Photo by Sasun Bughdaryan on Unsplash
As scientific publishing becomes more open, are we also changing who holds the power to publish, be discovered, and shape the direction of research?
Open access has fundamentally changed scholarly publishing. According to the STM Association's Open Access Dashboard, the proportion of global journal articles, reviews, and conference papers published through gold open access increased from 17% in 2015 to 44% in 2025. Nearly two million publications were made immediately and freely available through this route in 2025 alone.
This is meaningful progress. Making scientific knowledge freely available to readers creates opportunities for research to be shared and applied more widely.
But as the publishing model changes, a more uncomfortable question remains: is open access changing who holds power within scholarly communication, or simply changing who pays?
That question lies at the heart of International Open Access Week 2026, which takes “The Cost of Knowledge” as its theme. This year's campaign asks us to examine the financial and wider costs of scholarly communication, particularly as commercial control becomes increasingly concentrated.
It is a timely opportunity to consider how power operates across the entire research landscape: who can afford to publish, whose research becomes visible, and which knowledge ultimately influences scientific progress.
Because making an article free to read does not, by itself, make the system equitable.
This article is adapted from our latest free report. Download the full report for a closer look at who pays for, and who benefits from, open knowledge.
Under traditional subscription publishing, much of the financial burden falls on institutions paying to access research. In many open access models, that burden moves towards authors, their institutions, or funders through article processing charges (APCs). The article becomes free to read, but publishing it may cost thousands.
For researchers at well-funded institutions, publication fees may be covered through grants or institutional agreements. Those working with smaller budgets may find their options more restricted, particularly when seeking to publish in prestigious journals where fees can be substantial.
Learn more about the different open access models with the IFIS Guide to Getting Published in Journals
And there is evidence that these inequalities affect who participates. A 2022 study published in Quantitative Science Studies examined more than 37,000 articles across matched subscription and open access journals. The researchers found significantly lower geographical diversity among authors of APC-funded articles than among those publishing through subscription routes. None of the 975 articles examined in the fully open access mirror journals had a lead author based in a low-income country.
Although publication charges cannot explain every difference in authorship, the findings suggest that they can reinforce existing inequalities.
This matters because publishing in well-regarded journals brings advantages beyond the publication itself. Visibility, citation opportunities, professional recognition, and career progression can all be affected by where research appears. Researchers with access to funding may therefore be better positioned to publish in influential outlets, strengthening the advantages they and their institutions already enjoy.
The commercial implications are equally important. Universities, research funders, and academics contribute much of the funding and expertise behind scientific research, including authorship, peer review, and editorial work. Yet institutions also pay publishers and other providers to disseminate, access, and discover the resulting knowledge.
Changing the publishing model does not necessarily change that relationship. Established commercial organisations can continue to benefit from their position within the scholarly system, whether revenue is generated through subscriptions, publication fees, publishing agreements, or other services.
This does not mean that all open access involves APCs, or that commercial publishers provide no value. Diamond open access journals and repositories offer alternative approaches, while publishers invest in editorial processes, technology, preservation, and dissemination.
The question is whether different financial models genuinely widen participation and distribute benefits more equitably. If established institutions retain the greatest ability to pay, prestigious outlets retain their influence, and established providers retain their commercial advantages, how much has really changed?
As we consider “The Cost of Knowledge” this Open Access Week, we should ask who pays for the creation and circulation of research, who benefits from those payments, and who retains influence over the knowledge that ultimately shapes scientific progress.
Because a system can become more open while leaving power with the powerful, influence with the influential, and financial rewards with those already best positioned to capture them.
Making knowledge genuinely open means being prepared to challenge those inequalities throughout the scholarly ecosystem, from publication to discovery and beyond.
Want to know more? Download the full article for more on how open access can impact discoverability and the wider research ecosystem.