Overcoming Funding Disparities in Open Access Publishing

An essay by Pratik Koppikar

Research of all kinds is at its best when ideas are shared freely. The persistent push towards open access publishing has continually gained momentum, propelled by the desire of researchers, readers, and institutions to dismantle barriers (such as subscription fees, article processing charges, and tight compliance schedules) that have long obstructed the free dissemination of knowledge. As the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization aptly observed, open access to scientific information is a crucial catalyst for addressing global challenges and realizing the Sustainable Development Goals. Yet, this objective is beset at the surface by disparities in funding that permeate the academic landscape, and at a deeper level by the practices of predatory journals with profit margins greater than technology giants that create obstacles to the universal adoption of open access.

Institutions should dedicate a predetermined portion of their research budgets explicitly to open access publishing fees and author support. By allotting these funds beyond what is attained by the researchers in grants, a more equitable playing field could be forged across disciplines and institution sizes, liberating researchers from financial constraints that have long hindered their pursuit of open access.

For decades, the subscription-based publishing model cast a pall over the academic community, entrenching a system that restricts access to research behind paywalls. The predatory practices of scientific publishing began with the Pergamon publishing house (bought by Elsevier), creating a slew of new English journals with exclusive contracts to scientific societies in as many markets as possible, deliberately manufacturing an urgency for scientists to include their work in the journals associated with Pergamon. As the trend of where one was published rose in importance till present day, privileged access to both share and receive knowledge now solely to those institutions and researchers endowed with substantial financial resources, as incisively highlighted by Frank's 2019 study, which revealed that over 60% of researchers in low-income countries lack access to crucial academic journals due to exorbitant subscription fees.

In an effort to counteract this injustice, the leading journals of scientific publishing such as Cell, Nature, and Science have implemented initiatives aimed at alleviating the burden on researchers hailing from nations grappling with limited resources. For instance, Cell Press offers a waiver or discount for groups of authors from Research4Life defined areas, a program that encompasses over 120 low and middle-income countries. Similarly, Nature has a dedicated fund for authors from countries classified by the World Bank as low-income or lower-middle-income, providing them with discounted or waived article processing charges (APCs). Science, too, has a similar discounting model to Cell Press, recognizing the financial constraints faced by scholars in resource-limited settings. Unfortunately, this doesn’t go far enough as it only increases the ability to share one’s work, shining just one side of the coin.

Through programs that waive or discount open access publication charges for authors from low and low-middle income countries, these publishers often fail to account for the nuanced funding disparities that exist within wealthier nations themselves. Researchers in the outside of the traditional hard-science paradigm at many U.S. universities often face significant barriers to accessing and publishing their work openly due to limited grant funding and institutional support compared to their counterparts in the natural sciences.

Institutions such as the University of California and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have already heeded the call of establishing centralized funds and policies to subsidize open access endeavors. The UC system's Open Access Publishing Fund, ?provides financial support to UC authors for APCs, while MIT's Open Access Article Publication Subvention Fund, implemented in May 2010 under the guidance of the Faculty Committee on the Library System, allocates a portion of the library's budget to cover publication fees for MIT-affiliated researchers. Authors at these universities have access to these funds when other sources are not useable.

Yet, the implementation of such measures demands a nuanced approach, one that accounts for the intricate tapestry of funding landscapes and institutional contexts. A staggered approach to open access compliance, granting extensions to those operating within more constrained means, could provide the necessary flexibility to accommodate the diverse financial realities that pervade the academic sphere. Establishing a gradient on timelines for compliance, leaving more time for those that need it (as determined by factors such as project timelines) but ensuring they utilize the resources to take advantage of open access, would help smaller universities and researchers without great institutional support that may not have immediate access to provided subsidies. This graduated strategy would ensure that no researcher or institution is left behind in the transition to open access.

