Those ACTIVE Open Access Journals!

In brief, this post presents data illustrating that scholarly open access journals have rates of ongoing activity that compare VERY favorably with subscriptions-based journals (i.e. not being cancelled), based on data gleaned from Ulrich’s. Also worth noting is the number of journals going back some time that are now open access – 370 journals listed as open access in Ulrich’s started publishing before 1960, and of these, 98% are still active! All of the searches that I am talking about are limited to academic/scholarly, refereed journals. Ulrich’s lists 3,525 such open access journals (a far cry from DOAJ’s more than 6,300). Of the journals listed in Ulrich’s as OA, 3,458, or 98%, are listed as active. This compares VERY favorably with ALL academic/scholarly, refereed journals, a total of 32,058, of which 28,269 or 88% are active.

Could this reflect a certain reticence on the part of Ulrich’s to include open access journals until they are pretty sure that they are going to be around for a while? That would explain the discrepancy between Ulrich’s OA journal list and DOAJ’s. Let’s look at a few other figures. The chart on the left shows the percentage of active journals by publisher. On the left-hand side, we see that the publishers with the highest percentage of active journals are open access publishers Copernicus and Hindawi with 100% and 99% active titles respectively, while on the right hand side we see that two subscriptions-based publishers, Elsevier and Taylor & Francis, have a much lower percentage of active titles overall, 85%.

The chart on the right shows the percentage of active academic/scholarly, refereed journals for open access as a whole, and for a few selected publishers both open access and subscriptions based, for journals started in the last ten (10) years, from 2001 to 2010. Note that on the left side of the chart, open access publisher Copernicus has the highest percentage of active journals, 100%, followed closely by open access as a whole with 98%. On the right hand side, we see that Elsevier, with 89% of journals started in this time frame still active, has a lower percentage of active titles than at least 4 open access publishers (Copernicus, Hindawi, BioMed Central, and Public Library of Science). Still, this could reflect a hesitancy about open access on the part of Ulrich’s. I should note here that I needed to correct some of Ulrich’s figures, as a number of thriving PLoS journals were listed as cancelled, apparently because they cancelled print subscriptions (in favor of a leading-edge print-on-demand service).

If Ulrich’s is hesitating to add open access journals, perhaps this reflects a tendency to be conservative about adding new titles or publishers. This might make some sense – even DOAJ waits to be sure that a new journal actually publishes a bit before adding titles. To account for this, I looked at open access journals from a wide time range, and found that the percentage of active academic/scholarly, refereed open access journals was 93% or better for every time range I looked at, going back to before 1960! Needless to say, this compares VERY favorably with the 88% active titles for ALL academic/scholarly, refereed journals from all time ranges.

This post is part of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access series.

Those ACTIVE Open Access Journals!

In brief, this post presents data illustrating that scholarly open access journals have rates of ongoing activity that compare VERY favorably with subscriptions-based journals (i.e. not being cancelled), based on data gleaned from Ulrich’s. Also worth noting is the number of journals going back some time that are now open access – 370 journals listed as open access in Ulrich’s started publishing before 1960, and of these, 98% are still active! All of the searches that I am talking about are limited to academic/scholarly, refereed journals. Ulrich’s lists 3,525 such open access journals (a far cry from DOAJ’s more than 6,300). Of the journals listed in Ulrich’s as OA, 3,458, or 98%, are listed as active. This compares VERY favorably with ALL academic/scholarly, refereed journals, a total of 32,058, of which 28,269 or 88% are active.

Could this reflect a certain reticence on the part of Ulrich’s to include open access journals until they are pretty sure that they are going to be around for a while? That would explain the discrepancy between Ulrich’s OA journal list and DOAJ’s. Let’s look at a few other figures. The chart on the left shows the percentage of active journals by publisher. On the left-hand side, we see that the publishers with the highest percentage of active journals are open access publishers Copernicus and Hindawi with 100% and 99% active titles respectively, while on the right hand side we see that two subscriptions-based publishers, Elsevier and Taylor & Francis, have a much lower percentage of active titles overall, 85%.

The chart on the right shows the percentage of active academic/scholarly, refereed journals for open access as a whole, and for a few selected publishers both open access and subscriptions based, for journals started in the last ten (10) years, from 2001 to 2010. Note that on the left side of the chart, open access publisher Copernicus has the highest percentage of active journals, 100%, followed closely by open access as a whole with 98%. On the right hand side, we see that Elsevier, with 89% of journals started in this time frame still active, has a lower percentage of active titles than at least 4 open access publishers (Copernicus, Hindawi, BioMed Central, and Public Library of Science). Still, this could reflect a hesitancy about open access on the part of Ulrich’s. I should note here that I needed to correct some of Ulrich’s figures, as a number of thriving PLoS journals were listed as cancelled, apparently because they cancelled print subscriptions (in favor of a leading-edge print-on-demand service).

If Ulrich’s is hesitating to add open access journals, perhaps this reflects a tendency to be conservative about adding new titles or publishers. This might make some sense – even DOAJ waits to be sure that a new journal actually publishes a bit before adding titles. To account for this, I looked at open access journals from a wide time range, and found that the percentage of active academic/scholarly, refereed open access journals was 93% or better for every time range I looked at, going back to before 1960! Needless to say, this compares VERY favorably with the 88% active titles for ALL academic/scholarly, refereed journals from all time ranges.

This post is part of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access series.

Those ACTIVE Open Access Journals!

In brief, this post presents data illustrating that scholarly open access journals have rates of ongoing activity that compare VERY favorably with subscriptions-based journals (i.e. not being cancelled), based on data gleaned from Ulrich’s. Also worth noting is the number of journals going back some time that are now open access – 370 journals listed as open access in Ulrich’s started publishing before 1960, and of these, 98% are still active! All of the searches that I am talking about are limited to academic/scholarly, refereed journals. Ulrich’s lists 3,525 such open access journals (a far cry from DOAJ’s more than 6,300). Of the journals listed in Ulrich’s as OA, 3,458, or 98%, are listed as active. This compares VERY favorably with ALL academic/scholarly, refereed journals, a total of 32,058, of which 28,269 or 88% are active.

Could this reflect a certain reticence on the part of Ulrich’s to include open access journals until they are pretty sure that they are going to be around for a while? That would explain the discrepancy between Ulrich’s OA journal list and DOAJ’s. Let’s look at a few other figures. The chart on the left shows the percentage of active journals by publisher. On the left-hand side, we see that the publishers with the highest percentage of active journals are open access publishers Copernicus and Hindawi with 100% and 99% active titles respectively, while on the right hand side we see that two subscriptions-based publishers, Elsevier and Taylor & Francis, have a much lower percentage of active titles overall, 85%.

The chart on the right shows the percentage of active academic/scholarly, refereed journals for open access as a whole, and for a few selected publishers both open access and subscriptions based, for journals started in the last ten (10) years, from 2001 to 2010. Note that on the left side of the chart, open access publisher Copernicus has the highest percentage of active journals, 100%, followed closely by open access as a whole with 98%. On the right hand side, we see that Elsevier, with 89% of journals started in this time frame still active, has a lower percentage of active titles than at least 4 open access publishers (Copernicus, Hindawi, BioMed Central, and Public Library of Science). Still, this could reflect a hesitancy about open access on the part of Ulrich’s. I should note here that I needed to correct some of Ulrich’s figures, as a number of thriving PLoS journals were listed as cancelled, apparently because they cancelled print subscriptions (in favor of a leading-edge print-on-demand service).

If Ulrich’s is hesitating to add open access journals, perhaps this reflects a tendency to be conservative about adding new titles or publishers. This might make some sense – even DOAJ waits to be sure that a new journal actually publishes a bit before adding titles. To account for this, I looked at open access journals from a wide time range, and found that the percentage of active academic/scholarly, refereed open access journals was 93% or better for every time range I looked at, going back to before 1960! Needless to say, this compares VERY favorably with the 88% active titles for ALL academic/scholarly, refereed journals from all time ranges.

This post is part of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access series.

Those ACTIVE Open Access Journals!

In brief, this post presents data illustrating that scholarly open access journals have rates of ongoing activity that compare VERY favorably with subscriptions-based journals (i.e. not being cancelled), based on data gleaned from Ulrich’s. Also worth noting is the number of journals going back some time that are now open access – 370 journals listed as open access in Ulrich’s started publishing before 1960, and of these, 98% are still active! All of the searches that I am talking about are limited to academic/scholarly, refereed journals. Ulrich’s lists 3,525 such open access journals (a far cry from DOAJ’s more than 6,300). Of the journals listed in Ulrich’s as OA, 3,458, or 98%, are listed as active. This compares VERY favorably with ALL academic/scholarly, refereed journals, a total of 32,058, of which 28,269 or 88% are active.

Could this reflect a certain reticence on the part of Ulrich’s to include open access journals until they are pretty sure that they are going to be around for a while? That would explain the discrepancy between Ulrich’s OA journal list and DOAJ’s. Let’s look at a few other figures. The chart on the left shows the percentage of active journals by publisher. On the left-hand side, we see that the publishers with the highest percentage of active journals are open access publishers Copernicus and Hindawi with 100% and 99% active titles respectively, while on the right hand side we see that two subscriptions-based publishers, Elsevier and Taylor & Francis, have a much lower percentage of active titles overall, 85%.

The chart on the right shows the percentage of active academic/scholarly, refereed journals for open access as a whole, and for a few selected publishers both open access and subscriptions based, for journals started in the last ten (10) years, from 2001 to 2010. Note that on the left side of the chart, open access publisher Copernicus has the highest percentage of active journals, 100%, followed closely by open access as a whole with 98%. On the right hand side, we see that Elsevier, with 89% of journals started in this time frame still active, has a lower percentage of active titles than at least 4 open access publishers (Copernicus, Hindawi, BioMed Central, and Public Library of Science). Still, this could reflect a hesitancy about open access on the part of Ulrich’s. I should note here that I needed to correct some of Ulrich’s figures, as a number of thriving PLoS journals were listed as cancelled, apparently because they cancelled print subscriptions (in favor of a leading-edge print-on-demand service).

If Ulrich’s is hesitating to add open access journals, perhaps this reflects a tendency to be conservative about adding new titles or publishers. This might make some sense – even DOAJ waits to be sure that a new journal actually publishes a bit before adding titles. To account for this, I looked at open access journals from a wide time range, and found that the percentage of active academic/scholarly, refereed open access journals was 93% or better for every time range I looked at, going back to before 1960! Needless to say, this compares VERY favorably with the 88% active titles for ALL academic/scholarly, refereed journals from all time ranges.

This post is part of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access series.

Those ACTIVE Open Access Journals!

In brief, this post presents data illustrating that scholarly open access journals have rates of ongoing activity that compare VERY favorably with subscriptions-based journals (i.e. not being cancelled), based on data gleaned from Ulrich’s. Also worth noting is the number of journals going back some time that are now open access – 370 journals listed as open access in Ulrich’s started publishing before 1960, and of these, 98% are still active! All of the searches that I am talking about are limited to academic/scholarly, refereed journals. Ulrich’s lists 3,525 such open access journals (a far cry from DOAJ’s more than 6,300). Of the journals listed in Ulrich’s as OA, 3,458, or 98%, are listed as active. This compares VERY favorably with ALL academic/scholarly, refereed journals, a total of 32,058, of which 28,269 or 88% are active.

Could this reflect a certain reticence on the part of Ulrich’s to include open access journals until they are pretty sure that they are going to be around for a while? That would explain the discrepancy between Ulrich’s OA journal list and DOAJ’s. Let’s look at a few other figures. The chart on the left shows the percentage of active journals by publisher. On the left-hand side, we see that the publishers with the highest percentage of active journals are open access publishers Copernicus and Hindawi with 100% and 99% active titles respectively, while on the right hand side we see that two subscriptions-based publishers, Elsevier and Taylor & Francis, have a much lower percentage of active titles overall, 85%.

The chart on the right shows the percentage of active academic/scholarly, refereed journals for open access as a whole, and for a few selected publishers both open access and subscriptions based, for journals started in the last ten (10) years, from 2001 to 2010. Note that on the left side of the chart, open access publisher Copernicus has the highest percentage of active journals, 100%, followed closely by open access as a whole with 98%. On the right hand side, we see that Elsevier, with 89% of journals started in this time frame still active, has a lower percentage of active titles than at least 4 open access publishers (Copernicus, Hindawi, BioMed Central, and Public Library of Science). Still, this could reflect a hesitancy about open access on the part of Ulrich’s. I should note here that I needed to correct some of Ulrich’s figures, as a number of thriving PLoS journals were listed as cancelled, apparently because they cancelled print subscriptions (in favor of a leading-edge print-on-demand service).

If Ulrich’s is hesitating to add open access journals, perhaps this reflects a tendency to be conservative about adding new titles or publishers. This might make some sense – even DOAJ waits to be sure that a new journal actually publishes a bit before adding titles. To account for this, I looked at open access journals from a wide time range, and found that the percentage of active academic/scholarly, refereed open access journals was 93% or better for every time range I looked at, going back to before 1960! Needless to say, this compares VERY favorably with the 88% active titles for ALL academic/scholarly, refereed journals from all time ranges.

This post is part of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access series.

Those ACTIVE Open Access Journals!

In brief, this post presents data illustrating that scholarly open access journals have rates of ongoing activity that compare VERY favorably with subscriptions-based journals (i.e. not being cancelled), based on data gleaned from Ulrich’s. Also worth noting is the number of journals going back some time that are now open access – 370 journals listed as open access in Ulrich’s started publishing before 1960, and of these, 98% are still active! All of the searches that I am talking about are limited to academic/scholarly, refereed journals. Ulrich’s lists 3,525 such open access journals (a far cry from DOAJ’s more than 6,300). Of the journals listed in Ulrich’s as OA, 3,458, or 98%, are listed as active. This compares VERY favorably with ALL academic/scholarly, refereed journals, a total of 32,058, of which 28,269 or 88% are active.

Could this reflect a certain reticence on the part of Ulrich’s to include open access journals until they are pretty sure that they are going to be around for a while? That would explain the discrepancy between Ulrich’s OA journal list and DOAJ’s. Let’s look at a few other figures. The chart on the left shows the percentage of active journals by publisher. On the left-hand side, we see that the publishers with the highest percentage of active journals are open access publishers Copernicus and Hindawi with 100% and 99% active titles respectively, while on the right hand side we see that two subscriptions-based publishers, Elsevier and Taylor & Francis, have a much lower percentage of active titles overall, 85%.

The chart on the right shows the percentage of active academic/scholarly, refereed journals for open access as a whole, and for a few selected publishers both open access and subscriptions based, for journals started in the last ten (10) years, from 2001 to 2010. Note that on the left side of the chart, open access publisher Copernicus has the highest percentage of active journals, 100%, followed closely by open access as a whole with 98%. On the right hand side, we see that Elsevier, with 89% of journals started in this time frame still active, has a lower percentage of active titles than at least 4 open access publishers (Copernicus, Hindawi, BioMed Central, and Public Library of Science). Still, this could reflect a hesitancy about open access on the part of Ulrich’s. I should note here that I needed to correct some of Ulrich’s figures, as a number of thriving PLoS journals were listed as cancelled, apparently because they cancelled print subscriptions (in favor of a leading-edge print-on-demand service).

If Ulrich’s is hesitating to add open access journals, perhaps this reflects a tendency to be conservative about adding new titles or publishers. This might make some sense – even DOAJ waits to be sure that a new journal actually publishes a bit before adding titles. To account for this, I looked at open access journals from a wide time range, and found that the percentage of active academic/scholarly, refereed open access journals was 93% or better for every time range I looked at, going back to before 1960! Needless to say, this compares VERY favorably with the 88% active titles for ALL academic/scholarly, refereed journals from all time ranges.

This post is part of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access series.

Those ACTIVE Open Access Journals!

In brief, this post presents data illustrating that scholarly open access journals have rates of ongoing activity that compare VERY favorably with subscriptions-based journals (i.e. not being cancelled), based on data gleaned from Ulrich’s. Also worth noting is the number of journals going back some time that are now open access – 370 journals listed as open access in Ulrich’s started publishing before 1960, and of these, 98% are still active! All of the searches that I am talking about are limited to academic/scholarly, refereed journals. Ulrich’s lists 3,525 such open access journals (a far cry from DOAJ’s more than 6,300). Of the journals listed in Ulrich’s as OA, 3,458, or 98%, are listed as active. This compares VERY favorably with ALL academic/scholarly, refereed journals, a total of 32,058, of which 28,269 or 88% are active.

Could this reflect a certain reticence on the part of Ulrich’s to include open access journals until they are pretty sure that they are going to be around for a while? That would explain the discrepancy between Ulrich’s OA journal list and DOAJ’s. Let’s look at a few other figures. The chart on the left shows the percentage of active journals by publisher. On the left-hand side, we see that the publishers with the highest percentage of active journals are open access publishers Copernicus and Hindawi with 100% and 99% active titles respectively, while on the right hand side we see that two subscriptions-based publishers, Elsevier and Taylor & Francis, have a much lower percentage of active titles overall, 85%.

The chart on the right shows the percentage of active academic/scholarly, refereed journals for open access as a whole, and for a few selected publishers both open access and subscriptions based, for journals started in the last ten (10) years, from 2001 to 2010. Note that on the left side of the chart, open access publisher Copernicus has the highest percentage of active journals, 100%, followed closely by open access as a whole with 98%. On the right hand side, we see that Elsevier, with 89% of journals started in this time frame still active, has a lower percentage of active titles than at least 4 open access publishers (Copernicus, Hindawi, BioMed Central, and Public Library of Science). Still, this could reflect a hesitancy about open access on the part of Ulrich’s. I should note here that I needed to correct some of Ulrich’s figures, as a number of thriving PLoS journals were listed as cancelled, apparently because they cancelled print subscriptions (in favor of a leading-edge print-on-demand service).

If Ulrich’s is hesitating to add open access journals, perhaps this reflects a tendency to be conservative about adding new titles or publishers. This might make some sense – even DOAJ waits to be sure that a new journal actually publishes a bit before adding titles. To account for this, I looked at open access journals from a wide time range, and found that the percentage of active academic/scholarly, refereed open access journals was 93% or better for every time range I looked at, going back to before 1960! Needless to say, this compares VERY favorably with the 88% active titles for ALL academic/scholarly, refereed journals from all time ranges.

This post is part of the Dramatic Growth of Open Access series.

CALL TO ACTION: Expand the NIH policy on its 3rd anniversary – Act by April 14

April 7, 2011 will mark the third anniversary of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy, the first such policy enacted by the US Federal Government, which has delivered free and open access to over 2 million full-text articles in just three years.  As a result, PubMed Central sees nearly 500,000 unique users every day and has served as an invaluable resource for students in biomedical-related fields.

This milestone is a critical opportunity for students to join other public access advocates in pressing for the expansion of the successful NIH policy to other federal agencies.  Please join us in calling on key policy makers to take advantage of this occasion by sending letters to HHS, OSTP, and the NIH (as an individual and/or on behalf of your organization) NO LATER THAN April 14, 2011.

As always, suggested talking points and contact information can be found in our Right to Research Coalition Action Center, and are linked below for your convenience.  We’re encouraging advocates to FAX and EMAIL letters to three different offices:

In addition, please send a copy of your letters to nick [at] arl [dot] org, so we can track responses and highlight your letters in our work with these offices.

Finally, please help us spread the word about this call to action to the rest of the student community by telling your friends and members of your organization, posting on Facebook and Twitter, and forwarding the call to any appropriate email lists.

Thank you, and from all the positive responses we’ve gotten from past student letters in support of public access, I can assure you that your voice will have an impact disproportionate to the short time it will take you to send the letters.  

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at nick [at] arl [dot] org.

Student talking points and contact information for letters to NIH Director Collins

The following talking points are for use in conjunction with the call to action issued March 30, 2011. As always, please adapt and expand as needed to suit your unique voice.

  • [Describe your organization]

  • Offer congratulations as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) marks the third anniversary of its highly successful Public Access Policy. 

  • Note that the NIH and Director Collins have shown tremendous leadership in implementing the first U.S. policy to ensure that all students and other members of the public – including patients and their families, health care professionals, researchers, entrepreneurs and business owners – are guaranteed free online access to articles reporting on the results of research that their tax dollars support.

  • As result of the NIH’s commitment to public access, every student can now take advantage of an invaluable new resource in the more than two million full-text articles in PubMed Central (PMC).  

  • [Describe you and/or your organization’s interests and use of PMC and why this is important for you]

  • Due to the high and increasing cost of many journals, students are often forced to make do with the fraction of journals their institution can afford rather than what they need. Furthermore, educators cannot teach what they cannot read, meaning inaccessible articles don’t find their way into the classes in which they should be taught.

  • The NIH public access policy allows all students and educators access to the results of NIH-funded research that are crucial for a complete, up-to-date education in biomedical fields, regardless of their institution’s ability to pay for journal subscriptions.

  • We ask that you consider shortening the embargo period for accessing articles reporting on NIH-funded research to six months or less.  

  • A six-month embargo will significantly enhance students’ ability to get the most up-to-date education.  With the fast pace of biomedical research, a shorter embargo period means students can hit the ground running after graduation rather than relying on potentially outdated information.

  • [Add your own conclusion]

  • [Thanks and offer of follow up]   

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Dr. Francis Collins
Director, National Institutes of Health

1 Center Drive, MSC 0148 (Room 126)
Bethesda, MD 20892-0148 
Fax: 301-402-2700
Email: francis.collins@nih.gov

Student talking points and contact information for letters to OSTP Director Holdren

The following talking points are for use in conjunction with the call to action issued March 30, 2011. As always, please adapt and expand as needed to suit your unique voice.

