Open Access ≠ Article/Book Processing Charges (A/BPCs). Corporate publishers like Elsevier have been strong proponents of these revenue protecting mechanisms. However, the majority of OA publications forego these fees which often lack transparency, reinforce the commodification of research, and exacerbate inequities by amplifying research from wealthy institutions and countries. Scholar communities such as libraries and university presses also continue to explore academy-owned alternatives to finance high-quality research.
Open Access ≠ Predatory (or less reputable) publishing. The shift from print to digital challenges the traditional gatekeeping function of scholarly publishers. As a result, non-Western scholar communities, experimental and emerging forms of scholarship are the most likely to carry the "predatory" label. Meanwhile traditional, corporate gatekeepers that reap obscene profit margins carry no such risk.
Open Access ≠ Library cost-savings. Free to access does not mean that high quality scholarship is free to produce. As a result, libraries must steward our budgets to support open access publishing in ways that center scholars, are equitable and sustainable, and that support bibliodiversity. Bibliodiversity supports a diversity of actors in scholarly publishing and recognizes that "knowledge practices and institutions may be structured and enacted in ways that simultaneously privilege certain epistemic values, while being unjust or dismissive toward particular knowers or ways of knowing."
