After writing a blog post about open access, Bente Kalsnes asked today for practical suggestions on how to be an Open Access researcher. Here’s how:

  • Publish in open access journals. If you’re in Norway, you’ll also want to search DBH’s list of approved journals to make sure that the journal you publish in is registered as a peer-reviewed, scientific publisher so that you and your department get publication points, which translates directly to money – for the institution, anyway, maybe just brownie points for you, but these things do matter. If a journal is not registered and you think it should be, send in a suggestion! Every journal I’ve suggested has been approved the following year so this really is worthwhile.

or…

  • publish in closed journals, but make sure they allow you to self-archive your paper. For some publishers this is automatic, for others you have to alter the contract, which usually isn’t a problem if you just ask – danah boyd confirmed this on the AoIR mailing list the other day, too. At a minimum they should allow you to publish a copy of your paper on your own website and/or in your institution’s open research archive (like BORA for Bergen or DUO for the University of Oslo. Most universities have one of these by now – here is a list of all the Norwegian open research archives. At several Norwegian universities (including Oslo and Bergen), we can upload a copy of a publication when we register it in Cristin, the database where we have to enter publications in order to get publication points. Also, these archives are indexed by Google Scholar, so it’s a good way of getting your work read more. If you want to check a journal’s policy on self-archiving before submitting an article you can search the SHERPA/RoMEO database. When I’ve altered contracts I’ve just done it myself by crossing something out and writing something else in by hand, but the Science Commons has an Author’s Addendum you can generate if you like. I’ve also found that the staff at BORA (and probably other open research archives) are extremely helpful in mediating with journals where I’d published before I started thinking about this. Sometimes journals won’t allow you to publish the proofread PDF they created, and only allow you to put a preprint (i.e. the last draft you sent them) on your website. Or they require you to wait for three or six months or at most a year before you publish. This is also called an embargo.

I’ve published closed access books, and certainly the publishers (MIT Press and Polity) have done a fair bit of work on the books – and I don’t feel that the £15 or so that each book costs is outrageous – it’s half or a third of what it costs to download a single academic article from many closed journals. I’m not sure I’m quite ready to promise I’ll never publish a book with a traditional publisher again, but I will certainly look into alternatives. There are initiatives like the Open Humanities Press that do wonderful, open access, digital only peer-reviewed books. And sometimes traditional academic publishers will allow books to simultaneously be published openly, as MIT Press recently did with 10 Print. Martin Weller goes through some of the issues here.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. […] UPDATE: If you have suggestions and advice for how to be an open access scholar, please do! Thanks Jill for your helpful blogpost, How to be an open access scholar!  […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.