The double-edged sword of open access publishing

Fully open access (OA) publishing plays a crucial role in democratising access to knowledge. Instead of being hidden behind a paywall, scholarship is freely accessible to anyone with an internet connection.

It is not just society that benefits from this greater inclusivity. The potential for increased visibility, impact and citations of OA publications also aids scholars. Additionally, authors maintain the copyright to their work rather than having to sign it over to the publisher. From these perspectives, OA publishing should be applauded and has a role to play in promoting inclusivity.

• Is open access tarnished?
• Why does open access make publishing more complicated?
• A guide to using open educational resources: an experiential case study

However, my experience of nearly a decade in academia has spotlighted some consequences for inclusivity of OA publishing from a scholar’s perspective.

When publishing OA, authors are often responsible for covering the article processing charges (APC). This fee, payable to the publisher, effectively replaces the subscription revenue stream from non-OA content. Four of the most common ways an APC can be covered are: 1) a funding agency mandates OA and covers the APC as part of the project’s funding; 2) a university has an agreement with a publisher whereby the university pays an upfront amount to the publisher in exchange for their faculty being able to publish OA free for a fixed period; 3) the author(s) self-fund the cost of the APC; 4) the author(s) apply to the journal for an APC waiver. However, many hybrid journals do not offer APC waivers, so OA and non-OA articles can be published in the same issue of the same journal.

How APC waivers can affect inclusivity

So, why might these four ways to fund the APC be problematic for inclusivity?

Let’s first discuss access to research grants via a funding agency. In this highly competitive landscape, the availability of funding opportunities differs by country, field and topic of study. Established researchers generally hold an advantage over their junior colleagues, as the principal investigator’s track record for securing grants and publishing often plays a pivotal role in the decision-making process for allocating research grants.

Then, there are transformative agreements between universities and publishers. Not all universities have the financial resources to pay the costs associated with such agreements. This creates a two-tier system where scholars from universities that are able to pay can have their research published OA, which leads to broader dissemination, increased impact and more citations. In contrast, scholars from universities with less financial means see their work locked behind a paywall and the copyright of their work signed over to the publisher. Even when a university has such an agreement with a publisher, it often applies only to salaried faculty or current students. This often excludes independent scholars or those from institutions without a transformative agreement, and visiting faculty members at a university that holds such an agreement may still not qualify to publish OA via this route.

If we turn our attention to self-funding, we find that this, by its nature, requires the individual to pay the APC, which often exceeds £1,000. Scholars from affluent backgrounds may have the means to pay such fees, but other colleagues might not.

Finally, APC waivers from publishers often feel like a lottery. Some publishers offer discounts based on the location of the research institution with which the lead author is affiliated. However, even with a 25 per cent, 50 per cent or 75 per cent discount, the APC may remain beyond the means of many scholars worldwide. Individual scholars can often apply directly for a full APC waiver, assessed on a case-by-case basis. But this requires: a) that the scholar knows this path exists; and b) an element of luck when making a case for the full APC waiver.

Ways to address inequalities in OA publishing

So, where does that leave us? What can we do to address the lack of inclusivity for authors within the OA publishing model?

Here are three scenarios with various degrees of change required to realise them.

1. Established publishers look at ways to promote opportunities for APC waivers and consider increasing the availability of full waivers to scholars who otherwise would not have the means to publish OA. Restrictions around using preprint servers or sharing the author accepted manuscript (AAM) are removed to offset the lack of access to work behind a paywall (termed “green OA”) while continuing to generate revenue from APCs for fully OA (“gold OA”). Such changes could benefit both the journals and broader society because of the range of voices included and the reduced risk of echo chambers.
2. As a community of academics, we move to measure the quality of outputs more inclusively. We address the choice, often faced by scholars, of publishing either non-OA in a higher-ranked journal or OA in a less-prestigious journal that does not charge an APC. We consider how to account for the differences in citation metrics among scholars in the same field, where some can regularly publish OA while others cannot. Can we make hiring, performance and promotion decisions linked to research outputs without relying on the name and rank of the journal where the work is published as a proxy for quality?
3. We ask whether the academic publishing model remains fit for purpose and what alternatives might exist. Is there a place for fully OA journals without APCs? If so, how do we overcome the pushback from established publishers and senior academics with the means to publish gold OA in “top ranked” journals? And how do we sustainably fund such a model to benefit authors, institutions and broader society operating within a sustainable career ecosystem?

Further discourse on this topic includes questions such as how we distinguish genuine journals from predatory ones. Still, I hope this article has catalysed thoughts about how inclusivity in access can sit at the core of decision-making.

William E. Donald is an associate professor in sustainable careers and human resource management at the Ronin Institute in Montclair, New Jersey, and a visiting research fellow in organisational behaviour and human resource management at the University of Southampton.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.