My personal vision and opinion on “open access” is simple but critical. The current OA model is far from ideal while not serving a greater good. The need for OA is not well-justified as it does not represent a solution for an actual problem. Obviously, there is a need to share the results of research that is funded by public funds. However, with the current OA model, public money is drained from the system and will cost research funds and positions while reducing the opportunities for future generations of scientists in cases where no general OA agreements are in place.

What could be a viable solution? As a start, when making all DATA publicly available, there is no need for paying high APCs associated with OA publishing. Such data can be easily made available via ChemRxiv and/or similar databases (IOCHEM and CCDC as examples for computational and crystallographic data, respectively) complemented by other supporting information files, including a version of the submitted work. Over time, this can be complemented by the accepted version of the manuscript. As such, all critical DATA is basically available right from the start. Thus, we need to support OPEN DATA rather than OA to formatted manuscripts with a too high profit margin. 

At the same time there is growing need for publishers to focus on several aspects that deal with OPEN SCIENCE. First, a much better explanation for the currently high APCs is needed to justify the high financial barriers to publish in a specific journal clearly affecting inclusiveness. Second, PEER REVIEW needs to become fully open as well, meaning that the reports, the names of the handling editors and involved reviewers will go alongside the respective publication to ensure transparency. Third, there is an urgent need to compensate dedicated evaluators (consultants) for the time they spend on high-quality peer review thereby acting as quality controllers. While this has been pro bono until to date, recall that most scientists are paid by public money, and thus this time needs to be remunerated. By offering significant discounts on OA publishing, a rewarding and sustainable publication model can be realized with reasonable pricings while maintaining high levels of rigor and quality control. Simply going for “fast” rather than “quality” reviewing affects in the long run the integrity of the academic system.

Another problem that has arisen during open access-mania is the pressure that is put on the peer review process. Often publishers, through their editorial teams, urge reviewers to come up with a fast recommendation (report) which does not aid quality control of the submitted material. A balance is needed where reviewers get sufficient time and are able to provide a decent, argumented and complete analysis of the scientific work carried out. FAST is usually not better but worse, and journals may run the risk of publishing false, manipulated and incomplete scientific articles. However, they do remain fully responsible for their product and service. As a worrying consequence of this change in the quality landscape, a recent tendency within academia demonstrates that researchers have become less motivated towards peer review, which may affect the credibility of science as a guide towards a sustainable future. 

Arjan W. Kleij – 2025