Trend AnalysisOther Social Sciences
Library Science and the Open Access Movement: Democratizing Scholarly Knowledge
The open access movement aims to make research freely available to all. Two decades in, the movement has reshaped scholarly publishing but faces tensions between commercial gold OA (author-pays) and community-driven diamond OA (no fees for authors or readers). Library science professionals are at the center of this transformation.
By Sean K.S. Shin
This blog summarizes research trends based on published paper abstracts. Specific numbers or findings may contain inaccuracies. For scholarly rigor, always consult the original papers cited in each post.
The open access (OA) movement challenges a fundamental inequity in knowledge production: publicly funded research, conducted at publicly funded institutions, published behind paywalls that charge thousands of dollars per article for access. The result: researchers at wealthy institutions can access the literature while those at under-resourced institutions, practitioners, policymakers, and the public cannot.
Two decades after the Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), OA has transformed scholarly publishing. Over 50% of recent articles are now freely available in some form. But the movement has fractured: "gold" OA charges authors article processing charges (APCs) of $2,000-$10,000, creating a new inequity where publication ability depends on institutional wealth. "Diamond" OA---funded by institutions, societies, or grants with no fees for authors or readers---offers a more equitable model but struggles for sustainability.
Why It Matters
Access to scholarly knowledge is not a luxury---it is a prerequisite for education, innovation, healthcare, and evidence-based policy. The OA movement's success or failure determines whether the global research enterprise serves humanity broadly or remains a closed system benefiting the already privileged.
The Research Landscape
OA Publishing Transition
Arseneau and Dodd (2025) trace the evolution of scholarly OA publishing, identifying three phases: the advocacy phase (2002-2012), the mandate phase (2013-2020, funder requirements), and the transformation phase (2021-present, systemic change). Current challenges include predatory journals exploiting the OA model, the dominance of commercial publishers in "transformative agreements," and the sustainability of diamond OA.
Librarian Scholarly Communication
Yoon and Chung (2025) study OA practices among library science professionals---the community most actively advocating for OA. Paradoxically, librarians face the same barriers they help others navigate: APCs they cannot afford, institutional repositories they do not use, and visibility concerns about non-traditional publishing venues.
Diamond OA Success Story
Sarzi and Leta (2024) analyze Information Research, a 30-year diamond OA journal, as a model for sustainable community-driven publishing. The journal demonstrates that high-quality, geographically diverse scholarly communication is achievable without APCs---but requires sustained institutional support and volunteer editorial labor.
Brazilian OA Ecosystem
Sarzi and Leta (2024) examine twenty years of OA in Brazilian science, analyzing how researchers' publishing strategies relate to scientific capital. Brazil's SciELO platform---one of the world's largest diamond OA collections---demonstrates a national-scale alternative to the commercial publishing model, with implications for other Global South countries seeking to build indigenous scholarly infrastructure.
Open Access Models Compared
<
| Model | Cost to Author | Cost to Reader | Sustainability | Equity |
|---|
| Subscription (closed) | None | $30-50/article | Publisher revenue | Low |
| Gold OA | $2,000-10,000 APC | Free | Author/funder payment | Medium |
| Green OA (repository) | None | Free (after embargo) | Institutional infrastructure | High |
| Diamond OA | None | Free | Institutional/society support | Highest |
| Transformative agreement | Institutional fee | Mixed | Negotiated deals | Medium |
What To Watch
The rise of preprint servers (arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv) is creating a parallel scholarly communication system that bypasses traditional publishing entirely. During COVID-19, preprints became the primary mode of rapid research dissemination. Whether this trend accelerates into a permanent structural shift---where journals provide peer review and curation but not primary dissemination---will reshape the economics and politics of scholarly publishing.
The open access (OA) movement challenges a fundamental inequity in knowledge production: publicly funded research, conducted at publicly funded institutions, published behind paywalls that charge thousands of dollars per article for access. The result: researchers at wealthy institutions can access the literature while those at under-resourced institutions, practitioners, policymakers, and the public cannot.