  • April 7th, 2011 will mark the third anniversary of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) highly successful Public Access Policy. 

  • It’s the first U.S. policy to ensure that members of the public – including students [and other groups you believe benefit from access] – have guaranteed, free, online access to articles reporting on the results of research that their tax dollars support.

  • PMC has made available more than two million full-text articles, which are accessed by nearly half a million users every day from all sectors of the public.

  • On behalf of [describe your organization], we ask that you consider immediately expanding the NIH Public Access Policy to all other departments and agencies with extramural research budgets of $100 million or more.

  • Doing so will greatly benefit American students of all disciplines who rely on access to government-funded research for a complete and up-to-date education.

  • [Explain why public access is important to your organization and how you have benefited from the success of the NIH policy]

  • Because of the high price of many subscriptions, students are often forced to make do with only the journals their institution can afford rather than what they need.  Furthermore, educators cannot teach what they cannot read, meaning inaccessible articles don’t find their way into the classes in which they should be taught.

  • In this time of across the board belt-tightening, we’re asking our educational institutions to do more with less, and expanding the NIH policy to other federal science agencies is crucial to ensure the results of research are available to benefit all students, not just those at the wealthiest institutions.

  • As the United States continues its shift toward a knowledge-based economy, making publicly funded research available to all students is a direct investment in America’s future.  Expanding students’ access to cutting-edge research will help them to enter the workforce running, rather than having to play catch-up in learning the current state of their field.

  • [Thanks and invitation to discuss further]

CONTACT INFORMATION:

John Holdren
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President

New Executive Office Building
725 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20502
Fax: (202) 456-6021
Email: jholdren@ostp.eop.gov

cc:  
Tom Kalil
Deputy Director for Policy, Office of the Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President
Fax: (202) 456-6021
Email: tkalil@ostp.eop.gov

Carl Wieman
Associate Director of Science, Science Division, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President
Fax: (202) 456-6027
Email: cwieman@ostp.eop.gov

Aneesh Chopra
Associate Director and Chief Technology Officer, Technology Division, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President
Fax: (202) 456-6021
Email: achopra@ostp.eop.gov

Open Access Week 2011 is closer than you think!

This year’s Open Access Week (October 24-30, 2011) is still 7 months away, but that’s sooner than you might think if you take three months of summer into consideration!  Now is the time to start planning your event and to get in touch with your library for support.  Students have a critical stake in the scholarly publishing system and its future – we have an important role to play in deciding whether its content will be open to all or available only to those who can afford the high cost of many journals.  Open Access Week is a great opportunity to demonstrate the growing student momentum for Open Access by holding an event, and every campus counts!

Last year, student governments, student organizations, and individual students hosted Open Access Week events across Canada, the United States, Malta, South Africa, and beyond.  Some held panels discussing their experience advocating for a campus openaccess policy, others promoted their institutional repository to students and faculty, and many held discussions around authors’ rights and the importance of retaining the legal ability to host your article on your own website or in an open repository.  There are a wealth of options to mark Open Access Week; what type of event you hold depends on your campus.  The most important thing is just to start the conversation by hosting some kind of event.

Simply promoting awareness on campus will do a ton to carry Open Access forward.  Students and faculty are often unaware of the high cost of journals and the opportunities that Open Access presents, because libraries purchase journal subscriptions on their behalf.  Hosting an event during Open Access Week is a great way to close this gap and raise the profile of the issue on your campus.

Want a low-overhead event? One easy way to participate in Open Access Week is to host a viewing of our coalition’s official student Open Access Week event, which we will webcast live and archive for those who can’t join the live event.  We’ll be announcing more details in the coming month here on our blog, but you can plan to let us provide the content and simply host a local discussion afterward.  And if you have any thoughts on what you would like to see discussed at our event, ideas for speakers, or suggestions for anything else, leave them in the comment section below!

As you’re thinking about organizing an event, don’t forget to reach out to your campus library.  They can be a great resource and will likely have experience with Open Access Week. 

So set a date, start thinking about speakers, and take a look at SPARC’s official Open Access Week kick-off planning video.  We’re excited to see what kind of events students will organize and look forward to what we hope will be an even bigger, more successful Open Access Week this year.