Can Academic Publishing Live Without Open Access?

Introduction

For centuries, the academic publishing world operated on a relatively “stable” model: scholars wrote research papers for free, editors and peer reviewers volunteered their time, and then commercial publishers or learned societies sold the final product back to university libraries at eye-watering subscription prices. It’s an arrangement that has often felt more like a medieval guild than a modern, efficient industry.

Enter open access. It burst onto the scene with the revolutionary goal of tearing down the paywalls and making research freely available to anyone with an internet connection. This movement wasn’t just a gentle evolution. It was, and continues to be, a profound, systemic shock to the system.

The question of whether academic publishing can exist in a post-open-access world is no longer hypothetical. Rather, it’s the defining business and philosophical challenge of our era. The simple truth is that open access isn’t just an idealistic fringe movement anymore. It has morphed into a dominant publishing strategy, backed by powerful funding bodies, governmental mandates, and a general scholarly consensus that knowledge, especially publicly funded knowledge, should be a public good.

The market for open access publishing was valued at around $1.6 billion in 2021, accounting for roughly 15% of the total academic article publishing market. Yet, the real shift is even more pronounced: over 50% of all academic articles published globally now have some form of open access, and this figure is increasing annually. To ask if the industry can live without open access is to ask if a fish can live without water when it’s already half-submerged. The current debate isn’t about whether open access will survive, but how the traditional structure can survive with it.

The Genesis of the Open Access Imperative

To understand the current tension, we need to look back at what exactly spurred the open access revolution. It wasn’t just a sudden altruistic whim. It was a direct, pragmatic response to what became known as the “serials crisis.” Essentially, over the decades, the cost of journal subscriptions, particularly from the large commercial publishers, escalated far beyond the rate of inflation, sometimes increasing at double-digit rates year after year. University libraries, the primary customers, found their budgets squeezed, forcing them to cancel subscriptions and, ironically, creating a knowledge bottleneck within the very institutions that generate research.

The resulting frustration created the perfect breeding ground for a disruptive alternative. Scholars felt their work, which they gave away for free, was being locked behind exorbitant paywalls, hindering the very dissemination and impact that is crucial to scientific progress. This economic reality fueled the ethical argument: if research is paid for by taxpayers via government grants or institutional funds, shouldn’t the resulting knowledge be accessible to the public, policymakers, and innovators who paid for it?

The Budapest Open Access Initiative in 2002 essentially formalized this sentiment, articulating the principles that defined the open access movement: free availability on the public internet, permitting any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles. This wasn’t a subtle request; it was a demand for radical change.

Traditional Academic Publishing: The Subscription Citadel

Before the open access insurgency, the subscription model, or the reader-pays model, was the unquestioned sovereign of academic publishing. The traditional publisher acted as the indispensable intermediary, the gatekeeper of quality and the steward of the “Version of Record (the final version of the article).” They managed the rigorous peer-review process, copyedited the manuscript, formatted the journal, handled production, and ensured long-term archiving and discoverability of the content. These services are genuinely essential for maintaining the integrity and quality control of scholarly discourse, which is why the system worked for so long.

The revenue stream for this model was straightforward and, for a long time, incredibly lucrative: libraries, institutions, and sometimes individuals paid subscription fees for access. The value proposition was stability, quality assurance through peer review, and prestige, often measured by the elusive and much-maligned Journal Impact Factor. However, the economics were structured so that the creators of the content (the authors and editors) received no direct financial compensation, while the primary customers (the libraries) faced continually rising costs.

This unusual arrangement meant that large commercial publishers often boasted profit margins that many other industries could only dream of, sometimes exceeding 30%. When you realize the publishers get the content, the editing, and the peer review for virtually no cost, and then charge a fortune for access, the “serials crisis” begins to look less like an accident and more like an unsustainable, yet highly profitable, business strategy.

Open access is a spectrum of business models, each with its own quirks and challenges. The two most famous are Gold Open Access and Green Open Access, though other colors like Diamond, Hybrid and Bronze muddy the waters further. Understanding these models is critical to answering our central question.

Gold Open Access and the Rise of APCs

Gold Open Access is where the final published version of the article is immediately and permanently free for anyone to read on the publisher’s platform. This is often financed through an Article Processing Charge (APC), which is typically paid by the author, their institution, or their funding body, shifting the cost from the reader to the producer.

This “author-pays” model, while promoting immediate, free access for readers, has raised new equity issues. APCs can be incredibly expensive, ranging from a few hundred dollars to upwards of $10,000 for a prestigious journal. This can marginalize scholars from resource-constrained institutions or developing nations, effectively replacing a “pay-to-read” wall with a “pay-to-publish” wall.

