JRTDD newest issue 1, Volumen 4 for 2021 has already been published

Dear colleagues and readers,
I would like to inform you that 2nd issue of the 3rd volume of Journal for ReAttach Therapy and Developmental Diversities is published online today (October 25th, 2021). A total number of 5 papers are published. Next Issue 2, Vol. 4 of JRTDD for the 2021 is expected to be published until December 30th, 2021.

Accessing JRTDD Online
To view a current articles which appears online, please visit this LINK.
You, your colleagues, and students will be able to view articles (Full-Text PDF and Online First Full-text PDF) and have unlimited access to the journal (JRTDD is an open access, international, peer reviewed and non for profit journal).
Citing Articles Using the Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
When citing articles from JRTDD, we encourage you to use article’s DOI in addition to traditional citation information. This is an industry standard, a link-resolving system that allows any link to remain “persistent” even if the location of the article changes at some point in the future. Hence, when you are quoting the link for an article, you should always quote the DOI rather than the URL of our home page.
Useful Online Features for Authors
Your registration in online submission (http://jrtdd.com/submit-your-manuscript/) will enable you with continuous information connected with JRTDD. We encourage you to share publications from JRTDD platform and online registration with your colleagues. You can feel free to share every publication on social media.
We invite you to the content of the JRTDD and we think that you will consider publishing with Journal for ReAttach Therapy and Developmental Diversities.

Call for papers for Vol.4, Issue 2 is open until November 30th.

Suggested topics include but are not limited to

  • ReAttach Therapy,
  • Autism Spectrum Disorders,
  • Neuropsychological Research,
  • Medical Aspects of Disability,
  • Special Education Research,
  • Rehabilitation Research,
  • Social Aspects of Disability,
  • Master theses and PhD theses in the field,
  • Book Reviews in the field.

If you have any questions or you face problems with paper submission, please feel free to contact us: journaljrtdd@gmail.com


JRTDD Editor-in-chief


4 Steps to increase open access journal impact

“How long does it take to get a Journal Impact Factor?” That’s one of the first questions we often hear from new or developing open access (OA) journals.

For your first Journal Impact Factor (JIF), it takes about three years — because your JIF will be based on the number of citable items from the last calendar year (e.g., 2020) and the two years of publication data before that (e.g., 2018 and 2019). But when it comes to increasing and demonstrating journal impact, is it really all about the JIF?

No, there is so much more.

In this blog post, we look beyond the JIF as the sole metric for success and discuss some alternative measures to show journal impact, as well as tips for implementing them.

1. Start with the basics

The first step to increasing the impact of any journal is ensuring researchers can easily find its content in related online searches, and integral to that is producing and disseminating quality article-level metadata. Content registration services such as Crossref have evolved to serve as discovery platforms with citation and reference linking tools. By prioritizing making clean, correct, and rich metadata deposits to them, you can make your articles more discoverable. Crossref metadata is also used by third-party databases/vendors, like Kudos and Altmetric, as a vital component of their services, expanding the discovery value of Crossref metadata deposits. So start by making a plan to produce and submit quality core and, where possible, enriched metadata to the DOI registration service of your choice. Here are five of the top rich metadata elements to focus on.

Next, consider where you are indexing your content. And are you working with aggregators to host the abstracts or full text of your articles? Applying to have your articles indexed with the main directories in your subject discipline and those for OA journals, like the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), as well as to have your content added to relevant aggregators, can further increase its discoverability. This will, in turn, help you reach a wider audience, improve your article citation prospects, and gain access to different impact assessment tools provided by indexes and aggregators.

So, where is the first place to start? Review the journal evaluation processes for the indexing and aggregation services you are part of or would like to apply for, like Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and the DOAJ, to cross-check your journal against their requirements and recommendations. Then develop a plan to apply for or take steps to improve the quality of your deposits to those indexes/aggregators, setting priorities based on the requirements and recommendations that are most feasible for your team to implement in the short term. The more achievable your goals are in the near future, the more likely you’ll be to reach them.

