In August 2022, President Joe Biden made a commitment unlike any before: to make federally funded research freely available by 2025. Regardless of what your opinion is of him, I think most of us can agree he’s onto something.
For anyone who has ever done research of any kind, paywalls are like mini slaps to the face, and they’re extremely common. In a large-scale analysis from 2018, it was found that only 28% of scholarly publications are open access, leaving 72% of these requiring payment in order to view them. Even in 2023, “open access” remains more of a buzzword, but it’s time to make it a reality.
To understand why change is desperately needed, we need to turn to the history behind the current model. Before the age of digitization, print journals were necessary to make research widely available to the masses. In return for the production and distribution services these journals provided, scholars paid publication fees, sometimes covered by institutional or university subscriptions.
Into the end of the 20th century, however, the internet emerged, and along with it, the free flow of information. At the same time, journal subscription prices rose dramatically, well above the rate of inflation, while library budgets remained relatively the same. The “serials crisis,” as it came to be known, became a primary motivation for the open access movement, which called for free access and reuse of scientific information.
Aside from the free dissemination of knowledge, loosening restrictions on access to research is important on several accounts. For the researcher, paywalls pose challenges along the way to publication and even after. When citing sources, researchers may spend anywhere from $25 to $50 per article, which adds up fast.
Furthermore, paywalled research receives less views, citations and attention overall, according to one study by Scientometrics. What’s even worse is that those fees don’t end up in the pockets of scholars but go directly to the publishing company.
Although researchers and academic institutions suffer directly from paywalls, the public also has vested interests that deserve attention. Everyday people represent the largest group of stakeholders in the open access issue, as they both participate in and fund research activities. Federal grants, which pay for a large share of research projects in the U.S., come from the wallets of taxpayers. In this sense, taxpayers are expected to pay twice, once for the actual project and again for its results.
Yet, the public isn’t entitled to research results only because they invest in it. Unrestricted access to scientific literature also has implications for health and advocacy. With open access, individuals gain the ability to make informed decisions about their health and avoid misinformation. They’re also better able to hold researchers accountable and push for inclusive, equitable practices.
As a research-intensive or “RI” institution, NC State is fortunate enough to partner with several open access journals. With these journals, funding comes from other sources, such as institutions, memberships and sometimes article process charges, where the author pays to be published.
In addition to open-access partnerships, University Libraries allows students to use a variety of journals, databases, newspapers and other subscription services, all without having to pay a dime. Included among these are the New York Times and Kanopy, an on-demand movie streaming database.
Even though NC State promotes open access, a complete transformation of the reward system in academia is still needed. Under the current structure, publishing research in prestigious journals is typically a prerequisite for gaining and maintaining faculty positions. As a consequence, researchers may engage in academic misconduct to make their work more appealing to publishers. To combat this, metric-based evaluations should be replaced with ones based on its merit, quality and societal impact.
While institutional changes are necessary, individual researchers also have a responsibility to improve accessibility. Even if it isn’t through an open access journal, research should be made freely available online, which can include sharing preprints of research manuscripts. Doing so would not only benefit other academics and the public, but it would also further increase visibility and impact of the work at hand.
We live in a world where practically everything we could ever hope to know is available at our fingertips. Yet, a large portion of scientific research remains inaccessible, never to be seen by the vast majority of people. It’s high time for that to change — it’s time for knowledge to be a right, not a privilege.