Two decades after the Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), OA has transformed scholarly publishing. Over 50% of recent articles are now freely available in some form. But the movement has fractured: "gold" OA charges authors article processing charges (APCs) of $2,000-$10,000, creating a new inequity where publication ability depends on institutional wealth. "Diamond" OA---funded by institutions, societies, or grants with no fees for authors or readers---offers a more equitable model but struggles for sustainability.
Why It Matters
Access to scholarly knowledge is not a luxury---it is a prerequisite for education, innovation, healthcare, and evidence-based policy. The OA movement's success or failure determines whether the global research enterprise serves humanity broadly or remains a closed system benefiting the already privileged.
The Research Landscape
OA Publishing Transition
Arseneau and Dodd (2025) trace the evolution of scholarly OA publishing, identifying three phases: the advocacy phase (2002-2012), the mandate phase (2013-2020, funder requirements), and the transformation phase (2021-present, systemic change). Current challenges include predatory journals exploiting the OA model, the dominance of commercial publishers in "transformative agreements," and the sustainability of diamond OA.
Librarian Scholarly Communication
Yoon and Chung (2025) study OA practices among library science professionals---the community most actively advocating for OA. Paradoxically, librarians face the same barriers they help others navigate: APCs they cannot afford, institutional repositories they do not use, and visibility concerns about non-traditional publishing venues.
Diamond OA Success Story
Sarzi and Leta (2024) analyze Information Research, a 30-year diamond OA journal, as a model for sustainable community-driven publishing. The journal demonstrates that high-quality, geographically diverse scholarly communication is achievable without APCs---but requires sustained institutional support and volunteer editorial labor.
Brazilian OA Ecosystem
Sarzi and Leta (2024) examine twenty years of OA in Brazilian science, analyzing how researchers' publishing strategies relate to scientific capital. Brazil's SciELO platform---one of the world's largest diamond OA collections---demonstrates a national-scale alternative to the commercial publishing model, with implications for other Global South countries seeking to build indigenous scholarly infrastructure.
Open Access Models Compared
<
| Model | Cost to Author | Cost to Reader | Sustainability | Equity |
|---|
| Subscription (closed) | None | $30-50/article | Publisher revenue | Low |
| Gold OA | $2,000-10,000 APC | Free | Author/funder payment | Medium |
| Green OA (repository) | None | Free (after embargo) | Institutional infrastructure | High |
| Diamond OA | None | Free | Institutional/society support | Highest |
| Transformative agreement | Institutional fee | Mixed | Negotiated deals | Medium |
What To Watch
The rise of preprint servers (arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv) is creating a parallel scholarly communication system that bypasses traditional publishing entirely. During COVID-19, preprints became the primary mode of rapid research dissemination. Whether this trend accelerates into a permanent structural shift---where journals provide peer review and curation but not primary dissemination---will reshape the economics and politics of scholarly publishing.
References (8)
[1] Varsha, V. & Srinivasaragavan, S. (2025). Scholarly open access publishing: Trends and challenges. DESIDOC J. Library & Information Technology.
[2] Arseneau, R. & Dodd, H. (2025). Open Access & Scholarly Communication in LIS. ELIP.
[3] Yoon, J., Andrews, J. E., & Chung, E. (2025). Information Research at 30: diamond OA in LIS. Information Research.
[4] Sarzi, D. & Leta, J. (2024). Twenty years of OA in Brazilian science. QSS.
Varsha, V., & Srinivasaragavan, S. (2025). The transition of scholarly open access publishing: Trends and challenges. Pearl : A Journal of Library and Information Science, 19(2), 92-100.
Arseneau, R., & Dodd, H. (2025). Open Access & Scholarly Communication Habits in LIS. Emerging Library & Information Perspectives, 7(1).
Yoon, J., Andrews, J. E., & Chung, E. (2025). Information Research at 30: its role as a diamond open access journal supporting scholarly communication in library and information science. Information Research an international electronic journal, 30(2), 16-22.
Sarzi, D. S., & Leta, J. (2024). Twenty years of the Open Access movement: A retrospective study on the relationship between publishing strategies and scientific capital of Brazilian researchers in biological science. Quantitative Science Studies, 5(3), 805-822.