Understanding Open Access Publishing

Who owns scientific knowledge? It’s not researchers or universities, but a handful of obscure multinationals such as Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, and Taylor & Francis. Here's how it works. All scientific studies must be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Basically, researchers write articles, which are reviewed free of charge by other researchers, and edited – again, free of charge – by other researchers. It sounds like a kind of Wikipedia of science. Yes, it could be. But over the last few decades, multinationals have taken control of most academic journals. They continue to mobilise the voluntary work of researchers but they now resell articles them afterwars. Yes, researchers have to pay to have access to their own articles. Universities either pay subscription fees to access each journals (a few thousand euros per year per journal) or pay several thousand euros per article to have it published in open-access. In 2020, these fees amounted to 87.5 million euros for French institutions, according to Alternatives Economiques. On the corporate side, the profits are colossal: global revenues reaching 7.5 billion euros for the top six publishers, with margins as high as 40%. This is not surprising, since these companies do not pay the researchers who write, proofread, and edit during their university-paid hours. Given that these companies are paid in proportion to the number of articles they publish, it is in their interests to encourage publication and create more and more journals. As researchers, we need to be able to read and publish. These companies know this and do not hesitate to inflate prices. Open access publication fees tripled between 2013 and 2020. It's the perfect trap. With career prospects linked to the number of publications, publishers are taking advantage of the ‘publish or perish’ culture. What should we do? Individually, we could refuse to write, review, and edit for journals owned by for-profit businesses and favour journals with genuine free access. Collectively, we could take back control of journals. With fellow researchers, we have created the Degrowth Journal, a not-for-profit, cooperatively-run publication. Each university has the power to help their researchers create new journals while changing the criteria for evaluating researchers. Most fundamentally: we could regulate the publication market. Controlling prices, banning lucrative intellectual property, taxing publishers' excess profits so that all of them are reinvested in research. Universities, researchers and public authorities must send out a strong message: science is not for sale.  

The Delhi HC has banned access to Sci-Hub in India. Sci-Hub has long served as an indispensable resource for students, researchers and institutions worldwide that cannot afford prohibitive costs of journal subscriptions. The irony is stark. Research is mostly funded through government grants, while researchers conceive, conduct and write manuscripts, which are peer-reviewed for free by academics, yet publishers retain copyright once accepted. In return, researchers and institutions get the privilege of paying again - either through subscriptions or through steep APC to access or disseminate their own publicly funded work. With time, business model of academic publishing has shifted dramatically. Earlier, readers paid the cost through subscriptions; more recently, authors pay to publish under “open access”; and today, we are seeing “transformative” Gold–Silver–Bronze models, where institutions pre-pay large sums under "read & publish" agreements. Publishing ecosystem is further entrenched by various ranking frameworks. Over emphasis on numerical outputs in ranking, accreditation, promotions, etc., has fostered a “publish or perish” culture, often prioritising quantity over quality and pushing researchers toward predatory publishing or citation cartels. Publications and citations drive institutions to publishing more, creating an almost inelastic demand for high-impact journals. The reliance on citation counts fuels a self-reinforcing cycle where researchers chase prestigious journals, those journals gain more citations and publishers market them as “high impact,” further amplifying submission pressure. This cycle aids to sustain the model while institutions and taxpayers bear the escalating costs. I ask myself the following questions: 1. If most academic research is funded by taxpayers, why should the public & institutions pay again through subscription fees or APC? Isn’t it double payment? 2. Even with occasional APC waivers, does “pay-to-publish” open access or transformative model truly ensure inclusivity for researchers from developing nations, smaller universities or independent scholars who cannot afford thousands of dollars per article? 3. When the bulk of academic labour is done by researchers, do the high publication charges genuinely reflect the value addition by publishers? 4. Should publicly funded knowledge be locked behind private paywalls under the guise of copyrights? 5. Do “transformative agreements”, represent real transformation? Or is it simply a more entrenched form of monopoly? In my personal opinion, GoI must consider building national repositories and open publishing ecosystems for democratising access to knowledge, reducing dependence on publishers and strengthening India’s position as a global leader in equitable science dissemination. Without such reforms, parallel systems like Sci-Hub & LibGen will inevitably continue to emerge – not out of defiance, but out of necessity to bridge access gaps.

Public health funds the science. Publishing is pricing it out. Across public health globally, epidemiologists are expected to: → Generate evidence for policy → Respond to outbreaks → Publish rigorously → Share findings quickly But here’s the uncomfortable reality: To publish open access in many top journals today, public health researchers often must pay $6,000–$13,000 per paper. At the same time: → Reviewers work for free → Editors are largely unpaid academics → Grants are capped → Public health agencies and universities rarely have dedicated APC budgets. This isn’t a niche problem. It directly affects who gets to contribute evidence. → Early-career researchers → Public health practitioners → Global collaborators → Researchers outside elite institutions They are quietly filtered out. Swiss universities recently took a public stance against this model. The message was clear: open science cannot survive on closed economics. In epidemiology, this matters even more. Our data are public. Our work informs policy. Our findings affect lives. If only well-funded institutions can publish, then evidence itself becomes biased. This isn’t about prestige journals. It’s about whether public health research remains truly public. I hope the global academic and funding ecosystem is paying attention. #PublicHealth #Epidemiology #OpenScience #ResearchEquity #AcademicPublishing

If you’re exploring a career in life sciences or making the pivot, understanding industry terminology is crucial for success. “Open Access” is a term you’ll encounter often in scientific publishing, and it’s essential to know exactly what it means. Avoiding any confusion can set you apart as someone who is well-informed and ready to engage in meaningful discussions around research. Here’s a concise overview on what “Open Access” means and why it matters. Definition: Open Access refers to free, immediate, and unrestricted access to scientific articles. No paywalls or subscriptions—just accessible knowledge for those who need it. Types of Open Access: • Gold Open Access: Articles are freely available on the publisher’s website, often with an Article Processing Charge (APC) paid by the author. • Green Open Access: Articles are archived in repositories after an embargo period, allowing free access later. Why It Matters: • Increases visibility and accessibility of research for a global audience. • Promotes faster scientific progress, helping you stay up-to-date on cutting-edge findings. Understanding Open Access is not just about knowing the jargon—it’s about demonstrating that you can engage with and share knowledge effectively, a crucial skill in life sciences. #LifeSciences #Pharma #CareerPivot #Publishing —————— 🔔 Follow me here on LinkedIn for clear, concise insights into the life sciences. I post three times weekly! 📩 Subscribe to my monthly newsletter for deeper dives into topics important to the medical information space.

Article processing charges remain one of the most pressing issues of open access publishing. The financial burden is problematic for many researchers, especially those in low-income regions or without significant funding. The publishing fees can be prohibitively expensive. This model risks excluding talented individuals from contributing to scientific discourse simply because they cannot afford to pay. While some initiatives offer reduced fees, they often fail to address the systemic barriers that persist. Additionally, reliance on Article processing charges can create a disparity in published research. Institutions with larger budgets can publish more frequently in prestigious journals. In contrast, those with limited resources struggle to gain recognition. This leads to an uneven playing field where only a select few voices are amplified. The stigma around open access publishing can also deter researchers. Concerns about journal reputability often lead to hesitation. Many choose traditional publishing routes that may not be as accessible. This perception hinders the widespread adoption of open access and entrenches existing inequalities. In summary, while open access publishing has great potential, financial barriers must be addressed. Without action, we risk favoring wealth over merit, stifling innovation and diversity in scientific research. We must advocate for solutions that ensure equitable access for all researchers, regardless of their financial circumstances.  Have you published an open access article recently? What’s your experience?  #OpenAccess #ResearchEquity #AcademicPublishing