2. Provide post-publication support to authors

In addition to taking steps to ensure your journal articles are discoverable, promoting them is another way to increase their potential impact. Due to resource limitations and the volume of articles published in journals, it’s often not feasible for publishers to give each one the same level of marketing attention as, say, a book. As an alternative to doing individual promotion for every article you publish, consider ways to enable and encourage self-promotion from your author community to increase the impact of their work. Some ideas to explore include:

  • When an article is published, send its corresponding and co-authors an email with links to hints and tips or a designated toolkit webpage about how they can increase the impact of their work. You can also include example text for communicating article highlights via email and social media. Discover how Antony Williams was able to breathe new life into older, still relevant articles with a bit of time investment and self-promotion.
  • Send a trackable article link to authors so you have more transparency about what promotion they are doing and where.
  • Commission high-profile researchers to write review articles and give them a higher level of marketing activity.
  • Commission content on trending topics with a call for papers — these are often the most read and cited papers.
  • Run special issues and article collections around trending themes to increase the impact of older, yet still relevant articles.
  • To get research out faster and help increase citations and sharing, review your time to publish against your competitors and how your processes can be improved without compromising on quality, editorial practices, and ethics. And publish articles online prior to them being made available in an issue.

3. Adjust your editorial strategy

We have already covered some areas to improve the quality and discoverability of your journal’s content, but let us showcase other ways you can adjust your existing editorial strategy to improve the impact of your journal. Below are key considerations:

  • Do you want to target a specific audience, and, if so, how is that audience currently represented? E.g., how international are your author community, editors, and editorial board members? What can you do to expand your reach?
  • How consistently are you releasing new content? Should it be more frequent or even less? How saturated is the community with this type of research? Do you need to tighten your scope or increase your issues because you have such high-quality submissions?
  • How is your journal currently positioned? What makes your journal’s story compelling? What would you tell a potential Editor in Chief if you only have 30 seconds in an elevator with them?
  • Are you doing marketing that is most effective to improve the impact of your journal and its content? Make sure you test and adjust to best fit your target audience. You will have more impact and resonate with your audience when you understand them better.
  • What best practice examples are you using to inform your strategy, and how are you getting up-to-date industry learnings? Membership bodies and service providers are often a great way to find out what others are doing.
  • Have you just launched your OA journal and want to increase the number of quality submissions, readership, and citations? You may choose to make it diamond/platinum OA — free to read and free to publish in — to generate more awareness, submissions, and citations for your JIF and CiteScore, as well as having a positive impact on article altmetrics.

4. Think beyond the Journal Impact Factor

For years, the original purpose of the JIF has been misconstrued, resulting in misuse of the metric. What was once “citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation“ has now become a “gold standard” in journal evaluation, and not without its drawbacks. Nowadays, publishers include JIFs on their journal homepages to verify their reputability. And the JIF is often used as a “quality” metric for institutions to determine where their researchers should publish. This combination of actions creates huge competition between researchers to publish in “high-impact” journals, in some cases instead of smaller titles with more specialist communities where the research could likely have greater influence.

But that doesn’t mean the cycle of JIF-based assessment has to continue, and the JIF is certainly not the only factor in journal evaluation. As Marie McVeigh of Clarivate Analytics recently explained when speaking to WoS’ indexing criteria, “…we do a data-driven, not metrics-driven, analysis of the value of publications to their communities as well as to the literature.” So it’s important to remember the JIF is only one evaluation tool. For a more comprehensive picture of journal impact, it’s imperative to look to other measures.

The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) is a prime example of an initiative born out of the academic community’s desire to change how research impact is measured. It’s about advancing more robust approaches to impact analysis that put data into context.

The Centre of Open Science’s Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines is one newer example of how publishers are displaying editorial rigor and transparency as a means of communicating journal value as well as impact metrics. TOP contains eight modular standards with three levels of stringency.

So what other means of communicating and measuring journal impact are available?

  • Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines: As discussed, TOP is an emerging framework for displaying journals’ adherence to publishing best practices, which any publication can adopt.
  • Eigenfactor and Article influence: An academic research project that uses network analysis algorithms and five years of citation data to evaluate the impact of journals and articles.
  • Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): From the National Institute of Health (NIH), this metric measures the scientific influence of individual articles by field.
  • Source Normalized Impact Per Paper (SNIP): A metric meant to account for the subject-specific differences in citation practices, powered by Scopus.
  • SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): A metric for measuring the scientific influence of scholarly journals, powered by Scopus.
  • CiteScore: This is essentially Elsevier’s equivalent of the JIF, which looks at the last three years of publication data.
  • scite: A platform for discovering and evaluating scientific articles via Smart Citations.
  • Journal usage data (i.e., HTML page views, full-text article downloads, turnaways, demographics, etc.): You can track journal analytics to showcase readership numbers online and better understand reader behavior to inform publication decisions. Keep in mind — if you have content hosted on aggregation platforms (e.g., ProQuest and EBSCO), OAPEN, preprints like Arxiv, and archives like PubMed, you will need to collate all of those usage metrics for a holistic picture. There also may be usage data you don’t have access to (e.g., if an author has uploaded the full text of their article to ResearchGate, Academia.edu, or a preprint server).

