Open access in academic publishing plays a crucial role in advancing scientific progress and promoting informed decision-making. At its core, open access ensures that research findings are available to everyone, removing the barriers posed by traditional publishing models. Initially, digitization helped reduce the costs associated with traditional scientific publishing, which was a significant benefit for academic research. However, despite these advancements, the cost of accessing scientific journals has skyrocketed in recent years. As a result, researchers and academic institutions often find themselves struggling to afford access to essential research due to the high subscription fees imposed by major publishers.

This model is unsustainable in the long run. Researchers, often funded by public money, produce valuable research that is then locked behind paywalls. Essentially, the government and taxpayers are paying for the research multiple times—once to fund the research itself and again to gain access to the findings through expensive journal subscriptions. This restricts the free flow of knowledge, which is essential for scientific progress.

Open access publishing provides a solution that benefits both readers and authors. For readers, it allows unrestricted access to vital research, enabling them to stay informed and make decisions based on the most current information. For authors, open access increases the visibility and impact of their work, as more people can access and cite their research. Furthermore, open access fosters collaboration across disciplines and speeds up the pace of scientific discovery. It also allows for greater data mining, which can lead to new discoveries across multiple fields.

In the lecture, the importance of advocating for open access within research teams was highlighted, particularly among graduate students and early-career researchers. By pushing for broader dissemination of knowledge, these researchers can help shift the academic landscape towards more equitable access to information. However, despite the clear advantages, there is still resistance to open access, primarily due to concerns over copyright violations.

One major issue researchers face is the fear of unintentionally violating copyright laws. This fear can discourage researchers from exploring certain materials, especially when planning to use online sources. In such cases, researchers must ask critical questions to ensure compliance with copyright laws: Where does the source come from? Who holds the copyright? Is there permission to reuse and publish it? Navigating these legal requirements can be a complex and time-consuming process, making researchers cautious in their approach. Ensuring that all materials used in a project are properly sourced, attributed, and legally permissible is essential to avoiding potential legal issues.

However, not all fields are equally restricted by copyright concerns. For instance, in the arts, many public institutions, such as the National Gallery, have taken significant steps toward contributing to open access by making high-quality images of their collections freely available. Large public art museums and educational institutions are actively working to build their own digital collections, offering researchers and the public greater access to valuable resources. These digital collections will likely become integral parts of future digital exhibits, enhancing public engagement with the arts.

This brings me to a question I find particularly intriguing: Is there a difference between an online exhibition and a digital exhibit? From my understanding, a digital exhibit appears to be more akin to an online collection or digital archive, providing high-quality resources that people can access freely. Digital collections, such as those created using platforms like Omeka, are meticulously organized, with detailed metadata for each item, including catalog numbers, author information, and distribution rights. This method of presenting digital collections is something we have explored in class.

However, when you search for “digital exhibit,” the term “online exhibition” often appears as well. I believe there are subtle differences between the two. An online exhibition may be easier to create from a technological standpoint, but it typically focuses on specific topics, featuring curatorial research and guided content. In contrast to digital collections, which provide access to large numbers of images with extensive categorization, online exhibitions present a smaller number of carefully selected images accompanied by a cohesive narrative and thoughtful visual design. These exhibitions often serve as interpretive tools, not just displaying images but also offering insight and context. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, online exhibitions have become a critical component of museum outreach, allowing institutions to engage with audiences remotely.

In my mind, while both digital collections and online exhibitions are valuable, they serve different purposes within the broader field of digital history. Digital collections provide vast archives of high-quality materials for research, while online exhibitions offer curated experiences that guide viewers through specific narratives. Both contribute uniquely to the digital humanities, and both are essential for preserving and sharing knowledge in an increasingly digital world. I’m not sure if my understanding is correct, it would be great if you could contribute to the discussion on this issue.