Open Access: In Between the Bright and the Dark Side

Abstract

The open access movement began in the 1990s, but it is only in recent years that the phenomenon has really taken hold and has become a tangible commitment for the scientific community. While open access is fundamentally intended to enhance knowledge accessibility and promote data transparency, its rapid expansion has exposed significant systemic vulnerabilities. Most notably, the emergence of so-called “predatory journals” – criticized for prioritizing publication volumes over rigorous peer review – poses a serious threat to the integrity of scientific research. As a result, many institutions have come to view them with scepticism or disregard them entirely. In this review, we aim to provide an impartial perspective on open access in scientific publishing, with particular attention to the potential drawbacks and pitfalls for the scientific community. While the benefits of open access are evident and widely acknowledged, this review specifically examines areas where it has drawn criticism. Finally, after highlighting these challenges, we explored how institutions currently support researchers – and how they could further strengthen this support – in meeting their obligations.

Keywords

Open Access - Article Processing Charges - Predatory/Dubious Journals - Peer Review

Introduction

Open access in a nutshell

Open access refers to the free and immediate online availability of research materials, such as journal articles and books, along with the right to fully use these materials in all digital environments, including social media. Open access content is freely accessible to everyone without any payment, subscription or registration (access) fees. The costs for processing and publishing are borne by the authors. In contrast, traditional journals are typically funded by subscribers, allowing authors to publish without charge. However, authors usually transfer all rights to the publisher. Nonetheless, some traditional subscription-based journals also provide free access to readers, for example, the journal Handchirurgie Mikrochirurgie Plastische Chirurgie (Thieme).

In a broader perspective, open research extends beyond publications, encompassing all research outputs, including data, code and even open peer review.

Open access: good intentions, yet not the perfect solution

Open access publishing aims to democratise knowledge by ensuring that research is easily accessible to everyone, fostering collaboration, transparency and faster scientific progress. By making every aspect of research as open and accessible as possible, its impact can be significantly amplified, helping to address some of the world’s most pressing challenges.

Nevertheless, even though open access has noble goals and clear benefits, it also presents some challenges and criticisms that can be problematic for science if not addressed carefully [1] . As with all new processes, awareness on the part of both the institutional and researchers’ sides is key.

Some of the main advantages and criticised issues of the open access publishing model are summarised in [Table 1] .

Table 1 A summarised list of the pros and cons of the open access publishing model.

Pros	Cons
Equity in knowledge Wider accessibility and inclusivity Faster dissemination of research Greater research impact and citations Collaboration and knowledge sharing Transparency and reproducibility Enhanced public engagement Educational benefits Retention of copyright and control over own article	Inequity on publishing opportunities Institutional sustainability concerns Rise of predatory/low standards journals Ambiguity regarding article processing charges Lucrative model that prioritises quantity over quality Misinformation and misinterpretation risks by non-experts Perpetuation of publishing business model

Open access: how it started

The open access movement took its first steps in 1991, when Paul Ginsparg launched the arXiv archive for physics preprints at Los Alamos, offering free access to research. From this point onward, the development of open access progressed steadily. The complete detailed history of this initiative can be found on the Open Access Network webpage [2] . The following is a brief summary – focusing on the German-speaking environment – of the key milestones that have shaped the development of open access into its current form.

In 1999, BioMed Central became the first open access publisher, and in 2003, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) [3] was introduced as a unique and comprehensive index of open access journals. From 2004 to 2015, open access infrastructure expanded significantly in Europe. Key developments included the Bielefeld Academic Search Engine in 2004, the Directory of Open Access Repositories in 2006 and pro-open access policies by the European Commission and Research Council in 2007. In 2008, the Open Access Pilot and OpenAIRE and, in 2009, the Confederation of Open Access Repositories further supported open access.