It’s also important to note that it’s not just about journal-level metrics — be sure to consider alternative author- and article-level metrics (or altmetrics) as well.

Article-level metrics give a way to measure the level of attention each of your articles is getting online, whether via citations, Twitter mentions, or references in mainstream media (among other data sources). Three altmetrics services to consider analyzing are Altmetric, Plum Analytics, and OurResearch (formerly ImpactStory). Publishers can include the scores of these services on their article-level pages in addition to other metrics.

There are many services you can use to take a deeper dive into article-level impact (some at a cost), like Kudos, Altmetric, Dimensions, Wizdom.ai, Google Scholar, PubMed, and CrossRef Cited-by.

Making the most of your opportunities

We have explored four key steps for you to work through and consider when assessing your journal, its content, and community impact. Each publisher is different and often has limited resources available, so it’s about what you can prioritize that is going to have the most positive impact for your journal, aligned with your strategic editorial objectives. Whether you have extended your journal scope and want to encourage quality submissions from new communities or you are looking to showcase the authors publishing in your journal, there is a wealth of information available to help you identify the best approaches.

Go beyond the JIF and consider how else you can track and demonstrate impact. Make sure you are empowering your community to promote their work and that you’re making the best use of the data available to drive your editorial strategy forward. And then review where you can adjust to be more competitive. It’s essential to seek advice from your service providers like Scholastica and member bodies you are part of to share and learn best practices.

Source: https://blog.scholasticahq.com/



Dear readers,

#JRTDD is now indexed into JURN.

JURN is a unique search tool, helping you to find free academic articles and books. JURN harnesses all the power of Google, but focusses your search through a hand-crafted and curated index. Established in 2009 to comprehensively cover the arts and humanities, in 2014 JURN expanded in scope. JURN now also covers selected university full-text repositories and many additional ejournals in science, biomedical, business and law. In 2015/6 JURN expanded again, adding over 600 ejournals on aspects of the natural world.

JRTDD Editor-in-chief



Open access developments in the Netherlands

Open access: intermediate results in the Netherlands
In late 2013, State Secretary Dekker formulated objectives with regard to open access, which were then tightened in the National Open Science Plan at the start of 2017: ‘100% open access publishing by 2020’. How much progress have we made so far?

Experts from all universities have established a definition framework that can be used to determine the percentage of articles published open access and to distinguish between ‘gold’, ‘hybrid’ and ‘green’. Figures from 2017 reveal that 50% of the peer-reviewed articles from 14 Dutch universities are available open access (on a total of 55,713 articles). This was true of 42% of articles in 2016. At most universities, the highest percentage of open access articles was found in the category ‘Hybrid and not DOAJ OA’ (20% in 2016 and 23% in 2017).


Declaration of Rights and Principles to Transform Scholarly Communication

Declaration of Rights and Principles to Transform Scholarly Communication

  1. No copyright transfers.
  2. No restrictions on preprints.
  3. No waivers of OA Policy.
  4. No delays to sharing.
  5. No limitations on author reuse.
  6. No impediments to rights reversion.
  7. No curtailment of copyright exceptions.
  8. No barriers to data availability.
  9. No constraints on content mining.
  10. No closed metadata.
  11. No free labor.
  12. No long-term subscriptions.
  13. No permanent paywalls.
  14. No double payments.
  15. No hidden profits.
  16. No deals without OA offsets.
  17. No new paywalls for our work.
  18. No non-disclosure agreements.

Source: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/committees/ucolasc/scholcommprinciples-20180425.pdf


EPrints for Open Access

EPrints has been leading innovation in the Open Access movement over the past 15 years. EPrints provides a set of mature ingest, preservation, dissemination and reporting services for your institution’s OA needs.

Created in 2000 as a direct outcome of the 1999 Santa Fe meeting that decided on the OAI-PMH protocol, EPrints software provides stable, pragmatic infrastructure on which institutions the world over have been utilising to enable their Open Access agendas.

