The Truth About Open Access: Dispelling Myths for a More Equitable Future

The Truth About Open Access: Dispelling Myths for a More Equitable Future

Introduction

For generations, scholarly communication has been shaped by subscription-based journals. Libraries and individuals paid substantial fees, and only those with access to well-funded institutions could easily read the latest research. Over the past two decades, however, the rise of Open Access (OA) journals has dramatically changed this landscape. OA publishing seeks to remove paywalls, making peer-reviewed knowledge freely available to anyone with an internet connection.

In principle, this sounds like an obvious step forward: more people reading and using research, regardless of geography or wealth. In practice, however, Open Access has been accompanied by a series of stubborn myths and misunderstandings. Some researchers worry that OA journals are lower quality or even predatory; others assume that all OA publishing is prohibitively expensive or has little academic impact. These concerns can make authors hesitant to choose OA options, even when funders and institutions encourage them to do so.

This article sets out to cut through the confusion. It explains what Open Access journals are, how they are funded, and why they are an increasingly central part of the scholarly ecosystem. Most importantly, it addresses five common false beliefs about OA and provides practical guidance to help you make informed decisions about where to publish your work.

What Are Open Access Journals?

An Open Access journal is a scholarly publication that makes its articles freely available online to all readers, usually immediately upon publication. There are no subscription charges and no pay-per-view fees. This does not mean that OA journals are free to operate; rather, the costs of editorial work, peer review management, production and archiving are covered through different funding mechanisms.

Core Characteristics of OA Journals

While OA journals vary widely, most share several key features:

• Free access for readers – Anyone can read, download and share articles without financial or technical barriers.
• Transparent licensing – OA journals typically use Creative Commons licences (e.g. CC BY), allowing authors to retain copyright while giving readers clear permissions for reuse, sharing and adaptation with attribution.
• Global reach – Because content is not locked behind paywalls, researchers, practitioners and students worldwide can access and use papers, regardless of institutional budgets.
• Diverse funding models – Some OA journals charge Article Processing Charges (APCs) to cover costs; others, known as Diamond or Platinum OA, are funded by universities, societies, libraries or governments and charge no fees to authors or readers.

These features have helped Open Access grow rapidly in recent years. Yet misconceptions remain—often fuelled by confusion between reputable OA journals and unethical publishers. Let’s examine the most common false beliefs one by one.

False Belief #1: “Open Access Journals Lack Quality and Proper Peer Review”

The Myth

A widespread assumption is that OA journals will publish almost anything as long as the APC is paid. According to this view, the absence of subscription revenue leads editors to prioritise quantity over quality, compromising the rigour of peer review and flooding the literature with unreliable work.

The Reality

Reputable Open Access journals use the same peer-review standards as traditional journals. In fact, many high-quality OA titles are owned or managed by established publishers and scholarly societies. Journals such as PLOS Biology, PLOS Medicine, Nature Communications, the BMC series and eLife have built strong reputations for rigorous editorial processes and high academic standards.

Several organisations help authors distinguish between credible OA journals and poor-quality outlets:

• The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) vets journals for transparency in peer-review policies, editorial boards and licensing.
• The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provides best-practice guidelines and expects member journals (subscription and OA alike) to follow strict ethical standards.
• Major indexes such as Scopus and Web of Science include many OA journals that have passed their selection criteria.

The key message is not that all OA journals are good—no more than all subscription journals are—but that Open Access is a distribution model, not a quality level. Quality still depends on editorial care, peer-review policies and community oversight.

False Belief #2: “Open Access and Predatory Publishing Are the Same Thing”

The Myth

The term “predatory journal” refers to unethical publishers that pretend to be legitimate but provide little or no peer review, often sending aggressive email solicitations and promising quick publication for a fee. Because many of these outlets are Open Access, some researchers conflate the two and become wary of OA in general.

The Reality

Predatory journals are a serious problem, but they are not a defining feature of Open Access. Unethical publishers exploit any profitable model, including subscription-based schemes. By contrast, the majority of OA journals are run by universities, scholarly societies or responsible commercial publishers that follow recognised best practice.

To avoid predatory journals, researchers should:

• Check whether the journal is listed in the DOAJ and/or indexed in Scopus or Web of Science.
• Investigate its editorial board – are the members real, recognised experts with institutional affiliations?
• Verify impact metrics using reputable sources such as Journal Citation Reports or SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), rather than trusting numbers shown only on the journal’s own website.
• Look for membership of organisations such as COPE, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), or the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

By taking these steps, authors can confidently identify trustworthy OA venues and benefit from open dissemination without supporting predatory practices.

False Belief #3: “Open Access Publishing Is Always Too Expensive for Authors”

The Myth

Another common worry is that OA shifts the financial burden from libraries to individual researchers through Article Processing Charges. Especially in disciplines with little grant funding, authors may fear that they will be unable to publish unless they can personally pay substantial APCs.

The Reality

While some OA journals do charge APCs, many reputable OA journals do not charge authors at all. These Diamond or Platinum OA titles are funded by universities, academic societies, library consortia, government agencies or philanthropic organisations. Authors in such journals face no publication fees, yet their articles are freely accessible to readers.

Even when APCs are present, authors are not always expected to pay out of pocket. Other possibilities include:

• Grant funding – Many research funders, including national research councils and charitable foundations, explicitly allow project budgets to include OA publication costs.
• Institutional agreements – Some universities and consortia have “transformative agreements” with publishers that cover APCs for affiliated authors.
• Waivers and discounts – Many OA journals offer waivers or reduced fees for researchers from low- and middle-income countries or for authors without access to funding.

