It is profoundly unsettling and disheartening to learn that, over the past five years, the research community has spent nearly 9.000 M€ to make their findings openly accessible. In my view, these exorbitant costs undermine the fundamental principles of open science by creating a financial barrier that disproportionately affects institutions and individuals with limited funding. This not only perpetuates inequalities within the scientific community but also jeopardises the core ideal that knowledge should be shared for the collective benefit of society.
Even more paradoxical is that such substantial sums must be paid to publish a paper, mainly when the peer review process relies on fellow academics' unpaid intellectual contributions. This raises fundamental questions about the fairness and sustainability of the current publishing model, where, in many cases, the final product amounts to nothing more than a digital file — a simple PDF — hosted online. The exorbitant publication fees starkly contrast with the altruistic spirit of peer review, where researchers voluntarily offer their expertise to advance scientific knowledge.
From my perspective, these financial burdens divert crucial resources from research and innovation, slowing progress that could otherwise lead to transformative discoveries. If the academic community aspires to foster an environment where ideas can circulate freely and benefit humanity, adopting more equitable and transparent publishing practices is imperative. Only then can we ensure that peer-reviewed research remains rigorous and accessible, encouraging genuine collaboration rather than profit-driven exclusion.
Preprint Estimating global article processing charges paid to six pub...
Dear Jose Ygnacio Pastor , wouldn't it have been great if somehow it was all a question of uploading a pdf on a subscription-free specialist site, and letting it float or sink by its own powers of persuasion? Do you think that'd be feasible, or would academic scientists themselves somehow complain about lack of quality or peer-review?
Though having said that, I think most scientists recognise that the current peer-review-based system of publishing in fee or non-fee publications is quite broken, and that the ones who mainly benefit are the large publishing corporations.
Best Wishes,
Haris
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comment and for opening up such an important aspect of the discussion around open science. Indeed, the idea of simply uploading research articles to a subscription-free specialist platform, allowing them to gain recognition solely based on their inherent scientific value, is quite appealing and aligns closely with the foundational ideals of open science.
However, as you insightfully anticipate, several practical challenges arise. The issue of quality assurance through peer-review remains central. Peer review, despite its recognized flaws, currently serves as a critical filter, ensuring methodological rigor and validity, albeit imperfectly. Removing this element altogether might inadvertently introduce concerns regarding credibility and reliability, particularly from within the academic community itself. Scientists often rely heavily on peer-reviewed publications to assess research quality, influencing decisions related to funding, career advancement, and research collaborations.
Nevertheless, I fully share your concerns regarding the current system’s shortcomings. The dominance of large publishing corporations has increasingly commodified academic knowledge, creating barriers that restrict both the dissemination and the equitable access to scientific research, thus compromising the very essence of knowledge advancement.
A potential middle ground could involve developing community-managed, non-profit platforms with robust peer-review mechanisms that uphold scholarly standards without economic barriers. Such platforms could preserve peer-review rigor while dramatically increasing accessibility and transparency.
Ultimately, your point underscores the critical need for ongoing conversations about reforming academic publishing. Embracing new models that balance openness with quality assurance may indeed pave the way toward a more equitable and truly open scientific landscape.
Warm regards,
Jose Ygnacio Pastor
Dear Jose Ygnacio Pastor ,
Many thanks for your sensitive, thoughtful and dense answer. I agree with most of your points, and especially with your middle ground proposal. I guess some sort of curation or gate-keeping is necessary as in a free-for-all world it's possible that dark arts of article advertising may take place and thus steer scientific research towards dangerous avenues (think of a publisher with no peer-review where for example a paper paid for by cigarette companies is promoted). Also, practically, I guess it's also a matter of time. Scientists don't have the time to engage with anything and everything, so it's good that somebody (the peer-review process) tells them what to engage with. No?
Best Wishes,
Haris
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Materials Engineering
- Powders