As Open Source Software, EPrints’ greatest asset is the community of developers, librarians and users that feed into its progress and keep EPrints the innovative platform that we are so proud of.


More Information


What is Open Access?

Open Access is giving free, immediate, permanent online access to the full text of research articles for anyone, worldwide.  Society as a whole can benefit from an expanded and accelerated research cycle in which research can advance more effectively because researchers have immediate access to all the findings they need.

Who benefits from Open Access?

The visibility, usage and impact of researchers’ own findings increases with open access, as does their power to find, access and use the findings of others. Universities co-benefit from their researchers’ increased impact, which also increases the return on the investment of the funders of the research, such as governments, charitable foundations, and the tax-paying public.

For teachers, Open Access means no restrictions on providing articles for teaching purposes. Only the URL need be provided; Open Access takes care of the rest. Publishers likewise also benefit from the wider dissemination, greater visibility and higher journal citation impact factor of their articles.>/p>

The two roads of Open Access


The “green road” of OA self-archiving, where authors provide OA to their own published articles, by making their own eprints free for all.
the “golden road” of Open Access (OA) journal- publishing, where journals provide OA to their articles (either by charging the author-institution for refereeing/publishing outgoing articles instead of charging the user-institution for accessing incoming articles, or by simply making their online edition free for all).

The two roads to Open Access should not be confused or conflated; they are complementary. (EPrints is focussed largely on the green road, because it is the fastest and surest way to reach immediate 100% OA; but the green road might eventually lead to gold too.) OA self-archiving is not self-publishing; nor is it about online publishing without quality control (peer review); nor is it intended for writings for which the author wishes to be paid, such as books or magazine/newspaper articles. OA self-archiving is for peer-reviewed research, written solely for research impact rather than royalty revenue.

How to provide Open Access

An Institutional Repository (IR) is the best way to provide open access to research output.
Software such as EPrints provides a web-based OAI- compliant IR for free.

This open source software can be downloaded for free at http://files.eprints.org

How can you implement Open Access?

Putting Open Access into Practice

Researchers, their institutions and their funders need to be informed of the benefits of providing Open Access and instructed on how quickly and simply it is done.

An Institutional Open Access Repository such as EPrints needs to be created (and registered in ROARMAP, so as to be seen and emulated by other institutions).

Seriously and carefully consider adopting and implementing an open access self-archiving mandate for systematically filling your repository with the target content (and registered, so as to be seen and emulated by other institutions).

Establish champions in your institution to advocate open access and become an active member of open access networks and communities to share and hear about good practices.

EPrints Software and Services

An Institutional Repository is the best way to provide open access to research output. Software such as EPrints provides a web-based OAI-compliant IR for free.

This open source software can be downloaded for free at http://files.eprints.org

If you would prefer us to take care of your repository, including building, customisations, hosting and support, contact EPrints Services to discuss your needs.

Source: www.eprints.org


First article already have been published

Dear readers,

I want to inform you that we already have been published the first article (editorial) into our new journal entitled: A COMPARISON BETWEEN ELECTRONIC AND PRINTED JOURNALS. You can enjoy reading this article.


JRTDD Editor-in-chief


Definition of Open Access

Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.

  • OA removes price barriers (subscriptions, licensing fees, pay-per-view fees) and permission barriers (most copyright and licensing restrictions). The PLoSshorthand definition —”free availability and unrestricted use”— succinctly captures both elements.
  • There is some flexibility about which permission barriers to remove. For example, some OA providers permit commercial re-use and some do not. Some permit derivative works and some do not. But all of the major public definitions of OA agree that merely removing price barriers, or limiting permissible uses to “fair use” (“fair dealing” in the UK), is not enough.
  • Here’s how the Budapest Open Access Initiative put it: “There are many degrees and kinds of wider and easier access to this literature. By ‘open access’ to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.”
  • Here’s how the Bethesda and Berlin statements put it: For a work to be OA, the copyright holder must consent in advance to let users “copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship….”
  • The Budapest (February 2002), Bethesda (June 2003), and Berlin (October 2003) definitions of “open access” are the most central and influential for the OA movement. Sometimes I refer to them collectively, or to their common ground, as the BBB definition.
  • When we need to refer unambiguously to sub-species of OA, we can borrowterminology from the kindred movement for free and open-source software.Gratis OA removes price barriers alone, and libre OA removes price barriers and at least some permission barriers as well. Gratis OA is free of charge, but not free of copyright of licensing restrictions. Users must either limit themselves to fair use or seek permission to exceed it. Libre OA is free of charge and expressly permits uses beyond fair use. To adapt Richard Stallman’s famousformulation (originally applied to software), gratis OA is free as in ‘free beer’, while libre OA is also free as in ‘free speech’.
  • In addition to removing access barriers, OA should be immediate, rather than delayed, and should apply to full texts, not just abstracts or summaries.

