Summary Scientific Access & Information Rights Advocates
This analysis article examines the paradox of universities spending millions to access research results funded by public money, identifying barriers to participation in scientific progress. The content directly engages UDHR Article 27 (right to share in scientific advancement) and Article 19 (freedom of information), advocating implicitly for more equitable access to knowledge. The Conversation platform's free, open-access model structurally supports these information and educational rights.
The practice of charging for subscriptions to information that benefits the public good seems silly. Publishing fees make sense, researchers would work the costs into their grant proposals and taxpayers would ultimately bear the cost there instead of in university departmental budgets.
But I also know nothing about running a journal. Can someone explain the cost structure of an academic journal, and why a model like publishing fees wouldn't work?
Everyone working for Elsevier should resign. The board is forced to pursue this rapacious harvest strategy, but the employees are not. They should go work for an honest, value-creating company.
There's currently a push in Germany to negotiate more reasonable licensing agreements nationwide, and to publish all research by authors in Germany under a CC-BY licence: https://www.projekt-deal.de/about-deal/. There's a long list of universities that have decided not to renew their contracts with Elsevier for future publications. I recently got an email from my university's administration that "numerous scientists have pledged their support in the negotiations with Elsevier by not reviewing for or acting as editor of Elsevier publications until a mutual agreement has been reached".
Something on the order of 50% of all research funding goes to the academic publishing industry.
edit:
Downvote if you want, but it is true, maybe not at every institution, but some Latin American countries the budget for access to the literature is greater than what they spend on supporting basic research [0].
> the research community uses historical journal reputation to
> evaluate researchers, making it harder for new, better run
> journals to enter the market.
This problem would be solved tomorrow if those allocating public money
to science made funding contingent on the research being published in
open access journals.
Scientists can't have their cake and eat it too. Either they fund
their own research and publish in prestigious expensive journals that
cost the public money, or they take public money and make the research
available for all.
But it's not easy to migrate to that because scientist aren't just
using journals as a publication platform, but as a reputation platform
as a function of their exclusivity and reputation.
This reminds me that the EU had a proposal last year about mandating all publicly-funded research to be open access. I'm curious to see what will become of that.
I got so fed up with this that I quit my job a few months ago to work on this issue [1]. I've researched it quite a bit and have written about that (which I've been linking to where relevant in the comments here), and I'm gearing up to launch a non-profit to combat this in January. If you're interested, you can leave your email address at https://tinyletter.com/Flockademic
(And of course, any questions and remarks are welcome!)
Recently, I tried to access a paper I had written in the past to put in my grad school application, and couldn't get it. My current university doesn't have access to it. The irony is ridiculous.
I've had dealings with the publishing industry over the years and some of the "Open Access to the rescue!" comments here badly underestimate the business acumen of Elsevier & co.
They're no idiot. Do you think these guys have been asleep at the wheel for the past 6 years, oblivious to the Open Access debate and the general sentiment?
When it comes to Open Access, the new distribution and sales channels have already been accounted for, new policies (and policy makers) worked out. Open Access will be the second coming of Christ for that industry, a new golden goose.
When I was in school we had to travel to the library of a different University to work on some of our projects because the one we went to didn't pay for the journals we needed to access to do our work and buying access to a single article would have been ridiculous. We cited over 100 papers in our final project many of those we couldn't access from our school. Paying for them would have cost anywhere from $20 to over $100 per article, not issue, article. A good majority of the studies we cited were funded either directly through government or through universities funded by government. It's entirely a way to keep knowledge out of the hands of the poor. Publicly funded studies should be made freely available to everyone.
Even the project I worked on when I finished school. We were funded by government grants and our results were intended to be posted publicly, it was written in our proposal. Instead, once we started posting our data online we were told that we were no longer allowed to and our data must now be submitted to a government database. Otherwise we would recieve no more funding.This database of course had access fees that needed to be paid. It felt really shitty to have to lock everything away. I'd worked on an online database and map I was really excited about and it all had to be taken down.
I'm not very well versed in academia, so correct me if I'm wrong.
The research in these journals isn't funded by the journals, and researchers aren't payed royalties for people reading these journals (I assume they don't get paid by the journal at all).
So why are these journals so expensive to access? Is it all just a rort?
