Unbundling Open Access dimensions: a conceptual discussion to reduce terminology inconsistencies

TL;DR

This paper proposes a six-dimensional conceptual model of Open Access to clarify terminology and improve communication by systematically categorizing OA variants based on prestige, user rights, stability, immediacy, peer-review, and cost.

Contribution

It introduces a novel six-dimensional framework for unbundling OA, helping to standardize terminology and assist policy makers in decision-making.

Findings

The model captures all current OA variants.

It reduces ambiguity in OA terminology.

Provides a tool for policy and funding decisions.

Abstract

The current ways in which documents are made freely accessible in the Web no longer adhere to the models established Budapest/Bethesda/Berlin (BBB) definitions of Open Access (OA). Since those definitions were established, OA-related terminology has expanded, trying to keep up with all the variants of OA publishing that are out there. However, the inconsistent and arbitrary terminology that is being used to refer to these variants are complicating communication about OA-related issues. This study intends to initiate a discussion on this issue, by proposing a conceptual model of OA. Our model features six different dimensions (prestige, user rights, stability, immediacy, peer-review, and cost). Each dimension allows for a range of different options. We believe that by combining the options in these six dimensions, we can arrive at all the current variants of OA, while avoiding ambiguous and/or arbitrary terminology. This model can be an useful tool for funders and policy makers who need to decide exactly which aspects of OA are necessary for each specific scenario.