Myths and misconceptions about open access
This is a post by Barbara Kettel, Open Research Officer (Open Access and Publishing) to round off International OA Week 2026 with its theme of “The Cost of Knowledge”.
The benefits of publishing open access are numerous and have become well-established over the last three decades. For example, sharing knowledge from publicly funded research with a wider audience not only enables researchers to comply with research funder requirements and meet the REF open access requirements, but can also enhance both their and their institution’s reputations, leading to greater visibility as well as research impact and in turn to attracting potential collaborators, funders and students. Having said that, institutional, research funder or publisher open access policies are complex and balancing these different demands can be difficult for researchers. Moreover, some powerful myths and misconceptions about open access still float around tenaciously and deter researchers from engaging proactively with open access publishing models. So, it is worth taking a closer look at the following misconceptions that can act as roadblocks on the way to a truly open research culture.
Misconception 1 – “Green open access isn’t ‘real’ open access”
This viewpoint corresponds to a preference by some authors across a range of disciplines for publishing Gold open access, where the final published version of an article is being made available on the journal website, in the corresponding journal’s layout. In contrast to this, author accepted manuscripts (AAMs) published Green open access through deposit in institutional repositories may be perceived as looking less polished or less professional.
The green route has been found to have citation benefits, including a greater diversity of citations. It is also worth remembering that author accepted manuscripts as deposited in institutional repositories and shared openly via the Green OA route incorporate the changes from peer-review. So, they have undergone the same process of quality control and been subjected to the same exacting publishing standards. The upshot of this is that while the packaging is different, the content is the same as in the final published version. Moreover, this route to open access is not only free to read, but also free of charge for authors and their institutions.
Visibility and discoverability of author accepted manuscripts is increased as St Andrews research outputs deposited in Pure are indexed by services like Google Scholar and browser extensions like Unpaywall point readers to an openly available version of an article first.
Misconception 2 – “Open access isn’t equitable and only affordable for authors from well-to-do institutions”
Again, this is linked to the practice of publishing Gold OA, be it in fully open access journals or in hybrid ones included in publisher agreements. The cost of article processing charges for some journals can be exorbitantly high (up to £9390 +VAT in some cases), even when covered by Read and Publish agreements, research funders, or institutions. In addition to this, eligibility under a publisher agreement is often tied to the corresponding author role. For corresponding authors from institutions without publisher agreements, especially in the Global South, article processing charges can be unaffordable. In turn, this leads to a fear of the intended readers and other researchers being unable to access and read the results of this research.
However, there is a solution to this perceived dilemma. Researchers do have other, more equitable options: publishing in Diamond open access journals, which offer the same perks as Gold open access, but incur no costs for authors and institutions. The Directory of Open Access Journals search interface provides a filter to limit results to Diamond OA journals. For hybrid journals, here at the University of St Andrews, Green OA is the preferred route of achieving open access and authors can benefit from our institutional rights retention strategy through depositing their author accepted manuscripts in Pure. Under rights retention, the AAM will be made available open access with no embargo and under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence upon online publication of the final article. This means a peer-reviewed version can be accessed around the world from anywhere with a working internet connection, with the CC BY licence increasing the options for sharing, adapting, and re-using content.
Misconception 3 – “Publishing open access deprives authors of copyright protections and makes them vulnerable to their work being used without proper attribution”
Publishing open access and applying Creative Commons (CC) licensing does not mean the content is not subject to copyright and not legally protected. Copyright does apply and authors often retain it rather than pass it to a commercial publisher, especially when their institution has a rights retention strategy. Creative Commons licences are also embedded in a copyright framework. They stipulate that attribution must always be given to creators and the different types of CC licence clearly outline what re-users are legally allowed to do with the content in each case. Why not check out the short deed for a CC licence here?
With the advent of new technologies, including AI and web crawlers, creators are increasingly concerned about their content being illegally scraped and used without their knowledge. It is worth bearing in mind that different jurisdictions apply and crucially that, in the UK, the legal framework and appropriate guidance are still being developed. Thankfully, Creative Commons have done lots of work to boost engagement in this area as well as reassuring researchers and readers when it comes to understanding CC licences and generative AI.
To sum up, things are not as bleak as they may seem: authors do have more options to publish open access than they think and crucially, these do not necessarily cost the earth, either, without compromising on quality.