Open Access publishing: benefits and challenges

In line with the Journal’s conflict of interest policy, this paper was handled by Jeroen Hendriks. Already 20 years ago, there was a conference of stakeholders in publishing to discuss and sign an agreement on a new proposed model for academic publishing called Open Access.1 This initiative had two goals, firstly, to reduce publishing costs for authors and academic institutions and secondly, to increase access to research articles and improve equity by taking away paywalls. In September 2018, a coalition of national research funding organizations, with support from the European Commission and the European Research Council (ERC), announced the establishment of cOAlition S. This coalition’s primary objective was to transform the accessibility of research publications. They set this ambitious goal in motion by unveiling ‘Plan S,’ which stipulated: With effect from 2021, all scholarly publications on the results from research funded by public or private grants provided by national, regional and international research councils and funding bodies, must be published in Open Access Journals, on Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo. Plan S marked a pivotal moment in the landscape of scientific publishing, because it accelerated the transition to Open Access publishing in the scientific and scholarly community. As part of the transition towards a comprehensive Open Access publishing system, hybrid journals, which offered both subscription-based (pay-to-read) and Open Access (pay-to-publish) options, were tolerated temporarily. However, this transitional phase is scheduled to conclude by the end of 2024. Consequently, the major European funding agencies will cease to support the publication in hybrid journals. In the USA, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) will also require authors to publish via Open Access, thereby ensuring immediate public access to publicly funded research. Furthermore, the World Health Organization and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are funders of Plan S.2 These developments exert significant pressure on journals still operating under a subscription model, compelling them to shift towards becoming fully Open Access journals in the near future. In this editorial, we discuss the pros and cons of Open Access publishing from different perspectives (Central illustration ). A compelling advantage for journals transitioning to full-fledged Open Access is the immediate availability of all content to the readership. As a result, the journal garners a broader readership, extending its reach beyond the confines of organizations that bear subscription costs, such as universities, and reaching professionals in resource-constrained settings. Given that openly accessible papers tend to garner greater readership and citations, Open Access publications inherently bolster a journal’s impact factor.3,4 Publishers of traditional subscription-based journals face the imperative of revising their business models when transitioning to Open Access. In the traditional paradigm, they must actively market subscriptions to university librarians and individual subscribers, a process fraught with revenue uncertainties. In contrast, the Open Access model offers a more predictable revenue stream, factoring in page budgets and article processing charges. Paradoxically, this shift has given rise to predatory journals and questionable publishers. For such entities, the quantity of published articles, and consequently the associated revenue, takes precedence over the quality of scientific content. Predatory journals often circumvent or compromise peer review processes in pursuit of profit. Many national and international established funding organizations have Open Access requirements attached as a condition for researchers when receiving funding. Some require full open access, others allow hybrid journals where the researcher pays a fee to make an article openly available, and some even allow parallel publishing in a freely available digital archive at a university. The arguments that have led funders to mandate Open Access are firstly that everyone should have access to research results that are financed by taxes and public funds. Secondly, research results that are made available free of charge on the Internet have a better reach, also outside the scientific community. Research published with Open Access is disseminated more quickly, and the articles are more highly cited. Currently, many universities are pushing for Open Access by signing transformative agreements that combine subscription access and Open Access publication costs. This is a way to pressure publishers to shift from a subscription-based business model to a publishing-based business model and give the academic institutions a higher control over their subscription and publishing costs and more transparency regarding pricing. Agreements to publish Open Access, free of charge or discounted for the individual researcher, have been negotiated by academic institutions and consortium of universities with the major publishers. For example, in Scandinavia, there are agreements through the consortium BIBSAM with many publishers, including Elsevier, Oxford University Press, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, SAGE, SPIE, and Wiley. Currently, universities are evolving from having only a subscription agreement to having an agreement with both a reading component and a publishing component. This means that academic institutions and their libraries are transitioning from administering access to scientific articles to administering the researchers’ publications. Source criticism and content evaluation become increasingly important when more and more research content becomes openly available. Universities must take even more responsibility for educating undergraduate and graduate students, PhD students, and researchers in this area. University librarians need to be at the forefront to understand and communicate all rapid changes in the publishing landscape to guide researchers to publish well in trustworthy scientific homes and avoid predatory or grey zone publishers. A quality measure of an Open Access journal is that it is indexed by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Universities also need to be able to advise on how researchers safeguard their rights when they