auditing by registries such as [[DOAJ]], [[Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association|OASPA]] and [[SciELO]] and comply to a standardised set of conditions. A blacklist of predatory publishers is also maintained by [[Cabell's blacklist]] (a successor to [[Beall's List]]).<ref name="Silver 2017">{{Cite journal |last=Silver |first=Andrew |year=2017 |title=Pay-to-View Blacklist of Predatory Journals Set to Launch |journal=Nature |doi=10.1038/nature.2017.22090}}</ref><ref name="Strinzel 2019">{{cite journal | doi=10.1128/mBio.00411-19 | title=Blacklists and Whitelists to Tackle Predatory Publishing: A Cross-Sectional Comparison and Thematic Analysis | year=2019 | last1=Strinzel | first1=Michaela | last2=Severin | first2=Anna | last3=Milzow | first3=Katrin | last4=Egger | first4=Matthias | journal=mBio | volume=10 | issue=3 | pmid=31164459 | pmc=6550518 }}</ref> Increased transparency of the peer review and publication process has been proposed as a way to combat predatory journal practices.<ref name="TenMyths" /><ref name=":15" /><ref name="Polka 2018">{{Cite journal |last1=Polka |first1=Jessica K. |last2=Kiley |first2=Robert |last3=Konforti |first3=Boyana |last4=Stern |first4=Bodo |last5=Vale |first5=Ronald D. |year=2018 |title=Publish Peer Reviews |journal=Nature |volume=560 |issue=7720 |pages=545–547 |bibcode=2018Natur.560..545P |doi=10.1038/d41586-018-06032-w |pmid=30158621 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

=== Open irony ===

Open irony refers to the situation where a scholarly journal article advocates open access but the article itself is only accessible by paying a fee to the journal publisher to read the article.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Hull |first1=Duncan |title=The Open Access Irony Awards: Naming and shaming them |url=https://duncan.hull.name/2012/02/15/open-irony/ |website=O'Really? |date=15 February 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Duncan |first1=Green |title=Whatever happened to the Academic Spring? (Or the irony of hiding papers on transparency and accountability behind a paywall) |url=https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/whatever-happened-to-the-academic-spring-or-the-irony-of-being-prevented-from-reading-papers-on-transparency-and-accountability/ |website=From Poverty to Power |date=7 August 2013 |access-date=30 October 2020 |archive-date=20 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201020235834/https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/whatever-happened-to-the-academic-spring-or-the-irony-of-being-prevented-from-reading-papers-on-transparency-and-accountability/ |url-status=usurped }}</ref><ref name="Open Access to Publications to Expa">{{cite journal |last1=Marwick |first1=Ben |title=Open Access to Publications to Expand Participation in Archaeology |journal=Norwegian Archaeological Review |date=29 October 2020 |volume=53 |issue=2 |pages=163–169 |doi=10.1080/00293652.2020.1837233|s2cid=228961066 |url=http://osf.io/v9kfy/ }}</ref> This has been noted in many fields, with more than 20 examples appearing since around 2010, including in widely-read journals such as ''[[The Lancet]]'', ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' and ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]''. In 2012 Duncan Hull proposed the Open Access Irony award to publicly humiliate journals that publish these kinds of papers.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Schultz |first1=Teresa Auch |title=Practicing What You Preach: Evaluating Access of Open Access Research |journal=The Journal of Electronic Publishing |date=2 March 2018 |volume=21 |issue=1 |doi=10.3998/3336451.0021.103|doi-access=free |hdl=2027/spo.3336451.0021.103 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Examples of these have been shared and discussed on social media using the [[hashtag]] #openirony. Typically, these discussions are humorous exposures of articles/editorials that are pro-open access, but locked behind paywalls. The main concern that motivates these discussions is that restricted access to public scientific knowledge is slowing scientific progress.<ref name="Open Access to Publications to Expa"/> The practice has been justified as important for raising awareness of open access.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Eve |first1=Martin Paul |title=How ironic are the open access irony awards? |url=https://eve.gd/2013/10/21/how-ironic-are-the-open-access-irony-awards/ |website=Martin Paul Eve |language=en |date=21 October 2013|doi=10.59348/zg970-89g70 }}</ref>