Green Open Access and Self-Archiving

Green Open Access is a different beast entirely. It involves the author self-archiving a version of their manuscript in an institutional or subject-specific repository, such as PubMed Central or arXiv. The version deposited is usually the “accepted manuscript” (the peer-reviewed final draft before the publisher’s layout and copyediting), and it may be subject to an embargo period imposed by the publisher.

Green Open Access is generally free for the author and is typically covered by the institutional library’s operating budget, which manages the repository. This model is often lauded for its low cost and compliance with funder mandates, yet it relies on the author’s willingness to self-archive, and sometimes the content isn’t the final, polished Version of Record.

Hybrid and Transformative Agreements

A major adaptation by traditional publishers has been the Hybrid Open Access model. This is where a subscription journal offers an optional Gold Open Access track for individual articles upon payment of an APC. This has been controversial, as critics accuse publishers of “double-dipping,” charging both the author (or their funder) for the APC and the library for the subscription.

To counter this and facilitate a transition to full open access, Transformative Agreements (like “Read and Publish” deals) have emerged. These are contracts between institutions (or consortia of libraries) and publishers that cover both subscription access and APCs for the institution’s authors. This essentially repurposes subscription money to fund Gold Open Access, smoothing the transition away from the traditional model.

The Unmistakable Benefits and Impacts of OA

The shift toward Open Access is driven not just by principle, but by demonstrable, positive impacts on the research ecosystem. The benefits are significant, especially in terms of dissemination, visibility, and measurable research impact.

Increased Visibility and Citation Advantage

Open access articles are, predictably, read more widely because they have no financial barrier. This increased visibility translates directly into a higher impact. While the magnitude varies across disciplines, articles published under an open access model often receive significantly more citations than their closed-access counterparts. More eyeballs on research means faster knowledge consumption, quicker application, and more rapid scientific progress, signalling a clear win for the global research community.

Democratizing Knowledge

Beyond the metrics, the most profound impact of open access is the democratization of knowledge. It levels the playing field for researchers in institutions with modest library budgets, for independent scholars, for medical professionals in developing countries, and for the public who funded the work. When a public health worker in rural Africa can freely access the latest research on a tropical disease, or a high school teacher can incorporate cutting-edge science into their curriculum, the societal return on investment for research funding skyrockets. This is where the ethical argument for open access finds its most compelling, real-world justification.

Compliance with Funder Mandates

A critical accelerator for the open access movement has been the forceful intervention of major research funding bodies and governments. Organizations like the European Union (through Plan S), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US, and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) have instituted mandates requiring that research funded by them must be made openly accessible, often immediately upon publication. These mandates wield enormous financial leverage and have forced publishers to adapt their business models at an unprecedented pace. It’s a classic case of money talking, and the publishers having no choice but to listen and comply.

The Survival Strategies of Academic Publishers

For publishers who built their empires on the subscription model, open access was initially seen as an existential threat. Yet, the largest commercial players have proven to be remarkably agile and, frankly, quite shrewd in their adaptation. They aren’t going down without a fight; they’re simply changing how they charge for their indispensable services.

The Transformation of Commercial Giants

The big publishers, often called “The Big Five,” haven’t been forced out. They’ve simply transitioned their business models. They’ve embraced the Gold Open Access model, often setting the highest APCs, which has maintained, if not increased, high profit margins.

They are also the primary beneficiaries of the “Read and Publish” transformative agreements, which are negotiated at a massive scale and often replace the traditional subscription revenue with an equivalent, or even larger, open access revenue stream. This shift demonstrates that the value publishers provide—peer review management, editorial oversight, production, and archiving—is still valued and must be paid for. The question has shifted from “Who pays?” to “How much do the new payers pay?”

Focusing on Infrastructure and Data Services

To diversify their revenue and maintain their relevance in an open access world, publishers are rapidly expanding their offerings beyond the journal article itself. They are investing heavily in new technologies, data services, research workflows, and analytics tools. This includes platforms for managing peer review, software for data curation, services for connecting authors with funding opportunities, and tools for measuring research impact beyond simple citations. By becoming essential providers of the infrastructure of modern research, they are securing new, subscription-like revenue streams that are less vulnerable to the open-access mandate on the final article.

The Evolution of Scholarly Societies

Learned societies and university presses, which often publish journals as a core part of their mission and revenue, face a unique challenge. Their journals, unlike those from commercial giants, often represent a significant portion of their non-dues revenue, funding educational programs, conferences, and student support.

