butterfly/kb
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Scrape wikipedia-science: 7022 new, 3333 updated, 10667 total (kb-cron)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
turtle89431 2026-05-05 03:17:00 -07:00
parent da78b778a5
commit d977263a6a
196 changed files with 4849 additions and 73 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

BIN
_index.db
View File

Binary file not shown.

32
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_government_online_resource_removals-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
---
title: "2025 United States government online resource removals"
chunk: 1/4
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_government_online_resource_removals"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:22.498115+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The 2025 United States government online resource removals are a series of web page and dataset deletions and modifications across multiple United States federal agencies beginning in January 2025. Following executive orders from President Donald Trump's administration, government organizations removed or modified over 8,000 web pages and approximately 3,000 datasets. The changes primarily affected content related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, gender identity, public health research, environmental policy, and various social programs, and other topics Trump and the Republican Party has expressed opposition to. Major affected agencies included the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which saw over 3,000 pages altered or removed, and the Census Bureau, which removed about 3,000 pages of research materials. While some content was later restored, the modifications represented significant changes to federal government data accessibility and sparked legal challenges from healthcare advocacy groups.
== Background ==
Agencies of the United States government share open data for many uses. There are many civic technology, research, and business applications which rely on access to government data. Dataset deletion can be useful maintenance or the result of poor archiving practice. There is little government regulation on dataset management, so it can be challenging to determine when content deletions occur. Determining the reasons for removals and their significance is also difficult. All administrations make modifications to public websites, but there is little research on how much change is typical. There has been past speculation that previous government changes would result in removed access to data, but those removals did not happen.
In 2009, Data.gov was established to improve public access to high value, machine-readable datasets generated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. In 2019, the OPEN Government Data Act ordered agencies to share data that could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs and to guide policymaking. Various federal agencies release data on their own websites.
In 2019, Trump signed into law the Foundation for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, which established a system for utilizing data to construct evidence-based policy. Trump's second administration showed a dramatic pivot from this law passed during his first administration.
In late January 2025, organizations under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) paused their external communication during a review.
== Removed and modified content ==
On January 29, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) ordered agencies to comply with President Trump's executive order, "Defending Women," which requires federal agencies to "recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male". The organizations were told to terminate any programs and remove any outward facing media, documents, materials, communications, and statements that promote "gender ideology" by January 31.
Agencies also moved quickly to comply with the executive order "Ending Radical Government DEI Programs" by removing forbidden terms from their websites. Census.gov went offline as it attempted to comply with the executive orders "Reevaluating Foreign Aid" and "Defending Women". The information removals and modifications reflected policy changes championed by the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign.
Data removal included topics related to DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), long COVID, HIV/AIDS, vaccines, transgender and gender identity-related topics, foreign aid, environmental justice, emergency management, employment, and the January 6 United States Capitol attack. By February 2, 2025, the content removal included more than 8,000 web pages across more than a dozen government websites. According to The New York Times, the removed pages made up approximately 0.1% of all U.S. government web pages.
Some web pages and documents remain accessible, but were stripped of terminology relating to the prohibited topics. Terms have been replaced across many government web pages; "climate change" was often replaced by "climate resilience", "LGBTQ" replaced by "LGB", and "pregnant people" replaced by "pregnant women". According to The Washington Post, the most common change to web pages was removing DEI-related terms.
The website modifications also affected older web pages, such as the description of a 2021 conference and a 2022 letter from cabinet secretaries. The Washington Post reported that some pages seemed to be mistakenly modified; the word "diverse" was removed from a page describing the extent of the Department of the Interior's museum collection.
=== CDC website ===
As of February 2, more than 3,000 pages from the website for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been altered or removed. This included thousands of research papers relating to chronic medical conditions, sexually transmitted infections, Alzheimer's disease, drug overdose prevention, adolescent health, and reproductive care.
Vaccine guidelines for pregnant people were also removed from the CDC website, which The New York Times noted may have been due to use of the gender-neutral term "pregnant people". One employee said that since HIV-related webpages commonly referenced gender, they had to "take everything down in order to meet the deadline."
Some data was restored later, such as the Atlas Tool for tracking infectious diseases such as HIV and STIs and information on the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. As of February 6, the CDC website had the notice, "CDC's website is being modified to comply with President Trump's Executive Orders."
=== Science and research websites ===

39
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_government_online_resource_removals-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
---
title: "2025 United States government online resource removals"
chunk: 2/4
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_government_online_resource_removals"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:22.498115+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
In January, NASA undertook a comprehensive removal of DEI-related content from its public-facing websites. An internal directive instructed employees to "drop everything" and immediately eliminate references to terms such as "DEIA", "indigenous people", "environmental justice", "underrepresented groups/people", and content specifically targeting women, including content about "women in leadership". This purge resulted in the deletion of various materials, including interviews with Black and female NASA employees, LGBTQ-related content, and two NASA-created comic books about women astronauts.
More than 3,000 pages from the Census Bureau website were removed as of February 2, primarily including articles filed under research and methodology. Pages relating to data stewardship as well as survey and data set documentation were also removed.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed more than 100 pages as of February 2, including dozens of regulatory guidelines on topics such as increasing diversity in clinical trials and the potential for addiction and abuse in drug studies.
Close to 50 research papers from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information – part of the Department of Energy – were removed as of February 2. The removed papers covered a range of subjects, such as chemistry, optics, and experimental medicine.
Twenty pages from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) website were removed as of February 2, including a page documenting the organization's zero-tolerance harassment policy.
The environmental justice mapping and screening tool, EJScreen, was removed from the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) on February 5, along several related pages. Public Environmental Data Project (PEDP) published a reconstruction of one of its earlier versions.
In March 2025, an unknown executive order signed by President Donald Trump resulted in the NOAA Radar Next Program Overview document being removed from NOAA servers.
The NOAA maintains a list of resources and products it retires. On May 31, the entire climate.gov team was fired, likely shutting down the site. The National Climate Assessment reports, congressionally mandated under the Global Change Research Act of 1990, were taken offline, and the 400 scientists working on the 2027 assessment were fired.
=== Justice and crime websites ===
At least 1,000 pages from the Office of Justice Programs, a crime prevention research organization, were removed as of February 2. This included information on violence in teenage dating, and a blog post regarding grants that went toward combating hate crimes.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) removed over 180 pages as of February 2, including all state-level crime data and seven pages with information on anti-LGBTQ hate crimes.
The Marshals Service saw two pages removed, relating to correctional facility standards and fitness readiness requirements.
The National Law Enforcement Accountability Database, which tracked federal police officer misconduct, was removed as of February 20.
In March, the Department of Justice deleted the page about a study showing that undocumented immigrants commit less crime than citizens.
In September 2025, a study conducted by the National Institute of Justice showing that white supremacist and far-right violence were the most common forms of terrorism and domestic violent extremism in the United States was deleted.
The Not One More Report, on missing and murdered Native Americans, disappeared from the Department of Justice's website in February 2025; the administration said that the report, mandated by Congress by the Not Invisible Act, was removed to ensure compliance with one of Trump's executive orders.
=== Healthcare and social services websites ===
Head Start, a U.S. federal aid program for low-income childcare, had over 200 pages removed as of February 2, including advice on establishing familial routines and guidance to help prevent postpartum depression. The removals followed a freeze of federal funds to the program days earlier.
As of February 2, nearly 150 pages had been removed from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website. This included more than 50 press releases about using a helpline following shootings or natural disasters.
The Health Resources and Services Administration deleted 18 pages from their website as of February 2, including information on the Mpox vaccine and opioid addiction among women.
Three pages from the Department of Veterans Affairs were removed as of February 2, including information on healthcare for minority and LGBTQ veterans, as well as the equity of the Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System.
ReproductiveRights.gov, an HHS website providing information on reproductive care, was taken offline. The website was launched by the Biden administration following the overruling of Roe v. Wade.
On February 13, Garey Rice, the principal deputy assistant secretary for operations at HHS, declared that DOGE employees grafted to the agency have "full access to all
unclassified agency records and software and IT systems" and are tasked, among other things, with the obligation to "destroy or erase copied HHS data or information when no longer needed for official purposes."
As of April 4, 2025, over 20 National Institutes of Health (NIH) data repositories displayed headers stating "This repository is under review for potential modification in compliance with Administration directives." These repositories contain petabytes of data that are used for public health research in diverse areas, including cancer, brain imaging, sleep studies, Alzheimer's, aging, COVID-19, and HIV. Many of the datasets cannot be archived by outside researchers because they are regulated by Data Use Agreements that must be consistent with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). In April 2025, the Trump administration removed the online hub for federal COVID-19 resources, including COVID.gov and COVIDtests.gov, replacing it with a landing page promoting the COVID-19 lab leak theory.
=== Other websites ===

31
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_government_online_resource_removals-2.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
---
title: "2025 United States government online resource removals"
chunk: 3/4
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_government_online_resource_removals"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:22.498115+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Internal Revenue Service removed more than 25 pages as of February 2, including a form that private schools are required to submit annually to certify that they had not engaged in racial discrimination.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) removed 386 videos from its official YouTube channel.
As of February 2, there were 18 pages removed from the United States Patent and Trademark Office website, including information about veteran inventors and entrepreneurs, and a high school program teaching about intellectual property.
The Department of the Interior removed eight pages from their website as of February 2, including several with information on environmental policy initiatives. The New York Times speculated that some of the pages may have been removed due to the use of the phrase "environmental justice". The National Park Service removed all references to the existence of transgender people from its webpages covering the Stonewall National Monument, the Stonewall riots, and LGBTQ+ history, changing the acronym from "LGBTQ+" to "LGB".
As of February 3, four pages from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have been deleted, including an overview of the commission's equal employment opportunity and diversity initiatives.
The FDA's Office of Minority Health and Health Equity website was removed, and the NIH's Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion website now redirects to an equal employment opportunity web page.
All Spanish-language content on whitehouse.gov was removed, as it was following President Trump's first inauguration. The Association of Academies of the Spanish Language issued a joint statement criticizing the removal, noting the importance of Spanish as the second most spoken language in the United States, especially in Puerto Rico. Signatories included the North American and Puerto Rican Academies of the Spanish Language.
International travel advisories on the Department of State website replaced their language on "LGBTQ+ Travelers" with language around "LGB Travelers" and removed reference to safety and other issues faced by transgender Americans in other countries.
Thousand of images were reported flagged for removal by the Defense Department.
Arlington National Cemetery removed dozens of pages from its website. Some identified gravesites of notable Black, Hispanic and female service members, and others included educational material.
On March 18, more than 300 posts were removed from the FTC business guidance blogs, including those reporting on lawsuits by Lina Khan against the tech giants.
On April 6, 2025, The Washington Post reported that the National Park Service had revised a web page about the Underground Railroad to remove a quote and image of Harriet Tubman, and to remove the word "slavery" from the opening paragraph. Following an outcry after widespread reporting of the revisions, the changes were reverted the following day. A spokesperson for the National Park Service stated that "Changes to the Underground Railroad page on the National Park Service's website were made without approval from NPS leadership nor Department leadership".
In August 2025, the government website for the Constitution of the United States was modified, removing large parts of Section 8 and entirely deleting Sections 9 and 10 from Article 1 of the document. On August 6, the Library of Congress said the deletion of text was "due to a coding error", and was working to correct the issue.
As of November 2025, the USDA has deleted its contingency plan to fund SNAP.
=== Datasets ===
In January 2025, the government removed about 3,000 datasets from various platforms. Many deleted datasets came from the Department of Energy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
== Legal responses ==
Doctors for America sued the U.S. government to restore health information, arguing "The removal of this information deprives researchers of access to information that is necessary for treating patients ... and for developing practices and policies that protect the health of vulnerable populations and the country as a whole." In response, a federal judge issued a restraining order on February 11, 2025, requiring certain websites from the Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC, and the FDA to be restored.
American Federation of Teachers and Minority Veterans of America and Public Citizen Litigation Group also filed lawsuits.

30
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_government_online_resource_removals-3.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
---
title: "2025 United States government online resource removals"
chunk: 4/4
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_government_online_resource_removals"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:22.498115+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
== Reactions ==
Representatives from the Population Association of America, the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, and the Association of Public Data Users (APDU) expressed disapproval of the data deletion. President of the APDU, Amy O'Hara, described a "mad scramble" as researchers searched for copies of the deleted data.
Former US Department of Labor chief evaluation officer and board member of Data Foundation Molly Irwin warned of the dangers of deleting critical government data. She highlighted government data is a critical component of how politicians and analysts evaluate whether a particular policy is working as intended.
The stock market, bond market, and Federal Reserve all continuously make decisions based on labor data. This data is typically stable, but changes to it reduce confidence in data about the economy. Uncertainty also encourages conspiracy theories which view government data as intentionally incorrect for malicious purposes. Furthermore, businesses rely on the essentially free government data as a part of their own operations, planning, products and services. Zillow, for example, utilizes government data to generate their product of real estate information and analysis.
Scientists reacted by saying that they would restore access to some data, but doing so is not easy. The Internet Archive has been successful in archiving many health datasets. Internet Archive is also a contributor to the consortium effort of developing the End of Term Web Archive, which attempts to copy every government publication at the end of every presidential term. Organizations like IPUMS, which provides data curation, integration, harmonization, is serving as an important source for previously deleted data.
The Harvard Law School Library hosts the Data.gov Archive. The Chan School mirrored public health records. The law library's Innovation Lab said that it had managed to preserve 311,000 datasets copied between 2024 and 2025. A coalition of data organizations launched the Data Rescue Project "as a clearinghouse for data rescue-related efforts".
George Benjamin, head of the American Public Health Association, said that the removals could make it more difficult to track infectious diseases such as HIV and Mpox. He also expressed concern that even if the data was restored, new data might not be collected which would impair future research.
Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Executive Secretariat, Nate Brought, said that Trump's orders were in conflict with extensive research and conclusions by the NIH pertaining to sexuality and gender. In a letter to the NIH director and other senior officials, Brought urged them to refuse implementing the President's directives.
Groups like Free Government Information has voiced strong dissent with the Trump administration's removal of government data and resource, and have started organizing efforts to collect and preserve federal government data. Similarly, the Preservation of Electronic Government Information (PEGI) group has voiced similar urgency to collect and save data before they are removed from official government sites. Grassroot, collective efforts like the Data Rescue Project has launched efforts to coordinate these various data saving endeavors.
== References ==
== Further reading ==
Jetelina, Katelyn (February 4, 2025). "Data and communication are gold". Your Local Epidemiologist.
MD, Jeremy Faust (February 1, 2025). "Massive censorship escalation at CDC. Trump Administration now choosing the public health data you can see". Inside Medicine.
== External links ==
Media related to 2025 United States government online resource removals at Wikimedia Commons
Books removed from U.S. Naval Academy Nimitz Library
Trump's war on public data

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Spring-0.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Spring"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:27.019255+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:41.679545+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

29
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Studies_Press-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
---
title: "Academic Studies Press"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Studies_Press"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:42.867762+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Academic Studies Press, (ASP) is an independent scholarly publisher of books and journals, based in Boston, Massachusetts.
== History ==
Founded in 2007, ASP emphasizes Jewish studies and Slavic studies, but also publishes titles in religious studies, comparative literature, and history more broadly. Authors include Jacob Neusner, Fania Oz-Salzberger, Ellendea Proffer Teasley, Maxim D. Shrayer, Mark Lipovetsky, David Berger, Menachem Kellner, Viktor Zhivov, Jerold Auerbach, and Geoffrey Alderman, while works in translation include those of Maimonides, Ahad Ha'am, Mordecai Kaplan, Eliezer Schweid, and Yury Tynyanov. The press also specializes in Ukrainian translations, many of which received renewed interest during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Its titles have won awards from the Jewish Book Council, the Modern Language Association, AATSEEL, and the Koffler Centre of the Arts, and have also appeared on reading lists published by Mosaic and The Washington Post.
In 2017, ASP was the recipient of funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities to aid in the "creation of freely accessible e-books for 42 seminal titles in Russian literary and cultural history." In the same year, ASP collaborated jointly with the NEH and the Ukrainian Research Institute at Harvard University to publish Words for War, an anthology of contemporary Ukrainian poetry, featuring poems and commentary from figures such as Serhiy Zhadan and Ilya Kaminsky.
In 2018, ASP published the "first authorized English-language translation" of Akram Aylisli's controversial novella Stone Dreams.
== Academic journals and publishing ==
In addition to its books list, the press publishes three peer-reviewed academic journals, including Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture, edited by Joseph Carroll, as well as the Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, edited since 2018 by Lesley Klaff. Citing her appointment as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, the Algemeiner Journal named Klaff among their list of the "top 100 people positively influencing Jewish life" in 2018. In 2020, ASP begin publication of a fourth peer-reviewed journal, Latin American Jewish Studies, on behalf of the Latin American Jewish Studies Association.
Since 2012, ASP has also served as the distributor and printer for books published by Touro College Press. In 2019, ASP entered into an e-book distribution partnership with the German academic publisher Walter de Gruyter.
== References ==
== External links ==
Official website

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Torrents-0.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Torrents"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:52:40.258053+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:23.948246+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllTrials-0.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllTrials"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:46:40.642240+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:25.207611+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllTrials-1.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllTrials"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:46:40.642240+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:25.207611+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

38
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Art_Collaborative-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
---
title: "American Art Collaborative"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Art_Collaborative"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:26.351822+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The American Art Collaborative (AAC) is a consortium of 14 art museums in the United States, whose mission is the establishment of "a critical mass of linked open data (LOD) on the semantic web."
As of 2024, the AAC has converted over 230,000 museum object records to linked open data.
== Membership ==
As of 2024, the 14 members are:
Amon Carter Museum of American Art
Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution
Autry Museum of the American West
Colby College Museum of Art
Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art
Dallas Museum of Art (DMA)
Indianapolis Museum of Art (IMA)
Thomas Gilcrease Institute of American History and Art
National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution
National Museum of Wildlife Art
Princeton University Art Museum
Smithsonian American Art Museum
Walters Art Museum
Yale Center for British Art
== References ==
== External links ==
Official website

68
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_&_Architecture_Thesaurus-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
---
title: "Art & Architecture Thesaurus"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_&_Architecture_Thesaurus"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:27.520520+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) is a controlled vocabulary used for describing items of art, architecture, and material culture. The AAT contains generic terms, such as "cathedral", but no proper names, such as "Cathedral of Notre Dame." The AAT is used by, among others, museums, art libraries, archives, catalogers, and researchers in art and art history. The AAT is a thesaurus in compliance with ISO and NISO standards including ISO 2788, ISO 25964 and ANSI/NISO Z39.19.
The AAT is a structured vocabulary of 55,661 concepts (as of January 2020), including 131,000 terms, descriptions, bibliographic citations, and other information relating to fine art, architecture, decorative arts, archival materials, and material culture.
== History ==
The AAT project began in the late 1970s in response to the gradual automation of records by art libraries, art journal indexing services, and catalogers of museum objects and visual resources. Automation required consistency in cataloging as well as more efficient retrieval of information; a controlled vocabulary was a solution to both these problems. The project was conceived by library directors and architectural experts Toni Petersen, Dora Crouch, and Pat Molholt and was originally headquartered part-time at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY, then at Bennington College in Bennington, VT and later moved to Williamstown, Massachusetts, with the J. Paul Getty Trust providing technical advice and funding. In 1983 the Getty Trust took over editorial responsibility. The AAT offices relocated to the Getty's Los Angeles headquarters in order to better coordinate with two other similar Getty projects, the Union List of Artist Names (ULAN) and Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN) soon after its publication.
The AAT was published in 1990 and 1994 in both print and electronic form. By 1997, the size and frequency of updates made hard-copy publication unfeasible and the decision was made to publish via a searchable online Web interface and in data files available for licensing. The online Web interface is freely-accessible from any computer connected to the Internet. Final editorial control of the AAT is maintained by the Getty Vocabulary Program, part of the Getty Research Institute.
Since 2008, Taiwan e-Learning and Digital Archives Program (TELDAP) collaborated with Getty Research Institute (GRI) in developing the Chinese-language Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT-Taiwan). The initial goal of this project is to provide multilingual search and corresponding images in integrate digital archives systems of Taiwan, and broaden the inclusion of terms related to Asian art, architecture and material culture in AAT.
The AAT can be used in several ways:
at the data entry stage, by catalogers or indexers who are describing works of art, architecture, material culture, archival materials, visual surrogates, or bibliographic materials;
as knowledge bases, providing information for researchers;
as search assistants to enhance end-user access to online resources;
as target for enriching free-text descriptions of cultural objects;
as a pivot vocabulary for coreferencing (interlinking) other art vocabularies
AAT is available as Linked Open Data at vocab.getty.edu since February 2014 and is updated bi-weekly.
== Terms ==
The initial core set of terms was derived from authority lists and the literature of art and architectural history; this core set was reviewed, approved and added to by an advisory team made up scholars from all relevant disciplines, including art and architectural historians, architects, librarians, visual resource curators, archivists, museum personnel, and specialists in thesaurus construction. Its hierarchy was inspired by the Medical Subject Headings. All eras from antiquity to the present are covered, and it is not limited geographically.
As of January 2007, the AAT contained approximately 131,000 terms. While the thesaurus contains many variations on a term, such as singular and plural forms, spelling variants, various forms of speech, and synonyms, one is always flagged as the preferred term. Terms are updated biweekly and regular users are encouraged to propose new terms.
In 2015 AAT contains 354,000 terms. They are available in 4 major languages (English, Dutch, Spanish and Chinese), and some terms in various native languages.
== Design ==
The AAT is a faceted classification system as well as a hierarchical one. There are seven facets:
Associated Concepts – abstract concepts, such as beauty, balance, connoisseurship, metaphor, freedom, socialism (Hierarchy: Associated concepts)
Physical Attributes – perceptible or measurable characteristics such as size, shape, chemical properties, texture and hardness, such as strapwork, borders, round, waterlogged, brittleness. (Hierarchies: Attributes and Properties, Conditions and Effects, Design Elements, Color)
Styles and Periods – stylistic groupings and distinct chronological periods, such as French, Louis XIV, Tang dynasty, Chippendale (Hierarchy: Styles and Periods)
Agents – people, groups of people, and organizations such as printmakers, landscape architects, corporations, religious orders. (Hierarchies: People, Organizations)
Activities – areas of endeavor, physical and mental actions or methods, such as archaeology, engineering, analyzing, contests, exhibitions, running, drawing (image-making), corrosion. (Hierarchies: Disciplines, Functions, Events, Physical and Mental Activities, Processes and Techniques)
Materials – physical substances, such as iron, clay, adhesive, emulsifier, artificial ivory, millwork, nylon. (Hierarchy: Materials)
Objects – objects either fabricated or given form by human activity, such as paintings, amphorae, facades, cathedrals, Brewster Chairs, gardens (Hierarchies: Object Groupings and Systems, Object Genres, Components; Built Environment: Settlements and Landscapes, Built Complexes and Districts, Single Built Works, Open Spaces and Site Elements; Furnishings and Equipment: Furnishings, Costume, Tools and Equipment, Weapons and Ammunition, Measuring Devices, Containers, Sound Devices, Recreational Artifacts, Transportation Vehicles; Visual and Verbal Communication: Visual Works, Exchange Media, Information Forms)
== Online records of concepts showing the hierarchy in the database ==
The record for each concept includes its place in the hierarchy (with a link to its parent), as well as links to related terms, related concepts, sources and contributors for the data, and notes.
== See also ==
Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA)
Cultural Objects Name Authority (CONA)
Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN)
Getty Vocabulary Program
Union List of Artist Names (ULAN)
== References ==
== External links ==
Art & Architecture Thesaurus Online Search the AAT online for free.
About the Getty Vocabularies Archived 2010-07-20 at the Wayback Machine
About AAT
Getty Vocabulary Editorial Guidelines The editorial guidelines for the AAT, ULAN, and TGN contain rules and guidelines intended for use by the editors of the Getty Vocabulary Program using the in-house editorial system, VCS (Vocabulary Coordination System). Contributors to the Getty Vocabularies and implementers of the licensed vocabulary data may consult these guidelines as well.
Training materials and presentations created by the Getty Vocabulary Program The documents on this page include presentations and other training materials for the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN), the Union List of Artist Names (ULAN), the Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT), Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO), Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA), and standards in general.
AAT as Linked Open Data, documentation

