The future of scientific publication is Open Access, but needs diversity, equability and equality!

"Just recently, some interesting proposals for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences were suggested, and a transparent review-process, among others, was one suggestion to overcome outdated publishing processes [8]. Since the launch of “Innovative Surgical Sciences” in 2016, a transparent double-blind peer review process and publication of the reviews together with the article have been a major and among comparable surgical journals still unique feature of the journal. Additionally, the discussion on transparency should address the question of publishing preprints that are peer-reviewed by the scientific community in order to improve the manuscript as well as research activities. In the Covid-19 pandemic, for example, preprints have been essential for rapid dissemination of new findings. However, transparency in the review process is just one issue of relevance. Other factors of future publication refer to the significance of impact factors to assess scientific achievements and the question of negative results, which are often not published, but may be of importance for future research activities [9]. It becomes more and more evident, that perhaps downloads and other manuscript-oriented altmetrics are of greater interest than just impact factors. And even funding agencies like EMBO (European Molecular Biology Organization) value personal statements and motivation far more than publication history as they stated in a Lindau Nobel laureate discussion [9]. One other, and probably even more relevant issue refers to the participation in open research and Open Access. Up till now, research and publication are primarily US-, European- and Asian-centric. There are concerns that low and middle income countries despite the EIFL-initiative (Electronic Information for Libraries; https://www.eifl.net/) may be lost on the way to the future of publications simply because they cannot afford it. This relates in particular to publishing in a Gold Open Access/Article Processing Charges model. Therefore, there is a need to define opportunities for participation in order to make every participant visible [10], [11]. It can well be assumed that the scientific community will agree that Open Access is undoubtedly associated with full participation of everyone. Keeping this in mind we also have to acknowledge that Open Access for all cannot be established without financial efforts. At the end, “someone must pay for the costs of publishing all this ever-increasing research” [12]. The European Union (https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/) advocates Open Access research and a rapid and transparent publishing process powered by the F1000research-initiative (https://f1000research.com/). Another important achievement is the PlanS or cOAlitionS concept (https://www.coalition-s.org/) which was, at least in 2019, almost unknown among the 50 Editorial Board members of the British Journal of Surgery [12]. Besides the fact that this is just one example for the old world of publication, PlanS poses in particular for surgery a major problem: only studies that are funded by public grants will have a chance for Gold Open Access publication, and the costs are covered by the grants. The same holds true for studies funded by the European Union, although the European Research Council just recently withdrew from PlanS (https://erc.europa.eu/news/erc-scientific-council-calls-open-access-plans-respect-researchers-needs). Grants from the European Union are still to be published Open Access, and the Article Processing Charges are eligible costs within the grants. Many surgical research papers from all over the world, however, cover clinical studies that are most often not funded at all. These papers would ne