Its not only the journals. Another thing that costs shittons of money are standards. A single two-dozen page ISO, DIN or comparable standard can easily amount to a couple thousand Euros. And it's not like you need one. You might need a second or third or fourth one because they just chain their references. "Test Devices can be found in ISO-123" In ISO-123:"The devices listed here have to be configured analogue to the devices mentioned in DIN-2153" And so on. And don't get me started about versioning. A couple of same-number standards in parallel because they are from different months or years or just small amendments (Single Sentences). And there is only one company selling em. It's laughable. Oh, and it's not as if anyone gets paid to write standards. Standards are written for free by engineers and scientists in their free time. It's a money-printing machine.
The quality of peer-review at conferences for example is terrible, and that is well known. Even at not very big conferences, and despite the usually hard work of the organizers.
So establishing a good review process is not easy and perhaps that is what is stopping the open access model rather than just the prestige issue mentioned in other comments.
I am not a researcher, so I'd like to get some answers.
Why do people publish papers. Is it to get acknowledged for the work? Is it a requirement for getting PhD? Or is it so that world could benefit from the research?
Also, can someone simply use a paper, copy that idea to make a product, and make money out of it, without giving anything back to the researchers?
If researchers publish out of necessity or to get acknowledged or so that the "world knows", can't they just put it on Arxiv? Why spend money on costly journals?
Publishing fees could introduce a perverse incentive for publishers to accept any paper regardless of quality. Although maybe making it a "review fee" may be better. Publishers get more money the more submissions, but quality would still be maintained. Otherwise, I agree with you.
All things being equal, a journal that charges a subscription will out-compete a journal that charges publishing fees because it shifts fees from the researcher to a bunch of schools.
The schools are relatively cost insensitive as long as the journal is high impact.
That fee is called a "page charge", and many journals have them. Some are mostly supported by page charges, some open-access journals are entirely supported by them.
Most of the work is done by academics who receive no compensation from the publisher. Most importantly, it is expected that one participate in peer review. Fundamentally, there's nothing wrong with a reciprocal model of review, but why should publishers get to enjoy enormous profit margins on said work when they're not the ones doing it? Authors don't receive any money from subscriptions or access fees, either. Editors sometimes receive some compensation, but very little. There's just not a lot that the publishers do. It seems unfair that they should be the only ones to profit monetarily from academics' work.
That's actually how the UK and the Netherlands have been pushing for Open Access: by paying the publishers for publishing an article.
The problem is that this keeps the barrier to participate high - instead of paying to read research, you're paying to publish it.
Now, this isn't necessarily a problem: research costs money, and publishing that research is just part of that. However, the prices are widely considered disproportionate: ranging from $3000 to $5000 per article in the traditional journals (that researchers feel obliged to publish in because that helps their careers), with profit margins of 30% to 40% (comparable to Apple's, which sells luxury products).
Considering how technology has drastically lowered the prices of most other types of media publishing, it's suspicious that prices of academic articles have only risen.
There's a huge movement to improve this situation, but it's a pretty difficult market with many different actors with different incentives. I've written some about why it is difficult to change this at [1].
There are many people/organisations trying to fix it (a few examples at [1]). However, it's a system that keeps itself intact and is really hard to change, which I wrote about at [2].
Yes, but it's not that simple. Funders don't want to be seen as trying to decide where their researchers publish. They can stipulate Open Access (and many do! [1] [2] [3]), but then authors continue to want to publish in the journals with high scores because it helps those careers, so those journals/publishers charge egregious fees to publish there (instead of subscription fees), which are once again paid from public money and raise the barrier to publish research, e.g. for universities in developing countries.
Obviously - they've so far managed to stave off threats to their subscription business model, and managed to make good money off of the open access movement (through charging publishing fees for opening up articles).
That said, they do definitely feel the pressure as well, given their moving in the direction of a research analytics company rather than a publisher.
For such a strong statement as that, some context is critical. Many readers are doing mental math based on American pay rates, and concluding that this can't possibly be true. Indeed, the access cost cited won't be anything even slightly approaching 50% in a first world context.
In less well off developing countries, you are absolutely and completely correct in every way, shape, form, and manner. The cost for access to literature can be greater than that of the salaries a department pays its basic research faculty.
blaming scientists is misplaced. This is a policy-level question, for which the policy IS evolving fairly rapidly. The scientists are also rapidly updating and most papers have pre-prints available via arxiv or bioRxiv, etc and the NIH and many other funding agencies require open access soon after publication. Lastly, many scientists end-run the publishers and make the print copy PDFs available on their lab websites.
In no way can I imagine how blaming scientists for working within the established incentive structure to advance their careers helps advance this issue.