It is therefore misleading to describe Open Access as inherently expensive for authors. Costs and funding routes vary widely; what matters is investigating options early and choosing a journal that aligns with both your research and your financial circumstances.

False Belief #4: “Open Access Research Has Little Impact”

The Myth

A persistent belief is that OA journals are somehow second tier: that articles published in them are less visible, less respected and less likely to be cited than work in subscription-based titles. Some senior academics still advise junior colleagues to “avoid Open Access” if they want to advance their careers.

The Reality

In fact, a growing body of evidence suggests the opposite. Because OA articles are freely accessible to anyone with an internet connection, they tend to be downloaded, read and cited more often than comparable paywalled articles. Studies such as Piwowar et al. (2018) have reported citation advantages of up to 50% for certain types of OA.

Several factors contribute to this increased impact:

• Accessibility – Researchers in institutions without extensive journal subscriptions—and practitioners outside academia entirely—can read OA articles without barriers.
• Discoverability – OA articles are often more visible in search engines and can be shared easily on platforms such as Google Scholar, ResearchGate, or institutional repositories.
• Interdisciplinary reach – Scholars in neighbouring fields, policy-makers, journalists and NGOs can access OA research even if they rarely use subscription databases.

Moreover, many OA journals now have respectable or high impact factors and strong reputations in their fields. Choosing Open Access is not a trade-off between visibility and quality; in many cases, it offers the best of both worlds.

False Belief #5: “Open Access Threatens the Viability of Academic Publishing”

The Myth

Some critics argue that by removing subscription income, OA will make it impossible for publishers to sustain high-quality editorial services and infrastructure. They worry that journals will either collapse or be forced to lower standards to save costs, harming the scholarly record.

The Reality

Open Access is best understood not as a threat but as an evolution in how scholarly publishing is funded and organised. Many traditional publishers already offer OA options through:

• Hybrid journals – Subscription journals in which individual articles can be made Open Access for a fee.
• Fully OA journals – New titles designed from the outset to be Open Access.

Major commercial publishers—including Springer Nature, Elsevier, Wiley and others—have invested heavily in OA programmes. At the same time, non-profit initiatives, university presses and learned societies are experimenting with consortial funding, institutional subsidies and national agreements that allow journals to operate sustainably without paywalls.

International initiatives such as Plan S have also accelerated the transition by requiring that publicly funded research be made Open Access. Rather than eroding quality, these efforts aim to align publishing models with the principle that publicly funded research should be publicly available.

The key challenge is not whether publishing can survive without subscriptions—it already does, in many cases—but how to design models that are fair, transparent and inclusive for both authors and readers.

The Future of Open Access: Towards a More Equitable Research Environment

As more universities, funders and governments adopt policies supporting Open Access, OA is increasingly becoming the default rather than the exception. Several trends are likely to shape its future:

• Stronger global policies – Funding agencies are tightening OA mandates, requiring that articles be made openly available within short timeframes.
• Greater institutional support – Universities and consortia are negotiating agreements that cover OA costs and investing in their own publishing platforms and repositories.
• Growth of high-quality OA journals – More journals are launching as fully Open Access with robust peer-review procedures and clear ethical policies.
• Improved discovery tools – Advances in indexing, metadata standards and search technology make it easier to find and use OA content across disciplines.

At its heart, the Open Access movement is about fairness and efficiency. When knowledge is shared freely, research can progress more quickly, collaborations are easier to form, and societal benefit is maximised. OA alone cannot solve all the challenges of academic publishing, but it is a crucial part of building a system that serves the needs of both scholars and the wider public.

Practical Advice for Authors Considering Open Access

If you are thinking about publishing in an OA journal but are unsure where to start, consider the following steps:

• Clarify your funder and institutional requirements regarding Open Access.
• Draw up a shortlist of journals that fit your topic and methods, including both OA and subscription titles.
• Check each journal’s peer-review process, editorial board, indexing status and ethical policies.
• Examine APCs where applicable and explore funding options, waivers or institutional agreements.
• Read a few recent articles from each journal to understand its style, expectations and level of rigour.

Once you have made your choice, prepare your manuscript with great care. Journals—whether Open Access or subscription-based—expect clear, well-structured and error-free writing. Given that many institutions now monitor both similarity scores and potential AI-generated text, authors increasingly rely on specialist human proofreaders to help polish their manuscripts before submission. Professional academic proofreading can improve clarity, coherence, grammar and journal-style conformity while keeping you comfortably within institutional and publisher rules.

Conclusion

Open Access publishing does not mean lower quality, automatic fees, or reduced impact. It represents a commitment to making knowledge available to all, regardless of institutional affiliation or ability to pay. The false beliefs surrounding OA—concerning peer review, predatory behaviour, cost, influence and sustainability—often reflect outdated assumptions rather than current reality.

By engaging critically with these myths, checking the credentials of journals carefully, and taking advantage of the support offered by funders and institutions, researchers can use Open Access to increase their visibility and contribute to a more open, inclusive and responsible scholarly ecosystem. Combined with high standards of research design, ethical practice, and high-quality human proofreading, OA publishing offers a powerful route for your work to reach the widest possible audience and have the greatest possible impact.