Open Access
Providers using this tag (139)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Developing 13 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 55 Limited public surface area
Emerging 59 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 12 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (230)
Ranked by the provider's API Evangelist rating — the Kin Score is scored per provider, not per API, so every API of a provider shares its band. How the rating works →
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 1 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 23 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 81 Limited public surface area
Emerging 116 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 8 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (53)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Open Access” but do not classify their business under it. Listed unranked and kept out of the count above, because one tagged operation is not a statement about what a company does.
Show all 53 companies ↓
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Markets provisional
Kin Score markets whose measured providers carry this tag. Share is the fraction of the market's measured providers that carry it — it describes the market, not this tag.
| Market | Share of the market's providers |
|---|---|
| Higher Education and Research | 26% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 139 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Open Access, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Quality | 27.5 | 17.2 | +10.3 | 139 |
| Discoverability | 65.8 | 57.9 | +7.9 | 139 |
| Contract Governance | 10.4 | 6.5 | +3.9 | 139 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 25.3 | 23.2 | +2.1 | 139 |
| Operational Transparency | 12.4 | 13 | -0.6 | 139 |
| Access Clarity | 19.5 | 23.9 | -4.4 | 139 |
A facet is averaged over the members that carry it, not over the whole cohort — the “Scored” column is that count. Averaging an absent facet as zero would score our own coverage gaps as the providers’ posture.
| Artifact | This cohort | Catalog | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCP server (any) | 2% | 13% | -11 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 2% | 12% | -10 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 22% | 11% | +11 |
| Security | 96% | 98% | -2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 40% | 16% | +24 |
mcp_pct counts any mcp/ artifact including ones API Evangelist derived from the provider OpenAPI; mcp_first_party_pct counts only servers the provider publishes. Prefer the latter.
- 1 Uppsala University 49.2
- 2 Delft University of Technology 47.6
- 3 Pennsylvania State University 46.1
- 4 arXiv 45.4
- 5 University of Cambridge 43.9
- 6 Dryad 43.4
- 7 DeSci Labs 43.3
- 8 University of Tokyo 43.1
- 9 RWTH Aachen University 42.2
- 10 University of Hong Kong 40.8
- 1 DeSci Labs 52.1
- 2 Carnegie Mellon University 34.4
- 3 Semantic Scholar 34.3
- 4 Queensland University of Technology 34.3
- 5 Unpaywall 33.1
- 6 Massey University 32.8
- 7 University of Ottawa 32.7
- 8 Smithsonian Institution 32
- 9 University of Tokyo 31.7
- 10 University of Oxford 31.3
Coverage caveat. 108 of 139 scored members had under half their catalog-attributable points satisfied at all (catalog_earned / catalog_max < 0.5). They are INCLUDED in the mean above. A large share here means the cohort mean is partly a measurement of how far our enrichment reached, not only of how these providers publish.Generated from the catalog build of 24 October 2026, across 31984 providers, using the same computation served by the APIs.io cohort API. Briefs are published for rosters of 5 or more scored providers; below that a distribution is not meaningful.
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.