Although the benefits of open research are widely recognized by archaeologists, the field lags behind existing guidelines in its adoption of open data, methods, and outputs. We investigate this disciplinary paradox through semi-structured interviews with 28 archaeologists in academic roles. Our interviews examined the impact of definitions and attitudes, perceived costs and risks of open data, data diversity, and research evaluations and resources. Our findings show that even though archaeologists acknowledge the benefits of openness for scholarship, they are also aware of the time, money, and labor costs incurred by making data and outputs open and are concerned about the risks of data scooping and research misinterpretation. The diversity of archaeological data—particularly the absence of widely adopted standardization systems—was likewise perceived as an impediment to openness. Finally, archaeologists highlighted research evaluation systems, job security, and resource variability as affecting their ability to engage in open research practices.

This article addresses the challenges in formulating data-sharing regulations by proposing a systematic regulatory matrix based on data characteristics. While data-driven innovation drives economic growth, existing legal frameworks in the EU are incoherent and often tend towards data propertisation, even if indirectly, which may lead to data underutilisation. The matrix is built on varied data characteristics, and it aims to foster access to data and data sharing as a fundamental general principle underpinning the data-driven innovation market. This framework offers a balanced regulatory scheme ranging from open access to proprietary models, aiming to maximise innovation and public good in the emerging field of data law.

Cambridge Prisms: Extinction was launched to provide an open, synthetic forum for research on the patterns, processes and consequences of extinction. Four years on, the release of the journal’s first impact factor offers a useful moment to look back at what has begun to take shape and to look ahead to what it should now become. The early content shows a young journal whose first visible scholarly impact has been driven largely by synthesis. That was deliberate: a review-led beginning helped define the journal’s intellectual map, draw together conservation biology, palaeontology, modelling, policy, social science and the humanities, and create pathways for more primary and data-driven work. The next stage should build on that foundation through more empirical research and through Extinction Accounts, a new article format designed to analyse individual extinctions.

For many years, the dissemination of academic research has been controlled by commercial publishers. However, in light of the continuing inflation of subscription prices for scholarly journals, many academics are investigating open access publishing over the Internet. Although most advanced in the natural sciences, given its essentially political character, open access publishing should also be carefully considered by political scientists (and associated disciplines). This article explores open access publishing and suggests the reputational pay-off of ‘normal’ publishing can easily be maintained in the open access realm.

Open Access in the humanities and social sciences in the United States faces challenges in developing sustainable funding models. Begun in part to disseminate scholarship more widely and in part to solve an immediate budget problem faced by academic librarians, Open Access has evolved to include several ‘flavours’ that involve different funding schemes. Because the humanities and social sciences emphasize books more than STEM disciplines and because publication funding in humanities and social sciences is problematic, it will be necessary for publishers, librarians, faculty, and university administrators to cooperate to find sustainable solutions. This includes consideration of whether open access is always the model that best serves the audiences sought.

This Symposium brings together the academic and publishing industry in two key countries (the UK and the US) to analyse and assess the implications of Open Access (OA) journal publishing in the social and political sciences, as well as its different formats and developments to date. With articles by three academics (all involved in academic associations) and three publishers, the Symposium represents an exchange of views that help each of the two sectors understand better the perspectives of the other. More generally, the Symposium aims to raise the visibility of OA among the academic community whose general awareness and knowledge of OA – compared with publishers – has been rather limited to date.

In this article, we present an overview of the major changes occurring in electronic publishing, with a focus on open access. We shall argue that the notion itself of publication is undergoing a deep transformation, as it is no longer the monopoly of a limited number of specialised companies and institutions, but, through the web, it has become an option available to an infinite number of collective and individual actors.

This paper outlines the UK publishing landscape for the social and political sciences, with particular reference to academic journals. The changes and challenges being brought to this environment by open access (OA) are described and the response of UK publishers examined. While some of the initial caution among publishers towards OA in the social and political sciences is beginning to recede, the pressures of funding, perception and engagement remain considerable. Despite scepticism from some quarters about the future role of so-called ‘legacy’ publishers, it is argued that their skills, knowledge and innovation will make them a valuable part of the evolving, and ever more varied, scholarly communications arena.

Openness is central to scientific enquiry and can enable faster and more effective return on investment in research. Open access is linked to innovation in research communication and can help increase the reliability and reproducibility of published research. Growth of open access journal publishing in the social sciences and humanities is second only to life sciences. Surveys show researchers are interested in open access publishing, but some researchers perceive that there is a lack of quality journals offering open access. However, a number of established publishers have recently launched fully open access journals for political and social scientists, such as Palgrave Communications and Research & Politics. Open access journals often operate an article processing charge (APC) or ‘author pays’ business model, to support making articles freely available without charging readers. The APC model could provide financial benefits to society in the long term, but can present challenges for researchers without access to grant funding in the short term.

Academic associations are a vital part of the academic community, facilitating the interaction of researchers and production of knowledge, yet the impact of Open Access on their future has been too often regarded as marginal to the main discussion. Open Access presents an evident threat to those associations, which have become dependent upon a sizeable proportion of their income coming from owned journals published in conjunction with publishers. Yet, Open Access also presents opportunities, and academic associations should be bold in using a combination of their expertise, prestige and experience in publishing to ensure their futures in a newly emerging market.

Open Access has been around for many years. The only new developments of pressing interest are primarily related to UK university and research management bureaucracies. It is unlikely that the laws of copyright – which protect academic and other authors in various ways – will disappear, and certainly not overnight. Commercial publishers will find a business model that sustains them, and experimentation in novel forms of information dissemination will continue. Current rights in intellectual property are of course subject to critique and change, but internet access to information has not and will not suddenly dissolve the basic economics of information production and consumption.

Usage data on research outputs such as books and journals is well established in the scholarly community. Yet, as research impact is derived from a broader set of scholarly outputs, such as data, code, and multimedia, more holistic usage and impact metrics could inform national innovation and research policy. While usage data reporting standards, such as Project COUNTER, provide the basis for shared statistics reporting practice, mandated access to publicly funded research has increased the demand for impact metrics and analytics. In this context, stakeholders are exploring how to scaffold and strengthen shared infrastructure to better support the trusted, multistakeholder exchange of usage data across a variety of outputs. In April 2023, a workshop on Exploring National Infrastructure for Public Access and Impact Reporting supported by the United States (US) National Science Foundation (NSF) explored these issues. This paper contextualizes the resources shared and recommendations generated in the workshop.

One of the goals of open science is to promote the transparency and accessibility of research. Sharing data and materials used in network research is critical to these goals. In this paper, we present recommendations for whether, what, when, and where network data and materials should be shared. We recommend that network data and materials should be shared, but access to or use of shared data and materials may be restricted if necessary to avoid harm or comply with regulations. Researchers should share the network data and materials necessary to reproduce reported results via a publicly accessible repository when an associated manuscript is published. To ensure the adoption of these recommendations, network journals should require sharing, and network associations and academic institutions should reward sharing.