Abstract:This paper examines, with emphasis upon the United States, the current status of open access and its future prospects from a literature review of items published since 2015. The examination of sources goes beyond articles in scholarly journals to include columns in the blog The Scholarly Kitchen and other selected resources as needed to fill gaps. With the enormity of the literature on the subject, the analysis does not claim to be comprehensive and focuses on key issues. This author takes care to look beyond STEM (science, technology, engineering, and medicine) fields to discuss the effect of open access in the social sciences, humanities, and fine arts. Overall, open access today looks very different from the goals of its proponents in 2002. For authors, open access has increased availability of scholarly resources and fostered distribution of their research, often after the payment of fees. Large commercial publishers have found ways to benefit from open access through author processing charges and by acquiring smaller presses. Open access overall has not allowed libraries to save money on serials subscriptions and has often increased costs through their support of institutional repositories and payment of author fees. Continued library support for open access is often more of a philosophical stance without significant cost-saving benefits.

中文翻译：

---

开放获取：当前概述和未来展望

摘要：本文重点研究美国的开放获取的现状及其从2015年以来发表的文章的文献综述中的未来前景。对源的研究不仅限于学术期刊上的文章，还包括博客The填补空白的学术厨房和其他选定的资源。由于有关该主题的文献众多，因此该分析并不声称是全面的，而是侧重于关键问题。作者非常关注STEM（科学，技术，工程和医学）领域以外的问题，以讨论开放获取对社会科学，人文和美术的影响。总体而言，今天的开放获取看起来与2002年支持者的目标大不相同。对于作者而言，通常在支付费用之后，开放获取增加了学术资源的可用性并促进了其研究的分布。大型商业出版商已经找到了通过作者处理费和购买小型印刷机而从开放获取中受益的方法。总体而言，开放存取并不能使图书馆在订阅期刊时省钱，并且经常通过其对机构知识库的支持和作者费用的支付而增加成本。图书馆对开放式访问的持续支持通常只是一种哲学立场，而没有明显的节省成本的好处。总体而言，开放存取并不能使图书馆在订阅期刊时省钱，并且经常通过其对机构知识库的支持和作者费用的支付而增加成本。图书馆对开放式访问的持续支持通常更多地是一种哲学立场，没有明显的节省成本的好处。总体而言，开放存取并不能使图书馆在订阅期刊时省钱，并且经常通过其对机构知识库的支持和作者费用的支付而增加成本。图书馆对开放式访问的持续支持通常更多地是一种哲学立场，没有明显的节省成本的好处。