Research for All – The Promise and Pitfalls of Open Access in Academic Publication

Coinciding with Open Access Week 2025, this ResearchConnect article looks at Open Access in academic publication and whether research will ever be open and accessible to all.

Access to scholarly knowledge has traditionally been restricted by subscription models, limiting availability to those affiliated with well-funded institutions. Open Access (OA) emerged to address this inequity, with the goal of making research freely available to anyone with internet access. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, OA adoption has accelerated in recent years, as publishers temporarily lifted paywalls on coronavirus-related research to enable more efficient global collaboration. However, while the integral use of OA in the response to the pandemic demonstrated the importance of unrestricted access to current research, there are many obstacles to overcome before research can truly be considered open and accessible to all. 

The principles of OA were first outlined in three key declarations, which came to be known as the ‘BBB initiatives’: the Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), the Bethesda Statement (2003), and the Berlin Declaration (2003). These declarations defined OA as free online access of publications with reuse permission under appropriate licensing. Since then, funders have played a key role in accelerating the adoption of OA. In 2005, the Wellcome Trust became the first major research funder to mandate OA, and in the following years, other research funding bodies began to follow suit.

The European Commission’s Open Science policy is obligatory under Horizon Europe research initiative and aims to foster greater transparency and trust for the benefit of both scientific research and EU citizens. The policy enforces an ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’ strategy. Results and data may be kept closed if making them public in open access is against the researcher’s legitimate interests but should otherwise remain open. The Commission also operates the ‘Open Research Europe’ initiative, which allows research financed through Horizon Europe to be published under OA without fees to the author. 

In the UK, any outputs of research funded by the government’s national research funding agency UK Research & Innovation (UKRI) and submitted for publication is subject to UKRI’s Open Access policy. Through this policy, UKRI intends to improve the open access research information landscape by making articles findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable, as well as reducing the burden associated with monitoring and managing research.

France can be seen as a pioneer in championing OA with its 2016 ‘Digital Republic Act’. With this law, the French government set out to ‘to give France a head start in the digital field by promoting an open data and knowledge policy’. While combatting the inequalities of the digital era, such as digital protection and access, France set out a commitment to the circulation of data and knowledge.

Today, OA has evolved from a single concept into a spectrum of publishing models, of which publishers may use one or more simultaneously. However, the most common system uses colour to define the different tiers available. Gold OA provides immediate, free access to published articles, typically funded by Article Processing Charges (APCs). Green OA involves depositing versions of manuscripts in repositories, sometimes after embargoes. Hybrid OA allows authors to make individual articles open within subscription journals for a fee. Bronze OA makes content temporarily free to read without clear licensing, while Diamond OA provides free access for readers and authors, funded by institutions or governments. 

Each tier of OA not only carries different implications for the authors of these publications, but also for the institutions they work for and the readers who access the final written product. Considering the effect of OA on each stage of production of an article, from research and writing through to editing and publication, reveals the power that OA has to shape the academic landscape, particularly when combined with the new generative technology of recent years.

For readers, the benefits of OA are easily discernible. Articles are no longer locked behind paywalls that privilege some institutions; they are easier to access, cite, and share. This has expanded the audience of scholarship beyond professional academics. Patients, practitioners, educators, and the public now have direct access to research findings. The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) has highlighted OA’s role in patient education, empowering individuals to make informed healthcare decisions and reducing inequalities between patients and professionals.

OA also addresses longstanding inequities between the Global North and South. Subscription models created structural disadvantages for scholars in low-resource settings, where library budgets could not support access to high-cost journals. Freely available research helps level this playing field, enabling wider participation in the global research conversation.

Yet accessibility does not automatically translate to inclusivity. Highly technical language remains a barrier to non-specialist readers, limiting OA’s ability to democratise knowledge fully. Bronze OA, where articles are free to read but lack clear reuse rights, further complicates the picture. Without licensing clarity, readers may access content today only to find it re-paywalled tomorrow.

Overall, OA has undeniably delivered major gains for readers, especially in expanding access and fostering public engagement. But its success remains unequal, shaped by licensing ambiguities and linguistic or technical barriers that continue to exclude many potential beneficiaries.

For authors, OA offers both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, OA publishing increases visibility. Studies consistently show that OA articles attract more downloads and citations, providing early career researchers with crucial exposure. For those seeking to establish reputations, attract collaborators, or strengthen funding applications, OA can be transformative.

However, this visibility often comes at a cost. Gold and Hybrid OA models typically require APCs that can exceed £9,000, creating significant barriers for researchers without robust institutional or grant support. While well-funded research institutions may absorb these charges, independent scholars or those in underfunded disciplines may find OA prohibitively expensive. This results in reproducing inequality as OA seeks to dismantle it.