Funding bodies like the Austrian Science Fund and the Swiss National Science Foundation mandated open access for publicly funded research. Between 2010 and 2015, growth continued with the EU-funded OAPEN platform and the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) launching a program to support university open access publication funds [4] . This marked a pivotal moment in the transition to open access models. By 2014, several German regions, including the federal states of Schleswig-Holstein and Baden-Württemberg, introduced strategies to promote open access, and Germany amended its Copyright Act to allow authors to self-archive manuscripts after 12 months, provided the research was publicly funded. In the same year, Austria negotiated one of the first national open access agreements with IOP Publishing, and the e-Infrastructures Austria project was initiated to improve repository infrastructure. By 2015, institutions like the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft and the Berlin Senate had also adopted formal open access strategies.

In the past 10 years, open access has gained significant momentum. The German Ministry of Education and Research ( Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF ) published a comprehensive open access strategy, and both the Helmholtz and Leibniz Associations adopted open access policies, emphasising the importance of open access in scholarly transparency. In 2017, Hamburg developed the Hamburg Open Science strategy, and Austria launched the Austrian Transition to Open Access project, supporting the shift to open access.

The open access movement has evolved from isolated initiatives into a global force, reshaping how research is published, shared and accessed. Over the decades, growing institutional support, policy agreements and systematic infrastructure development have accelerated its progress.

Open access: the road ahead

The past few years have seen substantial institutional and national efforts to support the transition to open access publishing, with both strategic goals and funding measures advancing the movement [2.]

In 2019, Germany’s Project DEAL reached the historic ‘publish and read’ agreements [5] with major publishers, like Wiley, Springer Nature and Elsevier, allowing participating institutions to access journals and offering open access publishing at no additional cost. Of note, Thieme, the publisher of Handchirurgie Mikrochirurgie Plastische Chirurgie , is not included in this agreement. By 2020, the DFG had provided targeted funding for open access publication costs, thereby supporting the expansion of open access infrastructures. In the early 2020s, Germany launched 20 open access projects to accelerate the shift to open access publishing, backed by the major political parties in the newly established federal coalition government [] .

Fig. 1 Overview of the ownership distribution of Directory of Open Access Journals- (DOAJ) indexed open access journals in the medical field. ( A ) Pie chart illustrating the proportional geographic distribution of journal ownership (%) by continent. The number of journals per continent is indicated in parentheses (total journals: 4722). ( B ) Table listing the top three contributing countries within each continent, with the corresponding journal counts provided in parentheses. ( C ) Ranked list of the top ten global publishers specializing in medical open access journals. Data were extracted from the DOAJ database [3] as of 17 June 2025.

In these years, the newly formed cOAlition S [6] , an international consortium of research funders promoting immediate open access to scientific publications through the Plan S initiative, introduced a Rights Retention Strategy, enabling researchers to apply a CC BY licence to their work. In 2022, the Arbeitskreis Forum 13+was established to coordinate negotiations between German institutions and small publishers for transformative agreements. In Germany, several bodies addressed open access transformation: the BMBF issued funding guidelines, the German Science and Humanities Council recommended the implementation of Gold Open Access and the DFG advocated new quality control systems. Meanwhile, Austria adopted a national Open Science Policy. In 2023, Project DEAL continued negotiations for transformative agreements with Springer Nature and Wiley for 2024–2028. The BMBF and the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs released joint guidelines supporting open access as the standard for publicly funded research [7] . The year 2023 also saw the launch of 24 BMBF-funded open access projects. In the past few years, the federal states of Lower Saxony and Brandenburg developed their own open access strategies, supporting higher education institutions in promoting openness in science.

In summary, the open access movement has made remarkable progress, with key initiatives and funding measures collectively accelerating the transition to open access. A clear overview of the open access phenomenon in Germany can be visualised using statistics gathered by Scopus (Elsevier group) and the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) /flourish studio tool, demonstrating that over the last decade, the proportion of subscription-only publications has decreased by half, while Gold Open Access has risen by 46%, now accounting for more than half of all publications [8] . This trend clearly indicates that the open access movement is becoming firmly established.

