The open access juggernaut and another bastion falls | The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England

"In the global euphoria for OA publication, it is easy to lose sight of the disadvantages. Imposing OA requirements on funded research risks alienating scholars and ignores the implications of the financial involvement of corporations in academic research.4 Because OA fees are not regulated, these can be very high, making self-payment difficult and effectively discouraging research participation from authors who cannot pay.5 The only other alternative for authors to publish OA requires those authors who are not funded by their universities or organisations to solicit funds from various public institutions, private corporations and even pharma, raising substantial ethical considerations. Other significant disadvantages include concerns around quality, sustainability and offering a breeding ground for predatory publishing practices. Although most of these do not apply to the Annals, a reputed and admired journal for many decades, the article-processing charges (APC) cannot be swept under the carpet. Though the Annals will waive the APC for fellows and members of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, to authors based in Hinari Group A countries, and offer a 50% waiver to authors from Hinari Group B countries, those not so affiliated must pay. This would affect a large part of the very constituency that is expected to benefit from a paywall waiver. Those researchers who are not from these groupings or who are not College members and are without recourse to institutional or public funding will find themselves disfranchised and voiceless. Sadly, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose."