Open access (OA) has come a long way over the past two decades, with more than half of the world’s research now published openly. As the open access movement continues to expand globally, the conversation is shifting towards how to make it more equitable. For years, the dominant Article Processing Charge (APC) model has raised concerns about its potential to marginalize scholars from underfunded regions and institutions. The OASPA 2024 Conference held in Lisbon from September 16-18, tackled this issue head-on, with a series of sessions exploring how the scholarly community can transition away from APC-based models and create a more inclusive, equitable open-access landscape.
Three key sessions at the conference—”Who Cares About Equity?”, “Show Me the Money: Decoupling OA from Per-Publication Journal Charges”, and “The Open Knowledge Paradigm: Supporting Multiple Routes to Open Access”—provided insights into why the APC model needs to be replaced and how alternative models like Diamond OA and community-driven publishing can offer more equitable solutions.
The opening panel discussion, titled “Who Cares About Equity?” moderated by Agata Morka from PLOS, set the tone for the conference by directly addressing what equity in open access publishing truly means. Panelists included Vanessa Proudman from SPARC Europe, Joy Owango from the University of Nairobi, Silke Davison from OAPEN, DOAB, and OA Books Network (OABN), and Durhane Wong-Rieger from the Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders. The discussion highlighted the multifaceted nature of equity in OA, emphasizing the need for inclusivity, diversity, and fair access to knowledge for researchers worldwide. Equity, the panelists stressed, is not just about providing access to research materials but about making sure that the global scholarly conversation includes voices from all regions and backgrounds. Equity is an essential mechanism for creating a balanced and inclusive scholarly ecosystem, ensuring that knowledge is not produced and controlled by a select few. Researchers from underrepresented regions, especially in the Global South, continue to face significant barriers in contributing to global academic discourse. These barriers range from financial constraints to infrastructural and systemic limitations, which affect both access to knowledge and the ability to disseminate it. As shown in the word cloud from the session, terms like “fairness,” “justice,” “opportunity,” and “inclusion” dominate the discussion about equity.
One of the most significant issues raised during the discussion was the global knowledge divide. While institutions in the Global North often dominate the production and dissemination of scholarly content, those in the Global South are mostly consumers and are frequently left struggling to gain access to the same level of data and resources. This results in a one-way flow of knowledge, where the North dictates the terms and trends of academic discourse while the South is left as a passive consumer. Panelists pointed out that even countries with relatively well-established research infrastructure, such as South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya, still face significant obstacles in achieving true equity in research and data sharing. The conversation highlighted the need to challenge the assumption that resources are being shared equally across the globe and to recognize that the current system still favors wealthier nations and institutions.
Beyond the access to knowledge, the panel emphasized the importance of diversity within the publishing industry itself. True equity in OA cannot be achieved without increasing diversity in the leadership and decision-making structures of scholarly publishing. This is not merely a matter of representation; diverse perspectives within the industry lead to more inclusive content and ensure that a wider array of voices is heard in the global academic conversation. Organizations must strive for inclusivity not only in the research they publish but in their own internal structures to ensure better decision-making and more impactful global outcomes. The discussion also touched on the broader impact of scholarly work beyond academia. Scholarly publishing should serve society at large, reaching a variety of communities and regions that could benefit from the research. An example used was that of a “house built to suit its residents”—meaning that research, to be truly valuable, must cater to the diverse needs of the global population.
Following the equity panel, another session titled “Show Me the Money: Decoupling OA from Per-Publication Journal Charges” shifted the focus to alternative models of open access. Led by Reggie Raju from the University of Cape Town, this session explored how the scholarly community can move beyond APCs and embrace more equitable funding models like Diamond OA and Subscribe to Open (S2O). Raju emphasized the significant financial challenges that regions like Africa face under the current APC-based model. While APCs have often been promoted as a way to democratize access to research, the reality is that these charges are often prohibitive for researchers in underfunded regions, further marginalizing their voices and contributions.