Open access is more than a trend: It is an effort, a commitment and a requirement

In a review on the impact of open access from 2011, it was concluded that researchers in the sciences primarily consider a journal’s reputation and the absence of publication fees when submitting their work. More specifically, authors of scientific publications tend to prioritise accessibility to a specialised readership over broad, unrelated dissemination of their findings [9] . However, times have changed. In recent years, open access has gained traction not only as a preferred publishing model but as a critical part of the scientific infrastructure, driven by a broad consensus across institutions, researchers, funding bodies and governments worldwide. The true potential of open access became particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the global use of open access preprint servers rapidly increased, enabling the accelerated sharing of coronavirus research. MedRxiv, a platform launched in 2019, experienced a marked surge in preprints, especially in COVID-19-related studies [10]

Nowadays, many funding agencies require that research funded by public grants be published in open access journals, making open access increasingly necessary for academic authors. In the German research community, the Max Plank Society – one of the founders of the international open access movement – as well as the DFG expect recipients of DFG grants to make their project results openly accessible, thereby promoting adequate and equitable scholarly communication. The Helmholtz Centre, a reference institution in both the German and international scientific landscape, made a strong commitment to achieving full open access publication starting with the 2025 publishing year [11] . Similarly, Austria set a goal of achieving 100% open access for publications by 2025, while Switzerland had originally established a national goal for open access by 2024, which has since been postponed to 2032). The United States also garnered significant attention with its 2022 directive stating that, by 2026, all research funded by federal agencies must be made freely and immediately accessible to the public, without any embargo [12] . Similarly, the Japanese government mandated that all nationally funded research be published in open access journals by 2025 [13] . However, as the deadline approaches, a recent survey indicates that researchers are not adequately prepared for this transition [14] . In China, the world’s largest producer of scientific knowledge, the situation on open access publishing is liberal but still marked by hesitation [15] . Given China’s significant role in the global shift to open access, Springer Nature conducted a survey to examine changing attitudes within the Chinese research community. In recent years, the country has experienced substantial growth in open access publications. This upward trend in publishing corresponds closely with the level of awareness about open access among the Chinese researchers surveyed [16] . These findings demonstrate that greater awareness about open access publishing is essential. Increasing awareness can help researchers make informed decisions about where to publish, understand different open access models and recognise the benefits of wider research dissemination. It can also address misconceptions about costs, journal quality and copyright issues.

An analysis of the global distribution of open access journals in the field of medicine reveals a clear dominance of Europe, followed by Asia and the Americas, whereas Africa and Oceania contribute only marginally. The United Kingdom stands out as the single most prolific country, hosting 977 journals, surpassing not only other continents but also its European counterparts by a wide margin. Notably, Elsevier and Wiley – two publishers traditionally associated with subscription-based models – rank among the top three global open access publishers in the medical field. BioMed Central, recognised as the first dedicated open access publisher, holds third position ( [Fig. 1] ). In contrast, other well-established publishing houses such as Nature Portfolio and Springer are ranked considerably lower, occupying positions 21 and 25, respectively. Further down the list, beyond rank 30, additional influential names appear, such as PLOS and the various Thieme Medical and Scientific publishing entities. Sharing knowledge openly is essential for addressing global challenges, advancing scientific progress and fostering a more inclusive and transparent research community. Increasingly, institutions, researchers and policymakers are recognising this requirement to ensure that the benefits of scientific research reach the broadest possible audience and generate a lasting impact on society.

Concerns and controversies regarding open access

Equity of knowledge at the expense of inequities in publishing access

One of the key challenges of open access lies in the shift of financial responsibility from readers to researchers. When implemented without adequate support, oversight or equity, this model risks disadvantaging less wealthy institutions or countries by limiting publishing opportunities to those able to afford the fees, thereby potentially creating new inequalities.