It is increasingly difficult to locate and access reliable information. Scholars, one meaningful action you can take is to make your work OPEN ACCESS. Open accessing publishing helps ensure that your research is freely available to people and communities that can benefit from it. Even if you did not publish your final work with open access, there is usually a version of your manuscript that you can legally self-archive. If you are affiliated with an academic institution, work with your library to upload your scholarship to your campus repository. In my past experience, librarians made the process very easy! Here is a quick guide with more info about why open access is important: https://lnkd.in/gQP8tpQQ

As a researcher, I find myself increasingly frustrated with the pay-to-view model for accessing academic articles. It is 2024, and unfortunately, we still have to talk about this persistent issue that creates significant barriers to the dissemination of knowledge and hampers the progress of scientific discovery. Firstly, the paywall restricts access to essential research, especially for those outside well-funded institutions. Many researchers, particularly from developing countries or smaller institutions, simply cannot afford to pay for each article they need. This inequity undermines the global scientific community, perpetuating a divide between those who can and cannot access current research. Moreover, the pay-to-view model is counterproductive to the principle of academic collaboration. Research is a collective endeavor, thriving on the free exchange of ideas. Paywalls isolate researchers, preventing the synergistic effects of shared knowledge and collaborative efforts that drive science forward. Open access journals and platforms ensure that research is freely available to everyone, fostering a more inclusive and collaborative scientific community. This model not only democratizes access to information but also enhances the visibility and impact of research outputs. Given these considerations, I am likely to bypass your paper or scale if it is behind a paywall. I advocate for and support open access initiatives, which align with the fundamental ethos of academic research: to expand and share knowledge freely for the benefit of all. #OpenAccess #AcademicPublishing #ResearchEquality

I’ve been saying this for a long time - publishing open access via golden route isn’t sustainable for universities (what other profession in the world would pay over £9,000 to publish?) Yet, these days we see “gold” rush in publishing, with new sister journals to existing titles being launched every month. It has little to do with making research open access, while prioritising profit. Leaving what’s bad behind won’t be simple, but it’s not impossible. There are a few platforms, beyond typical preprint servers, that doesn’t get enough credit: 1. Octopus.ac - global primary research record where researchers publish their work in full detail 2. Open Science Europe - open access publishing venue for European Commission-funded researchers across all disciplines, with no author fees 3. OSF.io - open platform to support research dissemination, preprints, and enable collaboration Our work still need to go through peer review, whether through standard journals or community review. This is to make science is sound. But we shouldn’t be expected to pay to publish our work, given the current publishing system relies on volunteering work. What other platforms do you use to make your research open access? #science #scientist #research #researcher #professor #postdoc #phd #publishing

Hello all! This is Pavithran Narayanan, taking over Trevor’s LinkedIn in recognition of International Open Access Week. As an open access (OA) enthusiast, it’s a pleasure to share a few reflections on why this movement matters.  Originally conceived to make scholarly literature freely and widely available in the wake of the internet revolution, the concept of OA continues to evolve and recontextualize how we think about “open(ness)” and “access”—and how science is shared and used. Open, equitable, and inclusive access to scholarly output is the lynchpin that empowers researchers, journalists, and the greater public to benefit from the fruits of scientific research. It also promotes transparency, integrity, replicability, and reusability of research data and methods—while providing much-needed visibility and recognition to early-career and marginalized researchers. Efforts to promote OA have driven major innovations, like preprints and preprint servers, post-publication peer-review platforms, and modular publishing models. These have the potential to transform the way scientific research is approached, conducted, shared, interpreted and evaluated, and continue to push the status quo in scholarly publishing.   This #OAWeek, let’s resolve to do our part to advance policies and practices that make the research ecosystem more open, accessible, and inclusive for all. https://lnkd.in/gRRwJhCd #OpenAccess #OAWeek #Openness #Accessibility #Inclusivity #OpenResearch