32
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_processing_charge-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
---
title: "Article processing charge"
chunk: 1/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_processing_charge"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:46.180705+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
An article processing charge (APC), also known as a publication fee, is a fee which is sometimes charged to authors. Most commonly, it is involved in making an academic work available as open access (OA), in either a full OA journal or in a hybrid journal. This fee may be paid by the author, the author's institution, or their research funder.
Sometimes, publication fees are also involved in traditional journals or for paywalled content.
Some publishers waive the fee in cases of hardship or geographic location, but this is not a widespread practice. An article processing charge does not guarantee that the author retains copyright to the work, or that it will be made available under a Creative Commons license.
== Background ==
Journals use a variety of ways to generate the income required to cover publishing costs (including editorial costs, any costs of administering the peer review system), such as subsidies from institutions and subscriptions. A majority of open access journals do not charge article processing charges, but a significant and growing number of them do. They are the most common funding method for professionally published open access articles.
APC fees applied to academic research are usually expensive, effectively limiting open access publishing to wealthier institutions, scholars, and students.
The APC model of open access, among other controversies, is part of the wider and increasingly global Open Access OA's ethics debate.
Most journals do not charge APCs. The global average per-journal APC is US$1,626, its recent increase indicating "that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals".
A 2019 analysis has shown 75% of European spending on scientific journals goes to "big five" publishers (Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis and the American Chemical Society (ACS)). Together they accounted for 56% of articles published.
== Other publishing fees ==
Author fees or page charges have existed since at least the 1930s. Different academic publishers have widely varying levels of fees, from under $100 to over $5000, and even sometimes as high as €9500 ($10851) for the journal Nature. Meanwhile, an independent study indicated that the actual costs of efficiently publishing a scholarly article should be in the region of €200–€1000. High fees are sometimes charged by traditional publishers in order to publish in a hybrid open access journal, which make an individual article in a subscription journal open access. The average APC for hybrid journals has been calculated to be almost twice as high as APCs from full open access publishers. Journals with high impact factors from major publishers tend to have the highest APCs.
Open access articles often have a surcharge compared to closed-access or paywalled content; for example, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences charges $1590–$4215 per article (depending on length) for closed-access, with a surcharge of $1700–$2200 for open-access (depending on licence). Similarly, AGU's Journal of Geophysical Research charges $1000 for closed-access and $3500 for open-access.
Even when publishers do not charge standard fees, excess or overlength fees might still apply after a certain number of pages or publication units is exceeded; additional color fees might apply for figures, primarily for print journals that are not online-only.
While publication charges occur upon article acceptance, article submission fees are charged prior to the start of peer review; they are common among journals in some fields, e.g., finance and economics.
Page charge may refer to either publication or submission fees.
== Criticism ==
=== Cost of research articles ===

41
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_processing_charge-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
---
title: "Article processing charge"
chunk: 2/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_processing_charge"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:46.180705+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
==== Cost to scientists and funding bodies ====
Article processing charges shift the burden of payment from readers to authors (or their funders), which creates a new set of concerns. One concern is that if a publisher makes a profit from accepting papers, it has an incentive to accept anything submitted, rather than selecting and rejecting articles based on quality. This could be remedied, however, by charging for the peer-review rather than acceptance. Another concern is that institutional budgets may need to be adjusted in order to provide funding for the article processing charges required to publish in many open access journals (e.g. those published by BioMed Central). It has been argued that this may reduce the ability to publish research results due to lack of sufficient funds, leading to some research not becoming a part of the public record.
Another concern is the redirection of money by major funding agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the Wellcome Trust from the direct support of research to the support of open access publication. Robert Terry, Senior Policy Advisor at the Wellcome Trust, has said that he feels that 1–2% of their research budget will change from the creation of knowledge to the dissemination of knowledge.
Research institutions could cover the cost of open access by converting to an open access journal cost-recovery model, with the institutions' annual tool access subscription savings being available to cover annual open access publication costs. A 2017 study by the Max Planck Society estimates the annual turnovers of academic publishers amount to approximately €7.6 billion. It is argued that this money comes predominantly from publicly funded scientific libraries as they purchase subscriptions or licenses in order to provide access to scientific journals for their members. The study was presented by the Max Planck Digital Library and found that subscription budgets would be sufficient to fund the open access publication charges, but does not address how unaffiliated authors or authors from institutions without funds will contribute to the scholarly record.
Five large commercial publishers (Elsevier, Sage, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley) have raised concerns within research community. These concerns stem primarily from two factors: the publishers' substantial profit margins, which are often derived from works funded by public research grants, and the high costs associated with their open access publishing fees under gold and hybrid journal models. For example, a Guardian article informed that in 2010, Elsevier's scientific publishing arm reported profits of £724 million on just over £2 billion in revenue. The margin was 36%, which exceeded the margins reported by Apple, Google, and Amazon that same year.
==== Unequal access to publishing ====
Unless discounts are available to authors from countries with low incomes, or external funding is provided to cover the cost, article processing charges can exclude authors from developing countries or less-funded research fields from publishing. Publishers often explain this charge by citing the cost of producing print materials, but some digital-only publications continue to charge article processing fees, which has garnered criticism from academics. Under the traditional model, the prohibitive costs of some non-open access journal subscriptions already place a heavy burden on the research community. Many open access publishers do offer discounts or publishing fee waivers to authors from developing countries or those suffering financial hardship.
For these reasons, some funding bodies simply will not pay the extra fees for open access publishing: the European Union scientific research initiative Horizon Europe does not cover the APCs for articles in hybrid open-access journals.
=== Diamond open access model ===
Diamond open access is a term used to describe journals that have no article processing charges, and make articles available to read without restrictions. In 2020, diamond OA journals comprised 69% of the journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals, but published only 35% of the articles. In 2021, it was estimated that 17,000 to 29,000 diamond OA journals published 8–9% of all scholarly journal articles and 45% of open access articles. Nearly all Latin American OA journals use the diamond model, whereas a little over half of African and Western European OA journals are diamond OA. However, the percentage of diamond OA articles covered in Scopus and Web of Science for the same year was below 1%, suggesting that "Scopus- or Web of Science-based (data) are skewed towards toll access and article processing charges-based publishing, as Diamond journals are underrepresented in (these databases)". The same study also found that diamond OA articles comprised 81% of all OA articles in Humanities, but only 30% in Medicine and Sciences.
== See also ==
Copyright transfer agreement
Royalty-free
Royalty payment
Predatory publishing
Academic journal publishing reform
Plan S
== References ==
== Further reading ==
University of California Libraries (2016) Pay It Forward: Investigating a Sustainable Model of Open Access Article Processing Charges for Large North American Research Institutions. Mellon Foundation. Archived 2019-04-08 at the Wayback Machine.
Robert Kiley (2013). "Colour and page charges: results of a brief survey" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
Curb, L. A.; Abramson, C.I. (2012). "An examination of author-paid charges in science journals". Comprehensive Psychology. 1: 4. doi:10.2466/01.17.CP.1.4.
Guy, M., Holl, A. (2015) Article Processing Charges. Briefing Paper, PASTEUR4OA project
== External links ==
OpenAPC: open database of APC

44
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASE_(search_engine)-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
---
title: "BASE (search engine)"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASE_(search_engine)"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:47.317292+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine) is a multi-disciplinary search engine to scholarly internet resources, created by Bielefeld University Library in Bielefeld, Germany. It is based on free and open-source software such as Apache Solr and VuFind. It harvests OAI metadata from institutional repositories and other academic digital libraries that implement the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH), and then normalizes and indexes the data for searching. In addition to OAI metadata, the library indexes selected web sites and local data collections, all of which can be searched via a single search interface.
== History ==
BASE was developed at the German university of Bielefeld beginning in 2002. The project's initial goal was to develop a search engine that would provide users access to the university's research resources. Yet as the initiative advanced, the creators came to see the need for a more thorough search engine that might provide users access to academic resources outside of the university.
The initial iteration of BASE was released as a prototype in 2004 and made accessible to the general public for testing. The search engine was created to index and offer access to scholarly materials such journals, institutional repositories, and digital collections as well as scientific publications. The search engine's creators emphasized on ensuring open access to scientific knowledge and made sure that its search results only included materials that were publicly available through the web.
Over the next few years, BASE continued to grow and develop. The search engine was refined and improved, and it began to attract users from all over the world. In 2007, the project received funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG) to further develop and improve the search engine.
Since then, BASE has become one of the largest and most comprehensive search engines for academic resources. It provides access to scholarly resources in a variety of languages and disciplines, and it has become an important tool for researchers, scholars, and students around the world.
In addition to providing access to scholarly resources, BASE has also been involved in several projects and initiatives aimed at promoting open access and improving scholarly communication. For example, the search engine has been involved in the development of the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH), which is used to facilitate the exchange of metadata between digital repositories.
Overall, BASE has played an important role in the development of open access and the democratization of knowledge. Its commitment to providing free and open access to scholarly resources has made it an important resource for researchers and scholars around the world.
== Functionality ==
Users can search bibliographic metadata including abstracts, if available. However, BASE does not currently offer full text search. It contrasts with commercial search engines in multiple ways, including in the types and kinds of resources it searches and the information it offers about the results it finds. Results can be narrowed down using drill down menus (faceted search). Bibliographic data is provided in several formats, and the results may be sorted by multiple fields, such as by author or year of publication.
Paying customers include EBSCO Information Services who integrated BASE into their EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS). Non-commercial services can integrate BASE search for free using an API. BASE has become an increasingly important component of open access initiatives concerned with enhancing the visibility of their digital archive collections.
On 6 October 2016, BASE surpassed the 100 million documents threshold having indexed 100,183,705 documents from 4,695 content sources. As of 2022, it had indexed over 315 million documents from over 10,000 sources.
== See also ==
List of academic databases and search engines
CORE (research service)
Open access in Germany
== References ==
== Literature ==
Lossau, Norbert. 2004. "Search Engine Technology and Digital Libraries: Libraries Need to Discover the Academic Internet," D-Lib Magazine, Volume 10, Number 6, June 2004. doi:10.1045/june2004-lossau
Summann, Friedrich and Norbert Lossau. 2004. "Search Engine Technology and Digital Libraries: Moving from Theory to Practice," D-Lib Magazine, Volume 10, Number 9, September 2004. doi:10.1045/september2004-lossau
== External links ==
Official website

40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beall's_List-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
---
title: "Beall's List"
chunk: 1/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beall's_List"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:49.561109+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Beall's List was a list of predatory open-access publishers that was maintained by University of Colorado Denver librarian Jeffrey Beall on his blog Scholarly Open Access. The list aimed to document open-access publishers who did not perform real peer review, effectively publishing any article as long as the authors pay the article processing charge. Originally started as a personal endeavor in 2008, Beall's List became a widely followed piece of work by the mid-2010s. The list was used by scientists to identify exploitative publishers and detect publisher spam.
The influence of Beall's List led some publishers on the list to threaten defamation lawsuits against Beall, as well as to lodge official complaints against Beall's work to the University of Colorado. In January 2017, Beall removed the list from his blog, scholarlyoa.com. Six months later, he published an article in the journal Biochemia Medica claiming that pressure from his employer led to the blog shutdown, although the university's official statement and a response by Beall's direct supervisor both disputed this account. The closure of Beall's List was cited by some as a loss of an important resource, and successors have set out to continue Beall's work.
== Early history ==
Beall first became interested in predatory open-access journals (a term he coined) in 2008, when he started to receive numerous requests from dubious journals to serve on their editorial boards. He said that he "immediately became fascinated because most of the e-mails contained numerous grammatical errors." Starting in 2008, he maintained a list of what he stated were "potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers".
In 2011, Beall's list had 18 publishers on it; by December 29, 2016, this number had grown to 923. Many of the journals listed were not actively publishing or published very few papers each year.
The original list of 18 publishers published a total of 1,328 separate journals. Beall originally classified all but one of the publishers he reviewed as being predatory. A decade later, two of the original 18 had been acquired by reputable publishers, and three appeared to have gone out of business. The remaining 13 publishers had significantly increased the number of journals they were publishing, to a total of 1,650 individual journals (about 10% of the number of journals listed in Cabells' Predatory Reports in 2022), primarily due to the dramatic increase in the number of journals published by OMICS Publishing Group from 63 to 742.
== Criteria for inclusion ==
Beall considered multiple criteria before including a publisher or journal on his lists. Examples included:
Two or more journals have the same editorial board.
There is little or no geographical diversity among the editorial board members, especially for journals that claim to be international in scope or coverage.
The publisher has no policies or practices for digital preservation, meaning that if the journal ceases operations, all of the content disappears from the internet.
The publisher copy-proofs their PDFs, thus making it harder to check for plagiarism.
The name of a journal is incongruent with the journal's mission.
The publisher falsely claims to have its content indexed in legitimate abstracting and indexing services or claims that its content is indexed in resources that are not abstracting and indexing services.
== Reception ==
=== Legal threats ===
In February 2013, the open-access publisher Canadian Center for Science and Education sent a letter to Beall stating that Beall's inclusion of its company on his list of questionable open-access publishers amounted to defamation. The letter also stated that if Beall did not remove the company from his list, it would subject him to "civil action".
In 2013, the OMICS Publishing Group threatened to sue Beall for $1 billion for his "ridiculous, baseless, [and] impertinent" inclusion of it on his list, which "smacks of literal unprofessionalism and arrogance". An unedited sentence from the letter read: "Let us at the outset warn you that this is a very perilous journey for you and you will be completely exposing yourself to serious legal implications including criminal cases lunched against you in INDIA and USA." Beall responded that the letter was "poorly written and personally threatening" and expressed his opinion that the letter "is an attempt to detract from the enormity of OMICS's editorial practices". OMICS' lawyers stated that damages were being pursued under section 66A of India's Information Technology Act, 2000, which makes it illegal to use a computer to publish "any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character" or to publish false information. The letter stated that three years in prison was a possible penalty, although a U.S. lawyer said that the threats seemed to be a "publicity stunt" that was meant to "intimidate".
=== Use in sting operations ===
==== Who's Afraid of Peer Review? ====
In 2013, Science correspondent John Bohannon submitted 304 fake scientific articles to various open access journals, many of which were published by publishers on Beall's List. Among these publishers that completed the review process, 82% accepted the paper. Bohannon stated "the results show that Beall is good at spotting publishers with poor quality control". Beall stated that the results support his claim to be identifying "predatory" publishers. However, the remaining 18% of publishers identified by Beall as predatory rejected the fake paper, leading science communicator Phil Davis to state "That means that Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five".
Notable publishing groups to pass this sting operation include PLoS One, Hindawi, and Frontiers Media. Frontiers Media would later be added to Beall's list in 2015, sparking a controversy that is credited as a major reason for Beall eventually retracting his list.

27
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beall's_List-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
---
title: "Beall's List"
chunk: 2/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beall's_List"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:49.561109+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
==== "Dr Fraud" experiment ====
In 2015, four researchers created a fictitious sub-par scientist named Anna O. Szust (oszust is Polish for "fraud"), and applied on her behalf for an editor position to 360 scholarly journals. Szust's qualifications were dismal for the role of an editor; she had never published a single article and had no editorial experience. The books and book chapters listed on her CV were made-up, as were the publishing houses that allegedly published the books.
One-third of the journals to which Szust applied were sampled from Beall's List. Forty of these predatory journals accepted Szust as editor without any background vetting and often within days or even hours. By comparison, she received minimal to no positive response from the "control" journals which "must meet certain standards of quality, including ethical publishing practices." Among journals sampled from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), 8 of 120 accepted Szust. The DOAJ has since removed some of the affected journals in a 2016 purge. None of the 120 sampled journals listed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) offered Szust the position.
The results of the experiment were published in Nature in March 2017, and widely presented in the press.
=== Criticism ===
The list's 82% accuracy rate in the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? sting operation led Phil Davis to state that "Beall is falsely accusing nearly one in five as being a 'potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open access publisher' on appearances alone." He wrote that Beall "should reconsider listing publishers on his 'predatory' list until he has evidence of wrongdoing. Being mislabeled as a 'potential, possible, or probable predatory publisher' by circumstantial evidence alone is like the sheriff of a Wild West town throwing a cowboy into jail just 'cuz he's a little funny lookin.' Civility requires due process."
Joseph Esposito wrote in The Scholarly Kitchen that he had been following some of Beall's work with "growing unease", and that Beall's "broader critique (really an assault) of Gold OA and those who advocate it" had "crossed the line".
City University of New York librarians Monica Berger and Jill Cirasella wrote that his views were biased against open-access journals from less economically developed countries. Berger and Cirasella argued that "imperfect English or a predominantly non-Western editorial board does not make a journal predatory". They stated that "the criteria he uses for his list are an excellent starting point for thinking about the hallmarks of predatory publishers and journals", and suggested that "given the fuzziness between low-quality and predatory publishers, whitelisting, or listing publishers and journals that have been vetted and verified as satisfying certain standards, may be a better solution than blacklisting." However, for researchers in developing countries, the list has also been described as having been particularly important, as a result of lower access to institutional support for guidance on predatory publishers.
Rick Anderson, associate dean in the J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, challenged the term "predatory open access publishing" itself: "what do we mean when we say 'predatory,' and is that term even still useful?... This question has become relevant because of that common refrain heard among Beall's critics: that he only examines one kind of predation—the kind that naturally crops up in the context of author-pays OA." Anderson suggested that the term "predatory" be retired in the context of scholarly publishing: "It's a nice, attention-grabbing word, but I'm not sure it's helpfully descriptive... it generates more heat than light." In its place, he proposed the term "deceptive publishing".
Beall's List primarily assessed the predatory journals based on their compliance with procedural standards, even though the quality of a journal can be judged on at least six different dimensions. A 2020 review in BMC Medicine found that only 3% of "predatory checklists" found online met their study's criteria for being "evidence-based"; Beall's List was not amongst them. A 2021 study in The Journal of Academic Librarianship confirmed Beall's bias against OA journals.
== Removal ==
On January 15, 2017, the entire content of Beall's Scholarly Open Access website was removed, along with Beall's faculty page on the University of Colorado's website. The removal was first noticed on social media, with speculation on whether the removal was due to migration of the list to the stewardship of Cabell's International. The company later denied any relationship, and its vice president of business development declared that Beall "was forced to shut down blog due to threats and politics". The University of Colorado declared that the decision to take down the list was a personal decision from Beall. Beall later wrote that he had taken down his blog because of pressure from the University of Colorado, which threatened his job security.
Beall's supervisor, Shea Swauger, wrote that the university had supported Beall's work and had not threatened his academic freedom. A demand by Frontiers Media to open a research misconduct case against Beall, to which the University of Colorado acquiesced, is reported as the immediate reason for Beall to take down the list. The university's investigation was closed with no findings. In an interview in 2018, Beall stated that "my university began to attack me in several ways. They launched a research misconduct investigation against me (after seven months, the result of the investigation was that no misconduct had occurred). They also put an unqualified, mendacious supervisor over me, and he constantly attacked and harassed me. I decided I could no longer safely publish the list with my university threatening me in these ways." Beall has not reactivated the list.
== Successors ==

24
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beall's_List-2.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
---
title: "Beall's List"
chunk: 3/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beall's_List"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:49.561109+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Since Beall's List closed, similar lists have been started by others, including CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, and an anonymous group at Stop Predatory Journals. Cabell's International, a company that offers scholarly publishing analytics and other scholarly services, has also offered both a black list and a white list for subscription on their website. Since 2021, the Norwegian Scientific Index includes the category "level X" that includes journals suspected of being predatory; its establishment was linked to expressions of concern regarding the publisher MDPI. A site entitled Beall's List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers states that it includes the original list as at 15 January 2017, with updates listed separately, maintained by an anonymous European postdoctoral researcher.
== See also ==
Journalology
== References ==
== Further reading ==
Buschman, John (2020). "A Political Sociology of the Beall's List Affair". The Library Quarterly. 90 (3): 298–313. doi:10.1086/708959. S2CID 224809316.
== External links ==
Beall, Jeffrey. "List of Publishers: Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers" (last archived ed.). Archived from the original on January 12, 2017.
Beall, Jeffrey. "List of Standalone Journals: Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals" (last archived ed.). Archived from the original on January 11, 2017.
Updated "Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers" – maintained by an anonymous postdoctoral European researcher

30
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibsam_Consortium-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
---
title: "Bibsam Consortium"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibsam_Consortium"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:50.757805+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Bibsam Consortium is a consortium in which 85 higher education and research institutions in Sweden participate to negotiate license agreements for electronic information resources. The consortium is headed by the National Library of Sweden and negotiates as well as administrates license agreements for e-resource packages. The participating institutions sign a power of attorney which allows the National Librarian to sign contracts with the e-resource providers.
== History and scope ==
The Bibsam Consortium was formed in 1996 in order to negotiate license agreements for electronic resources on behalf of Swedish Universities, research institutes and government agencies. The total turnover of the agreements in 2015 was € 33 million and € 35 million in 2017 with 73% of the turnover being generated by the ten largest universities in Sweden. There are six members in National Library of Sweden to negotiate and administer the 100 license agreements for approximately 40 e-resource packages.
== Negotiation with Elsevier ==
In 2018, the Bibsam Consortium terminated its agreement with Elsevier publishers in order to stop rising prices of publishing and to support open access publishing. The termination went into effect on 1 July 2018, as a result of which Swedish Universities and colleges had no access to any items published after this date in 2100 e-journals published by Elsevier. Sll articles published between 1 January 1995 and 30 June 2018 were still available. Astrid Söderbergh Widding, president of Stockholm University, chair of the Bibsam consortium steering committee and head of the negotiation team, said:
Increasing costs of scientific information are straining university budgets on a global scale while publishers operate on high profit margins. An alternative to the current publishing and pricing model is 'open access', where institutions pay to publish their articles and the articles become open for everyone to read, immediately upon publication. We need to monitor the total cost of publication as we see a tendency towards a rapid increase of costs for both reading and publishing. The current system for scholarly communication must change and our only option is to cancel deals when they don’t meet our demands for a sustainable transition to open access.
The requirements that Bibsam Consortium asks for were:
Immediate open access to all articles published by researchers affiliated to participating organizations in Elsevier journals.
Reading access for participating organisations to all articles in Elsevier’s journals.
A sustainable price model that enables a transition to open access.
== References ==

52
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_Open_Data_Service-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
---
title: "Bus Open Data Service"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_Open_Data_Service"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:31.060926+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Bus Open Data Service (BODS) is a government-funded service in England, established in 2020 as part of the Bus Services Act 2017. It was created in a partnership between Ito World, the Department for Transport and KPMG.
The service was described by Ito World as "an international first", as it provides Open Data of bus timetables, fares and Automatic Vehicle Location of buses across England.
An extension to the Bus Open Data Service, Analyse Bus Open Data Service (ABOD), was introduced in 2021 to provide free-to-access reporting and analytics to operators and authorities nationally. The extended service provides access to on-time performance analytics, vehicle journey replays, and corridor reporting.
== Data implementation ==
As part of the requirements set by the Department for Transport in The Public Service Vehicles (Open Data) (England) Regulations 2020, the Bus Open Data Service set deadlines for operators to provide data.
The implementation requirements only applied in England
31 December 2020 — Obligation to provide bus timetable data to the Bus Open Data Service.
7 January 2021 — Obligation to provide vehicle location and basic fares and tickets data to the Bus Open Data Service.
7 January 2023 — Obligation to provide complex fares and ticket data to the Bus Open Data Service.
== Data provided ==
The Bus Open Data Service makes available three types of bus service data, in a variety of formats:
Timetable data in TransXChange, a XML-based data format for representing bus route and timetable information, and GTFS, a CSV-based format which represents schedule data, as well as routes, trips, stop times, and stop locations.
Location data in SIRI-VM, an XML-based data format for representing live vehicle locations, and GTFS-RT (GTFS Realtime), a real-time extension of GTFS provided as Protocol Buffers messages.
Fares data as NeTEx (NeTex Network Timetable Exchange), an XML-based offering which "allows for accurate representations of operators’ fares offerings to the market, which can then be accessed and used in journey planning applications"
== Uses ==
Following the introduction of the Bus Open Data, there have been a number of uses for the system.
The website bustimes.org utilises data from BODS to supply information such as timetable, fares, and vehicle location information via an API link, with the vehicle location information displaying on a map. This reliance does have a drawback however if a bus stop is removed or if the bus route information is inaccurate due to an outdated route information being supplied to BODS.
The Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain, in their 2020/21 annual report, stated that use of the Bus Open Data Service would "make available more data than ever before on an operator’s performance."
An article in TransportXtra explained how data from BODS can be used to plan an electrified bus fleet
== Criticism ==
Despite providing fare, time and vehicle location, the Department for Transport has ruled out including key accessibility information on bus stops, stations and vehicles despite the Bus Services Act making specific provision for open data, 'for the purpose of facilitating travel by disabled persons'.
A number of operators have struggled to provide the data required by the deadlines provided by the Bus Open Data Service, requiring providers to implement alternative solutions.
The Confederation of Passenger Transport, and operators of home-to-school transport, criticised the requirement for operators to provide data about registered home-to-school bus services, and the exemption of Section 22 community bus services.
Writing in Buses magazine, Centrebus Group owner Julian Peddle called the service "a horrendously bureaucratic and over-engineered system designed by well-meaning but clueless officials in London. It’s running late, does not work properly, and has involved the industry and local authorities in vast amounts of needless work. It’s supposedly been running since January 2021, but has not improved things in the wilds of Shropshire, and never will, because government bureaucrats don’t understand the problem, so have no chance of solving it."
== References ==
== External links ==
Bus Open Data Service (dft.gov.uk)

28
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bustimes.org-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
---
title: "Bustimes.org"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bustimes.org"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:32.220241+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
bustimes.org is a transportation information website created to take advantage of Bus Services Act 2017 requirement for bus operators in England to provide bus timetables, fares and vehicle locations in an open data format, which can be utilised by app and website developers. This DfT service is called the Bus Open Data Service.
The website also provides information on bus services in parts of the UK to which the Bus Services Act 2017 information requirement does not apply, as well as in Ireland.
Location data for operators partially or completely owned by Transport for Edinburgh, is supplied to the site via their Open Data system.
The site uses data from AVL tracking to determine and transmit the geographic location of a vehicle, such as data from Ticketer machines and the iBus system, in order to display live bus positions on a map.
The site also uses data from the National Public Transport Gazetteer, and bus stop locations from NaPTAN.
The live tracking system was added in response to the Department for Transport stating that they wanted "to see more people taking the bus, and those who do take it to have the best possible experience." with fares for companies operating the Passenger MyTrip system being added in 2022. Vehicle details (such as liveries, registration plates and fleet numbers) are all added by individual contributors using the edit vehicle information section.
== Criticism ==
The website was criticised by Centrebus Group owner, Julian Peddle, as lacking authority, not being an "official website", and questioning if trust can be placed in its information in an article in Buses Magazine about bus timetable information.
== References ==
== External links ==
bustimes.org
bustimes.org on GitHub

40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CKAN-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
---
title: "CKAN"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CKAN"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:33.414538+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network (CKAN) is an open-source open data portal for the storage and distribution of open data. Initially inspired by the package management capabilities of Debian Linux, CKAN has developed into a powerful data catalogue system that is mainly used by public institutions seeking to share their data with the general public.
Since its inception, CKAN has evolved and is the leading open data platform software in the world, used by governments including the US and UK, to publish millions of public datasets.
Rufus Pollock developed its first version in 2005-2006. CKAN's codebase is maintained by the Open Knowledge Foundation.
The system is used both as a public platform on Datahub and in various government data catalogues, such as the UK's data.gov.uk, the Dutch National Data Register, the United States government's Data.gov and the Australian government's "Gov 2.0". The state government of South Australia also makes government data freely available to the public on the CKAN platform. The Italian government makes available the open data of the Data & Analytics Framework on the CKAN platform.
== Internal technology ==
CKAN's back end, the part running on the Web server, is written mainly in Python. The web pages it offers to users browsers include JavaScript. CKAN maintains information about the data sets to be offered to users in PostgreSQL databases. Searches are implemented by Solr. CKAN installations can be queried through Web APIs.
== Future of the project ==
The CKAN Stewardship proposal jointly put forward by Link Digital and Datopian received support from the Open Knowledge Foundation Board. In appointing joint stewardship put up jointly by Link Digital and Datopian, the Board felt there was a clear practical path with strong leadership and committed funding to see CKAN grow and prosper in the years to come.
The Open Knowledge Foundation will remain the ‘purpose trustee’ to ensure the Stewards remain true to the purpose and ethos of the CKAN project.
== Similar projects and alternatives ==
Piveau is the prevailing (meta)data management tool used by the EU.
A variant, HDEU-Hub, is specifically used for European health data
Dataverse provides similar functions and is widely used for open data.
DKAN is a Drupal-based open data portal based on CKAN.
== References ==
== External links ==
Official website
Open Knowledge Foundation
South Australian Government Data Directory
Commonly Used Open Data Platforms

45
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPIM-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
---
title: "COPIM"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPIM"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:54.247395+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Copim community is an international group of researchers, universities, librarians, open access book publishers and infrastructure providers. It is building community-owned, open systems and infrastructures to enable open-access book publishing to flourish. The collaboration is being funded by Research England and Arcadia Fund, via two consecutive projects between November 2019 and April 2026.
The community's name is derived from the original project acronym of COPIM (Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs). During its first project phase (11/2019-04/2023), the community has been involved in the foundational project of the same name. As of 05/2023, this is now followed by a second project phase under the title of Open Book Futures, through which the Copim community aims to expand and accelerate the uptake of the infrastructures developed during its initial project phase.
Following the principle of 'Scaling Small', the project has developed a set of proof-of-concepts of non-profit and community-owned, open infrastructures to enable open access book publishing to prosper.
Copim has been named as a Supporting Action in UKRI's 2020 Open Access Review Consultation.
== Work Packages ==
In seven distinct Work Packages, the COPIM project explored:
how to scope and build support for an integration of open access books in libraries;
how to build a collective of librarians, publishers and researchers invested in sustainable OA through a not-for-profit, community-governed OA book revenue management and information exchange platform;
how to establish funding models that enable a transition of legacy publishers' existing business models to non-BPC OA;
research on, and implementation of robust governance models for not-for-profit, community-owned digital infrastructures such as those being developed in other work packages;
channels of OA book discovery and dissemination, culminating in the development of an open-source OA book metadata creation and dissemination system and service;
ways to more closely align existing software, tools and technologies, workflows and infrastructures for experimental publishing with the workflows of OA book publishers;
how to establish more robust ways to tackle the technical and legal impediments to a more streamlined process of archiving and preservation of OA books technical and legal solutions.
At the end of the first project phase (04/2023), the list of key outputs, activities and proof-of-concepts delivered across the initial project's lifespan include:
publication of 13 major scoping reports, 3 annual project reports, plus a variety of research papers published in peer-reviewed journals, the successful organisation and documentation of 26 workshops, with more than 220 national and international stakeholders representing 25 countries, and the presentation of COPIM work at more than 120 international conferences, workshops, and events.
set-up an iterative extension of an Outreach and Dissemination network that is combining a variety of channels, including social media and open community platforms.
following the platform's beta launch in 2021, the successful inception of Thoth, COPIM's Open Dissemination System, as a Community Interest Company under the name of Thoth Open Metadata CIC. Thoth now makes open access book metadata available in an open, transparent, and participatory way via its open API, and publishers can use the platform's interface to create rich, open metadata for direct dissemination in a variety of global channels.
launch of the Open Book Collective platform and community of OA book publishers, infrastructure providers, and libraries that are collaborating to bring about a future for OA book publishing free from inequitable Book Processing Charges. The Open Book Collective has successfully reached its originally-envisioned revenue target, and has also implemented a robust legal, financial, and governance model to ensure longer-term stability of the Open Book Collective legal entity.
further strengthening of the Opening the Future revenue model via the two publishers, CEU Press and Liverpool University Press, that COPIM has been working with. Through Opening the Future, both presses to date (04/2023) have released 15 new monographs between them, and have accrued enough funding through the programme for approximately 45 titles to be published OA in the coming months and years.
launch of the Experimental Publishing Compendium, as a comprehensive online resource bringing together tools, practices, and books to promote and support the publication of experimental book publications.
establishing the Thoth Archiving Network, a community-led collaboration between university repositories and national libraries to facilitate archiving and preservation of OA books via COPIM's Open Dissemination System Thoth, particularly those published by small and medium-sized publishers that might not have the resources to invest in other, more expensive means of archiving.
As part of the second project phase of Open Book Futures (OBF), the work package structure has been slightly adapted to accommodate the shift in focus towards accelerating the uptake of the proof-of-concepts that have been delivered during the first phase.
In doing so, Open Book Futures's overall goal is to increase COPIM's long-term impact and ensure that a wide range of voices have the opportunity to shape the future of open access book publishing. In order to amplify bibliodiverse and equitable community-led approaches to OA book publishing, OBF aims not just to strengthen existing networks in the UK and North America, but also to engage further with publishers, universities, and infrastructure providers in a diverse set of national and linguistic contexts, including Africa, Australasia, Continental Europe, and Latin America.
== Opening the Future ==
Opening the Future, a revenue model developed in COPIM's Business Models Work Package, is a collective subscription model through which subscribing libraries can get unlimited access to a selection of a chosen publisher's backlist, with perpetual access after three years. The generated membership revenue is used by the publisher solely to produce new Open access monographs.
The model is currently being piloted in collaboration with CEU Press and Liverpool University Press under the remit of COPIM.
== References ==

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID_Moonshot-0.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID_Moonshot"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:49.398528+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:38.156021+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID_Moonshot-1.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID_Moonshot"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:49.398528+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:38.156021+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

44
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_pour_l'Édition_Électronique_Ouverte-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
---
title: "Centre pour l'Édition Électronique Ouverte"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_pour_l'Édition_Électronique_Ouverte"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:53.040562+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Centre pour l'Édition Électronique Ouverte (CLEO, Cléo; transl. Centre for Open Electronic Publishing), based in Marseille, France, is overseen by Aix-Marseille University, the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, and University of Avignon and the Vaucluse. It produces the open access academic publishing portal OpenEdition.org, which includes platforms Calenda, Hypotheses, OpenEdition Books, and OpenEdition Journals. OpenEdition focuses on publications in the academic fields of humanities and social sciences. The centre also issues a blog about open access.
== OpenEdition Books ==
include:
Bak-Geller, Sarah (28 July 2022). "Patrimonio alimentario y ciudadanía indígena. El caso coca de Mezcala, Jalisco (México)". In Rebaï, Nasser; Bilhaut, Anne-Gaël; de Suremain, Charles-Édouard; Katz, Esther; Paredes, Myriam (eds.). Patrimonios alimentarios en América Latina : Recursos locales, actores y globalización (in Spanish). IRD Éditions. pp. 191–214. ISBN 978-2-7099-2943-1. Retrieved 27 April 2023 – via Centre pour l'Édition Électronique Ouverte. Introducción
== OpenEdition Journals ==
The following list includes some examples of titles in Journals.openedition.org (prior to December 2017 known as Revues.org):
== See also ==
OpenEdition access via Wikipedia Library
Open access journal
Open access in France
List of academic databases and search engines
== References ==
== Bibliography ==
Jean-Christophe Peyssard (2011), OpenEdition Freemium: developing a sustainable library-centered economic model for open access (PDF), International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions
Open Access Rules in France: Persée, érudit, and revues.org. USA: Villanova University. 2012 – via Falvey Library Blogs: History & Political Science.
== External links ==
Centre pour l'édition électronique ouverte Archived 2017-07-18 at the Wayback Machine official site
OpenEdition.org official site
Books.openedition.org (OpenEdition Books) official site
Journals.openedition.org (OpenEdition Journals) official site

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concepticon-0.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concepticon"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T08:11:23.469181+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:34.587218+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

18
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus_Tech_Handbook-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
---
title: "Coronavirus Tech Handbook"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus_Tech_Handbook"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:35.788490+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Coronavirus Tech Handbook was a website designed to crowdsource information about the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. It was developed at Newspeak House, a hackerspace for politics in London, England.
The site, which launched in March 2020, was hosted as an interlinked collection of user-editable online documents, which made it effectively a wiki. As of October 2020 it had expanded to provide tools for consumers, businesses, local governments, and developers, amongst others, to help combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
Its stated aim was to provide:
a space for technologists, civic organisations, public & private institutions, researchers and specialists of all kinds to collaborate on a rapid and sophisticated response to the coronavirus outbreak and subsequent impacts.
== References ==

44
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covid_Act_Now-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
---
title: "Covid Act Now"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covid_Act_Now"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:36.944943+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Covid Act Now (CAN) is an independent, 501(c)(3) nonprofit that provides local-level disease intelligence and data analysis on the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, via a website and an API.
CAN assists partners ranging from local county health departments to multinational corporations in developing COVID response plans. Its API is used by many of the Fortune 500 to make data-driven reopening decisions.
The organization's first product was a traditional SEIR model for predicting the rate of COVID spread in the U.S. The model was based on open-source code by Alison Hill, an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins’ Institute for Computational Medicine. Rebecca Katz and her team have served as critical advisors.
CAN's modelling and data partners include Grand Rounds, a digital healthcare company, and USA Facts. Its university affiliates are Georgetown University Medical Center, Stanford Medicine, and Harvard Global Health Institute.
== History ==
CAN began as a collaboration between four volunteers — Max Henderson (a former Google employee), Igor Kofman (a former Dropbox engineer), Zachary Rosen, and Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins — publishing the first version of their model on March 20, 2020. The team was soon joined by public health experts, data scientists, and other professionals. The initial model raised awareness of the critical shortage of hospital capacity that the U.S. would face if the spread of COVID-19 was not mitigated.
== Features ==
The platform provides a range of features, including:
A realtime map to rate the COVID-19 risk level of each U.S. state and county, incorporating both disease prevalence and the quality of local response.
Data on available intensive care unit beds.
Information on the rate of positive COVID-19 tests in different regions.
Metrics on the effectiveness of contact tracing efforts.
Vaccination eligibility and rates.
A 22-second animation depicting the initial spread of COVID-19 through the U.S.
== Impact ==
CAN's models and data visualizations were used by officials in multiple states to aid in decision-making related to lockdowns, reopening, and resource allocation. The organization's work was cited in policy discussions and media reports throughout the pandemic. In mid-2021, Business Insider described CAN as a "leading US non-profit". As of October 2023, the organization claims to have served tens of millions of users and to have supported hundreds of federal, state, and county officials as well as numerous multinational corporations and NGOs.
== Criticism ==
Like many models during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, CAN's initial projections faced scrutiny for assumptions made and data used. However, the team responded to feedback by refining their models and adding more sources of data over time.
== References ==
== External links ==
Covid Act Now (CAN)

34
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBpedia-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
---
title: "DBpedia"
chunk: 1/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBpedia"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:50.111747+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
DBpedia (from "DB" for "database") is a project aiming to extract structured content from the information created in the Wikipedia project. This structured information is made available on the World Wide Web using OpenLink Virtuoso. DBpedia allows users to semantically query relationships and properties of Wikipedia resources, including links to other related datasets.
The project was heralded as "one of the more famous pieces" of the decentralized linked data effort by Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web. As of June 2021, DBpedia contained over 850 million semantic triples.
== Background ==
The project was started by people at the Free University of Berlin and Leipzig University in collaboration with OpenLink Software, and is now maintained by people at the University of Mannheim, Leipzig University, and the University of Pennsylvania. The first publicly available dataset was published in 2007. The data is made available under free licenses (CC BY-SA), allowing others to reuse the dataset; it does not use an open data license to waive the sui generis database rights.
Wikipedia articles consist mostly of free text, but also include structured information embedded in the articles, such as "infobox" tables (the pull-out panels that appear in the top right of the default view of many Wikipedia articles, or at the start of the mobile versions), categorization information, images, geo-coordinates and links to external web pages. This structured information is extracted and put in a uniform dataset which can be queried.
== Dataset ==
The 2016-04 release of the DBpedia data set describes 6.0 million entities, out of which 5.2 million are classified in a consistent ontology, including 1.5 million persons, 810,000 places, 135,000 music albums, 106,000 films, 20,000 video games, 275,000 organizations, 301,000 species and 5,000 diseases. DBpedia uses the Resource Description Framework (RDF) to represent extracted information and consists of 9.5 billion RDF triples, of which 1.3 billion were extracted from the English Wikipedia and 5.0 billion from other language editions.
From this data set, information spread across multiple pages can be extracted. For example, book authorship can be put together from pages about the work, or the author.
One of the challenges in extracting information from Wikipedia is that the same concepts can be expressed using different parameters in infobox and other templates, such as |birthplace= and |placeofbirth=. Because of this, queries about where people were born would have to search for both of these properties in order to get more complete results. As a result, the DBpedia Mapping Language has been developed to help in mapping these properties to an ontology while reducing the number of synonyms. Due to the large diversity of infoboxes and properties in use on Wikipedia, the process of developing and improving these mappings has been opened to public contributions.
Version 2014 was released in September 2014. A main change since previous versions was the way abstract texts were extracted. Specifically, running a local mirror of Wikipedia and retrieving rendered abstracts from it made extracted texts considerably cleaner. Also, a new data set extracted from Wikimedia Commons was introduced.
As of June 2021, DBpedia contains over 850 million triples.
== Examples ==
DBpedia extracts factual information from Wikipedia pages, allowing users to find answers to questions where the information is spread across multiple Wikipedia articles. Data is accessed using an SQL-like query language for RDF called SPARQL.
For example, if one were interested in the Japanese shōjo manga series Tokyo Mew Mew, and wanted to find the genres of other works written by its illustrator Mia Ikumi. DBpedia combines information from Wikipedia's entries on Tokyo Mew Mew, Mia Ikumi and on this author's works such as Super Doll Licca-chan and Koi Cupid. Since DBpedia normalises information into a single database, the following query can be asked without needing to know exactly which entry carries each fragment of information, and will list related genres:
== Use cases ==
DBpedia has a broad scope of entities covering different areas of human knowledge. This makes it a natural hub for connecting datasets, where external datasets could link to its concepts. The DBpedia dataset is interlinked on the RDF level with various other Open Data datasets on the Web. This enables applications to enrich DBpedia data with data from these datasets. As of September 2013, there are more than 45 million interlinks between DBpedia and external datasets including: Freebase, OpenCyc, UMBEL, GeoNames, MusicBrainz, CIA World Factbook, DBLP, Project Gutenberg, DBtune Jamendo, Eurostat, UniProt, Bio2RDF, and US Census data. The Thomson Reuters initiative OpenCalais, the Linked Open Data project of The New York Times, the Zemanta API and DBpedia Spotlight also include links to DBpedia. The BBC uses DBpedia to help organize its content. Faviki uses DBpedia for semantic tagging. Samsung also includes DBpedia in its "Knowledge Sharing Platform".
Such a rich source of structured cross-domain knowledge is fertile ground for artificial intelligence systems. DBpedia was used as one of the knowledge sources in IBM Watson's Jeopardy! winning system.
Amazon provides a DBpedia Public Data Set that can be integrated into Amazon Web Services applications.
Data about creators from DBpedia can be used for enriching artworks' sales observations.
The crowdsourcing software company, Ushahidi, built a prototype of its software that leveraged DBpedia to perform semantic annotations on citizen-generated reports. The prototype incorporated the "YODIE" (Yet another Open Data Information Extraction system) service developed by the University of Sheffield, which uses DBpedia to perform the annotations. The goal for Ushahidi was to improve the speed and facility with which incoming reports could be validated managed.

31
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBpedia-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
---
title: "DBpedia"
chunk: 2/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBpedia"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:50.111747+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
== DBpedia Spotlight ==
DBpedia Spotlight is a tool for annotating mentions of DBpedia resources in text. This allows linking unstructured information sources to the linked open data cloud through DBpedia. DBpedia Spotlight performs named entity extraction, including entity detection and name resolution (in other words, disambiguation). It can also be used for named entity recognition, and other information extraction tasks. DBpedia Spotlight aims to be customizable for many use cases. Instead of focusing on a few entity types, the project strives to support the annotation of all 3.5 million entities and concepts from more than 320 classes in DBpedia. The project started in June 2010 at the Web Based Systems Group at the Free University of Berlin.
DBpedia Spotlight is publicly available as a web service for testing and a Java/Scala API licensed via the Apache License. The DBpedia Spotlight distribution includes a jQuery plugin that allows developers to annotate pages anywhere on the Web by adding one line to their page. Clients are also available in Java or PHP. The tool handles various languages through its demo page and web services. Internationalization is supported for any language that has a Wikipedia edition.
== Archivo ontology database ==
From 2020, the DBpedia project provides a regularly updated database of web‑accessible ontologies written in the Web Ontology Language (OWL). Archivo also provides a four star rating scheme for the ontologies it scrapes, based on accessibility, quality, and related fitness‑for‑use criteria. For instance, SHACL compliance for graph‑based data is evaluated when appropriate. Ontologies should also contain metadata about their characteristics and specify a public license describing their terms‑of‑use. As of June 2021 the Archivo database contains 1368 entries.
== History ==
DBpedia was initiated in 2007 by Sören Auer, Christian Bizer, Georgi Kobilarov, Jens Lehmann, Richard Cyganiak and Zachary Ives.
== See also ==
BabelNet
Semantic MediaWiki
Wikidata
YAGO (database)
== References ==
== External links ==
Official website

58
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data.gov-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
---
title: "Data.gov"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data.gov"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:44.164134+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Data.gov is a U.S. government website launched in late May 2009 by the federal chief information officer of the United States, Vivek Kundra. Data.gov aims to improve public access to high value, machine-readable datasets generated by the Executive Branch of the federal government. The site is a repository for federal, state, local, and tribal government information made available to the public.
== History and background ==
On March 5, 2009, shortly after his appointment as the first federal chief information officer, Vivek Kundra announced the creation of Data.gov. The website is managed and hosted by the U.S. General Services Administration, Technology Transformation Services.
The site introduced the philosophy of digital open data to the U.S. Federal government, an approach which according to the book Democratizing Data will have benefits for states including "rebuilding confidence in government and business".
Data.gov has grown from 47 datasets at launch to over 370,000 datasets. Jeanne Holm, Chief Knowledge Architect for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), was the Evangelist and knowledge architect for Data.gov, James Hendler, an artificial intelligence researcher at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, was at the time named the "Internet Web Expert" and tasked with helping Data.gov exploit advanced Web technologies.
Data.gov was one of the first efforts to create an open data ecosystem—using data as the basis for connecting government agencies, researchers, businesses, and civil society. Communities of practice were created around key topics such as climate, providing a way for researchers to ask for data and to coordinate work across government agencies. By the end of 2010, most Federal agencies had published data on Data.gov. In November 2010, the Data.gov team hosted the first International Open Government Data Conference with 10 nations participating to expand the principles of open data. This conference grew to become the International Open Data Conference.
By 2012, open data from Data.gov was regularly used by civil society and business. Community led efforts like hackathons from Code for America and events such as the National Day of Civic Hacking, relied on government data provided by Data.gov. The Gov Lab created the Open Data 500 to showcase businesses built on open data provided by Data.gov. To ensure open data's sustainability, President Obama created an executive order on "Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information" to formalize Data.gov as the permanent repository for open government data.
McKinsey & Company published research showing that open data contributed $3 trillion to the U.S. economy. Two of the biggest datasets for economic impact have been global positioning satellite data from the U.S. Space Force and weather data from the National Weather Service. By 2014, all 175 Federal agencies and 77 other organizations had published data on the site, in both human understandable and machine-readable formats and with open APIs.
On January 14, 2019, the OPEN Government Data Act, as part of the Foundations for Evidence Based Policymaking Act, became law. The OPEN Government Data Act makes Data.gov a requirement in statute, rather than a policy. It requires federal agencies to publish their information online as open data, using standardized, machine-readable data formats, with their metadata included in the Data.gov catalog. Data.gov is working with an expanded group of federal agencies to include their datasets in Data.gov as they implement the new law.
=== Open Government Directive ===
The U.S. Open Government Directive of December 8, 2009, required that all agencies post at least three high-value data sets online and register them on Data.gov within 45 days.
=== OPEN Government Data Act ===
The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (“Evidence Act”) signed into law on January 14, 2019, emphasizes collaboration and coordination to advance data and evidence-building functions in the Federal Government by statutorily mandating Federal evidence-building activities, open government data, and confidential information protection and statistical efficiency.
Title II of the Foundations for Evidence Based Policymaking Act, the OPEN Government Data Act, requires additional agencies to comply with the statute by providing access to free, open, and machine readable data.
Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget is required to collaborate with the Office of Government Information Services and the Administrator of General Services to develop and maintain an online repository of tools, best practices, and schema standards to facilitate the adoption of open data practices across the Federal Government.
=== Data removal ===
In January 2025, following the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th President, more than 2,000 datasets were removed from the website.
== See also ==
ClinicalTrials.gov
Science.gov
Government 2.0
Open Government Initiative
data.gov.uk
data.gov.in
CKAN
Open data in the United States
== References ==
== External links ==
data.gov
Wired How-To Wiki - Open Up Government Data
A wiki with RDF versions of many of the data.gov datasets hosted at RPI
Case study description of data.gov development by REI Systems
datagov.ideascale.com - Official consultation: Evolving data.gov with You
French governmental Open Data Directory

50
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data.gov.in-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
---
title: "Data.gov.in"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data.gov.in"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:45.338996+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Open Government Data (OGD) Platform India or data.gov.in is a platform for supporting Open data initiative of Government of India. This portal is a single-point access to datasets, documents, services, tools and applications published by ministries, departments and organisations of the Government of India. It combines and expands the best features of India government's India.gov.in and the U.S. government's data.gov project.
== History ==
After announcing the launch of the site in June 2011, the site was launched in October 2012. part of the Open Government Initiative was launched during October 2012, in compliance with the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) of India, Gazette notified in March 2012.
According to the preamble of NDSAP, there has been an increasing demand by the community that data collected with the deployment of public funds should be made more readily available to all, for enabling rational debate, better decision making and use in meeting civil society needs.
The policy envisages proactive dissemination of data by Government ministries, departments, organizations.
== Overview ==
The site is based on Drupal Framework, and has four major modules:
Data Management System (DMS): This facilitates publishing of datasets/applications by authorised users from Ministries/Departments/Organisations.
Content Management System (CMS): This module is used to update or create content and functionalities for Data Portal India.
Visitor Relationship Management (VRM): This module facilitates collation and dissemination of feedback/suggestions received on Data Portal India.
Communities: People with specific interest can connect through online communities.
The product is developed based on the Open Government platform and its source code is available on GitHub.
== Open Government Data (OGD) Platform India ==
Open Government Data (OGD) Platform India was developed jointly by India & US government as a result of announcement made by President Obama and Prime Minister Shri Manmohan Singh during the Indo-US Open Government Dialogue in 2010.
Open data platform is a being implemented in US as their data.gov. In India the platform was further customised by National Informatics Centre (NIC) in line with the National Data Sharing Accessibility Policy to develop the Data Portal India.
Open data platform is also being offered to other countries. Ghana and Rwanda are also being powered by Open data platform.
== See also ==
National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy – Government of India
data.gov
data.gov.uk
India.gov.in
My Gov
USAFacts
India Data Portal
== References ==
== External links ==
Official website

