At Manor Farm it was a case of: “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” (Orwell, 1945, p.118). The World Wide Web has enabled the proliferation of open access (OA) publishing and there are now more than 10,000 OA academic journals (DOAJ, 2013). They are not, however, equally open, and indeed some OA journals are ‘more open than others’. Four indices of openness have been proposed as a basis for rating OA journals for openness, viz.: “there is no barrier to access for the reader”; “it is free to the author/s”; “copyright is retained by the author/s”; and, “the paper can be freely distributed under licence” (Paull, 2013, p.3). In this paper a stratified random sample of OA journals (n=200) is evaluated. For each journal, each index was rated as meeting (i=1 ) or not meeting (i=0) each index criterion. This rating system generates an n-tuple for each OA journal (J1-200(i1, i2, i3, i4) where each index, (i1, i2, i3, i4), takes the value ‘1’ or ‘0’. Adding the index values, (i1 + i2 + i3 + i4 ), for each journal generates, for each journal, an openness rating (OR) of from 0 to 4 (according to how many indices were scored in the affirmative) and thus five potential shades of openness, which are here characterized as ‘star ratings’. As with other star-rating systems (e.g. hotel accommodation) aggregating index scores is a lossy system and generates a taxonomic classification system with a claim of comparability (rather than equality) within each classification band. The results were that 97.5% of OA journals placed no impediment in the way of access for readers (including no requirement to register-to-read nor to accept cookies); 62.5% charged no fee to the author/s (fees ranged from £24 to US$2135); 55.5% of OA journals left the copyright with the author/s; and 67.5% declared a free-to-distribute licence (most usually CC-BY and its variations). Of the sample, no OA journal scored just zero for its openness rating, 6% of OA journals rated a single star, 28% rated as 2 stars, 43% rated 3-stars, and 23% of OA journals rated as 4-stars for openness. If it is accepted that meeting the four criteria is desirable and/or best practice then the results reveal plenty of room for improvement in the practice of OA journal publishing.

1. Four or Five Shades of Openness:
A Taxonomy of Open Access
★ ★ ★ ★
Dr John Paull
School of Geography & Environmental Studies
University of Tasmania
j.paull@utas.edu.au
Teaching Matters 2013
28-29 November
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
Open UTAS to the
World

2. Equality
“All animals are equal
but some animals are
more equal than others”
(George Orwell, 1945, p.118).
image: www.adamdcosta.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/animal-farm.html

3. Openness
“Of all the journals that are open,
some journals are more open than
others” (after Orwell).
image: J Paull

4. • free
• open
• non proprietary
image: www.w3.org

5. Ptolemy
Ptolemy
•
•
•
c.200 BC
Library of Alexandria
all the knowledge of
the world
image: O von Corven, Wikimedia Commons

6. Closedness
•
•
•
•
image: J Paull
$ to read or subscribe
$0 to author
© forfeited
? permission to distribute

7. 4 indices* of Openness
1.
2.
3.
4.
Paull, 2013
“there is no barrier to access for the reader”?
“it is free to the author/s”?
“copyright is retained by the author/s”?
“the paper can be freely distributed under licence”?
*from editor queries & journal FAQs

8. Sample of 200
www.doaj.org

9. Methodology
•
•
•
•
•
Population, N≈10,000 (www.doaj.org)
Sample, n=200
Sample, stratified random sample (www.random.org)
English language journals
Each journal rated, (Ji1, Ji2, Ji3, Ji4) where i=1-200 and Jij = 0 or 1

10. ★
Index
1
“there is no barrier to access for the reader”
“there is no barrier to access for the reader”
“there is no barrier to access for the reader”
“there is no barrier to access for the reader”
★

11. ★
Index 2
“it is free to the author/s”
★

12. ★
Index 3
“copyright is retained by the author/s”
★

13. ★
Index 4
“the paper can be freely distributed under licence”
★
image: creativecommons.org/licenses

14. Four or five shades of Openness
Star ratings
(n=200 DOAJ journals)

15. Pyramid of Openness
23%★★★★
66% ★★★+
96% ★★+
100% ★+
100% Open

16. Room for improvement
23%★★★★
66% ★★★+
96% ★★+
100% ★+
100% Open

17. Verdict
This rating system is workable
This rating system readily generates a rating
of Openness for any journal
100% of DOAJ journals are open access
For each of the 4 tests, a majority of OA
journals pass
Room for improvement for OA journals
77% of OA journals can do better
23% of OA journals rate ★★★★
Open UTAS to the World

18. Thank you
Open UTAS to the World

19. Four or Five Shades of Openness: A Taxonomy of Open Access
Dr John Paull
School of Geography & Environmental Studies
University of Tasmania
j.paull@utas.edu.au
Abstract
At Manor Farm it was a case of: “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” (Orwell, 1945,
p.118). The World Wide Web has enabled the proliferation of open access (OA) publishing and there are now more than
10,000 OA academic journals (DOAJ, 2013). They are not, however, equally open, and indeed some OA journals are
‘more open than others’. Four indices of openness have been proposed as a basis for rating OA journals for openness,
viz.: “there is no barrier to access for the reader”; “it is free to the author/s”; “copyright is retained by the author/s”; and,
“the paper can be freely distributed under licence” (Paull, 2013, p.3). In this paper a stratified random sample of OA
journals (n=200) is evaluated. For each journal, each index was rated as meeting (i=1 ) or not meeting (i=0) each index
criterion. This rating system generates an n-tuple for each OA journal (J 1-200(i1, i2, i3, i4) where each index, (i1, i2, i3, i4), takes
the value ‘1’ or ‘0’. Adding the index values, (i 1 + i2 + i3 + i4 ), for each journal generates, for each journal, an openness rating
(OR) of from 0 to 4 (according to how many indices were scored in the affirmative) and thus five potential shades of
openness, which are here characterized as ‘star ratings’. As with other star-rating systems (e.g. hotel accommodation)
aggregating index scores is a lossy system and generates a taxonomic classification system with a claim of comparability
(rather than equality) within each classification band. The results were that 97.5% of OA journals placed no impediment in
the way of access for readers (including no requirement to register-to-read nor to accept cookies); 62.5% charged no fee
to the author/s (fees ranged from £24 to US$2135); 55.5% of OA journals left the copyright with the author/s; and 67.5%
declared a free-to-distribute licence (most usually CC-BY and its variations). Of the sample, no OA journal scored just zero
for its openness rating, 6% of OA journals rated a single star, 28% rated as 2 stars, 43% rated 3-stars, and 23% of OA
journals rated as 4-stars for openness. If it is accepted that meeting the four criteria is desirable and/or best practice then
the results reveal plenty of room for improvement in the practice of OA journal publishing.
References
DOAJ. (2013). Directory of Open Access Journals: http://www.doaj.org/ Orwell, G. (1945). Animal Farm (1990 edition).
London: Harcourt Brace & Company.Paull, J. (2013). Open Access Publishing: What is world’s best practice? Journal of
Organic Systems, 8(1), 2-4.
http://philpapers.org/archive/PAUOAP
8(1), 2-4.
http://philpapers.org/archive/PAUOAP