In an era where information drives innovation, the academic publishing industry stands at a crossroads. Research funded by public money is frequently locked behind paywalls, controlled by global publishers generating billions in revenue. This raises a pressing ethical question: why should the public pay twice for knowledge they’ve already funded? The Journal of Business Management & Innovation explores the challenges and opportunities of open access, a movement gaining momentum but facing significant financial and structural hurdles.
The Paywall Problem
Academic publishing operates on a business model that often feels at odds with the ethos of science. Universities and research institutions, largely funded by taxpayers, cover the costs of research—from salaries to lab equipment. Yet, when this research is published, major publishers like Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley charge high subscription fees or per-article costs to access it. For a single article, fees can range from €30 to €50, while open-access article processing charges (APCs) average €4,000, soaring to over €10,000 for prestigious journals like Nature.
In Estonia, a small but research-active nation, the push for open access highlights the global nature of this issue. In 2023, 68% of Estonian-affiliated scientific articles were open access, up from 47% in 2018, according to the Estonian Research Council (ETAg). While this progress is notable, full transparency remains elusive, constrained by financial and international challenges.
The Financial Barrier
The cost of transitioning to full open access is daunting. Marko Piirsoo, head of strategic analysis at ETAg, estimates that making all Estonian research articles open access would cost €6 million annually—nearly 60% of the funding available for individual research grants in a single round. For a small country, this is a significant burden. Even larger economies struggle with the financial demands of open access, as initiatives like Plan S, which mandates immediate open access for publicly funded research, require substantial funding increases that many nations cannot afford.
The international nature of science adds complexity. In 2023, 2,329 of 3,487 Estonian research articles involved international co-authors. Imposing unilateral open-access mandates could disadvantage Estonian researchers in global collaborations, particularly when partners from countries like the United States lack similar requirements. As Piirsoo notes, persuading international partners to prioritize open access is challenging without aligned funding policies.
Libraries Leading the Charge
Academic libraries are at the forefront of the open-access movement, negotiating with publishers to secure better terms. In Estonia, the Estonian Library Network Consortium (ELNET) and international groups like EIFL enable discounts on APCs, sometimes up to 50%. Transformative agreements, which bundle subscription access with publishing fees, have saved researchers significant costs—over $100,000 with the American Chemical Society and £50,000 with Cambridge University Press in the past year alone. However, subscription costs remain high, with the University of Tartu spending nearly €500,000 annually on Elsevier’s e-journal collection.
Innovative models, like the University of Helsinki’s central fund for APCs, offer a potential path forward. By prioritizing fully open-access journals and favorable publisher agreements, such funds could streamline costs and support researchers. Estonian institutions are considering similar approaches, but the lack of a national open-access policy hinders progress.
The Researcher’s Dilemma
For researchers, the decision of where to publish is a balancing act between accessibility, journal prestige, and cost. Eva Piirimäe, a professor at the University of Tartu, values open access but questions the wisdom of diverting large sums of public money to APCs. Mari-Liis Madisson, a semiotics scholar, emphasizes that prestige often ensures rigorous peer review and professional editing, critical for research quality. In fields like semiotics, open access is more feasible, with journals like Sign Systems Studies and Semiotica already freely accessible. However, Madisson also highlights the importance of publishing in native languages to reach broader audiences, underscoring that true accessibility goes beyond removing paywalls.
Reforming the System
The long-term solution lies in rethinking the academic publishing model. The current system, heavily reliant on journal impact factors, incentivizes publishing in high-prestige, often paywalled journals. Piirsoo argues that this focus must shift: “An article in Nature isn’t inherently better or worse based on its publisher.” Initiatives like the Europe-wide CoARA coalition, which ETAg has joined, advocate for evaluating research on its merit rather than journal prestige. Platforms like Open Research Europe and strategies like Rights Retention, which allow researchers to share manuscript versions freely, offer promising alternatives but face challenges, such as limited visibility in academic databases.
The influence of major publishers, bolstered by lobbying within European institutions, remains a formidable obstacle. As Piirsoo notes, their business model is “predatory,” yet dismantling it requires coordinated, pan-European action. Meanwhile, the broader challenge of open science extends beyond articles to data accessibility and research infrastructure, areas that are even less developed.
A Path Forward
The open-access movement is a critical step toward democratizing knowledge, but it demands innovative business models, international cooperation, and a cultural shift in how research is evaluated. For business leaders and policymakers, the academic publishing industry offers a case study in balancing profit motives with public good. By supporting transformative agreements, investing in centralized funding models, and advocating for systemic reform, stakeholders can unlock the full potential of publicly funded research. The journey to open access is complex, but the goal—knowledge freely available to all—is worth the effort.
