Open access for reading or closed access for publishing?

What a marvel open access has become! Sparkling and progressive, it allows everyone access to scientific literature—provided, of course, that scientists are ready to pay dearly for the privilege of sharing their work with the world. The noble goal of disseminating knowledge widely has found an equally noble price tag that has turned many scientists’ dreams of open sharing into a harsh reminder of their financial limitations.

Consider the researcher from a country with limited funding. How fortunate they are to find that their esteemed work can be shared freely—if only they can muster a few thousand dollars in fees. And those hoping for a waiver? They get the delight of navigating convoluted processes that often result in outright rejection or significant delays. And although some publishers still offer reasonable policies, others cling to a strict fee schedule and have adopted an unyielding approach that favors revenue over global accessibility.

Publishers need to cover costs, of course. But the shift from pay-for-reading to pay-for-publishing risks broadening the existing divide in scientific publishing and further isolating researchers from underfunded regions.

If open access is to benefit the entire scientific community, it surely requires measures that promote equity and transparency. May this glimmering model one day be no longer a roadblock but instead a true bridge.