Open or closed: The future of academic publishing
The academic publishing industry has been dominated by a traditional, closed-access model where journals limit access to institutions and individuals who pay hefty subscription fees. However, a growing movement toward open access and hybrid publishing is beginning to challenge this model, though these alternatives come with their own set of drawbacks. This article explores the various publishing models and discusses what the future of academic publishing might hold.
The traditional model
The closed-access, or traditional, model has been the cornerstone of academic publishing for decades. In this model, research papers are published in subscription-based journals, with access restricted to individuals or institutions willing to pay for them. Large academic publishers charge substantial fees for institutional subscriptions, while individual articles are available for a fee.
Publishers using this model are referred to as for-profit publishers, and include the big names like Elsevier, Black & Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Springer Nature, and SAGE. These companies control over 50% of the academic publishing market, with Elsevier alone holding a 16% share (1). All together, the academic publishing industry generates over 19 billion in sales each year (2).
Advantages
One of the biggest advantages of the traditional model is their ability to invest big bucks in marketing and distribution, ensuring that an author’s work reaches a large audience. Thousands of universities and organizations subscribe to Elsevier, and with over 1 billion annual downloads (3), your article has the potential to reach a lot of people if published through them. Getting your findings out there are the final, most crucial aspect of the research process, and these publishers can basically guarantee that.
In addition, the closed model ensures high editorial quality and rigorous peer review, as revenue from subscriptions supports the infrastructure needed for these processes. Well-established journals also boast high impact factors, which is a widely recognized, quantifiable measure of a journal’s influence based on citation frequency. Journals with a high impact factor attract high-quality studies and subscribers. For researchers, being published in such journals can be crucial for career advancement and academic recognition.
Side note: the impact factor has its own set of significant criticisms, as it assumes citations equate to quality, varies across disciplines, and can be inflated by self-citations, leading to potential bias (4).
Disadvantages
Critics argue that the traditional model prioritizes the financial interests of publishers over the equitable dissemination of knowledge. Elsevier, for example, boasts a profit margin of 40%, surpassing giants like Microsoft and Google (1, 2). This number may be shocking, especially because unlike traditional media, where expenses like wages and printing are significant, academic publishing relies on government-funded research and unpaid voluntary work from peer reviewers and editors. With minimal production costs—especially in today’s digital era—publishers incur little expenses yet they charge high prices for access. With articles costing between USD 30-50, this results in massive profit margins (1).
What is problematic about this is that governments fund the research process but must then pay again to access the results. Institutions worldwide spend large sums on journal subscriptions, despite the publishers' low operating costs, making these high prices difficult to justify (1, 2, 9). This raises ethical concerns about restricting access to publicly funded research for profit.
Paywalls also limit access for scholars at less affluent institutions and in developing countries, while preventing the public from easily accessing taxpayer-funded research. This monopolization of knowledge by a few major publishers has sparked growing pressure to adopt more open-access models that balance accessibility with financial sustainability.
The open access model
The open-access model is the opposite of the traditional model, based on the principle that knowledge should be freely available to all. In this model, articles are freely available to the public through journals or open access repositories and anyone can read, download, and share academic work without paywalls. Publishing costs are typically covered by the researchers. The open model has gained significant momentum in recent years, driven by a desire to make research more accessible, particularly for scholars, practitioners, and the general public in underfunded institutions.
Advantages
One of the primary benefits of open access is increased visibility for researchers. Studies show that open access articles generally receive more citations than those behind paywalls, enhancing the reach and impact of the research (5).
Open access also allows for a broader range of studies to be published, including negative and replication studies. These types of studies are sometimes avoided in traditional, high impact journals, which are known to prioritize “headline” (aka positive) results rather than negative, or null, results. This inclusivity reduces the reliance on traditional metrics like impact factor, encouraging a more comprehensive understanding of research across various fields.
Additionally, the open access model aligns with ethical considerations, especially for publicly funded research. By making findings freely available, it promotes transparency and facilitates the dissemination of knowledge beyond academic circles, benefiting the wider community.
Disadvantages
A critical study by John Bohannon in 2013 highlighted serious quality issues within open-access publishing (6). He submitted intentionally flawed articles to over 300 open-access journals, and more than 150 accepted them without adequate peer review. This raises alarm bells about the reliability of journals listed in quality assurance directories, as some of these journals may not meet necessary standards for adequate peer review.
Similarly, authors also worry about the varying quality control, with predatory journals emerging to exploit the open access model by charging fees without offering robust peer review processes.
Many open access journals also rely on article processing charges (APCs), which can be expensive for individual authors without institutional funding. This raises concerns about the financial barriers to publishing, especially for early-career researchers or those from less-resourced regions.
Despite these issues, the open-access model continues to grow, supported by universities, funding bodies, and policymakers pushing for more equitable access to knowledge. As the movement matures, solutions like institutional funding for APCs or alternative models of financial support may help overcome its current challenges.
Hybrid models
Hybrid open access journals represent a middle ground between traditional subscription-based publishing and fully open access models. In these journals, authors have the option to pay article processing charges to make their individual articles freely accessible, while other content in the same journal remains behind a paywall.