Africa, which contributes just 1% of global research output, has particularly struggled under the APC model. The cost of publishing in high-impact OA journals is often out of reach for African scholars, effectively excluding them from the broader academic conversation. Raju argued that the APC-based model has “betrayed” Africa, reinforcing historical inequities rather than leveling the playing field. The session highlighted the need to decouple the financial burdens of publishing from the research process itself and focus on models that prioritize social justice and inclusivity.
Diamond OA has emerged as a model that prioritizes social justice over commercial profit. In Diamond OA, the financial burden of publishing is borne by institutions, libraries, or consortia, allowing authors to publish their work without incurring fees. This model aligns closely with the philosophy of Ubuntu, a Southern African concept that emphasizes community, mutual care, and shared responsibility. Ubuntu’s guiding principle, “I am because we are,” reflects the belief that individual success is inseparable from the success of the community. Diamond OA promotes this principle by ensuring that the global academic community works together to support knowledge creation and dissemination, without financial barriers.
The session also featured the African Platform for Open Scholarship as an example of how the tenant model can be applied in practice. Under this model, each institution takes responsibility for a segment of scholarly content, enhancing the visibility and accessibility of research from the Global South. Equity is not just about making research available but ensuring that local communities have a stake in how knowledge is created and disseminated. This collective approach to publishing contrasts sharply with the profit-driven models seen in traditional scholarly publishing, where financial incentives often overshadow the pursuit of knowledge. By focusing on principles over profit, the session made a compelling case for Diamond OA as a means of fostering a more equitable and sustainable scholarly publishing landscape.
In the third session covered here, “The Open Knowledge Paradigm: Supporting Multiple Routes to Open Access,” Maurice York from the Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA) explored the complex and evolving landscape of open access. The BTAA is a powerful example of how large academic consortia can drive OA initiatives. With 19 universities, over 800,000 students, and an annual research output of over $17 billion, the BTAA plays a significant role in the global scholarly ecosystem. The alliance produces over 100,000 publications per year and holds more than 150 million library assets, underscoring the scale at which academic consortia can operate to advance open access.
York highlighted that while open access has made considerable progress, the hardest work is still ahead. Over 50% of the world’s research is now openly available (3.3 million articles per year), but much of the remaining research—particularly older scholarship—remains locked behind paywalls. He pointed out that while many consortia focus on cost-efficiency, this often comes at the expense of principles like equity and long-term sustainability. York argued that the future of open access lies in building a mission-driven, principle-centered community where values like inclusion, fairness, and long-term sustainability take precedence over efficiency or cost savings. As he noted, “Mission must come before money.” The Big Ten Academic Alliance, with its large network of universities, offers a model for how institutions can pool resources and knowledge for the greater good.
The fragmented nature of the current OA landscape was a key point of discussion. He drew parallels with historical paradigm shifts in science, such as the transition from mechanical to quantum physics, or the shift from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican model of the universe. Just as these shifts required a radical reevaluation of accepted norms, so too does the transition to a truly open and equitable knowledge system. The future of OA, York asserted, requires a “quantum leap” in thinking, with existing models like Subscription, Gold, Green, and Diamond OA evolving or even dissolving to make way for new, more inclusive pathways. With these models each contributing to different levels of inequity, the session raised critical questions: Who has access to knowledge? Who decides what gets saved or shared? And how can equity be ensured across these different OA models?
These three sessions from the OASPA 2024 Conference made it clear that while open access has achieved remarkable progress, significant challenges remain in ensuring that the system is equitable and inclusive for all scholars, regardless of geography or financial means. Moving beyond APCs and embracing alternative models like Diamond OA and Subscribe to Open offer viable alternatives to the APC model. Also adopting philosophies like Ubuntu and community-driven publishing, can be critical in creating a global scholarly ecosystem that prioritizes fairness and collaboration. The future of open access lies in building partnerships, fostering diversity, and ensuring that financial barriers no longer prevent scholars from sharing their work. As we move forward, it is crucial that we remain focused on equity, inclusion, and the broader societal impact of research. In doing so, we can create a more just and open scholarly world for all.
– by Tony Alves
