Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: In the past two decades, the scientific world has waged an extraordinary campaign for openness.As paywalls fell and repositories surged, what had once been locked away could now be read by most anyone with an internet connection.If open was the goal, this must have felt like victory.But in 2026-with public trust in certain scientific domains fragile, government hearings focused on corruption of the scientific literature, and people across platforms having a harder time determining the credibility of information-open access to science has not, on its own, powered the future some had envisioned.Instead, we feel particularly strong division around certain research-related topics.People who observe new studies overturning old ones-a normal part of the scientific process-flock to social media to convey skepticism.And the system by which research goes online is big and hard to follow; even trained scientists say so.With generative AI in the mix, more papers (of variable quality) are being produced more quickly.Adding to the complexity, 47% of Americans say scientists act as though they are superior to others, which doesn't bode well for dialogue.Yet, populations with less education about science are willing to discuss science topics.Certainly not all these stressors were created by open access, but nor did open access solve them.Today, we find ourselves in a place where free studies that post faster than they are comprehensively verified risk turning well-intentioned transparency into noise.Openness for the sake of openness could find us having traded one barrier, access, for another: credibility.This could erode the very trust that public access aimed to build.At Science, we support public access, including through green open access policies we've held for over two decades.But we also care deeply about scientific integrity and community engagement.For my part, working on the Science Press Package team, I've been thinking about how people reading scientific papers-both experts and nonexperts-need more than just access to research; they need access to credibility.Especially in the US as the National Institutes of Health has accelerated public access policies, we are at a pivotal moment.After more than two decades of open access publications building, we can decide what to focus on in the next chapter of public access history.Open access is valuable, but it is insufficient on its own.Implemented without a focus on credibility signaling, it can introduce new risks.I've written about this before, but I believe what's crucial now is building channels of meaning in open scientific literature (and in all scientific literature).The moment calls for doing something different.Publishers are well positioned to respond.
Source: Science
Author: Meagan Phelan
Language: English
Subfield: Information Systems and Management
Field: Decision Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
OpenAlex ID: W7126076953
FWCI:
Cites:
Cited by:
Related to: