When “Open” Isn’t Open: How Paywalls and Bureaucracy Exclude Scientists from the Global South

Redacción HC
21/05/2023

Open Access (OA) publishing was envisioned as the great equalizer of science—a system where knowledge is free to read and share, no matter your institutional budget or country of origin. But what happens when the very system meant to promote equity becomes a gatekeeper? According to a powerful 2021 article by journalist Riad Mazouzi published on SciDev.Net, current OA models may be reinforcing the very inequalities they claim to dissolve.

This feature dives deep into the bureaucratic and financial barriers that researchers from the Global South face in trying to publish in open-access journals, especially under the so-called "gold OA" model where authors must pay high Article Processing Charges (APCs). As Mazouzi warns, “open access is often not open to those who need it most.”

The Illusion of Accessibility: What’s Really Blocking Southern Scientists?

The principle behind OA is simple: break down paywalls for readers by shifting the cost of publishing to authors or their institutions. But this shift creates a new exclusion mechanism. Researchers from high-income countries often have grants to cover APCs, while their peers in developing nations are left navigating a complex maze of waiver systems, opaque criteria, and financial roadblocks.

One Nigerian researcher shared, “I was told to provide documents I couldn’t access… it was easier to withdraw the paper than to apply for the waiver.” The article underscores how what seems like a simple administrative step can become an insurmountable hurdle for those lacking institutional support.

A Closer Look: The Reporting Behind the Story

Mazouzi’s investigation draws from a broad documentary review of open-access policies, interviews with researchers across Latin America and Africa, and analysis of major OA directories such as DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals). While the article does not present new statistical datasets, it effectively triangulates testimony, policy analysis, and institutional behavior to paint a troubling picture of systemic exclusion.

The story highlights several problems:

• Exemption systems are inconsistent, often requiring paperwork like institutional letters, banking documentation, or English translations.
• APCs range from $800 to $11,000, levels unaffordable for scientists whose monthly incomes often fall below $600.
• Lack of transparency in waiver procedures means decisions are rarely explained or appealable.
• Contradictions in OA philosophy, where the pay-to-publish model in practice benefits institutions with robust funding—largely based in the Global North.

Structural Inequality in a Supposedly Egalitarian System

Mazouzi’s article isn’t the first to criticize pay-to-publish OA models, but it adds urgency to the conversation by exposing the administrative burdens that disproportionately harm under-resourced researchers.

For instance, many journals advertise fee waivers, yet bury eligibility details or shift responsibility to third-party platforms. Researchers unfamiliar with these platforms or lacking English fluency often miss out.

The term “academic colonialism” comes up repeatedly in such critiques. Though OA platforms promise democratization, the current models may reinforce a knowledge economy dominated by institutions and priorities from the Global North.

Diamond Open Access: A Southern-Led Alternative?

The article highlights "diamond OA" as a more equitable path forward. This model, used by platforms like SciELO and Redalyc in Latin America, removes fees for both readers and authors. Instead, these platforms are funded by public institutions and regional cooperation.

Diamond OA not only levels the playing field financially, but also allows for greater inclusion of regional languages and localized editorial standards, breaking free from the metrics imposed by Northern publication gatekeepers.

Mazouzi argues that if implemented more broadly, diamond OA could serve as a blueprint for scientific equity—particularly in developing regions where innovation is abundant but funding is scarce.

What Needs to Change: Policy and Practice

Mazouzi’s analysis concludes with several actionable recommendations:

• Streamline waiver applications: One-click forms, automatic eligibility for authors from low-income countries, and deadline transparency could improve access.
• Increase institutional support in the Global South: Universities and science councils can help researchers navigate publication systems or cover APCs when needed.
• Prioritize alternative OA funding: Governments and philanthropic organizations should invest in diamond OA platforms as public goods.
• Hold publishers accountable: Journals claiming OA status must be evaluated not just on access to content, but on access to publish.

Conclusion: Redefining What “Open” Should Mean

Open access must go beyond free PDFs—it must ensure that every researcher, regardless of geography or resources, can contribute to global knowledge. As Mazouzi shows, current publishing systems often exclude those they were designed to empower.

The debate now is not whether OA is good in theory—it is. The question is whether we are willing to re-engineer it in practice, to serve equity rather than exacerbate existing divides.

For the future of truly inclusive science, we must move from performative openness to structural fairness.

Topics of interest

Open Access Academia