The Open Access Movement: Free Online Knowledge for All – Written Lay Summary

We live in a world where most things cost money, but should knowledge be one of them?

Open access (OA) is an international movement aimed at making research freely available online. With OA, research can be accessed by anyone, aiming to reduce inequalities for those who lack the necessary resources. Policymakers, including government officials, advisors, and international organisations such as the World Health Organisation, will have greater access to research. This will help them make evidence-based decisions on pressing issues such as climate change and pandemics.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected the entire world, regardless of income level. It showed how important it is to have access to research during urgent health crises. During COVID-19, OA increased, with major publishers like Springer Nature making pandemic-related papers freely available. While most countries collaborated on research, high-income countries did so less, likely because they already had strong resources. In middle-income countries, OA participation seemed to benefit them during the pandemic. Their limited resources encouraged them to work with other countries on research. It’s important to recognise that OA policies are essential for research openness. Without proper systems in place, OA’s dependence on private publishers’ willingness to share research continues.

Before the pandemic hit, a significant milestone was reached in Budapest in 2001 with the Open Access Initiative. This initiative defined two types of OA: Green OA, which allows authors to share a free version of their research in subscription-based journals, and Gold OA, which publishes research directly in a free online journal. Despite its growth, some key research remains inaccessible to many. Only about half of modern scientific research is freely accessible. Even then, access isn’t evenly distributed internationally. This means studies that provide an international picture of OA are essential. This is where the paper by Simard et al. (2022) plays a key role.

What the researchers did:

This type of study by Simard et al. (2022) is essentially a broad examination of international research on OA publishing. In other words, a population-level bibliometric study where the authors reported no conflicts of interest. The study analysed 8.2 million articles published between 2015 and 2019 in the Web of Science database. This international database, like a large online library, contains millions of papers, making it a valuable resource for Simard and colleagues. They linked the papers from the Web of Science to the ‘Unpaywall’ database using a DOI (Digital Object Identifier). This is a unique code that identifies online resources. The articles were then categorised by OA type if they held a DOI.

They analysed these papers based on country-specific publishing trends. The first author, who conducts most of the research and writing, and the corresponding author, responsible for the publication’s administrative duties, were used to determine the country of publication. Once identified, countries were categorised into income levels. Researchers calculated the number of articles per country and the number of citations per OA article. They adjusted for differences across research fields, including natural sciences and social sciences, by using the number of articles for a like-for-like comparison.

What they found…

Their findings revealed key trends in OA publishing across different country income levels, as shown below, drawn from a table:

Low-income countries:
– Gold OA is primarily used
– High levels of OA publishing
– High OA citation levels

Middle-income countries:
– Both gold and green OA are used at similar levels
– Low levels of OA publishing
– Low OA citation levels

High-income countries:
– Green OA is primarily used
– OA publishing levels vary between countries
– OA citation levels vary between countries

Mixed findings between countries are clear, but why does this trend occur?

One reason is related to fee waivers. These waivers ultimately remove or reduce fees for those who cannot afford to pay them. Below breaks down how these waivers can influence OA publishing:

Low-income countries:
– Access to waivers is often fully granted, or reduced fees are given
– These countries often have fewer resources for publishing, but waivers allow them to publish more in gold OA

Middle-income countries:
– Rarely qualify for waivers
– They are caught in the middle, cannot qualify for waivers, but cannot afford high publishing fees, so they publish less altogether

High-income countries:
– Do not receive waivers
– Prefer cost-effective publishing, so publish more with green OA despite the resources for gold OA publishing

Limitations and benefits

An increase in OA internationally is essential. It will help the scientific community to become more collaborative and inclusive, triggering a domino effect that leads to greater progress in fields like medicine and education. An increasing number of students and teachers will gain access to vital research to support their studies and teaching. At the same time, doctors in lower-income countries will have access to medical research that could save lives.

Simard and colleagues state that although COVID-19 significantly contributed to OA’s growth, the patterns seen during the pandemic may no longer be relevant today, as some research papers were only temporarily available for free. Additionally, the Web of Science was the only database used to identify articles, potentially leading to some papers being missed. This is mainly because the database is primarily in English and includes many Western journals, so some journals from Eastern regions were not acknowledged. Their analysis also relied on DOIs, which not everyone uses, leading to some papers being excluded and overlooked. Finally, the researchers conducted a country-level analysis that reflects only national trends and does not account for individual researchers’ actions. Therefore, we cannot assume that each researcher’s behaviour aligns with the overall national trend.

To sum up…

When it comes down to it, this study reveals patterns and inconsistencies across regions. Lower-income countries lead in OA publishing and citation volume, while higher-income countries fall behind. This pushes the need for future research to continue examining income-based differences in OA publishing, with particular attention to middle-income countries. It is also important to determine whether the surge in COVID-19 research in OA was temporary or whether the pandemic has had a lasting impact on OA research growth. Studies like those by Simard and colleagues should aim to ensure that any changes and improvements are effectively applied and monitored. People often say that knowledge is power; surely the most effective way to demonstrate this is to make research accessible to everyone and work towards a fairer research environment.

Image: “Open Access Buttons” by h_pampel, CC BY-SA 2.0