What is open access? l Interview l Contact
16. Juli 2026
The Open Access Monitor is featured in the new edition of the established handbook “Basic Library Knowledge.” Its inclusion underscores its importance for academic libraries and for the transformation of scholarly publishing.
Scientific findings should be accessible to as many people as possible—not just those who have access to a well-equipped library or a paid subscription. This is precisely the core idea behind Open Access: scholarly publications such as journal articles or research reports are freely available online and can be read and used without a paywall.
Open Access is intended to accelerate the exchange of knowledge, make research more visible, and improve access to scientific findings. This benefits not only researchers, but also students, businesses, the media, educational institutions, and the interested public.
But how open is the scientific publishing system, really? How many publications are freely accessible? Which publication models are gaining traction—and what costs are involved?
The Open Access Monitor provides answers to these questions. Developed by the Central Library of Forschungszentrum Jülich, this tool compiles publication and cost data and prepares it for analysis. For example, it allows users to track the proportion of open-access publications at a scientific institution, identify which publishers are used, and monitor trends in spending on reading and publishing scientific articles.
The Monitor thus creates a reliable data foundation for libraries, universities, research institutions, and science policy decisions. It highlights how far the open access transformation has progressed and where further action is still needed.
What began as a project of the Jülich Central Library has now become part of the toolkit for academic libraries: The Open Access Monitor has been included in the tenth, completely revised and expanded edition of the handbook “Bibliothekarisches Grundwissen” (Fundamentals of Librarianship).
Published since 1974, this foundational work introduces readers to the central tasks, structures, and fields of work in librarianship. It is aimed in particular at students and those in training, as well as professionals working in the library field.
The fact that the Open Access Monitor is covered in the handbook demonstrates that data-driven open access monitoring is no longer a niche topic but is increasingly becoming part of the fundamental knowledge required for modern library work.
Its inclusion in the handbook is therefore more than just a mention in the professional literature. It signifies the permanent integration of a service developed in Jülich into library practice.
The Open Access Monitor helps make the transformation of scholarly publishing transparent and manageable. Its inclusion in a foundational work on librarianship also demonstrates how a time-limited project can evolve into an information infrastructure of supraregional relevance.
I like to refer to it as “indispensable library infrastructure.” Its mention in the handbook confirms to me that this assessment is accurate.
In 2003, hundreds of research institutions and scientific organizations (including the Helmholtz Association) called for free access to scientific publications in the “Berlin Declaration”; in 2015, this was supplemented by the call to transform the majority of scientific journals to Open Access. While the first call has been implemented for about 70% of publications from Germany (Jülich Research Center: 90%), the second call still has significant “room for improvement”: About two-thirds of journals are still published under the subscription model, meaning they are not fully open access.
The original approach was to enable institutions to track the development of their Open Access rate over a certain period of time. The OAM is used for this purpose, but also for much more: Publishers have used it to determine where their authors actually come from when designing an Open Access offering, state-level Open Access offices use it to present state-specific analyses, libraries use it to apply for funding under the DFG’s “Open Access Publication Costs” program, and for some small institutions, it simply serves as a bibliography of their own publications.
Over the course of about 20 years, the share of Gold Open Access journals rose steadily, from 6% in 2010 to 31% in 2022. Correspondingly, the share of subscription journals fell from 93% to 67%. (The difference consists of Diamond OA journals, where there are no fees for either reading or publishing.) Since 2022, however, the numbers have remained stagnant. If the scientific community is unwilling to accept this, it must take action—nothing is happening “on its own” anymore. It must either make this issue a central focus in negotiations or develop alternatives on its own (Diamond Open Access).
Subscription journals (with a hybrid option) are, overall, more financially lucrative for publishers than Gold Open Access journals. In addition, the potential for monetizing content for AI applications is greater under Closed Access than under Open Access. The biggest obstacle is therefore the lack of willingness on the part of publishers.
In the ZB’s grant proposals to the DFG and BMFTR — in which the OAM usually plays a role— I like to refer to it as “indispensable library infrastructure.” Its mention in the handbook confirms to me that this assessment is accurate. To conclude, I’d like to mention one more “honorable mention”: In the first German national report (2025) on the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, in response to the question “Are there national or institutional open science infrastructures in your country?”, three infrastructures from Jülich are cited: JUWELS, JUPITER, and the Open Access Monitor.
