Unlocking Secrets: What Open Science Pioneers Wish They Knew Before Today’s Reality Hit
What did we get right? We provided new models which gave authors, institutions, and funders more choices to help the publication system grow with the growth of research. What did we get wrong? We pretended that all disciplines, journals, and business models could be crammed into one model — and one license — to rule them all. We then wrapped it in moral terms that unnecessarily limited debate. I’d like to think we are moving past this.
The “open access” movement, as we currently define it, has generated some amazing numbers over recent years (e.g., Gold OA percentage increased from 17% (2015) to 44% (2025)). But, to me, it has failed because we wanted to make something “open” to all, without addressing the underlying structural reasons that “closed” it in the first place.
Post Comment