From a wider perspective, the open access system risks becoming financially unsustainable also for wealthy countries, as publication costs increasingly constitute a substantial component of research expenditures. Institutions spend considerable sums on article processing charges (APCs) or enter into costly ‘transformative agreements’ with publishers (such as Project DEAL). In this context, concerns have been raised that open access may not reduce overall publishing costs; instead, it could simply shift the financial burden while failing to tackle the underlying systemic problems in the academic publishing industry.

The challenge lies in striking a balance between ensuring broad access to knowledge and maintaining publishing practices that are ethical, sustainable and fair. However, as the popularity of open access journals has grown, predatory publishers have increasingly exploited this model for profit, giving rise to a new set of complications that will be discussed in the following chapters.

The rise of predatory/dubious journals and its consequences

The open access wave has, unfortunately, been accompanied by the emergence of ‘predatory’ publishers. The rise of predatory journals is a significant challenge to the open access movement, as it undermines the trustworthiness of the open access mission and the credibility of science. Predatory journals often lack transparency and fail to adhere to established academic standards. It can be argued that open access publishing has inadvertently lowered the barrier for launching a journal. The rapid and often unchecked proliferation of open access journals is exemplified by the fact that, out of 62,701 active open access journals listed in the ROAD (Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources) database, only a small fraction of these journals are indexed by major citation databases: approximately 9.8% in Web of Science and 11.7% in Scopus. This underscores the selective and limited coverage of these gold-standard indexing platforms in relation to the vast and growing landscape of open access publishing [17] . Non-reputable publishers exploit the open access model by charging authors substantial fees for publication without providing legitimate editorial and peer review services. One of the most leveraged tricks used by predatory journals is the release of special issues filled with numerous articles on a specific topic. Contributors tend to cite each other’s work, artificially boosting the journal’s citation rate and impact factor. Simultaneously, the high volume of articles increases the likelihood of citations, further enhancing the journal’s perceived influence. To sustain high publication volumes, these journals often bypass rigorous peer review, enabling rapid publication and attracting authors seeking swift dissemination of their work.

In the current ‘publish or perish’ academic climate, researchers under pressure to publish may be drawn to predatory journals. As contributions to reputable, peer-reviewed journals constitute the currency of science, publishing in a predatory journal can jeopardise a researcher’s reputation. Such journals lack legitimacy within the scholarly community, and their content is often disregarded by peers and funding agencies. Consequently, association with predatory publishing can negatively impact a researcher’s academic record, thereby particularly harming early-career researchers trying to establish themselves and gain recognition in their community.

Addressing the impact of predatory journals on academic integrity and publishing: ongoing battle or mere discussion?

There is no doubt that the absence of rigorous peer review and editorial oversight in predatory journals contributes to the dissemination of low-quality, unverified research, thereby weakening the integrity and reliability of the academic record. This may also be the reason why, at least unofficially, funding agencies and academic institutions still prioritise publications in high-impact, reputable journals for tenure and promotion decisions. Yet, at the moment, the majority of institutions and funding agencies remain vague and do not yet take a clear position on specific predatory journals. German universities, like many institutions around the world, have policies that discourage publication in predatory and dubious journals, but they do not typically maintain an official list or point the finger to specific ones. In other words, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring a rigorous quality review of a journal rests with the authors. Nevertheless, some universities have recently published articles and editorials that strongly caution against specific questionable publishers, including journals from the MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute) publisher group [18] [19] [20] . The primary criticism from these universities focused on the removal of certain MDPI journals from databases such as DOAJ and Clarivate due to their failure to meet established ‘best practices’. This has placed MDPI under critical observation. As a result of this downgrading, some universities, such as Hanover and Bremen [18] [19] , have reduced their financial support for these journals [18] [19] , while others, like Berlin Charité, have raised concerns about the potential impact on performance-based funding [20] . The eventuality of disregarding open access publications from questionable journals when evaluating the quality of researchers or institutions for performance-oriented allocation of funds ( Leistungsorientierte Mittelvergabe – LOM ) would put both scientists and institutions at significant risk when publishing their findings in such dubious journals.

