Talk:Open access

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Open access article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Science Policy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with Open access journal on 20 May 2009. The result of the discussion was to not merge.

Open Library of Humanities

I came across this opinion piece today & then went to www.openlibhums.org. I am not sure where to put this, but I thought of this talk page as a starting point. Perhaps someone can point me to a better place to post this.

Abizadeh, Arash (2024-07-16). "Opinion: Academic journals are a lucrative scam – and we're determined to change that". the Guardian. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
"OLH journals". Open Library of Humanities. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
"Who we are". Open Library of Humanities. Retrieved 2024-07-19.

Peaceray (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China page

There appears to be an absence of a redirect pertaining to China. Should there be any reason why - government-enforced censorship, for instance, if not published in another language - such as Open Access being limited to certain institutions within China, or has the page simply not been established yet?

Sincerely,

TheRevisionary (talk) 17:11, 31 Decenber 2024 (UTC)

Suggested minor clarification

Hi, I’m a new editor and wanted to suggest a small clarification for consideration.

In the history section, the article discusses the development of open access publishing but the early timeline could be made slightly more explicit.

Proposed wording:

“The modern open access movement gained momentum in the early 2000s, following the development of online academic repositories and formal statements such as the Budapest Open Access Initiative.”

Source: Budapest Open Access Initiative; secondary academic reviews.

Happy to defer to editor judgement on whether this is appropriate. LaurenCanavan-Wiki (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Undermining Open Access by paywalling search and metadata

The Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library (ACM DL) has devised a way to subvert the spirit of Open Access by installing a new paywall on previously free/open facilities that are necessary for finding publications and for navigating the computing literature.

Essentially, the situation is this: Imagine an old-fashioned library where books are freely available but the card catalog is closed to the public. That's the ACM Digital Library after the new paywall was installed in late December 2025. Advanced Search facilities are the modern version of the old card catalog. Advanced Search isn't the only feature that has been paywalled; many others have, too, including "Cited-By" tracing, Author Profile pages (bibliographies for individual authors) and bibliometrics. For practical purposes, the ACM DL is far less useful to users today (23 Jan 2026) than it was in early December 2025. It has become far more closed while claiming to have become open.

As of 23 January 2026, five Turing Award winners, over fifty ACM Fellows, and hundreds of ACM authors and other volunteers have called for the removal of the new paywall and the restoration of fully free/open access to all previously free/open facilities of the ACM DL. A detailed description of the new ACM DL paywall and a link to the petition signed by over 1,600 concerned citizens is here:

[1]

The Wikipedia page for "Open Access" should discuss loopholes whereby publishers may claim to implement the letter of "Open Access" mandates but subvert the spirit of OA by paywalling facilities that complement raw articles. Left shoes and right shoes complement one another. Giving away one for free while charging for the other is not "Open Access." The Wikipedia page should also cover the ongoing controversy surrounding the new ACM DL paywall. ~2026-49914-6 (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]