36
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data.gov.uk-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
---
title: "Data.gov.uk"
chunk: 1/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data.gov.uk"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:46.481888+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
data.gov.uk is a UK Government project to make available non-personal UK government data as open data. It was launched as closed beta in 30 September 2009 (2009-09-30), and publicly launched in January 2010 (2010-01). As of February 2015, it contained over 19,343 datasets, rising to over 40,000 in 2017, and more than 47,000 by 2023. data.gov.uk is listed in the Registry of Research Data Repositories re3data.org.
== Beta version and launch ==
The beta version of data.gov.uk has been online since the 30 September 2009 (2009-09-30), and by January 2010 2,400 developers start experimenting with the data. When the project was officially launched in January 2010, it contained 2,500 data sets.
== Data available ==
data.gov.uk contains over 30,000 data sets from many UK Government departments. All data is non-personal, and provided in a format that allows it to be reused. data.gov.uk intends to increase the use of Linked Data standards, to allow people to provide data to data.gov.uk in a way that allows for flexible and easy reuse. As of April 2010, the following UK Government departments and agencies have provided data sets to data.gov.uk: BusinessLink, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department for Children, Schools and Families, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for International Development, the Department for Transport, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Department of Health, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office, His Majesty's Treasury, Lichfield District Council, Runnymede Borough Council, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice, the Northern Ireland Office, the Ordnance Survey, and the Society of Information Technology Management.
=== Ordnance Survey data ===
When data.gov.uk was officially launched in January 2010, Ordnance Survey (OS) data was something that Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Prof Nigel Shadbolt wanted to see opened up as part of the project. Ordnance Survey data was included in data.gov.uk on 1 April 2010 It provides information on geographical locations. According to Shadbolt, it "will make a real difference to the way that people make sense of the information".
=== Combined Online Information System (COINS) data ===
On the 3 June 2010, the Treasury released the Combined Online Information System (COINS) data for the financial years 2008/09 and 2009/10. The Combined Online Information System, is known as COINS. The 4.3 GB of COIN data included 3.2 million items between 2009/10, and was released on BitTorrent. At the time, the UK government stated that data for 2010/11 would be released in June 2011. On 15 June, the UK Government published the COINS data for the financial years 2007/08, 2006/07, and 2005/06 on data.gov.uk. The data was made for the (now defunct) RA.Pid Gateway run by Rosslyn Analytics.
In the past, the HM Treasury had refused requests.
=== Data and interpretation to be added ===
data.gov.uk is working with UK Government departments, agencies, and local authorities to release more data. Shadbolt also wants local government data included in data.gov.uk. The UK Parliament's Public Accounts Committee noted in 2012 that "more could be done to assist interpretation and to build on emerging interest".
== Data use and licensing ==
All data included in data.gov.uk is covered either by Crown copyright protections, or the database right, or copyright have been licensed to the Crown. In turn, all data available on data.gov.uk is available under a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive licence which permits use of the data under the following conditions: the copyright and the source of the data should be acknowledged by including an attribution statement specified by data.gov.uk, which is 'name of data provider' data © Crown copyright and database right. The inclusion of the same acknowledgement is required in sub-licensing of the data, and further sub-licences should require the same. The data should not be used in a way that suggests that the data provider endorses the use of the data. And the data or its source should not be misrepresented.
The Open Government Licence (OGL) applies to Crown copyright data, and permits anyone to copy, distribute, and transmit the data, adapt the data, exploit the data commercially, whether by sub-licensing it, combining it with other data, or by including it in products and applications. The terms of the licence are aligned with any Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Hence data.gov.uk data can be mixed with information licensed under Creative Commons licences to create derivative work, which can be distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. When users submit information to data.gov.uk, they grant the Crown a non-exclusive, irrevocable right to use and pass on all public information submitted, such as descriptions of ideas and screenshots of apps, as well as the right to re-use allow the re-use of that information. All content on the site is placed under the same licence terms as the data, though user ideas and application remain their own.
The Crown copyright licence does not affect fair dealing or fair use rights, or any other exceptions and limitations to copyright or database rights. The data are licensed 'as is', and data.gov.uk does not accept liabilities in relation to the data or provide warranties. Neither does data.gov.uk guarantee the continued supply of the data.
== Government project ==
Authorised by the UK Cabinet Office, and aimed for the release of public data to become 'business as usual' across public bodies, as set out in Putting the Frontline First: Smarter Government, which established the UK Government's approach to public data and the release of that data. data.gov.uk amongst others, delivers on the commitment made in Putting the Frontline First to integrate data from the Publications Hub for National Statistics and to release more data relating to health.

45
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data.gov.uk-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
---
title: "Data.gov.uk"
chunk: 2/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data.gov.uk"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:46.481888+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
== Current technology infrastructure ==
The site uses the CKAN platform for data publishing. There is high variability in the format and presentation of the data; some data files are available as structured raw data in a machine-readable format such as CSV, while others are only available as analysed data in a human-friendly format such as a PDF file containing a pivot table. data.gov.uk functions as a searchable data catalogue, with links to data that is hosted by the individual UK Government departments, and does not host data itself.
== Previous technology infrastructure ==
In addition to the data searchable through the data.gov.uk site, from 2016 until 2021, a very small number of datasets were made available as 'registers' through the Registers Service. Registers were structured raw datasets that are intended to be a canonical, reliable, and always up-to-date source of data. Registers shared a common API, and can be read by both humans and machines. They were offered as JSON, CSV, and RDF files, the latter allowing to link multiple registers together. The Registers service was retired on 15 March 2021.
== Similar projects in other countries ==
The European Public Sector Information (PSI) Platform maintains a list of PSI data catalogues provided by governments, and providing direct access to data.
The European Commission (EC) has created two portals for the European Union (EU): the EU Open Data Portal, which gives access to open data from the EU institutions, agencies, and other bodies, and the PublicData portal that provides datasets from local, regional, and national public bodies across Europe. In the Netherlands, the DataverseNL Network hosts data deposited by Dutch Universities and Institutes.
== See also ==
Government 2.0
GOV.UK
Linked data
Merton Thesis
Open access (publishing)
Open content
Open data
Open research
TheyWorkForYou
Open.data.gov.sa
== References ==
== Further reading ==
Davies, Tim (2010). The potential of open government data as a tool in democratic engagement and reform of public services : the case of data.gov.uk (Thesis). University of Oxford, England. OCLC 701462227.
Nigel Shadbolt; Kieron O'Hara; Tim Berners-Lee; Nicholas Gibbins; Hugh Glaser; Wendy Hall; M. C. Schraefel (May 2012). "Linked Open Government Data: Lessons from data.gov.uk" (PDF). IEEE Intelligent Systems. 27 (3). IEEE Intelligent Systems, 27, 201205, 16: 16–24. doi:10.1109/MIS.2012.23. ISSN 1541-1672. OCLC 5872705607. S2CID 16865792.
== External links ==
data.gov.uk — official homepage
Cabinet Office - Transparency
10 Downing Street - Transparency Archived 19 September 2015 at the Wayback Machine
Guardian video: Tim Berners-Lee on the UK national data website launch

29
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DataViva-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
---
title: "DataViva"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DataViva"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:48.890666+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
DataViva is an information visualization engine created by the Strategic Priorities Office of the government of Minas Gerais. DataViva makes official data about exports, industries, locations and occupations available for the entirety of Brazil through eight apps and more than 100 million possible visualizations.
The first set of datum – also available at ALICEWEB – is provided by MDIC (Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade) / SECEX (Secretariat of Foreign Trade), an official institution of the Government of Brazil and shows foreign trade statistics for all exporting municipalities in the country. The other database, provided by Ministério do Trabalho e Emprego (MTE – Ministry of Labor and Employment), shows information about all the industries and occupations in Brazil (RAIS – Annual Social Information Report).
The platform consists of eight core applications, each of which allows different ways of visualizing the data available. Some applications are descriptive, that is, showing data aggregated at various levels in a simple and comparative way, such as Treemapping. Others are prescriptive, using calculations that allow an analytic visualization of the data, based on theories such as the Product Space. All the applications are generated using D3plus, an open source JavaScript library built on top of D3.js by Alexander Simoes and Dave Landry.
Inspired by The Observatory of Economic Complexity, DataViva is an open data, open-source, and free to use tool.
It was developed in a partnership with Datawheel, co-founded by MIT Media Lab Professor César Hidalgo, and is maintained by the Government of Minas Gerais.
== References ==
Press coverage
== External links ==
Official website
dataviva on GitHub
DataViva Documentation
The Necessity For Open Data
D3plus (Visualization Library Powering DataViva)

31
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Commons-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
---
title: "Data Commons"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Commons"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:41.760415+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Data Commons is an open-source platform created by Google that provides an open knowledge graph, combining economic, scientific and other public datasets into a unified view. Ramanathan V. Guha, a creator of web standards including RDF, RSS, and Schema.org, founded the project, which is now led by Prem Ramaswami.
The Data Commons website was launched in May 2018 with an initial dataset consisting of fact-checking data published in Schema.org "ClaimReview" format by several fact checkers from the International Fact-Checking Network. Google has worked with partners such as the United Nations (UN) to populate the repository, which also includes data from the United States Census, the World Bank, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Wikipedia, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The service expanded during 2019 to include an RDF-style knowledge graph populated from a number of largely statistical open datasets. The service was announced to a wider audience in 2019. In 2020 the service improved its coverage of non-US datasets, while also increasing its coverage of bioinformatics and coronavirus. In 2023, the service relaunched with a natural-language front end powered by a large language model. It also launched as the back end to the UN data portal with Sustainable Development Goals data.
== Features ==
Data Commons places more emphasis on statistical data than is common for linked data and knowledge graph initiatives. It includes geographical, demographic, weather and real estate data alongside other categories, describing states, Congressional districts, and cities in the United States as well as biological specimens, power plants, and elements of the human genome via the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project. It represents data as semantic triples each of which can have its own provenance. It centers on the entity-oriented integration of statistical observations from a variety of public datasets. Although it supports a subset of the W3C SPARQL query language, its APIs also include tools — such as a Pandas dataframe interface — oriented towards data science, statistics and data visualization.
Data Commons is integrative, meaning that it does not provide a hosting platform for different datasets, but rather attempts to consolidate much of the information provided by the datasets into a single data graph.
== Technology ==
Data Commons is built on a graph data-model. The graph can be accessed through a browser interface and several APIs, and is expanded through loading data (typically CSV and MCF-based templates). The graph can be accessed by natural language queries in Google Search. The data vocabulary used to define the datacommons.org graph is based upon Schema.org. In particular the Schema.org terms StatisticalPopulation and Observation were proposed to Schema.org to support datacommons-like use cases.
Software from the project is available on GitHub under Apache 2 license.
== References ==
== External links ==
Official website
GitHub repository

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_collaboratives-0.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_collaboratives"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:53.027907+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:40.563232+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_collaboratives-1.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_collaboratives"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:53.027907+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:40.563232+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_publishing-0.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_publishing"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:54.244819+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:59.043159+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing-0.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T07:02:27.558145+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:42.943003+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing-1.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T07:02:27.558145+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:42.943003+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataverse-0.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dataverse"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:56.764149+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:47.696642+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

49
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deklarator-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
---
title: "Deklarator"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deklarator"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:51.256333+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Declarator (Russian: Декларатор) is a russian online service for processing anti-corruption declarations of officials. As of 2025, the service contains records of more than 1.3 million public officials.
== Project background and development ==
Declarator was created in 2011 with the aim of increasing the transparency and accessibility of information on the income and property of Russian officials. The project was a response to the introduction in Russia in 2008 of mandatory income and property declarations for civil servants. Initially, the project team was engaged in manually collating data from declarations into spreadsheets. However, this approach was not efficient enough to process large volumes of information. This led to the decision to develop a specialized database and a website for publishing the collected information.
In 2013 to 2014, the project received support from the Civil Initiatives Committee of Russia, thanks to which declarations from a number of federal and regional authorities were processed and the technical base of the Declarator was improved. A significant contribution to the development of the project was made by the HSE Project and Training Laboratory of Anti-Corruption Policy, whose students and interns participated in the creation of the database architecture and information processing.
In 2018, an API was launched that allows third-party projects to access and use the Declarator database.
The key figure and speaker of the project is Andrey Zhvirblis. He stood at the origins of the database creation and has been coordinating the team's work since its launch.
== Project goals and objectives ==
The Declarator project aims to increase transparency and public control over the income and property of officials in Russia. The main task is to collect disparate information about the income, assets and property liabilities of officials at all levels (from the school principal to the president) and present it in a convenient, machine-readable format.
Careful examination of financial declarations of public officials allows journalists, activists and citizens to identify potential conflicts of interest, illicit enrichment or discrepancies between declared income and assets.
== Practical application ==
The publication Important Stories has studied how civil servants receive real estate from the state, while many veterans are forced to wait for housing for years. The investigation indicates that some officials have purchased several apartments under preferential programs.
The Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) used the Declarator data to search for declarations of officials, which became the basis for a number of anti-corruption investigations, including into the ownership of elite real estate by government officials.
Russia Post analyzed in a study how access to data on the incomes of officials in Russia has changed, citing the Declarator service.
== Scientific research ==
An analysis of government employee declarations using the Declarator was used in a study published in the American Journal of Political Science.
== Restrictions and legislative changes ==
Public access to some information is restricted by Russian law. Since the adoption of the Law on Combating Corruption in 2008 has undergone multiple revisions, some of which have significantly reduced the volume of open data.
In 2022, a ban was introduced on the publication of declarations of employees of a number of government agencies during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
In 2023, a law was passed allowing deputies and senators not to publish income declarations, and also allowing municipal deputies not to submit declarations under certain conditions.
The Federal Protective Service also restricts access to a number of data on high-ranking officials. Some agencies publish declarations in formats that are difficult to process automatically or delete archived information, which reduces the completeness and openness of information.
In June 2025, the website of the Declarator project was blocked by Roskomnadzor following a court ruling in response to a complaint from the prosecutor's office regarding violations of personal data legislation.
== References ==
== External links ==
Official website

29
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_open_access-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
---
title: "Diamond open access"
chunk: 1/5
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_open_access"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:37.993676+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Diamond open access refers to academic texts (such as monographs, edited collections, and journal articles) published/distributed/preserved with no fees to either reader or author. Alternative labels include platinum open access, non-commercial open access, cooperative open access or, more recently, open access commons. While these terms were first coined in the 2000s and the 2010s, they have been retroactively applied to a variety of structures and forms of publishing, from subsidized university publishers to volunteer-run cooperatives that existed in prior decades.
In 2021, it is estimated that between 17,000 and 29,000 scientific journals rely on a diamond open access model. They make up 73% of the journals registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals and 44% of the articles, as their mean output is smaller than commercial journals. The diamond model has been especially successful in Latin America-based journals (95% of OA journals) following the emergence of large publicly supported platforms, such as SciELO and Redalyc. However, Diamond OA journals are under-represented in the major scholarly databases, such as Web of Science and Scopus. It is also noteworthy, that high-income countries "have the highest share of authorship in every domain and type of journal, except for diamond journals in the social sciences and humanities".
In 2022, new national and international policies, such as the UNESCO recommendation on open science, and the Action Plan for Diamond Open Access promoted by the cOAlition S aim to support the development of non-commercial or community-driven forms of open access publishing.
== Context and definition ==
=== Historical roots of diamond models: knowledge clubs and commons ===
Until the Second World War, academic publishing was mostly characterized by a wide range of community-driven scholarly structures with little concern for profitability. Most journals of the 19th century and the first part of the 20th century were collective initiatives led by a scientific movement or institution that largely relied on informal community norms rather than commercial regulations. These historical practices have been described as a form of knowledge commons, or, more specifically, as a knowledge club that holds an intermediary status between a knowledge commons and a private company: while managed by a community, journals are mostly used to the benefit of a selected set of authors and readers.
In Western Europe and North America, direct ownership of journals by academic communities and institutions started to wane in the 1950s. The expansion of scientific publishing in the context of big science led to a perceived "crisis" of the historical model of scientific periodicals. Between 1950 and 1980, the new model of large commercial publishers came to dominate numerous fields of scientific publishing in western countries:
The small society presses, struggling to cope with growing scale, were supported and then largely supplanted by the 'Big 5' commercial presses: Elsevier (which acquired Pergamon in 1991), Wiley, Springer, Taylor & Francis and Sage. These newly-empowered players brought an industrial approach to the publication and dissemination process, for the first time realising the benefits that these specialised capital and skills could provide by operating at a scale that was unprecedented to that date.
This transformation had wide-ranging consequences over the way scientific journals were managed, not only at the economic but also at the editorial level with an increased standardization of publishing norms, peer-review process, or copyrights. Yet it was neither global nor general, and communal forms of journal ownership and management remained significant in large geographic areas (like Latin America) and in several disciplines, especially in the humanities and the social sciences.
=== Development of "grassroots" open access (1990–2010) ===
The open access movement emerged both as a consequence of the unprecedented access afforded by online publishing and as a reaction against the large corporate model that has come to dominate scientific publishing since the Second World War and the hyper-inflation of subscription prices. The early pioneers of open access electronic publishing were non-commercial and community-driven initiatives that built up on a trend of grassroot publishing innovation in the social sciences and the humanities:
In the late '80s and early '90s, a host of new journal titles launched on listservs and (later) the Web. Journals such as Postmodern Cultures, Surfaces, the Bryn Mawr Classical Review and the Public-Access Computer Systems Review were all managed by scholars and library workers rather than publishing professionals.
Specialized free software for scientific publishing like Open Journal Systems became available after 2000. This development entailed a significant expansion of non-commercial open access journals by facilitating the creation and the administration of journal websites and the digital conversion of existing journals. Among the journals registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) without an article processing charge (APC), the number of annual creation has gone from 100 by the end of the 1990s to 800 around 2010, and has not evolved significantly since then.

23
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_open_access-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
---
title: "Diamond open access"
chunk: 2/5
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_open_access"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:37.993676+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
=== Debates over the identity of the open access commons (2003–2012) ===
In the early debates over open access, the distinctions between commercial and non-commercial forms of scientific publishing and community-driven or corporate-owned structures seldom appear, possibly due to the lack of viable business model for open access. Open access publications were rather increasingly categorized into two different editorial forms: open access articles made immediately available by the publisher and pre-published articles hosted on an online archive (either as a pre-print or post-print). Starting in 2003, the ROMEO project started to devise a color-code system to better identify the policy of scientific publishers in regard to open sharing of scientific articles, from "yellow" (pre-print only) to "green" (no restriction in place): "the 'greenest' publishers are those that allow self-archiving not only of the author's accepted manuscript, but of the fully formatted and paginated publisher PDF". In 2004, Harnad et al. repurposed this classification scheme into a highly influential binary scale: articles directly made available by the publisher belong to "gold" open access (instead of "yellow") and online archives are defined as "green" open access. With this breakdown of open access into "green" and "gold", there is no distinction between commercial and non-commercial publishers. For Peter Suber the "gold" model embraces both journals supported by APCs or by other means of funding, as well as volunteer-run journals: "In the jargon, OA delivered by journals is called gold OA, and OA delivered by repositories is called green OA."
Tom Wilson introduced the expression "Platinum Open Access" in 2007 following an heated debate with Stevan Harnad and other open access activists on the American Scientist Open Access Forum mailing list. On his blog, Wilson defended the necessity of enlarging the classification of open access publishing forms as well as stressed the danger of conflating commercial and non-commercial open access journals.
[The "gold" and "green" classification] is not really the whole story and is in danger of perpetuating the myth that the only form of open access publishing is that made available through the commercial publishers, by author charging. This is why I distinguish between open access through author charging, which is what the Gold Route is usually promoted as being (…) and the Platinum Route of open access publishing which is free, open access to the publications and no author charges. In other words the Platinum Route is open at both ends of the process: submission and access, where as the Gold Route is seen as open only at the access end.
The term "diamond open access" was coined later in 2012 by Marie Farge, a French mathematician and physicist and open access activist. Farge was involved in the Cost of Knowledge campaign led by Timothy Gowers against the excessive cost of scientific publishing. The reference to "diamond" was a hyperbolic pun on the "gold" metaphor that aims to suggest that non-commercial/free model were ultimately the best: "I have proposed to call this third way 'Diamond OA' by outbidding the 'Gold OA' terminology chosen by the publishers". "Free OA" was also contemplated as an alternative name.
The Forum of Mathematics, an open access journals co-created by Timothy Gowers, was the first publication to explicitly claim to be a diamond journal: "For the first three years of the journal, Cambridge University Press will waive the publication charges. So for three years the journal will be what Marie Farge (who has worked very hard for a more rational publication system) likes to call diamond open access, a quasi-miraculous model where neither author nor reader pays anything".
=== Defining the diamond model (2012–present) ===
In 2013, Fuchs and Sandoval published one of the first systematic definitions of diamond open access: "Diamond open access Model, not-for-profit, non-commercial organizations, associations or networks publish material that is made available online in digital format, is free of charge for readers and authors and does not allow commercial and for-profit re-use." This definition is associated with a controversial stance against the leading definition of gold open access: "We argue for differentiating the concept of Gold Open Access Publishing because Suber and others mesh together qualitatively different models, i.e. for-profit and not-for-profit ones, into the same category, whereas others, especially policy makers, simply forget or exclude not-for-profit models that do not use author fees or reader fees." The debate over the relationship between "diamond" or "platinum" open access publications versus "Gold" open access has never settled and remains a point of contention, even after the publication of the OA Diamond Study. While valuing this study, Martin Paul Eve still considers diamond open access to be a "category error".
Since 2013, the theoretical literature on the diamond model has been increasingly influenced by institutional analysis of the commons. Consequently, the "Open access commons" has recently emerged has an alternative label, although the term is used less as a descriptor and more as a programmatic ideal for the future of non-commercial open access. The conclusion of the OA Diamond study calls for the realization of The OA Commons as "a diverse, thriving, innovative and more interconnected and collaborative OA diamond journal ecosystem that supports bibliodiversity and serves many languages, cultures and domains in the future.". Similarly, Janneke Adema and Samuel Moore have proposed to "redefine the future of scholarly publishing in communal settings" through a "scaling small" that ensures the preservation and development of diverse editorial models.
Analysis of the diamond model has been significantly deepened by the commission of large scale empirical studies such as the OA Cooperative Study (2016) by the Public Knowledge Project and the OA Diamond Study (2021) by the cOAlition S. Noteworthy, the 2021 study found:

37
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_open_access-2.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
---
title: "Diamond open access"
chunk: 3/5
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_open_access"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:37.993676+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The number of Diamond OA journals is very large (>29,000), but only ~a third are registered in DOAJ, and only ~5% are indexed in either Scopus or Web of Science. Over half of these Diamond OA journals publish 25 or fewer articles per year.
Between 2017 and 2019, paid-access journals published ~80% of all articles, paid-OA journals published ~11%, and Diamond OA journals published ~9%.
The share of Diamond OA publications among all OA journal articles peaked in 2018 and has been declining since.
Only 4.3% of Diamond OA journals are fully compliant with all Plan S criteria.
Only 55% of Diamond OA journals provide DOI numbers for their articles.
Only 25% of Diamond OA journals provide their content as XML or HTML (in addition to pdf).
Only ~ half of Diamond OA journals provide download statistics for their content.
2/3 of Diamond OA journals use double-blind peer review, higher than subscription journals, which prefer single-blind peer review.
25% of Diamond OA journals operated at a loss, and just over 40% reported breaking even. The rest did not know their financial status.
Although all Diamond OA journals rely heavily on volunteer work, they have some revenue sources, such as grants, collectively-organised funding, donations, shared infrastructure, membership fees, freemium services, etc.
70% of Diamond OA journals declared operating costs below $/€10,000 per year. In contrast, before cancelling its subscription in 2012, Harvard alone paid $40,000 per year for just one (the most expensive) of Elsevier's journals.
The most challenging area for Diamond OA journals is indexing and content visibility in the main research databases, such as Scopus, Web of Science, and SciFinder.
== Distribution ==
The OA Diamond Study gives an estimation of >29,000 diamond open access journals in 2021, which represent a significant share of the total number of scholarly journals. Diamond journals make up 73% of all open access journals registered on the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), with 10,194 entries out of 14,020 in September 2020. In 2013, Fuchs and Sandoval already noted that, as a far as the number of individual journals is concerned, diamond open access is the main form of open access publishing: "Diamond open access is not just an idea, but rather, as the empirical data provided in this paper shows, the dominant reality of open access."
While the diamond model is prevalent among open access journals when looking at journal titles, this is not the case when looking at the aggregate number of articles, as they publish fewer articles overall. The OA Diamond Study finds that the 10,194 journals without publication fees registered on the Directory of Open Access Journals published 356,000 articles (8–9% of all scholarly articles) per year from 2017 to 2019, compared to 453,000 articles (10–11%) published by the 3,919 commercial journals with APCs. This discrepancy can mostly be attributed to a consistently lower output from diamond open access journals compared with commercial journals: "In DOAJ we find that the majority of OA diamond journals (54.4%) publish 24 or fewer articles per year; only 33.4% of APC-based journals have a similar size." Diamond journals also have a more diverse editorial production, including other forms of scholarly productions like book reviews or editorials, which may contribute to decreasing their share of the total number of research articles.
From 2014 to 2019, the output of diamond open access journal has continued to grow in absolute terms, but has decreased relative to the output of commercial open access journals. The same period showed a significant development of APC-based large publishers as well as an increasing conversion of legacy subscription-based publishers to the commercial open access model.
Any estimation of the number of diamond journals or articles is challenging as most non-commercial or community-run journals do not identify as diamond journals and this definition has to be deduced or reconstructed from the lack of APCs or any other commercial activity. Additionally, diamond journals more frequently struggle to be registered in academic indexes and remain largely uncharted.
=== Geographic distribution ===
The majority of diamond open access journals are published in Europe (around 45%) and Latin America (around 25%). In relative terms, the diamond model is especially prevalent in Latin America (95% of open access journals registered in DOAJ) and Eastern Europe (81%). In contrast with Western Europe and North America, the open access movement in Latin America was largely structured around publicly supported platforms like Redalyc or Scielo, rather than APC-based publishers:
The Latin American region, as a result, owns an ecosystem characterized by the fact that "publishing" is conceived as acts of "making public", of "sharing", rather than the activity of a profit-driven publishing industry (...) Latin American academic journals are led, owned and financed by academic institutions. It is uncommon to outsource editorial processes.
The OA Diamond Study attributes these differences to the absence of large, privately owned publishers, stating that "Most major, large commercial publishers are based in Western Europe or US/Canada, which explains some of the relative dominance of the APC-model in these regions. Without these publishers, Western Europe and US/Canada would be more similar to other regions." Additionally, Latin American journals have long been neglected in the main commercial indexes, which may have encouraged the development of local initiatives.
The diamond model has come to embody an ideal of social justice and cultural diversity in emerging and developing countries. Diamond open access journals are more likely to be multilingual (38%): "while English is the most common language [...] Spanish, Portuguese and French play a much more important role for OA diamond journals than for APC-based ones. Generally, this holds for most languages other than English."