  OA is compatible with copyright, peer review, revenue (even profit), print, preservation, prestige, quality, career-advancement, indexing, and other features and supportive services associated with conventional scholarly literature.

  • The primary difference is that the bills are not paid by readers and hence do not function as access barriers.

  The legal basis of OA is the consent of the copyright holder (for newer literature) or the expiration of copyright (for older literature).

  • Because OA uses copyright-holder consent or the expiration of copyright, it does not require the reform, abolition, or infringement of copyright law.
  • One easy, effective, and increasingly common way for copyright holders to manifest their consent to OA is to use one of the Creative Commons licenses. Many other open-content licenses will also work. Copyright holders could also compose their own licenses or permission statements and attach them to their works (though there are good reasons not to do so without legal advice).
  • When copyright holders consent to OA, what are they consenting to? Usually they consent in advance to the unrestricted reading, downloading, copying, sharing, storing, printing, searching, linking, and crawling of the full-text of the work. Most authors choose to retain the right to block the distribution of mangled or misattributed copies. Some choose to block commercial re-use of the work. Essentially, these conditions block plagiarism, misrepresentation, and sometimes commercial re-use, and authorize all the uses required by legitimate scholarship, including those required by the technologies that facilitate online scholarly research.
  • For works not in the public domain, OA depends on copyright-holder consent. Two related conclusions follow: (1) OA is not Napster for science. It’s about lawful sharing, not sharing in disregard of law. (2) OA to copyrighted works is voluntary, even if it is sometimes a condition of a voluntary contract, such as an employment or funding contract. There is no vigilante OA, no infringing, expropriating, or piratical OA.
  • Of course OA can be implemented badly so that it infringes copyright. But so can ordinary publishing. With a little care it can be implemented well so that doesn’t infringe copyright. Just like ordinary publishing.

  OA is compatible with peer review, and all the major OA initiatives for scientific and scholarly literature insist on its importance.

  • Peer review does not depend on the price or medium of a journal. Nor does the value, rigor, or integrity of peer review.
  • One reason we know that peer review at OA journals can be as rigorous and honest as peer review in conventional journals is that it can use the same procedures, the same standards, and even the same people (editors and referees) as conventional journals.
  • Conventional publishers sometimes object that one common funding model for OA journals (charging fees to authors of accepted articles or their sponsors) compromises peer review. I’ve answered this objection at length elsewhere.
  • OA journals can use traditional forms of peer review or they can use innovative new forms that take advantage of the new medium and the interactive network joining scholars to one another. However, removing access barriers and reforming peer review are independent projects. OA is compatible with every kind of peer review and doesn’t presuppose any particular model.
  • The reverse is not true, however. Some emerging models of peer review presuppose OA, for example models of “open review” in which submitted manuscripts are made OA (before or after some in-house review) and then reviewed by the research community. Open review requires OA but OA does not require open review.
  • In most disciplines and most fields the editors and referees who perform peer review donate their labor, just like the authors. Where they are paid, OA to the resulting articles is still possible; it merely requires a larger subsidy than otherwise.
  • Despite the fact that those exercising editorial judgment usually donate their labor, performing peer review still has costs –distributing files to referees, monitoring who has what, tracking progress, nagging dawdlers, collecting comments and sharing them with the right people, facilitating communication, distinguishing versions, collecting data, and so on. Increasingly these non-editorial tasks are being automated by software, including free and open-source software.

  There are two primary vehicles for delivering OA to research articles, OA journals(“gold OA”) and OA repositories (“green OA”).


  Open access is not synonymous with universal access.