In conclusion, despite the awareness of low-quality journals and their consequences on the academic landscape, a clear and unified response from institutions and funding bodies to formally address them is still lacking.

How can we protect ourselves from predatory journals?

Recognising predatory journals is essential to avoid deceptive publishing practices. The Think. Check. Submit. [21] Campaign highlights several red flags that may indicate a journal is potentially dubious. These include charging high APCs without transparency regarding what the fees cover, sending unsolicited emails to invite authors to submit articles or join editorial boards and claiming to offer peer review without a proper system in place. Other warning signs are the presence of fake editorial boards, where editors are not recognised experts or may not even exist, and misleading journal metrics such as inflated impact factors or fabricated rankings [21.]

Predatory publishing is a model that may be legal but is widely considered unethical. Jeffrey Beall, a US librarian, originally compiled and published a list of such publishers [22] but was pressured to remove it from the web due to legal threats from some of the publishers he had named [23] . Sad but true, the individual who has since taken on the task of updating this list has to do it anonymously.

Today, the most useful and recognised tool against the predatory trap is the DOAJ [3] . DOAJ is a comprehensive online database that indexes and provides access to high-quality, peer-reviewed open access journals from various disciplines. The DOAJ ensures that only high-quality, reputable journals are listed by requiring them to adhere to ethical publishing practices and transparent editorial policies. It offers a searchable database, allowing researchers to find journals by various criteria, and promotes open access by providing easy global access to scholarly work. Journals must pass a rigorous review process to be included, ensuring they meet peer review standards, follow open access principles and maintain academic quality.

How are institutions and nations helping researchers to make open access accessible?

In this context, funding mechanisms, policy mandates, transformative agreements and open access platforms collectively reduce financial and structural barriers to open access publishing. National and institutional funding programs play a critical role by covering APCs, thereby alleviating researchers’ financial burdens. Repositories like PubMed Central and OpenAIRE enhance accessibility by providing free public access to research outputs. Policy mandates require publicly funded research to be open access, aligning incentives and encouraging adoption. Transformative agreements enable institutions to combine subscription and publishing fees, facilitating open access without additional costs and particularly benefiting high-output institutions with limited APC funds. Additionally, institutions provide training and support services to help researchers navigate open access publishing, ensuring compliance and informed decision-making.

Finally, global collaborations, like the Plan S initiative [6] , are promoting the widespread adoption of open access practices. These efforts aim to make open access the standard for publishing publicly funded research, encouraging a global shift towards freely accessible research, regardless of geographic or institutional barriers.

Nevertheless, despite all efforts, a significant issue remains: the underlying business model of the scientific journal industry. After all the time, effort and expenses invested into developing a scientific idea and conducting a study, researchers write papers without any financial compensation, which will be reviewed by peers who, similarly, are not paid for their reviewing service. Open access merely shifts the financial burden from readers to authors through APC, while simultaneously allowing publishers’ lucrative business models to persist in academic publishing. To truly reform the publishing system, it would be more appropriate for institutions and nations to go beyond simply helping researchers cover these costs. They should also take a more active role in challenging and dismantling the profit-driven model of academic publishing. This could involve pushing for fairer publishing practices, advocating for greater transparency in pricing and supporting alternative publishing models that prioritise accessibility and equity over profit. Only through such systemic changes can open access genuinely fulfil its potential to make knowledge freely accessible to all, without reinforcing the commercial interests that have long dominated the scholarly publishing industry.