The initial idea for hybrid journals was to allow publishers to offer an open access option while still maintaining their subscription model (7). The assumption was that income from both subscriptions and APCs would cover publishing costs, enabling a gradual transition to open access as demand increased.
Advantages
Hybrid journals offer several advantages similar to fully open access models. They increase visibility by making articles freely accessible to a wider audience, which can lead to higher citation rates and greater impact. Additionally, this model allows authors to choose to publish specific articles openly while still benefiting from the journal's traditional subscription model, promoting a diverse range of research, including negative results and replication studies, and facilitating collaboration across institutions without subscription barriers.
Disadvantages
The hybrid open access model has struggled to deliver on its promise to a fully open access transition. The share of hybrid open access peaked around 2016, with minimal transitions from subscription to open access among major publishers (8).
One significant drawback of hybrid journals is is that it promotes “double dipping” (9). Publishers charge both subscription fees and additional open access fees, which effectively means researchers and institutions are paying twice for the same content. This lack of transparency around pricing and revenue streams raises concerns about the true cost of hybrid publishing, as authors may face delays in accessing their articles until payment is finalized, further complicating the claimed separation of revenue sources.
Additionally, hybrid journals tend to be more expensive than fully open access journals, which can limit funding for actual research. Data shows that average APCs for hybrid journals are significantly higher than those for fully open access journals (9, 10). This increasing cost, combined with the lack of reliable quality assurance and customer service (9, 10), undermines the viability of the hybrid model and crowds out support for innovative publishing approaches that prioritize full open access solutions.
What will the future hold?
The landscape of academic publishing is evolving rapidly, driven by technological advancements and shifting attitudes toward access and dissemination of research. As the demand for faster and more transparent sharing of knowledge grows, new models and practices are emerging that challenge traditional publishing norms.
Below, I outline some trends that might reshape the future of academic publishing.
Decentralized publishing. Preprints, or articles shared before peer review, are growing in popularity, particularly in fields like medicine and the cognitive sciences. Preprint repositories like OSF allow researchers to disseminate their findings rapidly, often with public feedback prior to formal publication. This could reshape the peer-review process itself, potentially decentralizing it away from traditional journals.
New peer review technologies. New technologies are likely to change how peer review is conducted and how papers are published. AI-driven tools could automate parts of the peer-review process, helping to speed up review times and enhance quality control. Sites like ReviewerCredits are increasing in popularity as more sustainable ways to do peer review that recognize reviewer efforts.
Better pricing, fairness and recognition. Both open and closed models face financial challenges. The high costs of APCs in open access models and the subscription fees in closed models may give rise to new funding strategies, such as institutional consortia or global funding pools. Moreover, researchers everywhere are getting tired of working for free and not being recognized for their hard work. These tensions recently came to a head when a UCLA professor filed a class-action lawsuit against six major academic publishers, accusing them of unlawful price-fixing and exploitation of unpaid academic labor (11). Could this be the push the academic world needs to reform its peer review system and address long-standing concerns about fairness and compensation? We’ll find out soon enough…
Global participation. As the world becomes more interconnected, there will be greater emphasis on making publishing more equitable. Efforts will be needed to reduce barriers for scholars in developing countries, ensuring that they can both access and contribute to academic discourse.
Takeaways
With profit-hungry journals and rising costs for both open access and subscription models, the academic publishing landscape is at a crossroads. Researchers want faster, cheaper, fairer ways to share their findings and the public wants more direct access to science. As the call for transparency and accessibility grows louder, the future of academic publishing will hinge on finding better financial models and ensuring that scholars from all backgrounds can participate in the global discourse.
References
Hagve, M. (2020). The money behind academic publishing. Tidsskrift for den Norske Legeforening, 140. https://doi.org/10.4045/tidsskr.20.0118
Buranyi S. Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian 27.6.2017. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science Accessed 25.2.2020.
RELX Group. (2022). 2021 RELX Group annual report. RELX. https://www.relx.com
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ, 314, 498–502. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.498
Huang, C. K., Neylon, C., Montgomery, L., et al. (2024). Open access research outputs receive more diverse citations. Scientometrics, 129(2), 825–845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04894-0
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who's afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.12431
Prosser, D. C. (2003). From here to there: a proposed mechanism for transforming journals from closed to open access. Learned publishing, 16(3), 163-166.
Pollock, D., & Michael, A. (2019, October 20). Have we reached peak hybrid? DeltaThink News & Views. Retrieved from https://deltathink.com/news-views-have-we-reached-peak-hybrid/.
Plan S. Coalition (2021). Why hybrid journals do not lead to full and immediate Open Access. Retrieved from https://www.coalition-s.org/why-hybrid-journals-do-not-lead-to-full-and-immediate-open-access/
Björk, B.-C. (2017). Growth of hybrid open access, 2009–2016. PeerJ, 5, e3878. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3878
Scarcella, M. (2024, September 13). Academic publishers face class action over ‘peer review’ pay, other restrictions. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/academic-publishers-face-class-action-over-peer-review-pay-other-restrictions-2024-09-13/
