Skip to main content

Open Access Week 2019: Equity in Open Knowledge

We are delighted to be celebrating international Open Access Week 2019 from 21-27 October, by embracing the theme of Open for Whom? Equity in Open Knowledge

We find ourselves at a critical moment. The decisions we make now—individually and collectively—will fundamentally shape the future for many years to come. As open becomes the default, all stakeholders must be intentional about designing these new, open systems to ensure that they are inclusive, equitable, and truly serve the needs of a diverse global community. Asking ourselves and our partners “open for whom?” will help ensure that considerations of equity become and remain central in this period of transition.

With this theme in mind we have invited one of our researchers to tell us what open research means from an academic perspective. Martin Dominik is a Reader in Physics & Astronomy at the University of St Andrews and is a strong advocate of communication being an essential part of science, and science being an integral part of society and culture. Martin has served on the Executive Committee of the Global Young Academy, and is engaged in shaping research environments that make creative minds flourish.

Here are Martin's thoughts on the topic:


While the internet has revolutionised global communication, academia is still stuck in structures that reflect the age of the printing press. Communication is essential for research to unfold its value, but effective communication goes beyond just the ability to retrieve information. However, a substantial fraction of academic publishing has become write-only, with researchers widely pressured to chasing recognition by citation figures, and no longer primarily serves the purpose of sharing knowledge and acting as a platform for discourse. In fact, the academic literature lacks readability. There is no shortage of technical solutions that enable a global society to engage in dialogue, all obstacles are structural or cultural. So, from an academic perspective, what do we need?

First, we need to free ourselves from counterproductive performance indicators and focus on what really matters. It needs to be acknowledged that scholars have an intrinsic and genuine interest for their research area to flourish, and many of them are driven by the desire to make valuable contributions to society. They deserve support rather than being held back by overly prescriptive or punitive policies. Moreover, creative minds need space to unfold and time to do so.

Second, we need a global culture of dialogue, debate, and constructive criticism. There is so much to learn from each other, and frequently this process involves initial disagreement. Communication needs to have the recipient in mind, and dialogue involves listening. If we are serious about making research truly accessible for everybody, it needs to be communicated in a form that is understandable. Very few people understand specific terminology, and most people in the world do not understand English at all. Clarity of expression and wide communication is also a means to overcoming disciplinary confinement.

Third, trust in research requires transparency and open scrutiny. Sufficient detail needs to be provided in order to independently assess whether presented conclusions are justified and supported by data. It seems odd that established peer review processes already provide a qualitative assessment, but usually lock away this most valuable information. We then spend much effort in trying to reproduce such information in exercises like the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF).

Research is a global endeavour, and access needs to be free from barriers. We must not enforce models that just reflect the environment of the most-developed countries, but rather embrace the value of global collaboration. If we accept that sharing of knowledge serves the public interest, it is worth thinking about globally fair publicly-funded scholarly publishing with dually-open access (to both readers and authors).

Martin Dominik
Reader in Physics & Astronomy
University of St Andrews


These themes were also explored last week at the FORCE11 conference in Edinburgh. FORCE 2019 gathered a wide range of stakeholders to meet and discuss ways of changing the ways scholarly and scientific information is communicated, shared and used. Presentations are available in a Zenodo community.

If you have ideas to share on how we shape our research to be more open and equitable, let us know at


Popular posts from this blog

The Great Science Publishing Scandal

For centuries academic journals have been the custodians of scientific knowledge. But in the past few decades this has become increasingly contentious, as publishers continue to boast high profit margins, and their customers, largely academic libraries, continue to face squeezed budgets. Some libraries have cancelled subscriptions, some countries have been in deadlocked negotiations with publishers for months and even years, and many researchers have resorted to illegal means to access research.

But how did it get this way? And is there anything that can be done? In the BBC Radio 4 programme 'The Great Science Publishing Scandal' Matthew Cobb, Professor of Zoology at the University of Manchester, discusses the history leading up to the current crisis, and looks at the ways in which academia can change to redress the balance of power in academic publishing. One such change advocated by professor Cobb is to break the link between prestige journals and academic promotion, and an…

Open Access books: Tony Crook's new book is published OA

This week is Open Access week, and the theme is set to look at the foundational work that is needed to underpin a transition to a world where research results are free and open by default. Recent moves by the open access publisher Knowledge Unlatched have shone a spot light on the need for better cooperation in achieving an open access default for books. Where KU has gone in the direction of commercial proprietary infrastructure, others such as Open Book Publishers have called for more open and transparent cooperation that isn't tied to proprietary commercially driven software. Open Book Publisher's reaction to Knowledge Unlatched is here.

"Academics need to know that there are benefits too, and that the expense of publishing OA is worth it in the long run"
While the debate about the nature of the infrastructure rumbles on, presently we must keep our minds focussed on the individual examples of open access books. Indeed the appetite for open access books is unlikely…

Screening of Paywall - the business of scholarship

We are planning a screening of Paywall: The Business of Scholarship, on April 25th 2019 in the Byre Theatre, followed by a panel session chaired by Katie Stevenson.
The movie is a documentary which focuses on the need for open access to research and science, and questions the rationale behind the $25.2 billion a year that flows into for-profit academic publishers, a substantial proportion of this from public funding (tax payers). It examines the 35-40% profit margin associated with large academic publishers, such as Elsevier; a profit margin often greater than some of the most profitable tech companies e.g. Apple, Facebook and Google. 

This will be an excellent opportunity for everyone to hear about and debate these issues and what steps we can take as individuals, an organisation and a sector, in response. The panel will also consider developments since the Paywall documentary was made, including Plan S, an initiative for Open Access publishing that was launched in September 2018.