Open access in the field of plastic surgery

As is readily apparent, the open access model has also impacted the field of plastic surgery. However, plastic surgery has generally been a late adopter of open access publishing, compared to some other medical and scientific fields. This delayed adoption of open access publishing can be attributed to several factors, the primary factor being the field’s strong clinical and technical focus, which prioritises practical experience and established professional forums over open research dissemination. Also, limited early awareness and a lack of training on the benefits and policies of open access publishing, as well as a conservative academic culture favouring traditional publishing models, may have contributed to the slower acceptance of open access. Furthermore, as in many other disciplines, the dominance of prestigious subscription-based journals and concerns regarding the quality and reputation of newer open access journals have made some surgeons cautious and further impeded the transition. Last but not least, the financial barrier caused by APCs could have been a significant obstacle, especially for surgeons without dedicated research funding or institutional support. Nevertheless, the growing recognition of open access benefits, such as wider dissemination and increased visibility, together with institutional mandates and the rise of reputable open access journals in the field, has gradually paved the way to the shift towards open access also in plastic surgery. This led many topic-dedicated journals to transition to fully open access formats or to adopt hybrid publishing models. Between 2010 and 2020, the proportion of open access journals in the field of plastic surgery increased from 3% to 55%. Concurrently, exclusively subscription-based journals completely disappeared, coinciding with a marked rise in hybrid journals, which grew from 3% in 2010 to 45% in 2020 [24] . Another emerging publishing model that is increasingly gaining traction involves the establishment of so-called sister journals, which function as affiliated outlets to well-established flagship journals. Handchirurgie Mikrochirurgie Plastische Chirurgie does not currently offer this option, but among others, journals such as Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery (PRS Global Open), Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery (JPRAS Open) and Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery (Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery Global Open) are providing companion journals. In Germany, an open access journal specialising in plastic surgery, the GMS German Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery – Burn and Hand Surgery, was founded; however, it did not become widely established [25] and was eventually discontinued in 2020. Of particular note for our community, in 2024, BioMed Central announced the launch of BMC Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, an inclusive, broad-scope open access journal dedicated to the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery. In [Table 2] , we present a summary of the top ten journals in the field of plastic surgery and their transition towards the open access model. As evident, this shift occurred gradually, only after the 2010s.

Table 2 A summarised list of the top ten journals in plastic surgery and their respective transitions towards open access policies.

Top 10 journals in plastic surgery (publisher)	Introduction of open access option and/or companion journal	Year
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery ( PRS ) (Wolters Kluwer)	Hybrid option	2014
	PRS Global Open	2013
Aesthetic Surgery Journal ( ASJ ) (Oxford University Press)	Hybrid option	2014
	ASJ Open Forum	2019
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery ( JPRAS ) (Elsevier)	Hybrid option	2014
	JPRAS Open	2014
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (Springer)	Hybrid option	2014
Clinics in Plastic Surgery (Elsevier)	None	NA
Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery (Thieme)	Hybrid option	2016
	JRM Open	2016
Microsurgery (Wolters Kluwer)	Hybrid option	2021
Ophthalmic, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Wolters Kluwer)	None	NA
Seminars in Plastic Surgery (Thieme)	Hybrid option	2014
Annals of Plastic Surgery	Hybrid option	2017

Regrettably, the field of plastic surgery has not been immune to the challenges posed by predatory publishing. As reported by Yesantharao et al., an estimated 20% of open access journals in plastic surgery have been classified as predatory, which raises concerns about the quality and integrity of published research within the discipline [24] . An interesting comparative study by McGuire et al. [26] examining methodological quality of plastic surgery literature between traditional journals and their corresponding ‘sister’ open access journals effectively highlights this issue. According to this study, articles published in traditional journals exhibited significantly higher methodological quality compared to those published in the open access companion. It is a common, though likely inaccurate, perception that sister journals, by offering faster publication and open access, are considered lower-tier outlets for rejected manuscripts, despite maintaining rigorous peer review and contributing valuable research.

Nevertheless, over the past decade, there has been a gradual increase in the impact factors of plastic surgery journals, reflecting the growing academic relevance of the specialty within the scientific community and contributing to the enhanced reputation of the field [27.]

In summary, it is clear that no medical specialty is immune to the quality concern; hence, it is crucial to critically evaluate every publication we read and to carefully assess each journal prior to submission.