Compliance with funder policies also introduces administrative responsibilities. Authors may need to deposit manuscripts in repositories, choose journals with OA options, or ensure that licences meet funder requirements. In addition, the growth of OA has coincided with the rise of predatory journals – publishers that charge fees without providing robust peer review – requiring vigilance from authors in journal selection.

The question of rights retention is equally pressing. Traditionally, authors have transferred copyright to publishers, relinquishing control over their own work. OA advocates argue that rights retention empowers researchers to share, reuse, and build upon their findings without restriction. However, publishers’ ability to set APCs at will has generated a market where costs spiral upwards, reinforcing power imbalances.

Alternative publishing models aim to address these challenges. Subscribe-to-Open models distribute costs across institutions, and transformative agreements between consortia and publishers bundle subscription and publishing fees to facilitate OA. Similarly, initiatives such as the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) APC cap aim to curb excessive charges.

In summary, OA has been proven to provide authors with wider dissemination of their work but also introduces financial and administrative challenges that affect researchers differently depending on their funding context.

While the use of OA has become widespread since the early 2000s and has had varied yet notable impacts on both readers and authors, it is unrealistic to consider complete open access as having been achieved. OA continues to face structural barriers which limits its scope, and in some cases, can be seen to worsen the inequalities that the model was created to overcome.

• Digital exclusion is perhaps the most fundamental. Freely available online research is of little use to communities without reliable internet access. This disproportionately affects rural regions and parts of the Global South, where connectivity remains limited.

• Language barriers also constrain OA’s reach. The vast majority of academic publishing occurs in English, therefore marginalising non-English speakers and reinforcing linguistic hierarchies. Even when translations exist, highly technical writing can alienate non-specialists. OA’s promise of inclusivity therefore requires not just free access, but also accessible communication.
• Prestige incentives – many researchers believe their career prospects hinge on publishing in high-impact subscription journals. Prestige-driven incentives continue to draw scholars to closed outlets, even when OA options exist. This reveals a structural contradiction: OA promotes accessibility, but academia’s reward systems often prioritise exclusivity.
• Finally, institutional and funder support gaps remain. While groups such as the Global Research Council and Science Europe promote OA, commercial publishers remain bound by shareholder obligations to maximise profits. This can limit progress toward models that prioritise affordability.

These barriers indicate that OA adoption is influenced not only by financial considerations but also by cultural, linguistic, and institutional factors that extend beyond simple access.

The rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology in recent years has given rise to questions about the role that this new resource could have in academic publication.  

AI is becoming increasingly integrated into scholarly publishing and has implications for OA. Current applications include natural language processing for manuscript screening, plagiarism detection, and peer review support. Generative AI is also being used to summarise literature, suggest revisions, and assist in drafting manuscripts. These applications promise to streamline workflows, reducing the labour-intensive aspects of publishing and potentially lowering costs.

AI technologies can also support accessibility. Automated translation and summarisation tools may reduce language barriers, while AI-driven discovery platforms can improve navigation of large OA repositories. Personalised content recommendations and advanced analytics have the potential to increase the efficiency of research.

Yet these same capabilities carry risks. Publishers may seek to create exclusive AI-driven services – advanced analytics, personalised recommendations, or premium search functions – that reintroduce paywalls in new forms. There is also evidence that some publishers are restricting the use of their content for training third-party AI models, limiting broader applications of AI in research. These practices raise concerns about the future of openness in an increasingly data-driven environment.

Significant investment in infrastructure is required for AI to be used effectively in scholarly publishing. Collaboration between publishers, AI specialists, and academic stakeholders will be necessary to ensure that AI applications are transparent, ethical, and aligned with academic values.

AI therefore represents both an opportunity and a challenge: it has the ability to enhance OA by reducing costs and expanding accessibility but may also create new forms of exclusivity depending on how it is implemented.

Open Access has already reshaped scholarly publishing in profound ways. For readers, it has expanded access and engagement; for authors, it has offered visibility but also introduced financial and administrative burdens. Systemic barriers – digital, linguistic, cultural, and institutional – continue to constrain OA’s inclusivity. The arrival of AI adds both promise and peril, with the potential to either democratise knowledge further or create new forms of exclusion.

OA has progressed substantially since the early 2000s, with international funders, publishers, and governments contributing to its growth. While full OA has not yet been achieved, the trend towards openness is clear. The extent to which OA can meet its goals of equity and sustainability will depend on how costs, licensing, and technological innovation are managed in the years ahead.

As part of our ongoing coverage of research funding and policy developments, ResearchConnect supports the ongoing conversation on OA and a more inclusive research ecosystem.

Empowering researchers, research managers and institutions to navigate the complex world of research funding and policy, we can connect you to the latest research opportunities driving discovery, innovation, and change.

ResearchConnect’s funding database and news content features the most recent research calls and funder updates, providing access to the latest funding opportunities and developments to researchers worldwide – enabling them to turn scientific aspirations into reality.

Related posts