Open-access publishing was supposed to make knowledge available to everyone. But a new UC Berkeley study suggests that some of the scholars whose research could most benefit public conversations about race, gender and inequality are less likely to share their work through open-access channels.
The new study, which was published in Gender & Society, is titled “Sharing Knowledge Openly: Author Gender, Race/Ethnicity, & Feminist Science,” and was led by UC Berkeley Sociologist Jeffrey Lockhart and Santa Clara University Sociologist Molly King. They found that women, scholars of color and researchers publishing in feminist fields are significantly less likely to participate in a form of free online publishing known as green open access.
Open-access publishing is designed to remove paywalls and make research available to anyone. But concerns about harassment, misuse of research and unequal professional risks can influence who chooses to participate in open-access spaces such as SocArXiv.
Their findings raise concerns about whose ideas become most visible to policymakers, journalists, educators and members of the public, who increasingly rely on freely available research.
“Publishing openly can expose scholars to harassment — especially those working on sensitive topics like race, gender or violence,” Lockhart said, noting that some researchers have even changed their work after extremists misused their findings.
King said the study challenged her own assumptions about open research.
“I went into this project as a strong advocate for ‘open science is always the right answer,’” she said. “But learning more about the feminist ethics of open science and the reasons scholars might choose not to share their research openly shifted my perspective. They may choose less open outlets to protect research participants or because they have experienced harassment online. These are not just hypotheticals. These situations really happen.”
The researchers say the consequences extend beyond academia. When some groups of scholars are less likely to share their work publicly, the public may only have access to a narrower range of research and perspectives.
“If the type of scholarship that is done by women, scholars of color and folks who are publishing in feminist journals is getting shared open access less often, then it's less possible to read that kind of research,” King said. “And if the type of research that's done is different based on our identities, then we care that the research is equally available so that all voices are heard in the marketplace of ideas, and those ideas are equally available to people making decisions.”
At the same time, scholars who choose to not publish using open access still find other ways to share their findings with the communities they study, Lockhart said.
“There is a strong tradition of community-engaged scholarship,” he said. “Many scholars don't just leave after we collect data.”
Lockhart said researchers often work closely with participants and community organizations throughout the research process, sharing insights and presenting findings along the way. Many also maintain long-term partnerships with organizations such as health clinics and city governments to discuss how the research can address local needs.
“These are opportunities to address the practical needs and curiosities of the communities they study,” he said.
Lockhart added that the issue is not simply about access to research, but also about differences in the risks scholars face when making their work public.
While some researchers worry about having their ideas copied, others are more concerned about personal attacks, misrepresentation of their work or harm to the communities they study.
“We have to realize not everyone has the same ability or safety to share their work openly,” he said. “Citation justice should be part of graduate education.”
Universities and publishers should explore models that make open access more equitable and less dependent on individual researchers paying publication fees, King noted.
“That approach is fine if you have the research funds to do so, which, as you might imagine, some scholars are more likely to have than others, especially in our current grant landscape, where scholars of color are much less likely to get grants,” King said.
The study drew on self-reported demographic information from more than 19,000 scholars and examined how identity shapes participation in open-access publishing.
Both researchers hope the findings encourage a broader conversation about inclusion, access and whose knowledge reaches the public.
“On the academic side, I hope this changes some of the peer pressure to always post one's findings in an open-access way until we create an atmosphere where it's hospitable to do that,” King said. "On the other end, it's about creating an infrastructure where anyone who wants to can share their research openly in a way that feels legitimate. Most of us don't want to keep our work within academic circles. We want to share our knowledge with the world."
Lockhart added: “We need to make room for different ways of knowing and different levels of risk. The future of sociology, and science generally, depends on it.”