38
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_open_access-3.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
---
title: "Diamond open access"
chunk: 4/5
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_open_access"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:37.993676+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
=== Disciplines ===
While diamond OA journals are available for most disciplines, they are more prevalent in the humanities and social science. The OA Diamond Study finds that, among the journals registered on the DOAJ, humanities and social science publications make up 60% of diamond open access journals and only 23.9% of APC-based journals. This distribution may be due to the differentiated evolution of scientific publishing during the 20th century, as "small HSS journals are often owned by universities and societies who often prefer OA diamond models, while many big science and medicine journals are owned by commercial publishers, more inclined to use APC models."
However, the diamond model is still present in many disciplines, with 22.2% of diamond journals in STEM and 17.1% in Medicine. Medical diamond journals are often embedded in local communities, especially in non-western countries: "It becomes apparent that local diamond OA journals are not only important in HSS, but also in medicine."
An additional survey led by the OA Diamond Survey of 1,619 diamond OA journals highlights a more complex disciplinary distribution: although the social sciences (27.2%) and humanities (19.2%) are well represented, more than a quarter of respondents did not favor one discipline in particular (15.1% for multidisciplinary and 12% for "other").
== Organization and economics ==
The OA Diamond Study introduced a taxonomy of 6 types of diamond OA journals based largely on their ownership status: institutional journals, learned-society journals, volunteer-run journals, publisher journals, platform journals, and large journals.
Most diamond open access journals are managed by academic institutions, communities or platforms: "The majority of journals (42%) are owned by universities. The main alternatives are learned societies (14%) and, to a lesser extent, government agencies, university presses and individuals." This integration ensures the autonomy of the journals: they "are inherently independent from commercial publishers as they are not created by them and do not rely on them at the management level."
The main sources of support for diamond OA journals are non-monetary: in-kind support from research institutions (such as hosting and software maintenance or copy-editing services) and voluntary contributions. Grant funding is significantly less-mentioned in surveys, possibly because it does not always ensure a regular source of support. Since the 1990s, shared platforms have become important intermediary actors for diamond journals, especially in Latin America (Redalyc, AmeliCA, ScIELO, Ariadna Ediciones) and some European countries such as France (OpenEdition Journals, via Lodel), or the Netherlands, Finland, Croatia, and Denmark (all via PKP's Open Journal System). Since the core definition of the diamond model is focused on the lack of APCs, a few diamond journals (less than 5–10% of respondents in the OA Diamond Survey) maintain commercial activities by charging for services or additional features (freemium).
Operating costs of diamond journals are low: half of the 1,600 journals surveyed by the OA Diamond Study had costs below $/€1,000 per year. The median cost per articles is around $200, which is significantly lower than standard APCs for commercial open access journals. These low costs are accounted for by institutional support, limited expenses, and reliance on volunteer work: 60% of the journals surveyed in the OA Diamond Study were at least partly run by volunteers.
The governance models of diamond journals also have an impact on their economic models. Journals embedded in academic institutions are more like to benefit from direct funding or support, whereas "journals owned by learned societies rely significantly more on membership fees". Despite these supports, a significant number of diamond journals still lack funding for their basic operations. Finally, unlike APC-funded journals, research funding organizations tend not to support diamond OA journals, though there are proposals for new direct funding mechanisms.
== Issues and perspectives ==
=== Apparent limitations of focus ===
Recent discussions of diamond open access have taken an increasingly narrow focus, limiting the definition to mostly refer to journals, instead of the full range of academic texts.
Others argue that diamond open access should be a format-agnostic concept that can include all research outputs, including long form works like book chapters and monographs, which play an important role in the Humanities and Social Sciences.
=== Preservation ===
Long-term preservation is essential for all scholarly publications, and this is being studied for diamond open access journals. Results from a survey presented in the OA Diamond Journals Study indicate that 57% of diamond OA journals have no preservation policy. While libraries have an incentive to preserve articles published by subscription-based journals to ensure their investment is not lost, there is no similar motivation for free online content.
Efforts are underway to solve this issue, such as Project JASPER, an ongoing project of the Directory of Open Access Journals, CLOCKSS, the Internet Archive, the KEEPERS Registry, and PKP-PN; as well as the automated preservation of published articles in LOCKSS when Open Journal Systems (OJS) is used. Of the diamond journals surveyed in the OA Diamond Journals Study, 60 use this open source software application for managing and publishing.
=== Recognition ===
While diamond open access journals make up a large share of all open access publications, they have long been overlooked by scientific funding mechanisms:
This reality is however not enough acknowledged and taken into account in the open access journal debate. There is a danger that Diamond open access publishers' interests are overlooked and that a corporate model of OA will shape the future of academia. We therefore argue for a shift in the debate and that policy makers should take the Diamond Model serious by providing support for it.
The launch of the cOAlition-S initiative in 2018 made the recognition of diamond journals more pressing. Support for open access publishing would now be conditioned on adherence to a series of editorial and economic standards which some diamond journals may struggle to conform to, given their limited means. One of the final recommendations of the OA Diamond Study was a call to fully integrate Diamond journals into the Plan S strategy:

16
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_open_access-4.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
---
title: "Diamond open access"
chunk: 5/5
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_open_access"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:37.993676+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Some journals argue that research funders have the responsibility to support or even favour OA diamond journals since they are often excluded from discussions on funding OA. While, the Plan S Principle 5 states that "the Funders support the diversity of business models for Open Access journals and platforms", perceptions will change once funders focus on OA diamond in addition to Gold OA and legacy publishing. This action has a significant potential to cover existing gaps in OA publishing.
In 2020 and 2021, the institutional recognition of the diamond model has significantly progressed with unprecedented commitments from national and international organizations. The 2021 UNESCO recommendation for Open Science calls for "supporting not-for-profit, academic and scientific community-driven publishing models as a common good". The second French Plan for Open Science encouraged a "diversification of economic models" that especially highlight the diamond model as it should enable "a transition from subscription towards open access with no publishing fees". In March 2022, an Action Plan for Diamond Open Access was published with the support of the cOAlition S, Science Europe, OPERAS, and the French National Research Agency. This plan aims to "expand a sustainable, community-driven Diamond scholarly communication ecosystem." In 2024 the Toluca-Cape Town Declaration on Diamond Open Access declared that "scholarly knowledge is a public good" and that "diamond open access is driven by social justice, equity and inclusivity".
== References ==
== Bibliography ==

48
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directory_of_Open_Access_Journals-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
---
title: "Directory of Open Access Journals"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directory_of_Open_Access_Journals"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:03.862197+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is a website that hosts a community-curated list of open access journals, maintained by Infrastructure Services for Open Access (IS4OA). It was launched in 2003 with 300 open access journals and now has expanded to over 22,886 indexed open access journals and 12,746,462 articles.
The mission of DOAJ is to "increase the visibility, accessibility, reputation, usage and impact of quality, peer-reviewed, open access scholarly research journals globally, regardless of discipline, geography or language."
In 2015, DOAJ launched a reapplication process based on updated and expanded inclusion criteria. At the end of the process (December 2017), close to 5,000 journals, out of the 11,600 indexed in May 2016, had been removed from their database, in majority for failure to reapply.
Notwithstanding the substantial cleanup, the number of journals included in DOAJ has continued to grow, to reach 14,299 as of 3 March 2020. As of April 2025, the independent database contains more than 21,480 open access journals and 11,045,921 articles covering all areas of science, technology, medicine, social sciences and the humanities.
DOAJ provides a change log on Google Sheets that has been updated since March 2014 and identifies the journals added and the journals removed with the justification for the removal.
Founder, Lars Bjørnshauge, announced his retirement in 2021 and from January 2022, DOAJ has a new Managing Director, Joanna Ball.
== History ==
The Open Society Institute funded various open access related projects after the Budapest Open Access Initiative; the Directory was one of those projects. The idea for the DOAJ came out of discussions at the first Nordic Conference on Scholarly Communication in 2002. Lund University became the organization to set up and maintain the DOAJ. It continued to do so until January 2013, when Infrastructure Services for Open Access (IS4OA) took over.
The Infrastructure Services for Open Access (IS4OA) C.I.C. was founded in 2012 in the UK as a community interest company by open access advocates Caroline Sutton and Alma Swan. It runs the DOAJ and, until 2017, the Open Citations Corpus.
In a 2015 comparison with MEDLINE, PubMed Central, EMBASE and SCOPUS, DOAJ resulted to have the highest number of open access journals listed, but less than a half of them had actively published contents on DOAJ.
There is a partnership between DOAJ and OpenAIRE since October 2022.
== Criteria for journals ==
A number of criteria are used for inclusion of open access journals. This includes aspects such as:
Journal can be in any language
Must be active in publishing scholarly research (at least five articles per year)
Actively publishing for at least one year or has published at least 10 open access articles
Journal must have a dedicated website and open access policy
== See also ==
List of academic databases and search engines
List of open-access journals
Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association
Free Journal Network
Paperity - aggregator of open access journals
== References ==
== External links ==
Official website

37
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_repository-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
---
title: "Disciplinary repository"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplinary_repository"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:05.025845+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
A disciplinary repository (or subject repository) is an online archive, often an open-access repository, containing works or data associated with these works of scholars in a particular subject area. Disciplinary repositories can accept work from scholars from any institution. A disciplinary repository shares the roles of collecting, disseminating, and archiving work with other repositories, but is focused on a particular subject area. These collections can include academic and research papers.
Disciplinary repositories can acquire their content in many ways. Many rely on author or organization submissions, such as SSRN. Others such as CiteSeerX crawl the web for scholar and researcher websites and download publicly available academic papers from those sites. AgEcon, established in 1995, grew as a result of active involvement of academia and societies.
A disciplinary repository generally covers one broad based discipline, with contributors from many different institutions supported by a variety of funders; the repositories themselves are likely to be funded from one or more sources within the subject community. Deposit of material in a disciplinary repository is sometimes mandated by research funders.
Disciplinary repositories can also act as stores of data related to a particular subject, allowing documents along with data associated with that work to be stored in the repository.
What was believed to be the first public Workshop on Disciplinary Repositories was held on June 16 and 17, 2011, at the ACM Joint Conference on Digital Libraries in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
== Importance ==
Beyond the core functions of collecting, disseminating, and archiving scholarly works, disciplinary repositories offer significant benefits to the overall academic ecosystem. Here is a closer look at their contributions:
Increased accessibility: Many research articles are published in pay-walled journals, hindering access for new researchers. Disciplinary repositories make these publications more readily available at no cost, fostering wider dissemination of knowledge.
Enhanced discoverability: By categorizing scholarly works by subject area, disciplinary repositories enable researchers to locate relevant studies quickly and efficiently. This targeted organization streamlines the research process.
Improved credibility: Several disciplinary repositories implement a pre-print quality control process. This initial vetting enhances the overall credibility of the hosted research materials.
Preservation: Disciplinary repositories serve as digital archives, safeguarding valuable research from loss or degradation.
Scholarly impact measurement: Citation data associated with publications within disciplinary repositories can be used to evaluate research impact and the contribution of individual studies to a particular field.
In conclusion, disciplinary repositories play a vital role in promoting research, scholarship, and knowledge development across academic disciplines.
== See also ==
Institutional repository
== References ==
== External links ==
Open Access Directory - Disciplinary repositories

61
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Open_Data_Portal-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
---
title: "EU Open Data Portal"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Open_Data_Portal"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:54.811316+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Before data.europa.eu, the EU Open Data Portal was the point of access to public data published by the EU institutions, agencies and other bodies. On April 21, 2021 it was announced to be merged with the European Data Portal to create a unified data.europa.eu portal.[1]
Public data can be used and reused for commercial or non‑commercial purposes. The portal was a key instrument of the EU open data strategy. By ensuring easy and free access to data, their innovative use and economic potential can be enhanced. The goal of the portal was also to make the institutions and other EU bodies more transparent and accountable.
== Legal basis and launch of the portal ==
Launched in December 2012, the portal was formally established by Commission Decision of 12 December 2011 (2011/833/EU) on the reuse of Commission documents to promote accessibility and reuse.
Based on this decision, all the EU institutions were invited - and are still today - to publish information such as open data and to make it accessible to the public whenever possible.
The operational management of the portal was the task of the Publications Office of the European Union. Implementation of EU open data policy was the responsibility of the Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CONNECT) of the European Commission. This is still true today with data.europa.eu.
== Features ==
The portal enabled users to search, explore, link, download and easily re-use data for commercial or non-commercial purposes, through a common metadata catalogue. From the portal, users could access data published on the websites of the various institutions, agencies and other bodies of the EU.
Semantic technologies offered additional functionalities. The metadata catalogue could be searched via an interactive search engine and through SPARQL queries.
Users could suggest data they think is missing on the portal and give feedback on the quality of data obtainable.
The interface was in 24 EU official languages, but most metadata was available in a limited number of languages (English, French and German). Some of the metadata (e.g. names of the data providers and geographical coverage) was in 24 languages.
== Terms of use ==
Most of the data accessible via the EU Open Data Portal was covered by the legal notice of the Europa website. Generally, data could be used for free for commercial and non-commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged. Specific conditions for reuse, relating mostly to the protection of data privacy and intellectual property, applied to a small amount of data. A link to these conditions could be found for each dataset.
The terms of use could be found on the site. As of November 2020, most data was covered by the Creative Commons CC‑BY‑4.0 license and the site metadata by the Creative Commons CC0‑1.0 public domain waiver.
== Available data ==
The portal contained a very wide variety of high-value open data across EU policy domains, including the economy, employment, science, environment and education. The importance of these was confirmed by the G8 Open Data Charter.
At the time it was merged into data.europa.eu, around 70 EU institutions, bodies or departments (e.g. Eurostat, the European Environment Agency, the Joint Research Centre and other European Commission Directorates General and EU Agencies) had made datasets available, making a total of over 13,000.
The portal also contained a gallery of applications and a visualisations catalogue (launched in March 2018).
In the apps gallery users could find applications using EU data and developed by the EU institutions, agencies or other bodies or by third parties. The applications were displayed as much for their information value as for giving examples of what applications can be made using the data.
The visualisations catalogue offered a collection of visualisation tools, training and re-usable visualisations for all levels of data visualisation expertise, from beginner to expert.
== Architecture of the portal ==
The portal was built using open source solutions such as the Drupal content management system and CKAN, the data catalogue software developed by the Open Knowledge Foundation. It used Virtuoso as an RDF database and has a SPARQL endpoint.
Its metadata catalogue applies international standards such as: Dublin Core, the data catalogue vocabulary DCAT-AP Archived 2018-12-21 at the Wayback Machine and the Asset Description Metadata Schema (ADMS).
To promote linked open data, the portal makes extensive use of controlled vocabularies, such as EuroVoc.
== See also ==
Open data
Open Data Directive
European Union
European Commission
Institutions of the European Union
Agencies of the European Union
== References ==
== External links ==
EU Open Data Portal

40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_data-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
---
title: "Economics of open data"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_data"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:52.452447+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The economics of open data refers to the production, or loss, of wealth related to the use of open data. The cost of open data is a primary concern that can deter governments any companies from the opening up of data. While open data may theoretically have a low production cost, the cost of creating the original data set as well as maintaining that data once it is produced can be expensive. Though the creation of data may be expensive governments around the world such as France, the United States, and Japan, are anticipating substantial economic growth.
== Open Data vs. Paid Data ==
Open data has the capability to increase economic benefit through both individuals' and companies' use of the information. As of March 2016, it was estimated that open data was generating 0.5% more GDP compared to paid data. The creation of open data relies on either funding from government to create and maintain the data or funding in the form of grants and volunteers. Data made open by governments largely relies on the publication of public service research. Because the data has already been created for a purpose, there is no creation cost for it to be made available to the public.
The opening of data requires current and advance technologies as well as the employment of users who are skilled enough to complete such work. When data is collected it cannot be presented to the public in its raw form and may be inaccessible due to the program is uses or how the data is presented may be unusable. Time and funding is required to be reallocated by those who create the original dataset in order to make the data more accessible and usable for citizens to understand and engage with. When government is the main source of funding for the production of data it does not necessarily mean that they are the singular entity creating or managing the data. Governments sometimes contract out the creation or management of data to a third party. In some cases the third party may provide access to the data in exchange for a nominal fee. Citizen led initiatives face similar issues, such as the requirement of time and funding. For these types of initiatives it can be especially difficult because they do not have access to a guaranteed steady income such as taxpayer money; these organizations largely depend on donations.
Paying for the use of public data would cover some of the costs associated with creating, maintaining and formatting data, although it would reduced the economic value of what once was opened by 50%. Paying for the data that is now available for free would result in a lack of innovation, decreasing the GDP, as well as an increase in the cost of services created from use of purchased data. The opening of data reduces costs associated with licensing that is usually associated with paid data, as it costs more money to license a dataset than to have no license at all, though there are open datasets that use licensing as well. The opening of data itself does not simply create economic prosperity; systematic reforms would take place in order for open data innovations to find a place.
== Open Data and Economic Opportunity ==
Open data gains additional economic value when governments support open data initiatives, although increased uptake and citizen engagement is vital to the economic success of open data. Greater economic impact depends on revenue growth, cost reduction, and job creation. Revenue can be increased through the use of open data with the creation of new businesses, new good or services, or improved goods and services. When businesses profit from the creation of goods or services that rely upon open data not only does their company reap the financial benefits but the government does as well, through the increase of tax revenue. Cost reduction helps to increase revenue for private sector businesses but is also an asset to government. Cost reduction in government, whether through reduction of services required or labor requirements, reduces government spending in some areas allowing for investment in others. Open data can also increase economic benefit through the creation of jobs. Jobs can be created through innovative entrepreneurship or through the requirement of skilled labourers to use and understand data.
== Examples of Open Data Financial Models ==
There are numerous ways in which businesses currently support the generation, creation and upkeep of their data. In most cases businesses, or data brokers, will sell this information to third parties for a profit. As charging a fee for data would defeat the purpose of open data, governments and businesses must rely on different financial models. Normally a government or business would finance a public sector body to generate the data and profit or cost recovery would be achieved through users paying a licensing fee back to the public sector body. In turn, the profit made by the users could then be taxed and return finances to the government.
=== Budget Financing Model ===
Budget financing a specific amount of funds is allocated toward the open data project from general revenue. In this case the funding invested in to the project is only expected to cover the minimal costs. Businesses and Governments often expect to see a return from the opening up of data such as increased efficiency within their work environment or more positive citizen perceptions of the company or government.
=== Community Model ===
This model relies on individual citizens to invest their time and skills into generating and maintaining open data. A very successful example of this would be OpenStreetMap, which is continually updated and expanded by everyday users. The community model can also easily incorporate interactive benefits such as user feedback and the improvement of data quality. In this case there is a lot of room for innovation and conversation though the strong dependence on citizen engagement means individuals must actively be engaged with the data on a regular basis or risk the decrease in data quantity and quality.
=== Advertising Model ===
The advertising model is a popular method that can be seen across many online publications. In order to cover operating costs an open data publisher relies on revenue from advertisers. In these cases citizens are exposed to add banners and pop ups displayed on the same site as the data they are attempting to access. While this may prove sustainable for individual company websites some governments have policies against displaying advertisements on government webpages, which could prevent them from adapting such a model.
== References ==

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science-0.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/15
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:58.091431+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:06.320001+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science-1.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/15
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:58.091431+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:06.320001+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science-10.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 11/15
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:58.091431+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:06.320001+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science-11.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 12/15
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:58.091431+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:06.320001+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science-12.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 13/15
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:58.091431+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:06.320001+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science-13.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 14/15
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:58.091431+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:06.320001+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science-14.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 15/15
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:58.091431+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:06.320001+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science-2.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/15
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:58.091431+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:06.320001+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science-3.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 4/15
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:58.091431+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:06.320001+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science-4.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 5/15
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:58.091431+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:06.320001+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science-5.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 6/15
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:58.091431+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:06.320001+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science-6.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 7/15
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:58.091431+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:06.320001+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science-7.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 8/15
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:58.091431+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:06.320001+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science-8.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 9/15
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:58.091431+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:06.320001+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science-9.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 10/15
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_open_science"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:31:58.091431+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:06.320001+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

48
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_(academic_publishing)-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
---
title: "Embargo (academic publishing)"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_(academic_publishing)"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:07.515279+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
In academic publishing, an embargo is a period during which access to academic journals is not allowed to users who have not paid for access (or have access through their institution). The purpose of this is to ensure publishers have revenue to support their activities, although the impact of embargoes on publishers is hotly debated, with some studies finding no impact while publisher experience suggests otherwise. A 2012 survey of libraries by the Association of Learned, Professional, and Society Publishers on the likelihood of journal cancellations in cases where most of the content was made freely accessible after six months suggests there would be a major negative impact on subscriptions, but this result has been debated.
Various types exist:
A 'moving wall' is a fixed period of months or years.
A fixed date is a particular time point that does not change.
A current year (or other period) is setting a time point on Jan. 1 of the current year, so that all material earlier than that is available. Although fixed during the year, it will change each year.
== Purpose ==
There are various purposes:
For delayed open access journals, the embargo separates the most recent period, for which a subscription is needed, from an older period, where a subscription is not needed and anyone may access the article. This can range from a few months to several years.
For self-archiving, the embargo is a period of time set by the publisher in the copyright transfer agreement where access to the archived version of the article in a digital repository is restricted until the embargo period expires. Typical embargo periods range from 6 to 24 months, though some publishers may require an embargo of up to 48 months.
In full-text databases, such as those of EBSCO Publishing or ProQuest, it separates the most recent period, where only a title or abstract is available, from an older one, which is openly accessible.
== Moving wall ==
In academic publishing, a moving wall is the time period between the last issue of an academic journal available in a given online database and the most recently published print issue of a journal. It is specified by publishers in their license agreements with databases (like JSTOR), and generally ranges from several months to several years.
== Sustainability of embargo periods ==
Currently used embargo times (often 6–12 months in STEM and over 12 months in social sciences and humanities), however, do not seem to be based on empirical evidence on the effect of embargoes on journal subscriptions. In 2013 the UK House of Commons Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills already concluded that "there is no available evidence base to indicate that short or even zero embargoes cause cancellation of subscriptions".
There are some data available on the median "usage half life" (the median time it takes for scholarly articles to reach half of their total downloads) and the difference therein across disciplines, but this in itself does not prove that embargo length will affect subscriptions.
The argument that immediate self-archiving risks subscription revenue is seen as ironic where archiving of postprints is concerned. If the value publishers add to the publication process beyond peer review (e.g. in typesetting, dissemination and archiving) were worth the price asked, people would still be willing to pay for the journal even if the unformatted postprint is available elsewhere. An embargo can be seen as a statement that in fact the prices levied for individual articles through subscriptions, are not commensurate with the value added to a publication beyond organizing the peer review process.
Publishers have, in the past, lifted embargo periods for specific research topics in times of humanitarian crises, or have been asked to do so (e.g. outbreaks of Zika and Ebola). While considered commendable in itself by scholars, this is seen as an implicit acknowledgement that embargoes stifle the progress of science and the potential application of scientific research; particularly when it comes to life-threatening pandemics. While arguably, not all research is potentially critical for saving lives, it is hard to imagine a discipline where fellow researchers and societal partners would not benefit from un-embargoed access to research findings.
Evidence suggests that traditional journals can peacefully coexist with zero-embargo self-archiving policies, and the relative benefits to both publishers and authors via increased dissemination and citations outweigh any putative negative impacts. For publishers, the fact that most preprint repositories encourage authors to link to or upload the published version of record (VOR) is effectively free marketing for the respective journal and publisher.
Plan S has zero-length embargoes on self-archiving as one of its key principles. Where publishers have already implemented such policies, such as the Royal Society, Sage, and Emerald, there has been no documented impact on their finances so far. In a reaction to Plan S, Highwire suggested that three of their society publishers make all author manuscripts freely available upon submission and state that they do not believe this practice has contributed to subscription decline. Therefore there is little evidence or justification supporting the need for embargo periods.
== See also ==
Copyright policies of academic publishers
== Notes ==
== References ==

19
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmissionML-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
---
title: "EmissionML"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmissionML"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:53.680528+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
EmissionML (Emission Event Modeling Language) is an open and interoperable ontology and data model standard developed by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) to enable consistent representation, sharing, and integration of emission event data across sectors and technologies. It provides a machine-readable, spatio-temporal data model for describing the release of pollutants into the atmosphere, making it easier to trace, audit, and reconcile emission reports with observational data sources.
== History ==
EmissionML was initiated in 2024 through the formal proposal of an OGC Standards Working Group (SWG). The proposal is open for public comment in August 2024. The EmissionML SWG was officially launched at the 132nd OGC Technical Committee meeting in Mérida, Mexico, in June 2025.
In June 2025, the EmissionML SWG also welcomed collaboration with the Open Footprint Forum, with both standards seen as complementary: EmissionML focuses on raw emission event modeling, while the Open Footprint Data Model emphasizes corporate footprint accounting.
== References ==