  • Even after OA has been achieved, at least four kinds of access barrier might remain in place:
    1. Filtering and censorship barriers. Many schools, employers, and governments want to limit what you can see.
    2. Language barriers. Most online literature is in English, or just one language, and machine translation is very weak.
    3. Handicap access barriers. Most web sites are not yet as accessible to handicapped users as they should be.
    4. Connectivity barriers. The digital divide keeps billions of people, including millions of serious scholars, offline.
  • Even if we want to remove these four additional barriers (and most of us do), there’s no reason to hold off using the term “open access” until we’ve succeeded. Removing price and permission barriers is a significant plateau worth recognizing with a special name.

  OA is a kind of access, not a kind of business model, license, or content.

  • OA is not a kind of business model.
    • There are many business models compatible with OA, i.e many ways to pay the bills so that readers can reach the content without charge. Models that work well in some fields and nations may not work as well in others. No one claims that one size fits all.
    • There are many differences among the disciplines that affect the funding of OA. We should not expect OA to make progress in all disciplines at the same rate, any more than we should expect it to make progress in all countries at the same rate. Most of the progress and debate is taking place in the STM fields (science, technology, and medicine), but OA is just as feasible and useful in the humanities.
    • New OA business models are evolving, and older ones are being tested and revised, all the time. There’s a lot of room for creativity in finding ways to pay the costs of a peer-reviewed OA journal or a general-purpose OA repository, and we’re far from having exhausted our cleverness and imagination.
  • OA is not a kind of license. There are many licenses compatible with OA, i.e. many ways to remove permission barriers for users and let them know what they may and may not do with the content. See the sections on permission barriers and licenses above.
  • OA is not a kind of content. Every kind of digital content can be OA, from texts and data to software, audio, video, and multi-media. The OA movement focuses on peer-reviewed research articles and their preprints. While most of these are just text, a growing number integrate text with images, data, and executable code. OA can also apply to non-scholarly content, like music, movies, and novels, even if these are not the focus of most OA activists.

  OA serves the interests of many groups.

  • Authors:  OA gives them a worldwide audience larger than that of any subscription-based journal, no matter how prestigious or popular, and demonstrably increases the visibility and impact of their work.
  • Readers:  OA gives them barrier-free access to the literature they need for their research, unconstrained by the budgets of the libraries where they may have access privileges. OA increases reader reach and retrieval power. OA also gives barrier-free access to the software they use in their research. Free online literature is free online data for software that facilitates full-text searching, indexing, mining, summarizing, translating, querying, linking, recommending, alerting, “mash-ups” and other forms of processing and analysis.
  • Teachers and students:  OA puts rich and poor on an equal footing for these key resources and eliminates the need for payments or permissions to reproduce and distribute content.
  • Libraries:  OA solves the pricing crisis for scholarly journals. It also solves what I’ve called the permission crisis. OA also serves library interests in other, indirect ways. Librarians want to help users find the information they need, regardless of the budget-enforced limits on the library’s own collection. Academic librarians want to help faculty increase their audience and impact, and help the university raise its research profile.
  • Universities:  OA increases the visibility of their faculty and research, reduces their expenses for journals, and advances their mission to share knowledge.
  • Journals and publishers:  OA makes their articles more visible, discoverable, retrievable, and useful. If a journal is OA, then it can use this superior visibility to attract submissions and advertising, not to mention readers and citations. If a subscription-based journal provides OA to some of its content (e.g. selected articles in each issue, all back issues after a certain period, etc.), then it can use its increased visibility to attract all the same benefits plus subscriptions. If a journal permits OA through postprint archiving, then it has an edge in attracting authors over journals that do not permit postprint archiving. Of course subscription-based journals and their publishers have countervailing interests as well and often resist or oppose OA. But it oversimplifies the situation to think that all their interests pull against OA.
  • Funding agencies:  OA increases the return on their investment in research, making the results of the funded research more widely available, more discoverable, more retrievable, and more useful. When funding agencies disburse public funds, OA helps in a second way as well, by providing fundamental fairness to taxpayers or public access to the results of publicly-funded research.
  • Governments:  As funders of research, governments benefit from OA in all the ways that funding agencies do (see previous entry). OA also promotes democracy by sharing non-classified government information as widely as possible.
  • Citizens:  OA gives them access to peer-reviewed research, most of which is unavailable in public libraries, and gives them access to the research for which they have already paid through their taxes. But even those with no interest in reading this literature for themselves will benefit indirectly because researchers will benefit directly. OA accelerates not only research but the translation of research into new medicines, useful technologies, solved problems, and informed decisions that benefit everyone.