publish including creative commons and rights retention. Authors views on open access publishing can vary widely, depending on their field of research, funding sources, and personal experiences in publishing. The success of Plan S hinges on the authors’ decision as to where to publish their work. Many authors appreciate Open Access for its potential to increase the visibility and impact of their research. By making their work freely accessible, they can reach a broader audience and potentially increase citations.5 This is of particular relevance in countries where research is limited or less available. Authors often value the fact that Open Access allows researchers from around the world, including those in resource-limited settings, to access their work. This contributes to the democratization of knowledge and aligns with ethical principles of sharing knowledge and research findings for the benefit of society. However, there are concerns regarding funding, and authors may be concerned about the costs associated with Open Access publishing.6 Early investigations on authors views found that authors were reluctant to comply to the author pays-model and would hesitate to submit to journals operating under such models. Authors were concerned about implications for authors from developing countries and those without research funding.7 The ethical imperative mentioned above is challenged when only well-funded researchers have the possibility to publish. When in transition to move away from a traditional publishing model, there may also be obstacles for authors concerning the cost of publication not only in Open Access journals but also in hybrid journals. Some institutions may refuse to support or reimburse authors for publishing in hybrid journals. Many funding agencies now require open access publishing, limiting authors’ autonomy in choosing where to publish. This requirement can be seen as both a positive step towards more research being published Open Access and a limitation of an author’s choice. Prestige and quality are key to many authors. Authors may worry that Open Access journals, especially newer ones, may not have the same level of prestige or peer review rigour as traditional subscription-based journals. An important add to this scenario is the significant challenge with predatory journals.8 Open Access may potentially create a scientific publishing quality divide. Whilst early-career researchers may see open access as a way to gain visibility and build a reputation more quickly, more established researchers may prioritize traditional, high-impact journals for their high-quality research. They may combine the traditional approach with self-archiving in institutional or subject repositories, and using social media platforms to disseminate their work more widely. The ethical imperative as well as increasing visibility and impact of their research are important factors in the authors’ perspective. Still, quality issues and article processing charges are perceived as the main obstacles, revealing a two-sided evaluation of open access models, reflecting the different viewpoints of researchers as authors.9 Researchers are driven to communicate their findings, ideas, and perspectives to the widest and most receptive audience—this is particularly true in applied-based disciplines such as nursing and allied health professions. This intent is the central idea of knowledge translation: removing the barriers and leveraging opportunities to close the ‘Know-Do’ gap and connect knowledge users and producers to accelerate the improvement of outcomes, health services, policy, or education.10 At its best, the Open Access movement could give ‘power to the people’ by enabling a one-click access for anyone, anywhere, to have the most contemporary evidence at their fingertips in the blink of the Internet.11 This could mean that obstacles that make it difficult for bedside nurses, educators, practice, or administrative leaders who lack easy access to an academic library to engage in incorporating novel research in their clinical care or teaching or policy-making would disappear. Similarly, the breakdown of library firewalls and paywalls could allow patients and other people with lived experience and their families to gain entry into the ‘Ivory Tower of academia and access evidence to inform their decisions and understanding of their condition. These are truly exciting possibilities that may be poised to increase equity of access to evidence. Yet, opening the doors to Open Access calls upon all of us to consider the possible risks and the guardrails required to promote dissemination of high-quality research and meaningful engagement with knowledge users. To this end, the EJCN has launched important initiatives to support our Open Access strategy—including Science for Patients and The KT Corner to strengthen our engagement with knowledge users. To make evidence accessible to patients and families, the EJCN is paying particular attention to the use of accessible language, the mindful focus on the ‘so what?’ of evidence, and the publication of effective illustrations.12 The promotion of knowledge translation within the journal is calling on the scientific and clinical communities to use rigorous conceptual thinking, strong evidence, and best practices in implementation science to drive a research and practice agenda to effectively move evidence into cardiovascular practice.10 We are encouraged by the widespread uptake of these innovative projects to ensure that the EJCN remains at the forefront of promoting evidence-based and expert-informed care whilst championing the pivotal role that nurses and allied health professionals play across cardiovascular care. In our time, more and more knowledge disseminated openly and free. At present, there are over 20 000 journals in the world that publish with Open Access. The Open Access movement and ultimately Plan S are a natural and timely evolution for academic publishing and dissemination of research findings. It clearly has many noble intentions. However, it has also opened up for more uncontrolled publishing, and there have and will be challenges down the road before full and fair implementation. In this editorial, we have highlighted different perspectives on the matter from the views of publishers, universities, funders, authors, and readers/users.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.