30
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eprint-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
---
title: "Eprint"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eprint"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:08.666512+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
In academic publishing, an eprint or e-print is a digital version of a research document (usually a journal article, but could also be a thesis, conference paper, book chapter, or a book) that is accessible online, usually as green open access, whether from a local institutional or
a central digital repository.
When applied to journal articles, the term "eprints" covers both preprints (before peer review) and postprints (after peer review).
Digital versions of materials other than research documents are not usually called e-prints, but some other name, such as e-books.
== See also ==
Electronic article
Electronic journal
Electronic publishing
Open access
Open science
== References ==
== External links ==
What is an eprint? as defined in the FAQ section of eprints.org
Eprints as defined by Stevan Harnad

48
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Data_Portal-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
---
title: "European Data Portal"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Data_Portal"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:56.026214+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The European Data Portal is a web portal providing open data published by EU Institutions, national portals of EU Member states and non-member states, as well as international organisations of predominantly European scope, launched on April 21, 2021. The portal consolidates datasets previously available via the EU Open Data Portal and the European Data Portal into a single meta-catalogue. The European Data Portal, launched in its beta version on November 16, 2015, was an initiative of the European Commission, and part of the Digital Single Market.
Currently, more than 1,600,000 datasets are published on the portal, originating from 178 catalogues. The portal is a metadata catalogue: in it, metadata from other data and geospatial data catalogues are published following a common ontology, namely the DCAT Application Profile for data portals in Europe (DCAT-AP) with the aim of fostering and facilitating re-use of open data, promotion and support for the publication of (meta)data of high quality and use of Linked Open Data.
The contents of the portal are available in all 24 EU Official Languages and can be freely re-used for any purpose as Open Data, following the specific license terms of datasets.
== Legal basis ==
Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information set the path for both EU and member state portals.
Decision 2006/291/EC on the reuse of Commission documents provided the rules for the opening of the European Commission's data for re-use and was later amended by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU, which committed to making data available in machine-readable formats and established the creation of an EU Open Data Portal, publishing data from all EU Institutions, agencies and bodies.
In 2013, Directive 2013/37/EU and later Directive (EU) 2019/1024, revising the 2003 Directive, established that public sector information shall be available to public for free or at a very low cost by default.
Alongside these Directives, in 2007 the INSPIRE Directive (Directive 2007/2/EC) defined an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community. The Directive sets forth, via a series of implementing rules, standards for making geo-spatial data interoperable and re-usable among member states and the geo-spatial data community. Many of the geodata portals harvested by data.europa.eu were first created in keeping with the Directive.
The portal is funded by the EU and managed by the Publications Office of the European Union. The Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology of the European Commission is responsible for the implementation of EU open data policy, in collaboration with the project's management.
The delivery of the portal is contracted to a consortium of organisations led by Capgemini Invent, including Agiledrop, con terra, Data Excellence, Fraunhofer FOKUS, INTRASOFT International, OMMAX, the Lisbon Council and Timelex.
== Features ==
The portal allows users to access datasets originating from various catalogues, view metadata assessment reports and explore links to similar datasets. Datasets can be viewed as web-pages or as RDF linked data in any of the 24 EU official languages.
In addition to datasets, the portal contains editorial articles related to open data, such as data-stories, news articles, studies and reports. In this latter category, the Open Data Maturity report, a yearly study assessing the level of open-data maturity of member states and EFTA countries, can be found.
The data.academy section promotes (open) data literacy by providing free access to courses, videos and learning tools related to themes such as open data licensing, linked open data, data visualisation and more.
A dedicated section offers links to external sources re-using the data, for example for building of dedicated apps.
An API and SPARQL endpoints foster access to metadata in machine-readable format.
== Architecture of the portal ==
In keeping with EU requirements, the portal is built using open-source solutions as much as possible. For example, it uses Drupal as its editorial content management system. Virtuoso is used as a triplestore for the linked-data database, also offering a SPARQL endpoint. Custom software was written ad hoc when a suitable open-source solution could not be found.
Because all metadata is stored using DCAT-AP, specific open-source solutions were developed by the portal to map data from portals using different data-models (e.g. INSPIRE-CSW, CKAN).
== Terms of use ==
Most of the data accessible via data.europa.eu is released by the respective data providers using an open licence. For the most part, data can be used for free for commercial and non-commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged. Specific conditions for reuse, relating mostly to the protection of data privacy and intellectual property, apply to a small amount of data. A link to these conditions can be found on every dataset page.
Unless otherwise specified, editorial content published on the portal is released under a Creative Commons 'CC‑BY‑4.0' licence. The portal's copyright notice provides additional information on the terms of use.
As of September 2021, the most common open licences used for contents of the portal are the Creative Commons 'CC‑BY‑4.0' licence, the 'Data licence Germany – attribution' licence or Etalab's Open Licence (used by the French government).
== References ==
== External links ==
data.europa.eu

27
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Genome-phenome_Archive-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
---
title: "European Genome-phenome Archive"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Genome-phenome_Archive"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:57.213474+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) is a repository for human biomolecular and phenotypic data in the United Kingdom and Spain. It involves the secure storage of all potentially identifiable genetic data, phenotypic and clinical data generated by biomedical research programs.
As of March 2022, it stores and harvest data regarding over 4,500 research studies from over 1,000 institutions worldwide.
== History ==
EGA was launched in 2008 by the European Molecular Biology Laboratory’s European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) to support the voluntary archiving and dissemination of human genomic data requiring secure storage and distribution only to authorized researchers in a manner that "respects the consent agreements signed by the study subjects." Later, the EGA has expanded its scope of collaboration with the Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG) in Barcelona.
=== Controlled access ===
It offers the essential security required to regulate access, safeguard patient confidentiality, and provide access to those researchers and clinicians authorized to view controlled access data. Nevertheless, decisions about data access are not made by the EGA but rather by the appropriate data access-granting organization (DAO).
== External links ==
ega-archive.org
== References ==

34
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FORCE11-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
---
title: "FORCE11"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FORCE11"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:12.231934+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
FORCE11 is an international coalition of researchers, librarians, publishers and research funders working to reform or enhance the research publishing and communication system. Initiated in 2011 as a community of interest on scholarly communication, FORCE11 is a registered 501(c)(3) organization based in the United States but with members and partners around the world. Key activities include an annual conference, the Scholarly Communications Institute and a range of working groups.
== History ==
FORCE11 grew out of the FORC Workshop held in Dagstuhl, Germany in August 2011. This meeting resulted in the collaborative creation of a white paper which summarized the problems of scholarly communication and proposed a vision to address them.
== Activities ==
Through various working groups FORCE11 has undertaken a range of activities to improve the standards, interoperability and functionality of digital research communications and developed various statements on principles and policies for best practice. These include:
FAIR Data Principles: The development of a set of principles based on making data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR)
Research Resource Identification Initiative (RRID): supporting new guidelines and identifiers in biomedical publications
Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles (JDDCP): intended to help achieve widespread, uniform human and machine accessibility of deposited data through data citation
Software citation principles
== See also ==
Australian Open Access Strategy Group Archived 2018-02-10 at the Wayback Machine (AOASG)
Coalition for Networked Information (CNI)
Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)
Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC)
== References ==

40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactGrid-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
---
title: "FactGrid"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactGrid"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:58.410814+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
FactGrid provides projects with historical research interests with a collectively organized Wikibase graph database, allowing them to interconnect research data both on the platform and into external research repositories. Persistent identifiers for previously undocumented objects of research, the use of competing ontologies, the multilingual availability of data sets, and the long-term maintenance of the data sets, which remain collectively editable, are key features of the platform.
The platform was initiated by Olaf Simons in 2017/2018 in a cooperation between the Gotha Research Centre of the University of Erfurt and Wikimedia Germany. It is currently (as of January 2026) supported by around 700 users in about 50 projects ranging from Assyriology to Contemporary History. The number of 1 million database items was passed on 13 October 2024. All services are free and - since March 2023 financed by the NFDI4Memory consortium of the German National Research Data Infrastructure (NFDI). The Historical Data Center of Saxony-Anhalt and the NFDI4Memory data connectivity team working there under Katrin Moeller are playing a key role in project support since April 2023.
== Technical basis ==
FactGrid uses Wikidata's Wikibase software without major modifications of the user interface (Horace-Bénédict de Saussure's Cyanometer is providing the logo motif). The instance is set up without a docker image. The MediaWiki platform includes a WordPress blog as well as the FactGrid Viewer developed by Bruno Belhoste, (a tool similar to Magnus Manske's Reasonator) which presents database information in structured compilations in a direct communication with the database. The FactGrid Viewer offers the special service of fusing transcript pages from MediaWiki text pages into the information stored on the Wikibase items.
== Development ==
The main incentive to create FactGrid as a sister platform to Wikidata was in 2016/2017 the idea of a platform that will focus on “original research” and that will work without further “notability criteria” - solely organised by the scientific community. Wikimedia projects would be able, so the aim, to cite FactGrid data as “externally published” together with information about the FactGrid projects and teams that produced these data. The greater freedom that is granted to users on FactGrid is balanced by the greater transparency under which user are acting on the platform: The use of registered real name accounts is mandatory and all projects are requested to state their research interests with data they are generating on the platform.
First reservations about the risks of data theft and plagiarism on the openly visible platform have lost their initial importance. FactGrid data are CC0 licensed and open to any download, while they come with research metadata which can be easily quoted in external presentations; the platform is thus an interesting tool to move fresh data into public reception. The software, so the corresponding awareness, does not incite edit wars. Allowing the display of conflicting information with the respective sources Wikibase is rather an interesting medium to map complex data situations.
The resource's size growth was approximately 100,000 database objects annually between 2018 and 2023. The current growth rate appears to be growing to 200,000 database objects per year with tailwind of the ongoing the NFDI process in Germany. The database fully supports the four languages of the bigger user groups: German, French, Spanish and English. Most of the properties are also available in Hungarian and Chinese.
== Applications ==
FactGrid Wikibase Datenbase: https://database.factgrid.de/wiki/Main_Page
FactGrid Viewer: https://database.factgrid.de/viewer/
Project blog: https://blog.factgrid.de/
Projekt space: https://database.factgrid.de/wiki/FactGrid:Projects
Sample queries https://database.factgrid.de/wiki/FactGrid:Sample_queries
== Further reading ==
Charles B. Faulhaber/ Óscar Perea Rodríguez, PhiloBiblon as a Digital Tool for Historians of Medieval Iberia, UC Berkeley. http://dx.doi.org/10.21001/itma.2023.16.15 Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9t279727
Olaf Simons: Keine Selbstverständlichkeit: Citizen Science auf der FactGrid Wikibase-Plattform, in: René Smolarski/ Hendrikje Carius/ Martin Prell, Citizen Science in den Geschichtswissenschaften (Göttingen, 2023), S. 241–264. Google books
Olaf Simons: Stadtgeschichte im digitalen Zeitalter – Der FactGrid-Gotha-Datens(ch)atz, in: Moderne Stadtgeschichte(n) und ihre Perspektiven, hrsg. von Alexander Krünes (Leipzig. Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2023), S. 103–120.
Patricia García Sánchez-Migallón: FactGrid, una base de datos para datos históricos, y su relación con Philobiblon, in Janus: Estudios sobre el Siglo de Oro, 5. Juni 2023. https://www.janusdigital.es/articulo.htm?id=244
== References ==

50
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Access_to_Science_and_Technology_Research_Act-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
---
title: "Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Access_to_Science_and_Technology_Research_Act"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:09.839963+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR) is a bill in the United States that would mandate earlier public release of taxpayer-funded research. The bill has been introduced in 2013, 2015, and 2017. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) introduced the Senate version, while the bill was introduced to the House by Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Mike Doyle (D-Penn.) and Kevin Yoder (R-Kans.). The bill is a successor to the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA), which had been introduced in 2006, 2010, and 2012.
Senator Wyden advocated for the passage of the bill by arguing that "taxpayer funded research should never be hidden behind a paywall."
FASTR has been described as "The Other Aaron's Law", named for open-access activist Aaron Swartz who died in a dramatic case in support of open access research in January 2013.
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs unanimously approved the bill on July 29, 2015. It was the first time that the bill or any of its predecessors had gained committee approval and been forwarded to a full house of Congress.
The bill is often compared to and discussed in conjunction with the Public Access to Public Science (PAPS) Act, also introduced in 2013.
As of 2024 the bill has not been enacted, partially due to lobbying by anti-open access publishers and trade groups such as Elsevier and the Association of American Publishers.
== Executive action ==
Days after FASTR was introduced in 2013, the Executive Branch's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued a memorandum that "hereby directs each Federal agency with over $100 million in annual conduct of research and development expenditures to develop a plan to support increased public access to the results of research funded by the Federal Government." The change was in part prompted by an online Whitehouse petition to "Require free access over the Internet to scientific journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research."
== See also ==
Open access
Academic journal publishing reform
Serials crisis
Open, Public, Electronic and Necessary Government Data Act (OPEN)
== References ==
== External links ==
Senate version of FASTR (2015)
Congress.gov
House version H.R. 1477 (2015)
Congress.gov
Senate version of FASTR (2013)
Congress.gov
GovTrack.us
OpenCongress
THOMAS
House version H.R. 708 (2013)
Congress.gov
GovTrack.us
OpenCongress
PopVox
THOMAS
Notes on the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act. From the Harvard Open Access Project.
FAQ on FASTR from the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC)

64
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Research_Public_Access_Act-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
---
title: "Federal Research Public Access Act"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Research_Public_Access_Act"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:11.008884+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) is a proposal to require open public access to research funded by eleven U.S. federal government agencies. It was originally proposed by Senators John Cornyn and Joe Lieberman in 2006 and then again in 2010, and then once more in 2012.
A later version of the bill, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act, was introduced in 2013, 2015 and 2017.
== Provisions of bill ==
The FRPAA would require that those eleven agencies with research expenditures over $100 million, create online repositories of journal articles of the research completed by that agency and make them publicly available. They must be maintained and preserved by the agency, or another repository that permits free and open access. It must be available to users without charge within six months after it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The agencies included in this bill are:
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
== Legislative history ==
== Reaction ==
=== Support ===
In addition to Senator John Cornyn and Senator Joe Lieberman, Representative Michael F. Doyle, along with Frederick Boucher, Michael Capuano, Jerry Costello, Bill Foster, Barney Frank, Gregg Harper, Paul Hodes, Tim Holden, Dennis Kucinich, Rick Larsen, Zoe Lofgren, Stephen Lynch, Dana Rohrabacher, Fortney Stark, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Henry Waxman have co-sponsored a similar bill in the House of Representatives (H.R. 5037).
As of July 19, 2010, 120 Higher Education Leaders support this bill.
On March 28, 2012, 52 Nobel Laureates signed an open letter to the US Congress expressing their support for this bill.
=== Opposition ===
The Association of American Publishers opposes the bill on behalf of 81 scholarly publishing organizations alleging that the bill forces the same deadline for disciplines in which that deadline is burdensome, limits the options of government-funded researchers, forces a change in publishers' business models, and will create a cost burden on federal agencies.
== See also ==
Open access mandate
NIH Public Access Policy
Fair Copyright in Research Works Act
Research Works Act
== References ==
== Further reading ==
As COMPETES Act Is Signed into Law, 'Wait-and-See' Is the Attitude on Further OA Legislation
NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS BACK BILL FOR PUBLIC ACCESS Archived 2011-10-01 at the Wayback Machine
Open Letter on Open Access | Inside Higher Ed
Scientists Embrace Openness
Times Higher Education, "Learning to share"
White House Signals Interest in Open Access with Public Call for Comments

42
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Journal_Network-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
---
title: "Free Journal Network"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Journal_Network"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:13.437879+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Free Journal Network is an index of open access scholarly journals, specifically for those that do not charge article processing charges.
== Criteria ==
The network founded in early 2018 in order to promote free, open access journals,
a publishing model that is sometimes called diamond or platinum open access.
Such journals are typically smaller than equivalent commercial journals (often supported by academic societies). Main criteria include: adherence to the Fair Open Access Principles that are publicly supported by many renowned scientists, publication of article titles and abstracts in English, clear publication ethics and quality assurance policies.
== FJN Member Journals ==
As of November 2024, there are 90 journals that have been accepted into the Free Journal Network. Some notable examples include:
Discrete Analysis
European Journal of Taxonomy
Glossa
Journal of Open Source Software
Journal of Political Ecology
Norwegian Journal of Geology
SciPost Physics
Volcanica
== See also ==
Directory of Open Access Journals
Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association
== References ==
== External links ==
Official website

76
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Literature_Network_Service-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
---
title: "Grey Literature Network Service"
chunk: 1/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Literature_Network_Service"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:16.890978+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
GreyNet International, the Grey Literature Network Service, is an independent organization founded in 1992. It is dedicated to research, publication, open access, education, and bringing public awareness to grey literature. Grey literature is often defined as "Information produced and distributed on all levels of government, academics, business and industry in electronic and print formats not controlled by commercial publishing i.e. where publishing is not the primary activity of the producing body."
GreyNet is corporate author of the Proceeding issues from the International Conference Series on Grey Literature, The Grey Journal, An International Journal on Grey Literature, as well as other types of publications such as reports, program books, and newsletters. GreyNet also maintains a Listserv and a presence on a number of social media including LinkedIn, Netvibes, Twitter, and Facebook.
GreyNet is a not for profit organization fostering the production and dissemination of scientific literature. It is also engaged in the open source movement and was invited to the 10th Libre Software Meeting 2009 in Nantes, France, with a communication on knowledge sharing in the field of grey literature.
During the 11th International Conference on Grey Literature in December 2009, GreyNet signed a Partnership Agreement with ICSTI, International Council for Scientific and Technical Information. This newly established partnership lends to GreyNet a multilateral base, elevating it from a bilateral one that it already shares with a number of ICSTI Members. GreyNet seeks to provide ICSTI with an opportunity to further broaden its information activities to the social sciences and humanities.
== International Conference Series on Grey Literature (ISSN 1386-2316) ==
Source:
1993 GL1 Amsterdam, “GL’93, Weinberg Report 2000” hdl:10068/698053
1995 GL2 Washington D.C. ”GL’95, Grey Exploitations in the 21st Century” hdl:10068/698012
1997 GL3 Luxembourg, “GL’97, Perspectives on the Design and Transfer of STI” hdl:10068/697932
1999 GL4 Washington D.C., “GL’99, New Frontiers in Grey Literature” hdl:10068/697891
2003 GL5 Amsterdam, “Grey Matters in the World of Networked Information” hdl:10068/697754
2004 GL6 New York, “Work on Grey in Progress” hdl:10068/697756
2005 GL7 Nancy, France “Open Access to Grey Resources” hdl:10068/697757
2006 GL8 New Orleans, “Harnessing the Power of Grey” hdl:10068/697758
2007 GL9 Antwerp, “Grey Foundations in Information Landscape” hdl:10068/697759
2008 GL10 Amsterdam, “Designing the Grey Grid for Information Society” hdl:10068/697786
2009 GL11 Washington D.C., “The Grey Mosaic: Piecing It All Together”
2010 GL12 Prague, "Transparency in Grey Literature, Grey Tech Approaches to High Tech Issues"
2011 GL13 Washington D.C., "The Grey Circuit, From Social Networking to Wealth Creation", Library of Congress, December 5–6
2012 GL14 Rome, Italy, "Tracking Innovation through Grey Literature", National Research Council, CNR, November 29–30
2013 GL15 Bratislava, Slovak Republic, "The Grey Audit, A Field Assessment in Grey Literature", December 2–3
2014 GL16 Washington D.C. “Grey Literature Lobby, Engines and Requesters for Change”, December 8–9
2015 GL17 Amsterdam, “A New Wave of Textual and Non-Textual Grey Literature”, December 1–2
== Other publications ==
The Grey Journal, TGJ an International Journal on Grey Literature (ISSN print 1574–1796, ISSN e-print 1574-180X) was launched in 2005. It is the only journal on the topic. It appears three times a year in thematic issues, published in print and electronic formats. Articles from the electronic version at an article level are available via EBSCO’s LISTA-FT Database (EBSCO Publishing). The Grey Journal is indexed by the Scopus scientific database and other Indexing and abstracting services.
The Grey Journal, International Journal on Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 12, Number 1, Spring 2016 Mining Textual and Non-Textual Data Sources
TGJ Volume 12, Number 2, Summer 2016 Convergence and Change in Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2015 Raising Awareness to Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 11, Number 2, Summer 2015 Publishing, Licensing, and Open Access
TGJ Volume 11, Number 3, Autumn 2015 Topical and Technical Advances in Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 10, Number 1, Spring 2014 Sustaining Good Practices in Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 10, Number 2, Summer 2014 Research Communities And Data Sharing
TGJ Volume 10, Number 3, Autumn 2014 Weighing up Public Access to Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 9, Number 1, Spring 2013 Adapting New Technologies for Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 9, Number 2, Summer 2013 Tracking Grey Literature Across Disciplines
TGJ Volume 9, Number 3, Autumn 2013 Improving Grey Literature through Innovation
TGJ Volume 8, Number 1, Spring 2012 Social Networking and Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 8, Number 2, Summer 2012 Data Frontiers in Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 8, Number 3, Autumn 2012 Managing Change in Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 7, Number 1, Spring 2011 Transparency in Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 7, Number 2, Summer 2011 System Approaches to Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 7, Number 3, Autumn 2011 Research and Education in Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 6, Number 1, Spring 2010 Government Alliance to Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 6, Number 2, Summer 2010 Shared Strategies for Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 6, Number 3, Autumn 2010 Research on Grey Literature in Europe
TGJ Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2009 Paperless Initiatives for Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 5, Number 2, Summer 2009 Archaeology and Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 5, Number 3, Autumn 2009 Trusted Grey Sources and Resources
TGJ Volume 4, Number 1, Spring 2008 Praxis and Theory in Grey Literature
TGJ Volume 4, Number 2, Summer 2008 Access to Grey in a Web Environment
TGJ Volume 4, Number 3, Autumn 2008 Making Grey more Visible
TGJ Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2007 Grey Standards in Transition and Use
TGJ Volume 3, Number 2, Summer 2007 Academic and Scholarly Grey
TGJ Volume 3, Number 3, Autumn 2007 Mapping Grey Resources
TGJ Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2006 Grey Matters for OAI
TGJ Volume 2, Number 2, Summer 2006 Collections on a Grey Scale
TGJ Volume 2, Number 3, Autumn 2006 Using Grey to Sustain Innovation
TGJ Volume 1, Number 1, Spring 2005 Publish Grey or Perish
TGJ Volume 1, Number 2, Summer 2005 Repositories – Home2Grey
TGJ Volume 1, Number 3, Autumn 2005 Grey Areas in Education