I work at a German research center and we recently also got informed by our library that all contracts with Elsevier will end at the end of year. However, and this is the fun part, it was also noted that it has been reported by other institutions that Elsevier did not actually cancel the access permissions for them after the contracts ended. Seems to me we could finally got into a good position for negotiations about fair access to our own work.
I second others that blaming scientists isn't the right thing, and punishing them certainly isn't. The life of a scientist is incredibly stressful and poorly paid. The average salary for a postdoc is like $45,000. These people have graduate degrees from the top schools in the nation, are often in their early to mid thirties, are doing research that can lead to blockbuster drugs that massively improve human health, are incredibly passionate about and good at their work, yet make little more than minimum wage
A better solution, counterintuitive as it sounds, is to increas public funding for more research. If scientists can make a reasonable wage that doesn't force them to pursue tenure by living and dying by the whim of a few top journals, it will be much easier for them to stomach the financial, and possibly career, hit of publishing open source
I wonder how robust the open source movement would be if engineers only made $45k / year
Many scientists already publish preprints on open sites like arxiv.org. Which, btw, also illustrates that the supposed gatekeeping role that journals were playing, which made them worth their fees, is largely gone now.
Not just the research, all the hard work of peer review, etc. is volunteer. Typesetting and stuff is paid for by the journal. Researchers publishing in the journals often have to pay a per page publication fee in addition to missing out on any royalties.
I was surprised to see this article because I remember hearing steps to address this in the U.S. over the years. Then I actually saw the article was about New Zealand and comments are about Germany and other countries.
I'm not in the research business, but available after 1 year sounds reasonable to me. I can see the cost in vetting and distributing and how certain businesses and universities would pay a premium for quicker access.
The review process at the "prestige" journals in many disciplines is garbage. This is a known issue. Competent experts simply don't have time to do the reviews, so they end up being farmed out to graduate students and post-docs if they get done at all. I had one paper get rejected, because they couldn't find anyone to review it! By the time a reviewer is found, you're often the action-editor's last desperate pool of 5th-tier people who are sort of maybe vaguely related to the topic area.
Add to that that the majority of papers in many disciplines receive virtually zero statistical oversight from an actual statistical expert, and... well... you begin to wonder what service the existing journals are actually adding. Marketing and sales?
A friend was working for the EPA and she didn't have access to all the journals to do her work so she had to ask me to fetch them for her from the university library. Remember seeing the prices for each article and each subscription and thinking - they are making some nice profits charging $30 per paper.
Basically, yes. There is barely any market pressure on the publishers, so they can keep asking ridiculous fees. More on why it doesn't change at [1], and how it got this way at [2].
It’s pretty clear that open access is the way things should be. Particularly as now publication and reproduction costs are essentially zero.
It’s interesting to note how we got here, and how we remain here. Academics mostly universally complain about the current state of affairs, with reason.
However, we’re here because academics gave up control. Because the journal system, which was originally run by academic volunteers was seen as a hassle and has given over to businesses to run. Slowly, the businesses became to extract more and more profit...
The solution is probably to return to a less profit driven publishing model. But current publishers and academics pretty well locked in.
> Why do people publish papers. Is it to get acknowledged for the work? Is it a requirement for getting PhD? Or is it so that world could benefit from the research?
All three of those are correct.
> Also, can someone simply use a paper, copy that idea to make a product, and make money out of it, without giving anything back to the researchers?
Yes, although it's usually not that simple. The focus of research is usually more fundamental in nature, that only leads to products far down the road.
But note that the researchers are funded using public money, so if there was anything to give back, it would be to the public (which sort of happens through new companies).
> If researchers publish out of necessity or to get acknowledged or so that the "world knows", can't they just put it on Arxiv? Why spend money on costly journals?
Article directly addresses barriers to participating in and benefiting from scientific progress. Title critiques the impediment of access to publicly-funded research results, a core barrier to Article 27 rights.
Observable Facts
Article headline directly addresses barriers to accessing scientific research results
Topics include Scientific publishing, Open access, Gold Open Access, highlighting scientific participation issues
Platform provides free access to scientific analysis and commentary
Inferences
Critical examination of research access barriers advocates for improved participation in scientific progress
The article's focus on who can access publicly-funded research directly engages Article 27 right to share in scientific advancement
Free platform model enables broader participation in understanding and engaging with scientific issues
+0.40
Article 19Freedom of Expression
Medium Advocacy Coverage
Editorial
+0.40
SETL
+0.20
Article examines barriers to accessing and distributing research information. Title directly addresses information access impediments, critiquing paywall systems for publicly-funded knowledge.