Switching to Gold Open Access, with its reliance on APCs, can be financially destabilizing, especially for smaller societies with less prestige to command high fees. Their survival strategy often involves partnering with larger publishers to manage the transition or securing institutional support through membership fees or subsidies to cover the costs of publishing. Their mission-driven focus, however, gives them an inherent credibility that purely commercial ventures sometimes lack.

Challenges and Controversies in the Open Access Ecosystem

Despite its undeniable success, the open access movement is far from perfect. It has introduced new challenges that need urgent attention if it is to truly fulfill its promise of equitable knowledge dissemination.

The APC Equity Crisis

The most immediate problem is the high cost of the Article Processing Charge. If an author from a university in a developing nation cannot afford a $4,000 APC, they are effectively excluded from publishing in some of the most prestigious Gold Open Access journals.

While many publishers offer waivers or discounts for authors from low- and middle-income countries, the system is not standardized and relies on the author to navigate complex criteria. This creates a new form of inequality, concentrating publishing power among well-funded institutions and researchers who can afford the high cost of entry. The OA movement was supposed to tear down barriers, not simply move them.

Predatory Publishing and Quality Control

The transition to an “author-pays” model inadvertently created a perverse incentive: the more articles a publisher accepts, the more money they make. This has led to the rise of predatory journals, which mimic legitimate journals, charge often low-to-moderate APCs, but skip the crucial step of rigorous peer review.

These bad actors threaten the integrity of academic publishing by polluting the scholarly record with unverified research, making it difficult for legitimate researchers and the public to discern quality. The onus is on the research community to educate itself, and for established publishers to clearly differentiate their quality control processes.

Sustainability and Alternative Business Models

While APCs are the dominant funding mechanism for Gold Open Access, there is a constant, pressing need for alternative, non-APC models to ensure true equity and sustainability. Initiatives like the “Subscribe to Open” (S2O) model offer a promising alternative. In S2O, current subscribers are asked to continue paying their subscription fee, but with the understanding that if enough institutions commit, the journal’s content for that year will be made fully and immediately open access for everyone.

If subscriptions drop, the journal reverts to being paywalled. It’s a community-supported approach that relies on collective action and goodwill, demonstrating that innovation in business models, not just technology, is key to the future.

The Inevitability of Open Access

To circle back to our original question: Can academic publishing live without open access? The honest and definitive answer is: No, not in any recognizable, sustainable, or ethical form.

Open access is no longer a choice. It is a fundamental, non-negotiable component of the modern scholarly communication system. Its growth trajectory is supported by the overwhelming economic pressure from research libraries, the ethical imperative for public knowledge, and the hard-line mandates of global research funders.

The major academic publishers have not collapsed. They have pivoted. They have adapted their business models from charging readers to charging authors (or funders), becoming providers of essential publishing services rather than merely sellers of content. They are thriving, often maintaining high profit margins, by managing the transition through massive transformative agreements.

The future of academic publishing, therefore, is not a simple either/or scenario. It is a complex, hybridized ecosystem where the majority of content is openly accessible, funded through a combination of APCs, institutional agreements, and innovative collective-action models like Subscribe to Open.

The real challenge moving forward is not to fight the tide of open access, but to refine its models to ensure they are equitable, sustainable, and truly serve the global public good, rather than just shifting the financial burden and perpetuating a new form of publishing inequality. The walls of the subscription citadel have fallen, and the publishing houses, with their deep pockets and infrastructural expertise, are now simply charging a toll on the new, open-access highway.

Conclusion

The transformation of academic publishing is one of the most significant revolutions in the history of knowledge dissemination. Driven by the “serials crisis,” the digital revolution, and a moral obligation to share publicly funded research, open access has successfully transitioned from a radical concept to the established norm. While the process has been messy, giving rise to new issues like the APC equity crisis and predatory publishing, the core goal of open scholarship has been achieved.

Academic publishing must live with open access, and it is doing so ingeniously, and sometimes rapaciously, adapting its financial models. The power of the publisher now rests not in controlling access to content, but in controlling the complex, quality-assuring, and essential processes that turn a raw manuscript into the trusted, archived Version of Record.

The future of this industry will belong to the players—be they commercial publishers, scholarly societies, or institutional libraries—who can deliver essential publishing quality with the greatest efficiency, the highest ethical standards, and, most importantly, the most equitable access. The era of the paywalled paper as the only viable model is over.