44
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Literature_Network_Service-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
---
title: "Grey Literature Network Service"
chunk: 2/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Literature_Network_Service"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:16.890978+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
== GreyNet and the OpenGrey Repository ==
For the past 20 years, GreyNet has sought to serve researchers and authors in the field of grey literature. To further this end, GreyNet has signed on to the OpenGrey repository and in so doing seeks to preserve and make openly available research results originating in the International Conference Series on Grey Literature. GreyNet together with INIST-CNRS have designed the format for a metadata record, which encompasses standardized PDF attachments of the full-text conference preprints, PowerPoint presentations, abstracts, biographical notes, and post-publication commentaries. GreyNet's collection of over 270 conference preprints is both current and comprehensive.
Comment from Peter Suber, Open Access News (Thursday, January 29, 2009): GreyNet started making its conference proceedings OA through its repository in May 2008. I applaud its determination to complete the collection retroactively, even if it means buying permission from a publisher. Note to other conference organizers: This is a reason to self-archive your proceedings as you go, or at least to retain the right to self-archive them without a fee.
== GreyNet and the DANS Data Archive ==
GreyNet’s research data is cross-linked to the corresponding conference preprint in OpenGrey via the DANS Data Archive. In this way these results can further serve the international grey literature community, where open access to research data has now become a prerequisite.
== Web-based Resources in Grey Literature: GreySource, GreyText, IDGL, WHOIS ==
GreySource provides examples of grey and malin-grey literature to the average net-user (see for instance the University of Queensland list) and in so doing profiles organizations responsible for its production and/or processing. Only web-based resources that explicitly refer to the term grey literature (or its equivalent in any language) are listed. GreySource identifies the hyperlink directly embedded in a resource, thus allowing immediate and virtual exposure to grey literature.
The web-based resources appear within categories derived from the COSATI (American) and SIGLE (European) Classification Systems. The few changes that have been introduced into the classification scheme are intended to facilitate the search and retrieval of net-users. New examples are welcome and will be indexed in GreySource.
GreyText is an inhouse archive of documents on grey literature. Over 125 documents are indexed by first author followed by the title, source, date of publication and length in printed pages. Free Access to the first page of each document is available for browsing. Also, in most cases the corresponding PowerPoint is online available. The full-text of all documents listed in GreyText are accessible in PDF via email on demand.
IDGL, International Directory of Organizations in Grey Literature provides a list of some 170 organizations in more than 30 countries worldwide that are currently associated with GreyNet either via partnership, membership, sponsorship, or authorship in the field of grey literature. Entries are alphabetical by country and each entry has an embedded link to the corresponding organization's website. GreyNet International is proud in serving the grey literature community and welcomes additions and revisions to this Directory.
WHOIS in the Field of Grey Literature is a compilation of over 350 biographical notes provided by authors in the International Conference Series on Grey Literature and The Grey Journal. This online resource is maintained by TextRelease, the Program and Conference Bureau. Records in this directory appear in alphabetical order by last name of author and each record contains a current email address.
== Education and Curriculum Development ==
In 2007 GreyNet conducted an international survey on grey literature among instructors in LIS higher education. In the same year, GreyNet implemented a distant education course on grey literature at the University of New Orleans. hdl:10068/697878
In 2009, GreyNet began the Annual Summer Workshop Series "GreyWorks", which is now in its 7th year. This series seeks to highlight the state of the art in grey literature by focussing on strategies, benchmarks, good practices, mind maps, and transparency in this field of library and information science.
In 2013, GreyNet began the GreyForum, a Thematic Series of Onsite and Online Seminars and Workshops in the field of Grey Literature. Topics dealt with in this series have dealt with information ethics, information rights, digital preservation, and policy development
== GreyNet management ==
The GreyNet Service is powered by TextRelease, an independently owned company based in Amsterdam. TextRelease is GreyNet's program and conference bureau. TextRelease was responsible for GreyNet’s relaunch in 2003. Content compiled and edited within the Grey Literature Network Service is published and marketed via TextRelease. Furthermore, all agreements, contracts, and legal matters pertaining to GreyNet are handled through TextRelease.
== TextRelease and GreyNet ==
TextRelease’s main activities are situated in the domain of grey scientific & technical information. Conference organization, information consultancy, research, publication, as well as education and training in the field of grey literature are among its objectives. In this capacity, TextRelease re-launched the Grey Literature Network Service (GreyNet) in 2003 and is the publishing body for this organization.
TextRelease provides Non-Exclusive Rights Agreements to nearly 300 authors, who have published in its Conference Proceedings and/or International Journal on Grey Literature. It maintains an up-to-date ”WHOIS in the field of Grey Literature”.
The TextRelease website likewise serves as the conference site for the International Conference Series on Grey Literature. This web resource provides direct access to Conference Announcements, Call-for-Papers, Official Programs, Registrations, and other conference related information.
== See also ==
European Association for Grey Literature Exploitation (EAGLE)
Grey Literature International Steering Committee (GLISC)
OpenSIGLE
System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE)
Grey literature
GreyNet LinkedIn Group

32
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Literature_Network_Service-2.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
---
title: "Grey Literature Network Service"
chunk: 3/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Literature_Network_Service"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:16.890978+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
== Bibliography ==
Farace D. & Schöpfel J. (eds.) (2010). Grey Literature in Library and Information Studies. De Gruyter Saur.
Schöpfel J., Stock C., Farace D.J., Frantzen J. Citation Analysis and Grey Literature: Stakeholders in the Grey Circuit. The Grey Journal 2005, vol. 1, n° 1, p. 31-40. hdl:10068/697850
Farace D., Frantzen J., Schöpfel J., Stock C. Knowledge Generation in the Field of Grey Literature: A Review of Conference-based Research Results]. GL8 Conference Proceedings. Eighth International Conference on Grey Literature: Harnessing the Power of Grey. New Orleans, 4–5 December 2006. hdl:10068/697768
Farace D.J., Frantzen J., Schöpfel J., Stock C. Grey Literature: A Pilot Course constructed and implemented via Distance Education. The Grey Journal 2008, vol. 4, n° 1, p. 41-45. hdl:10068/697878
Farace D., Frantzen J., Schöpfel J., Stock C., Henrot N. OpenSIGLE, Home to GreyNet’s Research Community and its Grey Literature Collections: Initial Results and a Project Proposal. GL10 Conference Proceedings. Tenth International Conference on Grey Literature: Designing the Grey Grid for Information Society. Amsterdam, 8–9 December 2008.
Gelfand J. Interview with Dominic Farace, founder of GreyNet. International Journal on Grey Literature. 2000, vol. 1, n° 2, p. 73-76. Covers how Dominic Farace, the GreyNet director, first became involved in the grey literature scene, and explains how and why the Grey Literature Network Service has developed. Discusses the future prospects of GreyNet and grey literature. Highlights many of the issues concerning the GreyNet movement and looks at Farace’s inspiration for his career therein.
Canadian Dental Hygienists Association Staff: Grey Literature Archived 2013-05-15 at the Wayback Machine. May 2006. (GreyNet Listserv) is an internationally moderated list that seeks to facilitate communication between organizations involved in the field of grey literature. It also provides an extensive listing of resources by category.
Matthews B. Gray literature. Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) wiki. June 2007. Citation: (The GreyNet Listserv) international moderated list seeks “to facilitate dialog and communication between persons and organisations in the field of grey literature.” In addition to the electronic lists, the site includes information about the International Conference Series on Grey Literature and provides an extensive categorical listing of resources.
J. Schöpfel & D. J. Farace (2010). `Grey Literature'. In M. J. Bates & M. N. Maack (eds.), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition, pp. 2029–2039. CRC Press.
Grey literature Archived 2011-07-06 at the Wayback Machine. Internet News wiki. April 2007. Citation: GreyNet facilitates the study and collection of grey literature through its source index and text archive. The GreyText Archive has articles about grey literature.
== References ==
== External links ==
GreyNet
TextRelease
INIST-CNRS
ICSTI
Victorine van Schaick Prijs NVB 2008 Archived 2021-03-06 at the Wayback Machine
Golden Candle Award 2000
New York Academy of Medicine

25
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_Open_Access_Manifesto-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
---
title: "Guerilla Open Access Manifesto"
chunk: 1/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_Open_Access_Manifesto"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:18.127551+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Guerilla Open Access Manifesto is a document published by (and widely attributed to) Aaron Swartz in 2008 that argues for transgressive approaches to achieving the goals of the open access movement through civil disobedience, willful violation of copyright and contracts that restrict redistribution of knowledge, and activities that exist in legal grey areas.
The goal of the open access movement taken up by the manifesto include the removal of barriers and paywalls that prohibit the general public from accessing scientific research publications and other forms of data. While most of the open access movement has focused on standing up new open access publishers, working with traditional publishers to switch to open access, and organizing scholars who produce and edit articles, these focuses primarily affect the accessibility of future publications. The manifesto is largely concerned with the existing proprietary articles and data that are unlikely to be released as open access by the current copyright holders.
The manifesto appears to have been written in 2008 at a meeting of librarians and was subsequently published on Swartz's personal blog. Although the authorship of the document is widely attributed to Swartz, his role in writing the manifesto and the degree to which the manifesto reflected his views, especially several years later, were a contentious issue in United States v. Swartz, the US government's legal proceedings against him several years later. US government prosecutors sought to use the manifesto to argue that Swartz engaged in the mass downloading of articles from JSTOR for the purpose of releasing those articles freely to the public in ways that mirror the manifesto's penultimate sentence saying, "we need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks."
== Background and context ==
Prior to the publication of the Manifesto, Swartz had been active in the open source software, free culture, and the open access movements, such as working as an early contributor to Creative Commons, a web organization devoted to ensuring open access to a variety of different materials that would have otherwise been copyrighted. Other work includes his early programming contributions to Open Library, an organization attempting to create a comprehensive online library containing information on every book. Months before publishing the Manifesto, in 2008, Swartz worked to make thousands of federal court documents from the PACER electronic document systems available to public for free.
== Analysis of content ==
The manifesto opens with the statement that "Information is Power", and makes the case that access to knowledge is a human right. It focuses on the availability of scientific and scholarly work online, and argues for the importance of making scholarly work widely available, along with removing existing barriers to access. The Manifesto identifies restrictions to information availability as a serious problem facing both the academic community and the world at large, and criticizes both the copyright laws that have led to paywalls, along with the corporate influences and perceived greed that have supported the development of legislature supporting this. The Manifesto mentions one publisher by name: Reed Elsevier, a publisher whose articles covering a breadth of topics are hidden behind a paywall, which the author condemns as unethical. The manifesto frames one of the goals of the Open Access movement as ensuring that academics publishing their work can make it available to everyone and not be hindered by these restrictions. Additionally, the manifesto addresses the role of privilege in impacting who does and does not have access to many of these information repositories, calling attention to existing socioeconomic divides that contribute to these inequities in information availability. The Manifesto serves as a call to action, and argues that making scholarly information widely available online is a moral imperative. In order to do so, it advocates for proponents of open access to engage in civil disobedience and condones the violation of copyright law in order to make scholarly work widely available.
== Repercussions and impact ==
The open access manifesto played an important role in United States v. Swartz. In the case, the US government claimed that Swartz had violated federal laws by downloading large number of academic articles from the JSTOR academic article storage systems via the open MIT computer network. In 2013, the U.S. Secret Service released a portion of their almost 15,000 page file on Swartz, detailing their investigation of his home and chronicling the questions asked of him about the Manifesto's "human rights" applications. Swartz was facing up to 50 years in prison if found guilty of the charges against him, and remained under investigation until his eventual suicide in 2013.
Some activists claim that Swartz was unsuccessful in achieving the specific goals he outlined in his Manifesto. The JSTOR collection acquired by Swartz was never released to public domain. Moreover, other open access activists have spoken out against the illegal activities the Manifesto called for as counterproductive to the movement's aims. In general, open access approaches have advocated for the liberation of scholarly information through legal means. Some critics of the GOA movement claim to support civil disobedience, but do not support the specific tactics called for in the manifesto. They believe the responsibility to change belongs to policymakers and scientists.
However, the symbolic ideas Swartz introduced through his Manifesto were effective in incentivizing others to take up the mantle of the open access (OA) movement. Today, many sites that once used paywalls are freely available thanks to the actions of OA activists following in Swartz's footsteps. One such activist, Alexandra Elbakyan, furthered Swartz's mission by developing an online repository she dubbed "Sci-Hub" that provides free access to over 74 million scientific journal articles. Elbakyan has been identified as a Guerilla Open Access (GOA) activist because of the transgressive and illegal practices she engages in.

35
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_Open_Access_Manifesto-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
---
title: "Guerilla Open Access Manifesto"
chunk: 2/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_Open_Access_Manifesto"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:18.127551+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
== Text of the Manifesto ==
Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.
There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. Everything up until now will have been lost.
That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to children in the Global South? It's outrageous and unacceptable.
"I agree," many say, "but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it's perfectly legal — there's nothing we can do to stop them." But there is something we can, something that's already being done: we can fight back.
Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.
Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by the publishers and sharing them with your friends.
But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It's called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn't immoral — it's a moral imperative. Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.
Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who can make copies.
There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture.
We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access.
With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we'll make it a thing of the past.
Will you join us?
Aaron Swartz
July 2008, Eremo, Italy
Source:
== See also ==
Anna's Archive
== External links ==
The Guerilla Open Access Manifesto on the Internet Archive
== References ==

17
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_open_access-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
---
title: "History of open access"
chunk: 1/4
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_open_access"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:35.524738+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The history of open access can be traced back to at least the 1950's, with an explosion of interest following the advent of the internet. The idea and practise of providing free online access to journal articles began at least a decade before the term "open access" was formally coined. Computer scientists had been self-archiving in anonymous ftp archives since the 1970s and physicists had been self-archiving in arXiv since the 1990s. The Subversive Proposal to generalize the practice was posted in 1994.
The term "open access" itself was first formulated in three public statements in the 2000s: the Budapest Open Access Initiative in February 2002, the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing in June 2003, and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities in October 2003, and the initial concept of open access refers to an unrestricted online access to scholarly research primarily intended for scholarly journal articles.
== Efforts before the Internet ==
One early proponent of the publisher-pays model was the physicist Leó Szilárd. To help stem the flood of low-quality publications, he jokingly suggested in the 1940s that at the beginning of his career each scientist should be issued with 100 vouchers to pay for his papers. Closer to the present, but still ahead of its time, was Common Knowledge. This was an attempt to share information for the good of all, the brainchild of Brower Murphy, formerly of The Library Corporation. Both Brower and Common Knowledge are recognised in the Library Microcomputer Hall of Fame. One of Mahatma Gandhi's earliest publications, Hind Swaraj published in Gujarati in 1909 is recognised as the intellectual blueprint of India's freedom movement. The book was translated into English the next year, with a copyright legend that read "No Rights Reserved".
The modern open-access movement (as a social movement) traces its history at least back to the 1950s, with the Letterist International (LI) placing anything in their journal Potlatch in the public domain. As the LI merged to form the Situationist International, Guy Debord wrote to Patrick Straram "All the material published by the Situationist International is, in principle, usable by everyone, even without acknowledgement, without the preoccupations of literary property." This was to facilitate détournement. It became much more prominent in the 1990s with the advent of the Digital Age. With the spread of the Internet and the ability to copy and distribute electronic data at no cost, the arguments for open access gained new importance.

25
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_open_access-1.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
---
title: "History of open access"
chunk: 2/4
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_open_access"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:35.524738+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
== Early years of online open access ==
An explosion of interest and activity in open-access journals has occurred since the 1990s, largely due to the widespread availability of Internet access. It is now possible to publish a scholarly article and also make it instantly accessible anywhere in the world where there are computers and Internet connections. The fixed cost of producing the article is separable from the minimal marginal cost of the online distribution.
These new possibilities emerged at a time when the traditional, print-based scholarly journals system was in a crisis. The number of journals and articles produced had been increasing at a steady rate; however the average cost per journal had been rising at a rate far above inflation for decades, and budgets at academic libraries have remained fairly static. The result was decreased access – ironically, just when technology has made almost unlimited access a very real possibility, for the first time. Libraries and librarians have played an important part in the open-access movement, initially by alerting faculty and administrators to the serials crisis. The Association of Research Libraries developed the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), in 1997, an alliance of academic and research libraries and other organizations, to address the crisis and develop and promote alternatives, such as open access.
The first online-only, free-access journals (eventually to be called "open-access journals") began appearing in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These journals typically used pre-existing infrastructure (such as e-mail or newsgroups) and volunteer labor and were developed without any intent to generate profit. Examples include Bryn Mawr Classical Review, Postmodern Culture, Psycoloquy, and The Public-Access Computer Systems Review.
Probably the earliest book publisher to provide open access was the National Academies Press, publisher for the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, and other arms of the National Academies. They have provided free online full-text editions of their books alongside priced, printed editions since 1994, and assert that the online editions promote sales of the print editions. As of June 2006 they had more than 3,600 books up online for browsing, searching, and reading.
While Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, Ajit Varki made it the first major biomedical journal to be freely available on the web in 1996. Varki wrote, "The vexing issue of the day is how to appropriately charge users for this electronic access. The nonprofit nature of the JCI allows consideration of a truly novel solution — not to charge anyone at all!" Other pioneers in open-access publishing in the biomedical domain included BMJ, Journal of Medical Internet Research, and Medscape, who were created or made their content freely accessible in the late 1990s.
The first free scientific online archive was arXiv.org, started in 1991, initially a preprint service for physicists, initiated by Paul Ginsparg. Self-archiving has become the norm in physics, with some sub-areas of physics, such as high-energy physics, having a 100% self-archiving rate. The prior existence of a "preprint culture" in high-energy physics is one major reason why arXiv has been successful. arXiv now includes papers from related disciplines including computer science, mathematics, nonlinear sciences, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, and statistics. However, computer scientists mostly self-archive on their own websites and have been doing so for even longer than physicists. arXiv now includes postprints as well as preprints. The two major physics publishers, American Physical Society and Institute of Physics Publishing, have reported that arXiv has had no effect on journal subscriptions in physics; even though the articles are freely available, usually before publication, physicists value their journals and continue to support them.
Computer scientists had been self-archiving on their own FTP sites and then their websites since even earlier than the physicists, as was revealed when Citeseer began harvesting their papers in the late 1990s. Citeseer is a computer science archive that harvests, Google-style, from distributed computer science websites and institutional repositories, and contains almost twice as many papers as arXiv. The 1994 "Subversive Proposal" was to extend self-archiving to all other disciplines; from it arose CogPrints (1997) and eventually the OAI-compliant generic GNU Eprints.org software in 2000.
One of the first online journals, GeoLogic, Terra NOVA, was published by Paul Browning and started in 1989. It was not a discrete journal but an electronic section of TerraNova. The journal ceased to be open access in 1997 due to a change in the policy of the editors (EUG) and publishing house (Blackwell).
In 1997, the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) made Medline, the most comprehensive index to medical literature on the planet, freely available in the form of PubMed. Usage of this database increased a tenfold when it became free, strongly suggesting that prior limits on usage were impacted by lack of access. While indexes are not the main focus of the open-access movement, Medline is important in that it opened up a whole new form of use of scientific literature – by the public, not just professionals. The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR), one of the first open-access journals in medicine, was created in 1998, publishing its first issue in 1999.
In 1998, the American Scientist Open Access Forum was launched (and first called the "September98 Forum"). One of the more unusual models is used by the Journal of Surgical Radiology, which uses the net profits from external revenue to provide compensation to the editors for their continuing efforts.
In the biological and geological sciences, paleontology came into the forefront in 1998 with Palaeontologia electronica, Their first issue received 100,000 hits from an estimated 3,000 readers, comparable to the subscription numbers of their peer print journals. One challenge to digital-only biological journals was the lack of protection afforded by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to scientific names published in formats other than paper, but this was overcome by revisions to the Code in 1999 (effective 1 January 2000).
One of the first humanities journals published in open access is CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture founded at the University of Alberta in 1998 with its first issue published in March 1999 and since 2000 published by Purdue University Press.
In 1999 Harold Varmus of the NIH proposed a journal called E-biomed, intended as an open-access electronic publishing platform combining a preprint server with peer-reviewed articles. E-biomed later saw light in a revised form as PubMed Central, a postprint archive.
It was also in 1999 that the Open Archives Initiative and its OAI-PMH protocol for metadata harvesting was launched to make online archives interoperable.

20
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_open_access-2.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
---
title: "History of open access"
chunk: 3/4
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_open_access"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:35.524738+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
== 2000s ==
The number of open-access journals increased by an estimated 500% during the 2000s. Also, the average number of articles that were published per open-access journal per year increased from approximately 20 to 40 during the same period, resulting in that the number of open-access articles increased by 900% during that decade.
In 2000 BioMed Central, a for-profit open access publisher with now dozens of open-access journals, was launched by what was then the Current Science Group (the founder of the Current Opinion series, and now known as the Science Navigation Group). In some ways, BioMed Central resembles Harold Varmus' original E-biomed proposal more closely than does PubMed Central. As of October 2013 BioMed Central publishes over 250 journals.
In 2001, 34,000 scholars around the world signed "An Open Letter to Scientific Publishers", calling for "the establishment of an online public library that would provide the full contents of the published record of research and scholarly discourse in medicine and the life sciences in a freely accessible, fully searchable, interlinked form". Scientists signing the letter also pledged not to publish in or peer-review for non-open-access journals. This led to the establishment of the Public Library of Science, an advocacy organization. However, most scientists continued to publish and review for non-open-access journals. PLoS decided to become an open-access publisher aiming to compete at the high quality end of the scientific spectrum with commercial publishers and other open-access journals, which were beginning to flourish. Critics have argued that, equipped with a $10 million grant, PLoS competes with smaller open-access journals for the best submissions and risks destroying what it originally wanted to foster. PLOS launched its first open-access journal, PLOS Biology in 2003, with PLOS Medicine following in 2004, and PLOS One in 2006.
The first major international statement on open access was the Budapest Open Access Initiative in February 2002, launched by the Open Society Institute. Two further statements followed: the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing in June 2003 and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities in October 2003. Also in 2003, the World Summit on the Information Society included open access in its Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action.
In 2006 a Federal Research Public Access Act was introduced in US Congress by senators John Cornyn and Joe Lieberman. The act continues to be brought up every year since then, but has never made it past committee.
2007 recorded some backlash from non-OA publishers.
In 2008 Ajit Varki worked with publisher Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press and David Lipman to create the first viable model for a major Open Access textbook combining a print version with a freely accessible online edition hosted at NCBI, the 2nd edition of Essentials of Glycobiology.
Perhaps the first dedicated publisher of open-access monographs in the humanities was re.press who published their first title in that 2006. Two years later in 2008 Open Humanities Press, another publisher of humanities monographs, was launched. Most recently, the Open Library of Humanities launched in September 2015.
In 2008 USENIX, the advanced computing systems association, implemented an open access policy for their conference proceedings. In 2011 they added audio and video recordings of paper presentations to the material to which they provide open access.

40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_open_access-3.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
---
title: "History of open access"
chunk: 4/4
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_open_access"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:14:35.524738+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
== 2010s ==
In 2013 John Holdren, Barack Obama's director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, issued a memorandum directing United States' Federal Agencies with more than $100 million in annual R&D expenditures to develop plans within six months to make the published results of federally funded research freely available to the public within one year of publication. As of March 2015, two agencies had made their plans public: the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.
In 2013 the UK Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) proposed adopting a mandate that to be eligible for submission to the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) all peer-reviewed journal articles submitted after 2014 must be deposited in the author's institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication, regardless of whether the article is published in a subscription journal or in an open access journal. HEFCE expresses no journal preference, places no restriction on authors' choice and requires the deposit itself to be immediate, irrespective of whether the publisher imposes an embargo (for an allowable embargo period that remains to be decided) on the date at which access to the deposit can be made open. The HEFCE/REF mandate proposal complements the recent Research Councils UK (RCUK) mandate that requires all articles resulting from RCUK funding to be made open access by 6 months after publication at the latest (12 months for arts and humanities articles).
HEFCE also provided grants to universities in England wishing to participate in the Pilot Collection of Knowledge Unlatched, a not-for-profit organisation enabling humanities and social sciences monographs to become open access. The Pilot Collection ran from October 2013 to February 2014 and 297 libraries and institutions worldwide participated in 'unlatching' the collection of 28 titles. 61 of these participating institutions were university libraries in England eligible for the HEFCE grant of 50% towards the $1195 participation fee.
The Indian Council of Agricultural Research had adopted an Open Access policy for its publications on 13 September 2013 and announced that each ICAR institute would set-up an open access institutional repository. One such repository is eprints@cmfri, an open access institutional repository of the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute which was set-up on 25 February 2010 well before the policy was adopted. However, since March 2010, the ICAR is making available its two flagship journals under Open Access on its website and later through an online platform called Indian Agricultural Research Journals using Open Journal Systems. However, not all the journals hosted in the platform are open access.
In 2014 the Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science and Technology, under Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India jointly announced their open access policy.
In May 2016 the European Union announced that "all scientific articles in Europe must be freely accessible as of 2020" and that the Commission will "develop and encourage measures for optimal compliance with the provisions for open access to scientific publications under Horizon 2020".
Some ask such measures to include the usage of free and open-source software.
By March 2018, a search of MEDLINE indicated that ~21% of all human/animal articles indexed are available freely through PubMed Central, or directly from the journal. Within veterinary medicine specifically, research indicates the number is higher, at ~27%.
In September 2018 eleven European funders, organized under cOAlition S, announced Plan S, which requires all research output based on funding from these organizations to be published in full Open Access journals, disallowing publishing in hybrid journals.
== 2020s ==
On 25 August 2022, the US Office of Science and Technology Policy issued guidance to make all federally funded research in the United States freely available.
== Growth statistics ==
A study on the development of publishing of open access journals from 1993 to 2009 published in 2011 suggests that, measured both by the number of journals as well as by the increases in total article output, direct gold open access journal publishing has seen rapid growth particularly between the years 2000 and 2009. It was estimated that there were around 19,500 articles published open access in 2000, while the number has grown to 191,850 articles in 2009. The journal count for the year 2000 is estimated to have been 740, and 4769 for 2009; numbers which show considerable growth, albeit at a more moderate pace than the article-level growth. These findings support the notion that open access journals have increased both in numbers and in average annual output over time.
The development of the number of active open-access journals and the number of research articles published in them during the period 1993–2009 is shown in the figure above. If these gold open access growth curves are extrapolated to the next two decades, the Laakso et al. (Björk) curve would reach 60% in 2022, and the Springer curve would reach 50% in 2029 as shown in the figure below (the reference provides a more optimistic interpretation which does not match with the values shown in the figure).
== See also ==
Open data
Timeline of the open-access movement
== References ==
=== Works cited ===
Suber, Peter (2012). Open access (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-51763-8. Retrieved 20 October 2015.
== External links ==
Peter Suber. "History of open access". Harvard University. Compilation of Peter Suber's contributions to the history of open access, 1992–present.