Conclusions

Navigating the bright and dark sides

It is evident that open access is no longer just a simple concept or a passing trend but a committed movement that will reshape the publishing landscape. Originally intended to enhance accessibility and transparency in academic research, open access has, unfortunately, also brought certain challenges.

Foremost among these concerns is the proliferation of predatory journals, which may, in the future, pose a threat to researchers and institutions by excluding publications in such journals from consideration during academic evaluations. Although the immediate effects of predatory journals are most strongly felt on individual researchers’ reputation, they could also jeopardise the integrity of the entire academic publishing environment in the long term. Nevertheless, we must carefully evaluate the misleading association between open access and predatory journals, and we should avoid discrediting an entire movement because of a few bad actors.

Another significant challenge of open access is the associated publishing cost. Indeed, although the initial idea was to increase accessibility, this has not been fully realised. Open access is increasingly becoming a financial burden for researchers, while continuing to generate profit for publishing companies, as previous models have done. In this context, university costs are steadily rising due to the need to cover both subscription fees for traditional journals and publication fees for open access journals. To address this, institutions as well as national and international organisations should find a clear strategy to support researchers in publishing open access, while limiting the influence of publishing companies.

While this review aims to provide a balanced and comprehensive overview of the open access movement and its challenges, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the scope of the review was biased to the medical field and the German environment; hence, the study may not comprehensively reflect the whole picture across diverse academic disciplines and geographic regions, where open access adoption and related issues could vary significantly. Additionally, the analysis of institutional support reflects a general perspective and may not account for the wide disparities in resources and policies across different institutions, especially between well-funded and smaller or less-resourced universities. Furthermore, the reliance on previously published literature and reports may introduce inherent biases, as these sources often differentially emphasise either the advantages or limitations of open access. Moreover, the definition and criteria used to identify predatory journals are still debated, adding additional subjectivity to the analysis.

Finally, compared to our perspective in 2014 [25] , open access is no longer a new concept, but it still presents some controversial issues. Therefore, it is essential to closely monitor its development to ensure that open access remains as truly open as possible.

Authors

After completing my studies in Molecular Biology at the University of Padova (Italy), I joined the Ludwig Maximilians University (LMU) in Munich, focusing on the musculoskeletal system. My research focused on the developmental, physiological and pathological aspects of tendons and cartilage, with an emphasis on extracellular matrix biology and transmembrane proteins. Since 2024, I have been the Scientific Coordinator of the Research Laboratory at the Division of Hand, Plastic, and Aesthetic Surgery at LMU Munich (Head: Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. Riccardo Giunta), where I am expanding my research interests into plastic surgery, metabolic and regenerative medicine.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