Complementing the subsidization efforts by the UC System and MIT, the establishment of institutional repositories and dedicated open access publishing funds could further alleviate the burdens shouldered by scholars hoping to access barred research. Outside of private universities with endowments and a strong donation network, the funding for these endeavors could be designated within education appropriations and government research grants. These centralized departments, akin to Harvard University's Office for Scholarly Communication, serve as libraries of accessible knowledge, minimizing the financial barriers to reading publications. Harvard's repository, DASH (Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard), has been a pioneering initiative in this regard, providing a free and open platform for researchers at the institution to share their work with the global community. Although in these cases the publishing fee still needs to be negotiated by the institution or researcher, those hoping to retrieve papers no longer have the paywall barrier erected. For those researchers hoping to publish in more specialized localizations, subject-specific repositories similar to PubMed Central but for targeted disciplines could be established.

The pursuit of open access transcends mere financial considerations; it should be a shift in the ethos of the academic enterprise. Institutions and funding agencies must actively cultivate an environment that incentivizes and rewards open access contributions, redefine the metrics of academic success and impact beyond the traditional emphasis on publications in high-impact journals. For example, by incorporating open access metrics and achievements into the criteria of tenure, promotion, and grant evaluation processes, universities can forge a more inclusive and collaborative research ecosystem. Institutions such as Oregon State University have already embraced this paradigm, integrating open access considerations into their public resolutions and evaluation rubrics. OSU, for instance, recognizes effectiveness in disseminating research as part of its advancement and appointment guidelines.

Concurrent with these efforts, educational campaigns and training initiatives must be mounted to raise awareness and equip researchers with the requisite skills to navigate the intricate landscape of open access publishing. Organizations like SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) and materials like OASIS (the Open Access Scholarly Information Sourcebook) stand at the vanguard of this movement, providing invaluable resources and guidance to those seeking to embrace this transformation. SPARC, in particular, has been at the forefront of advocating for open access policies and practices, offering workshops, webinars, and toolkits to help institutions and researchers make the transition to open access more seamlessly.

Ultimately, the realization of a truly equitable and inclusive open access scholarly ecosystem demands sustained commitment and collaboration from a constellation of stakeholders – researchers, institutions, funding agencies, publishers, and policymakers alike. No single entity can shoulder the burden of this transformation alone; it requires a concerted, coordinated effort from all corners of the academic and scientific community.?

Policymakers, wielding the levers of legislative and regulatory authority, possess a pivotal role in shaping a conducive environment for open access initiatives to flourish. By enacting mandates that compel publicly funded research to adhere to open access principles, governments can catalyze a seismic shift in institutional and researcher behavior. The United States' 2013 OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy) memorandum and the European Union's Horizon 2020 program are examples of the idea of government policy reflecting the public desire for shared research, establishing open access as a prerequisite for public funding.

As a result of these and other eventual policymaker guidelines, funding agencies will need to align their grant structures and guidelines to facilitate open access compliance and adequately support the associated costs. The Wellcome Trust, a preeminent biomedical research funder, for instance, provides grantees with supplementary funds to defray open access publication expenses. This forward-thinking policy not only removes financial barriers for researchers but also sends a powerful signal to the broader scientific community about the importance of open access dissemination.?

Publishers, too, must take responsibility to effect this transformation. While some have embraced open access models, a broader adoption of sustainable and equitable publishing paradigms is imperative. Though the aforementioned methods of institutional financial and publication repositories provide treatment for the issue of undue financial burdens on researchers and readers, the underlying issue of inequitable pricing structures by publishers that provide little benefit to any stakeholder is still left unaddressed. Exploring alternative revenue streams for open-access publishers, such as institutional subscriptions or consortium-based funding models, could ensure the long-term viability of open access publishing without imposing undue financial burdens on individual researchers or institutions, while also placing the onus on the exploitative publishers to change their methods in order to stay in business. The Open Library of Humanities stands as a guide to this type of model, operating on a library partnership subsidy model that offers a sustainable open access platform for humanities scholars.

As we navigate this intricate tapestry of challenges and opportunities, it’s essential to keep in mind that developing and then maintaining an equitable open access ecosystem is a long-term endeavor. Collaboration between publishers, institutions, and funding agencies will be essential in navigating this complex terrain, with initiatives like the OA Switchboard project exploring ways to streamline and simplify the communication network for open access agreements and policies between different stakeholders. The open access initiative demands coalition-building, a steadfast commitment to the principles of open science from all stakeholders, and funding alongside the time for projects to mature. There is an imperative to dismantle the barriers that have long impeded the ability of the researcher, the public, the world to access our collective progress.