Observable Facts
Article headline focuses on barriers to accessing research results and information
The Conversation provides unrestricted free access to article content
Author is clearly identified by name in metadata
Inferences
Critical analysis of information access barriers suggests advocacy for freedom of information
Free content distribution model directly enables practical exercise of information access rights
+0.20
PreamblePreamble
Low Advocacy
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
+0.14
Article title indicates focus on barriers to accessing publicly-funded research, which relates to the preamble's invocation of human dignity and universal rights to knowledge and progress.
Observable Facts
Article headline directly addresses barriers to accessing research results funded by public money
The Conversation platform provides free, unrestricted web access to all published articles
Inferences
The article's critical framing of research access barriers suggests concern for equitable participation in knowledge
Free content distribution model demonstrates structural commitment to knowledge accessibility
+0.20
Article 26Education
Low Coverage
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
+0.14
Article title suggests discussion of barriers to scientific knowledge access and distribution. This relates to education and sharing of scientific advancement, though evidence limited by truncated content.
Observable Facts
Article concerns access to scientific research and knowledge
The Conversation publishes free educational content for public access
Inferences
Research access barriers discussed relate to impediments to education and knowledge distribution
Free platform access supports Article 26 right to education and benefit from scientific advancement
ND
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 5No Torture
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 12Privacy
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 14Asylum
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 15Nationality
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 17Property
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 21Political Participation
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 22Social Security
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 25Standard of Living
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 28Social & International Order
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 29Duties to Community
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
Structural Channel
What the site does
+0.30
Article 19Freedom of Expression
Medium Advocacy Coverage
Structural
+0.30
Context Modifier
+0.30
SETL
+0.20
Platform provides free, open access to information content without subscription or paywall barriers. Transparent authorship (Mark C. Wilson identified) and clear article labeling (analysis) support reader information rights.
+0.30
Article 27Cultural Participation
Medium Advocacy Coverage
Structural
+0.30
Context Modifier
+0.15
SETL
+0.42
Platform enables participation in cultural and scientific discourse by providing free access to academic analysis and expert commentary on scientific publishing issues.
+0.10
PreamblePreamble
Low Advocacy
Structural
+0.10
Context Modifier
0.00
SETL
+0.14
The Conversation platform provides free access to academic content, supporting the preamble's vision of knowledge as a common human good.
+0.10
Article 26Education
Low Coverage
Structural
+0.10
Context Modifier
+0.10
SETL
+0.14
Platform provides free educational content to general public, supporting accessibility of knowledge and learning resources.
ND
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 2Non-Discrimination
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 4No Slavery
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 5No Torture
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 6Legal Personhood
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 7Equality Before Law
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 8Right to Remedy
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 10Fair Hearing
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 12Privacy
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 13Freedom of Movement
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 14Asylum
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 15Nationality
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 16Marriage & Family
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 17Property
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 18Freedom of Thought
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 20Assembly & Association
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 21Political Participation
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 22Social Security
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 24Rest & Leisure
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 25Standard of Living
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 28Social & International Order
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 29Duties to Community
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
ND
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
ND
No observable evidence in provided content.
Supplementary Signals
Epistemic Quality
0.57
Propaganda Flags
0techniques detected
Solution Orientation
No data
Emotional Tone
No data
Stakeholder Voice
No data
Temporal Framing
No data
Geographic Scope
No data
Complexity
No data
Transparency
No data
Event Timeline
15 events
2026-02-26 21:54
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Universities spend millions on accessing results of publicly funded research
--
2026-02-26 20:01
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Universities spend millions on accessing results of publicly funded research
--
2026-02-26 20:00
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Universities spend millions on accessing results of publicly funded research
--
2026-02-26 20:00
eval_failure
Evaluation failed: Error: Unknown model in registry: llama-4-scout-wai
--
2026-02-26 20:00
eval_failure
Evaluation failed: Error: Unknown model in registry: llama-4-scout-wai
--
2026-02-26 19:59
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:58
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:57
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:57
rater_validation_fail
Validation failed for model llama-4-scout-wai
--
2026-02-26 19:11
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Universities spend millions on accessing results of publicly funded research
--
2026-02-26 19:10
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:09
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 19:08
rate_limit
OpenRouter rate limited (429) model=llama-3.3-70b
--
2026-02-26 09:31
dlq
Dead-lettered after 1 attempts: Universities spend millions on accessing results of publicly funded research