Examples
Worked examples
- Is an instance
A funder publishes an annual OA-monitoring report showing percentage of outputs openly available by route.
- Is an instance
A national OA monitor reveals discipline-level gaps that inform targeted policy interventions.
Counter-examples
Looks similar, but isn't
- Not an instance
Reporting OA uptake as a single aggregate number with no breakdown by route, discipline or language.
- Not an instance
Relying solely on a closed commercial database for OA monitoring with no validation.
Editorial commentary
OA monitoring tools combine bibliographic data (from Crossref, OpenAlex, Web of Science, Scopus) with OA status information (Unpaywall, Sherpa Romeo, DOAJ) to track: percentage of publications openly available, OA-route breakdown (gold, hybrid, green, bronze, diamond), licence distributions, compliance with funder mandates, and time-to-OA. National implementations include the French Open Science Monitor, the Dutch Open Science Monitor, and the UNESCO Open Science Outlook.
A known methodological limitation, directly relevant to equity
Most OA monitoring pipelines are built on DOI-indexed bibliographic sources, which systematically under-cover journals and repositories that register content less consistently with Crossref or that are weakly indexed by Web of Science and Scopus — a pattern that disproportionately affects Global-South, non-English and diamond-OA venues rather than being evenly distributed. That means a national or funder OA-monitoring report’s headline “percentage open access” figure can understate real openness for exactly the publishing ecosystems that Global-South publishing and bibliodiversity work is trying to support, unless the monitor explicitly checks for and corrects that coverage gap.
Why monitoring matters for equity specifically
OA monitoring is essential to evaluating policy effectiveness and to identifying equity gaps across disciplines, languages and regions — but only when it is disaggregated. A single aggregate “X% open access” figure hides exactly the disparities a knowledge equity index is designed to surface; the two concepts work together in practice, with monitoring supplying the raw compliance data and equity indices reframing that data by geography, language and discipline.
References
- French Open Science Monitor (barometredelascienceouverte.esr.gouv.fr). Robinson-Garcia N et al. ‘Open access uptake by universities worldwide’ PeerJ 2020. UNESCO Open Science Outlook.
Also known as
Open access monitoring · OA monitor
Machine-readable encodings
Use in your systems
<role vocab="credit"
vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
vocab-term="OA Monitoring Explained"
vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/oa-monitoring" />{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/oa-monitoring",
"name": "OA Monitoring Explained",
"identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/oa-monitoring",
"description": "The systematic measurement and reporting of open-access publication uptake, compliance with OA policies, and progression toward open scholarship goals at institutional, funder or national level.",
"inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/knowledge-equity#set",
"url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/oa-monitoring",
"sameAs": [
"Open access monitoring",
"OA monitor"
],
"license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
"publisher": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
},
"author": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#editorial-team"
},
"datePublished": "2026-05-21T02:22:56",
"dateModified": "2026-08-23T05:14:47",
"inLanguage": "en-GB",
"isAccessibleForFree": true
}