60
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_open-access_journal-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
---
title: "Hybrid open-access journal"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_open-access_journal"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:19.297877+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
A hybrid open-access journal is a subscription journal in which some of the articles are open access. This status typically requires the payment of a publication fee (also called an article processing charge or APC) to the publisher in order to publish an article open access, in addition to the continued payment of subscriptions to access all other content. Strictly speaking, the term "hybrid open-access journal" is incorrect, possibly misleading, as using the same logic such journals could also be called "hybrid subscription journals". Simply using the term "hybrid access journal" is accurate.
Publishers that offer a hybrid open access option often use different names for it. The SHERPA/RoMEO site provides a list of publishers and the names of their options. The Open Access Directory provides a list of funds that support open access journals, and provides information about which funds will pay fees for hybrid open access journals.
== Origins ==
The concept was first proposed in 1998 when Thomas Walker suggested that authors could purchase extra visibility at a price. The first journal recognized as using this model was Walker's own Florida Entomologist; it was later extended to the other publications of the Entomological Society of America. The idea was later refined by David Prosser in 2003 in the journal Learned Publishing. The larger academic publishers began offering hybrid open access journals around the same time, with Springer and Wiley both having started by 2005. Within two years, Elsevier, Taylor & Francis and the Nature Publishing Group had followed suit.
== Gradual uptake of hybrid open access ==
The early uptake of hybrid open access was slow, and differed between countries. A study in 2012 noted that "The number of hybrid journals has doubled in the past couple of years and is now over 4,300, "but concluded that there was "lack of success of this business model", with only 1 to 2% of researchers making use of it. However, the United Kingdom was a notable front runner in using the model, "its use of OA in hybrid journals and of delayed OA journals is more than twice the world average". Growth slowly continued, and a 2018 large-scale survey of open access business models across global scholarly publishing estimated that between 3 and 8% of articles were published via hybrid open access. Research carried out a year later indicated that Hybrid Open Access had actually peaked around 2016.
== Criticism ==
While hybrid Open Access began as an agreed method amongst publishers, scientists and libraries for a gradual transition towards full Open Access, it soon attracted various criticisms for being unfair.
=== Allegations of double dipping ===
Since one source of funds to pay for open access articles is the library subscription budget, it has been proposed that there needs to be a decrease in the subscription cost to the library in order to avoid 'double dipping' where an article is paid for twice – once through subscription fees, and again through an APC. For example, the Open Access Authors Fund of the University of Calgary Library (2009/09) requires that: "To be eligible for funding in this [hybrid open access] category, the publisher must plan to make (in the next subscription year) reductions to the institutional subscription prices based on the number of open-access articles in those journals." On 12 November 2009, Nature Publishing Group issued a news release on how open access affected its subscription prices.
However, university libraries were unconvinced that the decrease in prices was occurring. A report on work carried out by the University of Nottingham since 2006 to introduce and manage an institutional open access fund has been published by Stephen Pinfield in Learned Publishing. In this article, the author comments that: "As publishers' income has increased from OA [open-access] fees in the hybrid model, there has been little or no let-up in journal subscription inflation, and only a small minority of publishers have yet committed to adjusting their subscription prices as they receive increasing levels of income from OA options." By 2018, this particular problem was considered so extreme in the area of open access book (as opposed to journal) publishing that the Anti Double Dipping Alliance was formed.
== Institutional responses ==
Towards the start of Hybrid Open Access, some universities, research centers, foundations, and government agencies designated funds to pay publication fees (APCs) of fee-based open access journals, including hybrid. However, as criticism of hybrid has grown, a substantial number of such funds (40%) will not reimburse APCs in hybrid journals, including Harvard University, CERN, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Columbia University and the Norwegian Research Council. The European Commission has also announced that the ninth framework program (Horizon Europe) will not cover the cost of APCs in hybrid journals. Science Europe has set up a coalition of European research funders (cOAlition S) who have explicitly ruled out reimbursing APCs in hybrid journals from 2020 with the express aim of driving a more rapid transition towards full open access (see transformative journal).
Publishers have argued against the above criticisms and responses, arguing that hybrid "as successfully meet[s] market demands and foster[s] growth in open access publishing."
== Advantages and disadvantages to the author ==
An author who wants to publish in an open-access format is not limited to the relatively small number of "full" open-access journals, but can also choose from the available hybrid open-access journals, which include journals published by many of the largest academic publishers.
However, the author must still find the money. Many funding agencies are ready to let authors use grant funds, or apply for supplementary funds, to pay publication fees at open-access journals. (Only a minority of open-access journals charge such fees, but nearly all hybrid open access journals do so.) So far, the funding agencies that are willing to pay these fees do not distinguish between full and hybrid open-access journals. On 19 October 2009, one such funding agency, the Wellcome Trust, expressed concerns about hybrid open-access fees being paid twice, through subscriptions and through publication fees.
If an author is unable to pay the fees or chooses not to do so, they often retain the right to share their work online by self-archiving in an open access repository.
== Variations ==
The American Society of Plant Biologists has adopted a policy that articles contributed by society members to its journal, Plant Physiology, will be made open access immediately on publication at no additional charge. Non-member authors can receive OA through payment of $1,000, but since membership is only $115/year, it is expected this initiative will boost membership.
Partial open access exists when only research articles are open (as in BMJ), while articles in other categories are paywalled.
== See also ==
List of open-access journals
Scientific journal
== References ==
== External links ==
Nine questions for hybrid journal programs Archived 16 January 2013 at the Wayback Machine by Peter Suber, SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue No. 101, 2 September 2006.
More on society publishers with OA journals Archived 10 November 2012 at the Wayback Machine by Peter Suber, Open Access News, 3 November 2007.
When Is Open Access Not Open Access? by Catriona J. MacCallum, PLoS Biology, 2007; 5(10): e285.

70
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_repository-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
---
title: "Institutional repository"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_repository"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:20.491930+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
An institutional repository (IR) is an archive for collecting, preserving, and disseminating digital copies of the intellectual output of an institution, particularly a research institution. Academics also utilize their IRs for archiving published works to increase their visibility and collaboration with other academics. However, most of these outputs produced by universities are not effectively accessed and shared by researchers and other stakeholders. As a result academics should be involved in the implementation and development of an IR project so that they can learn the benefits and purpose of building an IR.
An institutional repository has been defined as "a set of services that a university offers to members of its community for the management and dissemination of digital materials created by the institution and its community members." For a university, this includes materials such as monographs, eprints of academic journal articles—both before (preprints) and after (postprints) undergoing peer review—as well as electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs). An institutional repository might also include other digital assets generated by academics, such as datasets, administrative documents, course notes, learning objects, academic posters or conference proceedings. Deposit of material in an institutional repository is sometimes mandated by an institution.
Some of the main objectives for having an institutional repository are to provide open access to institutional research output by self-archiving in an open access repository, to create global visibility for an institution's scholarly research, and to store and preserve other institutional digital assets, including less formally published grey literature such as theses, working papers or technical reports.
== Functions ==
Institutional repositories can be classified as a type of digital library. Institutional repositories perform the main functions of digital libraries by collecting, classifying, cataloging, curating, preserving, and providing access to digital content.
Institutional repositories enable researchers to self-archive their research output and can improve the visibility, usage and impact of research conducted at an institution. Other functions of an institutional repository include knowledge management, research assessment, and open access to scholarly research.
In 2003, the functions of an institutional repository were described by Clifford Lynch in relation to universities. He stated that:
"... a university-based institutional repository is a set of services that a university offers to the members of its community for the management and dissemination of digital materials created by the institution and its community members. It is most essentially an organizational commitment to the stewardship of these digital materials, including long-term preservation where appropriate, as well as organization and access or distribution."
The content of an institutional repository depends on the focus of the institution. Higher education institutions conduct research across multiple disciplines, thus research from a variety of academic subjects. Examples of such institutional repositories include the MIT Institutional Repository. A disciplinary repository is subject specific. It holds and provides access to scholarly research in a particular discipline. While there can be disciplinary repositories for one institution, disciplinary repositories are frequently not tied to a specific institution. The PsyDok disciplinary repository, for example, holds German-language research in psychology, while SSOAR is an international social science full-text server. Content included in an institutional repository can be both digitized and born-digital.
== Open-access repositories ==
Institutional repositories that provide access to research to users outside the institutional community are one of the recommended ways to achieve the open access vision described in the Budapest Open Access Initiative definition of open access. This is sometimes referred to as the self-archiving or "green" route to open access.
== Developing an institutional repository ==
Steps in the development of an institutional repository include choosing a platform and defining metadata practices. Designing an IR requires working with faculty to identify the type of content the library needs to support Marketing and promoting the Institutional repository is important to enhance access and increase the visibility of the researchers. Libraries will also need to target their marketing efforts to different groups of stakeholders. They may generate faculty interest by describing how an IR can support research or improve future findability of articles
== Software ==
Most institutional repository software platforms can use OAI-PMH to harvest metadata. For example, DSpace supports OAI-PMH.
A 2014 survey commissioned by Duraspace found that 72% of respondents indicated that their institutional repository is hosted by a third party.
== Aggregators ==
The Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) states in its manifesto that "Each individual repository is of limited value for research: the real power of Open Access lies in the possibility of connecting and tying together repositories, which is why we need interoperability. In order to create a seamless layer of content through connected repositories from around the world, open access relies on interoperability, the ability for systems to communicate with each other and pass information back and forth in a usable format. Interoperability allows us to exploit today's computational power so that we can aggregate, data mine, create new tools and services, and generate new knowledge from repository content."
Interoperability is achieved in the world of institutional repositories by using protocols such as OAI-PMH. This allows search engines and open access aggregators, such as BASE, CORE and Unpaywall, to index repository metadata and content and provide value-added services on top of this content.
The Digital Commons Network aggregates by discipline some 500 institutional repositories running on the Bepress Digital Commons platform. It includes more than two million full-text objects.
== See also ==
Digital Assets Repository – at Bibliotheca Alexandrina in Egypt
Current research information system (CRIS)
Category:Open-access archives
Library publishing
Registry of Open Access Repositories
ResCarta Toolkit
Scholarly commons
CORE (research service)
== References ==
== Further reading ==
Finlay, Stephen Craig, ed. (2021). The complete guide to institutional repositories. Chicago: ALA Editions. ISBN 9780838948101.
Callicott, Burton B.; Scherer, David; Wesolek, Andrew, eds. (2015). Making institutional repositories work. West Layfayett: Purdue University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1wf4drg. ISBN 9781557537263.
Bluh, Pamela; Hepfer, Cindy, eds. (2013). The institutional repository: benefits and challenges. Chicago: Association for Library Collections & Technical Services, American Library Association. ISBN 978-0838986615.
Buehler, Marianne (2013). Demystifying the institutional repository for success. Oxford: Chandos Publishing. ISBN 9781843346739.
== External links ==
Ranking Web of World Repositories
List of repository software on Libopedia
Practical guidelines for starting an institutional repository
Peter Suber (ed.). "(Institutional repositories)". Open Access Tracking Project. Harvard University. OCLC 1040261573. News and comment from the worldwide movement for open access to research

41
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_State_University_Digital_Press-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
---
title: "Iowa State University Digital Press"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_State_University_Digital_Press"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:21.684131+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
The Iowa State University Digital Press (also known as ISUDP) is a digital university press affiliated with Iowa State University, located in Ames, Iowa. The press, which is a unit of the Iowa State University Library, was organized in 2018 and is dedicated to the creation, publication, and dissemination of open-access books and journal articles.
Often seen as a successor of sorts to the Iowa State University Press (a now-defunct publisher that had previously been an active member of the Association of American University Presses), the Iowa State University Digital Press was founded to "support of Iowa State University’s land-grant mission." The publisher is currently a member of the Library Publishing Coalition.
== Publications ==
=== Notable journals ===
Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication
Journal of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering
Meat and Muscle Biology
=== Notable proceedings ===
International Interactive Symposium on Ultra-High Performance Concrete
International Textile and Apparel Association Annual Conference Proceedings
Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Proceedings
== See also ==
List of English-language book publishing companies
List of university presses
== References ==
== External links ==
Official website
Pressbooks website

41
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irina_Bolychevsky-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
---
title: "Irina Bolychevsky"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irina_Bolychevsky"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:29.872986+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Irina Bolychevsky (born 1986) is a British activist and data specialist, focused on Open Data, decentralized technologies, and technical standards. She is currently director of standards and interoperability at the NHSX of the United Kingdom Government. She has been part of large organizations in those fields, including the Open Knowledge Foundation, the World Wide Web Consortium, and the Open Data Institute, and worked for the UK, Dubai and UAE government administrations. She co-founded Redecentralize.org, an advocacy group promoting decentralized technologies.
== Work ==
She was the product owner of the open-source open data portal CKAN from 2011 to 2014, the period in which it was redesigned in a 2.0 version and where she piloted the transition from a mostly national use in 2011, to international adoption. In this period, she managed its adoption by and relaunch of data.gov. Her work with CKAN allowed her to win the Open Data Individual Champion Award by the Open Data Institute.
Bolychevsky was W3C staff from July 2015 till December 2016. During this period, she was part of the W3C Social Web working group. She actively participated in EU-funded research projects in which the W3C was part of, working on open standards for decentralized technologies developed within the D-Cent project, and on the challenges around open standards within the Big Data Europe project.
Since then, according to her profile by the British Computer Society, she "developed the personal data infrastructure programme within the UK's Government Digital Service", "developed Smart Dubai's and UAE federal policy, regulatory, commercial and technical frameworks for data exchange" and "ran one of the first UK data trust pilots and researched digital identity for the Open Data Institute".
== Activism ==
The group Redecentralize.org, which she co-founded, claims to be "a movement of people pioneering technologies and governance models to redecentralize the web". According to The New Yorker, it is an "advocacy group that provides support for projects that aim to make the Web less centralized". It has also been defined as a "research policy institute".
The group maintains a directory of decentralized web projects which seems to be recognized as the reference list in the field by bloggers and several sites in the field. The group has organized two conferences on the topic, with Bolychevsky as main organizer: in 2015 hosted by ThoughtWorks, and in 2019. These two events hosted speakers such as Open Rights Group's Kevin Marks, Mozilla's Tantek Çelik, Ethereum's Gavin Wood, OAuth's Blaine Cook, Francis Irving, and representatives from Matrix.org, IPFS, Solid and Secure Scuttlebutt. The group has also hosted smaller meetups, one featuring BBC's Bill Thompson, and virtual public meetings, one within the frame of W3C.
She was fellow of the London college for political technologists Newspeak House and co-founder of the Coffee House Club. She is currently co-organizor of the Citizen Beta civic tech meetups, and director/trustee of not-for-profit Eco Soul hostel.
== International recognition ==
In 2014, she was awarded with the Open Data Individual Champion Award for her work with CKAN, as part of the first Open Data awards by the Open Data Institute. Since 2018, she sits on the Board of Directors of the Open Knowledge Foundation, where she was previously Commercial Director.
She has been featured by the New Yorker and twice in the BBC. She was highlighted by the British Computer Society in their "Women in Open Source" series. She has been keynote speaker in several conferences including: Rest Fest, the II Brazilian National Conference on Open Data, MozFest and EmpoderaLive. She has been guest author in the sites of the P2P Foundation, the Sunlight Foundation, the Open Data Institute, the UK online newspaper New Socialist, UK's open data portal data.gov.uk, and US's open data portal data.gov.
== See also ==
CKAN
Open Data Institute
== References ==
== External links ==
Personal website
Redecentralize website

23
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAIRO-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
---
title: "JAIRO"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAIRO"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:24.024520+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
JAIRO (ジャイロ), which stands for Japanese Institutional Repositories Online, is a web-based search interface that provides aggregated open access to Japanese academic content, including journal articles, theses, research bulletins, and reports. It is administered by Japan's National Institute of Informatics (NII).
== History ==
A beta version of JAIRO was launched on October 22, 2008, and its official opening was on April 1 of the following year. JAIRO began as the JuNii+ service, which operated from May 2007 until March 2009.
As of September 30, 2015, nearly 1.6 million full-text documents were accessible through JAIRO.
== External links ==
Official website
== References ==

29
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever_Press-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
---
title: "Lever Press"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever_Press"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:26.351094+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Lever Press is a university press, based out of Ann Arbor, MI. Though founded in 2016 with the help of Michigan Publishing, Amherst College Press, and the Oberlin Group, Lever Press is not affiliated with a single university. Instead, it represents a consortium of universities, each of which helps govern and guide the press. All publications issued by the press are released as open access works, with the cost of production being paid for by the participating universities. The press is a member of the Association of University Presses.
== Participating institutions ==
Participating institutions include the following:
== See also ==
List of English-language book publishing companies
List of university presses
University of Michigan Library
University of Michigan Press
== References ==
== External links ==
Lever Press homepage

46
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_publishing-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
---
title: "Library publishing"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_publishing"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:27.537799+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Library publishing, also known as campus-based publishing, is the practice of an academic or public library providing publishing services.
== Concept ==
A library publishing service usually publishes academic journals and often provides a broader range of publishing services as well. This can include publishing other formats such as scholarly monographs and conference proceedings. It generally has a preference for open access publishing.
Library publishing often focuses on electronic publishing rather than print, thus complementing the role of traditional academic presses. Sometimes a library and a university press based at the same institution will form a partnership, with each focusing on their own area of expertise. For example, the University of Pittsburgh library publishing service publishes peer-reviewed journals and also collaborates with the university press to publish open access monographs.
Software is available to manage the journal publication process. The open source Open Journal Systems by the Public Knowledge Project, and Digital Commons' bepress, are both widely used by library publishing services. Some libraries use Open Journal Systems to create overlay journals which present scholarly content that is held in an institutional repository.
== History ==
Library publishing has a long history and has been around since before the Internet.
In 1990, academic libraries published two of the first scholarly electronic journals on the Internet. The University of Houston Libraries began publishing The Public-Access Computer Systems Review and the Virginia Tech University Libraries began publishing the Journal of the International Academy of Hospitality Research.
The Synergies project (2007–2011) was a collaboration between different Canadian universities to create infrastructure to support institutional publishing activities. A survey conducted by Hahn in 2008 found that at that time 65% of research libraries in North America either had a library publishing service or were considering creating one.
In 2011 in the UK, Jisc funded three library publishing projects: Huddersfield Open Access Publishing (HOAP) at the University of Huddersfield, SAS Open Journals at the University of London, and EPICURE at UCL.
The Library Publishing Coalition was launched in 2013 to provide a hub for library publishing activities. In October 2013, during Open Access Week, they launched a Library Publishing Directory which contains information about library publishing activities at 115 academic and research libraries.
== See also ==
Category:Academic journals published by university libraries
Category:Library publishing
Scholarly commons
University press
== References ==
== Further reading ==
Phil Jones (Dec 1, 2014). "What's Going on in the Library? Part 1: Librarian Publishers May Be More Important Than You Think". The Scholarly Kitchen.
Phil Jones (Dec 9, 2014). "What's Going on in the Library? Part 2: The Convergence of Data Repositories and Library Publishers". The Scholarly Kitchen.
== External links ==
Library Publishing Coalition
Campus-based Publishing Resource Center Archived 2019-10-23 at the Wayback Machine

37
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_publishers_by_preprint_policy-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
---
title: "List of academic publishers by preprint policy"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_publishers_by_preprint_policy"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:28.763243+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
This is a list of publishers of academic journals by their submission policies regarding the use of preprints prior to publication (example list).
Publishers' policies on self-archiving (including of preprint versions) can also be found at SHERPA/RoMEO.
== Policies by publisher ==
Submission of preprints is accepted by all open access journals. Over the last decade, they have been joined by most subscription journals, however publisher policies are often vague or ill-defined.
In general, most publishers that permit preprints require that:
the authors disclose the existence of the preprint at submission (e.g. in the cover letter)
once an article is published, the preprint should link to the published version (typically via DOI)
the preprint should not have been formally peer reviewed
Publishers may place additional restrictions (e.g. specifying non-commercial servers or preferred licenses). Most publishers have a unified policy across all of their journals, however some journals list exceptions in their own policies.
== See also ==
Copyright policies of academic publishers
Ingelfinger rule
List of open-access journals
List of preprint repositories
List of research funders by preprint licensing policy
== References ==
== External links ==
SHERPA/RoMEO - a list of publisher policies on copyright, preprints, and self-archiving

2
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_research_funders_by_preprint_licensing_policy-0.md
View File

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_research_funders_by_preprint_licensing_policy"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:12:53.596810+00:00"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:01.063752+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

19
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malamud_decision-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
---
title: "Malamud decision"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malamud_decision"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:29.928284+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
In the Malamud decision, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held on 5 March 2024 in Case C-588/21 P that there may be an overriding public interest in the dissemination of harmonised European standards.
== Background ==
Carl Malamud had requested access to several European standards for his organisation public.resource.org. The European Commission refused to make the requested European standards for toy safety available free of charge, whereupon Malamud filed a lawsuit. The ECJ ruled that those harmonised technical standards (HTN) that are mandatory are part of Union law. As the principle of the rule of law requires free access to Union law, these standards must be accessible free of charge. However, the Court did not generally rule out copyright protection for harmonised standards.
Free access to some harmonised standards is now possible after registration, see Access to documents
== References ==

47
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_journal-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
---
title: "Mega journal"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_journal"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:31.098887+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
A mega journal (also mega-journal and megajournal) is a peer-reviewed academic open access journal designed to be much larger than a traditional journal by exercising low selectivity among accepted articles. It was pioneered by PLOS ONE. This "very lucrative publishing model" was soon emulated by other publishers.
== Definition ==
A mega journal has the following defining characteristics:
broad coverage of different subject areas;
accepting articles for publication based on whether they are technically sound rather than selecting for perceived importance; and
using article processing charges to cover the costs of publishing, although it is also possible for a mega journal to function as a non-profit (one example is Open Library of Humanities).
Other less universal characteristics are
"an accelerated review and publication process", "fast turnaround time";
"academic editors", even "a large editorial board of academic editors", (instead of professional editors); and
value-added services such as reusable graphics and data through Creative Commons licenses.
Mega journals are also online-only, with no printed version, and are fully open access, in contrast to hybrid open access journals. Some "predatory" open access publishers use the mega journal model.
== Influence ==
It has been suggested that the academic journal landscape might become dominated by a few mega journals in the future, at least in terms of total number of articles published.
Mega journals shift the publishing industry's funding standard from the subscription-based model common to traditional closed access publications to article processing charges.
Their business model may not motivate reviewers, who donate their time to "influence their field, gain exposure to the most current cutting edge research or list their service to a prestigious journal on their CVs."
Finally, they may no longer serve as "fora for the exchange ... among colleagues in a particular field or sub-field", as traditionally happened in scholarly journals. To counter that indiscrimination, PLOS ONE, the prototypical megajournal, has started to "package relevant articles into subject-specific collections."
== List of mega journals ==
== Notes ==
== References ==
== Further reading ==
Bill Cope and Angus Phillips, The Future of the Academic Journal, 2nd ed., Chandos Publishing, Jul 1, 2014, 478 pages.
Peter Binfield, "Open Access MegaJournals -- Have They Changed Everything?", Creative Commons New Zealand Blog
Sönke Bartling & Sascha Friesike (Editors), Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Web is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing, Springer, 2014, ISBN 978-3-319-00025-1, 339 pp.

23
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercè_Crosas-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
---
title: "Mercè Crosas"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercè_Crosas"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:16:39.344482+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
Mercè Crosas (born 1966, Barcelona) is a researcher and technologist specializing in data science, data management, and open data. Since November 2023 she is President of CODATA, the Committee on Data of the International Science Council. Crosas is the Director of Computational Social Sciences and Humanities at the Barcelona Supercomputing Center.
== Biography ==
Crosas holds a degree in physics from the University of Barcelona (1989) and a PhD in astrophysics from Rice University (Houston, Texas, 1992), with predoctoral and postdoctoral stays at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. She has spent most of her professional life at Harvard University, first as an astrophysicist and research software engineer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and later as Director of Data Science and Technology at the Institute for Quantitative Social Sciences, from Harvard University and as Chief Research Data Management Officer at Harvard University. From 2000 to 2004, she worked outside of Harvard at a pair of biotech startups leading software development teams to build their research data systems.
During her time at Harvard University, Crosas worked closely with research, computing services, and libraries to direct the management and publication of research data and provide guidance on University policies, processes, and tools for support the data life cycle. Crosas has extensive experience in data systems architecture and international data standards, with the vision of making them more accessible while ensuring their privacy. From 2006 to 2021, she co-led the Dataverse project and its open source community. The Dataverse software project has been used successfully to share and publish data at universities and research organizations around the world.
She was also co-principal investigator (co-PI) of the OpenDP project, an open source set of differential privacy tools for analyzing sensitive private data, and of the NIH Data Commons Consortium.
Crosas has been a member of numerous international committees and working groups focused on open data, data management and analysis, and data sharing. She is co-author of the internationally recognized and used FAIR data principles and has contributed to the recommendations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for access to public data.
Between 2021 and 2022 she was the Secretary of Open Government of the Catalan Government. Since 2023, she has led the Computational Social Sciences Program at the Barcelona Supercomputing Center.
In November 2023 she was appointed President of CODATA.
== References ==

28
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARCIS-0.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
---
title: "NARCIS"
chunk: 1/1
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARCIS"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T10:15:33.491076+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---
NARCIS (National Academic Research and Collaboration Information System) of the Netherlands was an online portal for searching Dutch scientific research publications and data. As of July 2018, NARCIS indexed 268,989 data sets and 1,707,486 publications, including a significant proportion of open access works.
It started in 2004 as a project of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Information Centre of the Radboud University of Nijmegen (METIS), Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, and Vereniging van Universiteiten. Since 2011 the Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) operated NARCIS from headquarters in The Hague. In 2015, it was decided to replace the Digital Author Identifier used until then with the International Standard Name Identifier or ORCID. As of 3 July 2023, the portal has been decommissioned.
== See also ==
Open access in the Netherlands
== References ==
== Further reading ==
Elly Dijk; et al. (2006), NARCIS: The Gateway to Dutch Scientific Information (PDF), Proceedings ELPUB2006 Conference on Electronic Publishing, Bansko, Bulgaria
== External links ==
Official site
"Science and Technology Government Information Sources: International: Netherlands", ACRL Wiki, US: American Library Association's Association of College and Research Libraries (includes NARCIS)

Some files were not shown because too many files have changed in this diff Show More