TY - JOUR
T1 - Open access publishing - noble intention, flawed reality
AU - Frank, John
AU - Foster, Rosemary
AU - Pagliari, Claudia
N1 - Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/12/2
Y1 - 2022/12/2
N2 - For two decades, the international scholarly publishing community has been embroiled in a divisive debate about the best model for funding the dissemination of scientific research. Some may assume that this debate has been thoroughly resolved in favour of the Open Access (OA) model of scientific publishing. Recent commentaries reveal a less settled reality. This narrative review aims to lay out the nature of these deep divisions among the sector's stakeholders, reflects on their systemic drivers and considers the future prospects for actualising OA's intended benefits and surmounting its risks and costs. In the process, we highlight some of inequities OA presents for junior or unfunded researchers, and academics from resource-poor environments, for whom an increasing body of evidence shows clear evidence of discrimination and injustice caused by Article Processing Charges. The authors are university-appointed researchers working the UK and South Africa, trained in disciplines ranging from medicine and epidemiology to social science and digital science. We have no vested interest in any particular model of scientific publication, and no conflicts of interest to declare. We believe the issues we identify are pertinent to almost all research disciplines.
AB - For two decades, the international scholarly publishing community has been embroiled in a divisive debate about the best model for funding the dissemination of scientific research. Some may assume that this debate has been thoroughly resolved in favour of the Open Access (OA) model of scientific publishing. Recent commentaries reveal a less settled reality. This narrative review aims to lay out the nature of these deep divisions among the sector's stakeholders, reflects on their systemic drivers and considers the future prospects for actualising OA's intended benefits and surmounting its risks and costs. In the process, we highlight some of inequities OA presents for junior or unfunded researchers, and academics from resource-poor environments, for whom an increasing body of evidence shows clear evidence of discrimination and injustice caused by Article Processing Charges. The authors are university-appointed researchers working the UK and South Africa, trained in disciplines ranging from medicine and epidemiology to social science and digital science. We have no vested interest in any particular model of scientific publication, and no conflicts of interest to declare. We believe the issues we identify are pertinent to almost all research disciplines.
U2 - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115592
DO - 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115592
M3 - Review article
C2 - 36481722
SN - 0277-9536
VL - 317
SP - 115592
JO - Social Science & Medicine
JF - Social Science & Medicine
ER -