Q&A: Advancing equity in scholarly communication

Published in Science and Technology on Sunday, August 24th 2025 at 18:39 GMT by Phys.org
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Phys.org – 24 July 2025
Advancing equity in scholarly communication: a Q&A with Dr J. M. Patel, Professor of Information Science at the University of Auckland

In a rapidly evolving research ecosystem, the question of equity in scholarly communication has moved from a moral imperative to a practical necessity. Phys.org’s July 2025 feature takes readers inside a recent interview with Dr J. M. Patel, an information science pioneer whose career spans the rise of open‑access journals, the growth of institutional repositories, and the push for truly inclusive research practices. The conversation – which follows a Q&A format – illuminates the most pressing challenges researchers face today, the institutional reforms that are already underway, and the road ahead for a more equitable publishing landscape.

The stakes: why equity matters

When Dr Patel opened the interview, she emphasized that the “equity gap” in scholarly communication is not a matter of economics alone. It is also a question of who gets to speak and who is heard. “If a scientist in Nairobi cannot read the latest findings from a European university, or if a first‑year PhD student cannot afford the page‑charges of an impact‑factor journal, then the knowledge economy is no longer global; it is gated,” she said. Dr Patel pointed out that disparities are especially stark for researchers in low‑ and middle‑income countries, women, and scholars whose native language is not English.

The interview refers to several key data points. According to the World Bank’s Open Knowledge Repository, roughly 30 % of the world’s scholarly literature is behind paywalls, with the majority of these subscriptions residing in high‑income countries. Meanwhile, a 2024 survey by the International Association of Universities found that 45 % of early‑career researchers in developing nations reported “frequent barriers to publication” due to costs and limited access to high‑impact journals. These numbers are echoed in the Phys.org article’s citation of a Nature editorial on the “equity crisis” in publishing.

Funding for open access: the “double‑pay” dilemma

One of the interview’s most striking moments was the discussion of open‑access fees, often called article‑processing charges (APCs). “The model is a double‑pay system,” Dr Patel explained. “Researchers pay to publish, while institutions or libraries pay to read. It’s a circular trap that disproportionately hurts those who are already underfunded.” She cites the Open Access Button as a tool that helps locate free copies of paywalled articles, but notes that the button is far from a panacea; it often yields incomplete or outdated PDFs.

Dr Patel calls for “institutional funding pools” that would cover APCs on behalf of researchers, especially those from under‑represented backgrounds. She also highlighted the growing trend of “diamond open access,” where journals provide free publication and reading services with no fees at all. The Public Library of Science (PLOS) and Frontiers are cited as leading examples, and the Phys.org piece links directly to PLOS’s sustainability model, which relies on author services and institutional memberships.

Language barriers and metadata equity

The interview also tackled the issue of language. Dr Patel noted that about 90 % of scholarly articles are written in English, a figure that marginalizes non‑English speakers and reduces the visibility of research conducted in other languages. She references a 2023 report from The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) that recommends multilingual metadata and abstracts to broaden discoverability. The Phys.org article links to IFLA’s “Metadata for All” initiative, which urges journals to include translation metadata fields.

Moreover, Dr Patel discussed how AI‑driven translation tools could level the playing field. “We can now get high‑quality machine translations in minutes,” she says, pointing to the European Union’s Horizon Europe project that pilots AI translations for research papers. However, she cautions that automated tools must be vetted for cultural nuances and domain‑specific terminology before full deployment.

Open peer review and algorithmic bias

An area that surprised many readers was Dr Patel’s critique of the peer‑review process itself. She argues that “traditional blind review models still embed biases,” particularly against female and non‑Western authors. The interview cites a 2024 study by the University of British Columbia that found gendered citations were 17 % higher for male authors in the same field. Dr Patel supports “open peer review” as a potential antidote, where reviewer identities and comments are publicly available. The Phys.org article links to F1000Research, a platform that exemplifies this model.

In addition, Dr Patel addresses algorithmic bias in recommendation systems used by major publishers. “If the recommendation algorithm is trained on a dataset that is predominantly Western, the system will inadvertently keep the same group in the spotlight,” she explains. She urges publishers to diversify the training data and to include transparency reports that disclose the demographic distribution of recommended authors.

Institutional initiatives: a blueprint for change

The interview concludes with a look at concrete initiatives that are already in motion. Dr Patel describes the Equity in Science Initiative launched by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which includes a grant program for early‑career scholars from low‑resource settings. She also highlights the University of Auckland’s Open Access Policy, which provides a 12‑month embargo period for all institutional research, followed by free availability on the university repository.

Another key example is the Global Science Hub project, a collaboration between the UNESCO Institute for Statistics and several open‑access publishers that aims to create a global database of research outputs, with a focus on low‑and‑middle‑income regions. The Phys.org piece links to the Hub’s data portal, where users can explore trends in publication rates, citation gaps, and funding disparities.

Take‑away: a call to action

Dr Patel’s final remarks resonate with urgency: “Equity is not a side project; it is a prerequisite for robust, global science.” She urges funders to adopt “equity‑centric evaluation metrics,” journals to offer “fee‑waivers” to researchers from disadvantaged regions, and libraries to expand institutional repository services. The interview concludes by citing the Phys.org article’s own editorial, which stresses that a truly equitable scholarly ecosystem will only be possible if every stakeholder—researchers, institutions, publishers, and funders—accepts a shared responsibility.

In sum, the Phys.org Q&A with Dr J. M. Patel paints a vivid portrait of an academic landscape in flux. The challenges are clear, but so are the pathways forward: transparent funding models, multilingual metadata, open peer review, and institutional reforms that collectively promise a future where the exchange of knowledge is as inclusive as it is innovative.

Read the Full Phys.org Article at:
[ https://phys.org/news/2025-07-qa-advancing-equity-scholarly-communication.html ]

N※N