• Literatur

• 1 Frank J, Foster R, Pagliari C. Open access publishing – noble intention, flawed reality. Soc Sci Med 2023; 317: 115592
• 2 Open Access Network. History of the Open Access Movement (2025). Online: https://open-access.network/en/information/open-access-primers/history-of-the-open-access-movement Zugriff am: 18.06.2025
• 3 Directory of Open Access Journals. DOAJ – Directory of Open Access Journals (2025). Online: https://doaj.org/ Zugriff am: 18.06.2025
• 4 Fournier J, Weihberg R. Das Förderprogramm «Open Access Publizieren» der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. Zum Aufbau von Publikationsfonds an wissenschaftlichen Hochschulen in Deutschland. Zeitschrift fur Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie 2013; 60: 236-243
• 5 DEAL Consortium. Agreements (2025). Online: https://deal-konsortium.de/en/agreements Zugriff am: 18.06.2025
• 6 cOAlition S. Über uns (2025). Online: https://www.coalition-s.org/about/ Zugriff am: 18.06.2025
• 7 Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF). Open Access in Deutschland – Gemeinsame Leitlinien von Bund und Ländern (Juni 2023). Online: https://www.bmbf.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/DE/1/772960_Open_Access_in_Deutschland Zugriff am: 19.06.2025
• 8 Derges L. The top 30 countries/regions by chosen access type, share of publications (August 2023). In International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) – Flourish Studio; The STM Open Access Dashboard. Online: https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/14595929/ Zugriff am: 16.06.2025
• 9 Davis PM, Walters WH. The impact of free access to the scientific literature: a review of recent research. J Med Libr Assoc 2011; 99: 208-217
• 10 Fraser N, Brierley L, Dey G. et al. The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. PLoS Biol 2021; 19: e3000959
• 11 Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher Forschungszentren e.V. Helmholtz Open Science Policy (September 2022). Online: https://os.helmholtz.de/open-science-in-helmholtz/open-science-policy/ Zugriff am: 18.06.2025
• 12 Brainard J, Kaiser J. U.S. to require free access to papers on all research it funds. Science 2022; 377: 1026-1027
• 13 Singh Chawla D. Japan’s push to make all research open access is taking shape. Nature 2024;
• 14 Packer H. More awareness of open access needed as Japan deadline looms. Times Higher Education. (Mai 2024). Online: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/more-awareness-open-access-needed-japan-deadline-looms Zugriff am: 13.06.2025
• 15 Zhang Y, Ouyang L. Free but Hesitant: Understanding the Complexity of Open Access Journal Publishing in China. Serials Review 2025; 1-8
• 16 Wang C, Campbell N. Why China is critical to the growth of open access. (April 2023). Springer Nature. Online: https://www.springernature.com/de/advancing-discovery/springboard/blog/blogposts-open-research/why-china-is-critical-to-the-growth-of-open-access/25293782 Zugriff am: 18.06.2024
• 17 Maddi A, Maisonobe M, Boukacem-Zeghmouri C. Geographical and disciplinary coverage of open access journals: OpenAlex, Scopus, and WoS. PLoS One 2025; 20: e0320347
• 18 Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB). Publikationsfonds Leibniz Universität. (2023) Online: https://www.tib.eu/de/publizieren-archivieren/open-access-finanzieren/publikationsfonds-leibniz-universitaet Zugriff am: 18.06.2025
• 19 Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Bremen. Unter kritischer Beobachtung: Open-Access-Publikationen im MDPI Verlag (Dezember 2023). Online: https://m.suub.uni-bremen.de/ueber-uns/neues-aus-der-suub/unter-kritischer-beobachtung-open-access-publikationen-im-mdpi-verlag/ Zugriff am: 18.06.2025
• 20 Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Exclusion of Journals from Web of Science causes a Stir (April 2023). Online: https://bibliothek.charite.de/en/metas/news/artikel/detail/exclusion_of_journals_from_web_of_science_causes_a_stir/ Zugriff am: 18.06.2025
• 21 Think. Check. Submit. Think. Check. Submit. Online: https://thinkchecksubmit.org/ Zugriff am: 18.06.2025
• 22 Beall J. Beall’s List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers. (2025) Online: https://beallslist.net/ Zugriff am: 23.06.2025
• 23 Silver A. Controversial website that lists ‘predatory’ publishers shuts down. Nature 2017;
• 24 Yesantharao PS, Long C, Sacks JM. et al. The Price of Publishing: An Investigation of the Open Access Landscape in Plastic Surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; 149: 1249-1260
• 25 Giunta RE. [Open Access vs. HaMiPla]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2014; 46: 71-72
• 26 McGuire C, Boudreau C, Burbidge E. et al. Methodological Quality of Open Access Compared to Traditional Journal Publications in the Plastic Surgery Literature. Aesth Plast Surg 2023; 47: 2853-2861
• 27 Moellhoff N, Kuhlmann C, Giunta RE. A 10-year analysis of citations and impact factors in plastic surgery journals. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2024; 88: 475-477

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 24. Juni 2025

Angenommen: 10. Juli 2025

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
05. August 2025