Opinion: How One Nation, One Subscription Can Spur Knowledge Revolution

In 2011, frustrated by the high cost of accessing scientific literature, Aaron Swartz, a young programmer and internet activist, downloaded millions of academic articles from JSTOR, one of the largest digital libraries for scholarly journals. Swartz’s act was a protest against a system that locks away publicly funded research behind paywalls. His tragic death in 2013 brought global attention to the inequities of academic publishing and the ethical contradictions that plague the dissemination of knowledge. Swartz’s story is emblematic of a larger systemic problem-the gatekeeping of academic research by publishers that control access to information critical for societal progress.

The issue has now escalated into legal battles in the United States, where major academic publishers like Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Taylor & Francis face antitrust lawsuits. These lawsuits, such as the one initiated by UCLA professor Lucina Uddin in September 2024, allege that these publishers have engaged in anti-competitive practices. Central to the complaint are accusations of prohibiting simultaneous manuscript submissions, a lack of compensation for peer reviewers, and “gag rules” that prevent scholars from sharing research during the peer review process. These practices, the plaintiffs argue, not only slow the dissemination of knowledge but also stifle competition, creating a monopoly over academic publishing. The numbers are staggering: Elsevier alone reported $3.8 billion in revenue in 2023, with a profit margin of 38%. Combined, the six publishers named in the lawsuit earned over $10 billion from peer-reviewed journals, a system built on the unpaid labour of academics and publicly funded research.

The heart of the issue lies in a philosophical paradox. Academic research, often funded by taxpayers, is intended to advance humanity’s collective knowledge. Yet, it is locked away behind paywalls, accessible only to those who can afford the steep subscription fees. This system is antithetical to the Enlightenment ideals of the 18th century, which championed the free flow of information and the democratization of knowledge as a public good. Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill argued that progress depends on the unfettered exchange of ideas. The current publishing model, however, treats knowledge as a commodity, reducing it to a privilege of wealthy rather than a universal right.

Open access needed for publicly funded research  

This gatekeeping has significant implications for equity and inclusion. Researchers in developing countries, small institutions, or independent scholars often lack the resources to pay for journal subscriptions, effectively excluding them from the global academic conversation. This not only limits their ability to contribute but also deprives the world of potentially ground-breaking ideas and perspectives. By monopolizing access to knowledge, these publishers perpetuate intellectual inequalities that mirror-and exacerbate-economic disparities. 

While the US lawsuits are a significant development, similar battles are unfolding globally. In Europe, initiatives like Plan S aim to make all publicly funded research openly accessible by mandating that researchers publish in open-access journals or repositories. Plan S has faced resistance from major publishers, who argue that the shift threatens their business models. Countries like China and Brazil have also taken steps to prioritize open-access platforms, recognizing the critical role of knowledge sharing in driving innovation and development.

However, these efforts face challenges. In many cases, publishers have adapted by introducing “gold open access” models, where authors or their institutions pay hefty fees to make their work freely available. This shifts the financial burden from readers to researchers, often creating new barriers for those in underfunded institutions or developing countries. Such practices highlight the deep entrenchment of profit motives within the academic publishing industry and the resistance to systemic change.

At the core of the lawsuits is the exploitation of academics through the peer review process. Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific integrity, ensuring that research meets rigorous standards before publication. Yet, this critical labour is performed without compensation, even as publishers generate billions in profits from the final product. Scholars are not only unpaid for their reviews but also often required to pay fees to publish their own work or access research essential for their fields. This creates a perverse cycle where academics subsidize a system that profits from their labour and excludes their peers.

The lawsuit against Elsevier and its counterparts challenges these practices as anti-competitive and unethical. The prohibition of simultaneous submissions, for instance, forces authors into a waiting game, slowing the pace of innovation and disadvantaging early-career researchers. Meanwhile, gag rules stifle collaboration, preventing researchers from sharing preliminary findings that could spark new ideas or applications.

The stakes in this battle are high, not only for academics but for society at large. In a world grappling with complex challenges-climate change, pandemics, inequality-the free exchange of knowledge is more critical than ever.

The outcome of these efforts will determine whether the future of knowledge sharing aligns with the ideals of equity, inclusion, and progress or continues to serve the narrow interests of a few powerful corporations. To achieve true democratization, systemic reforms are needed that go beyond open-access mandates. These might include public funding for open-access platforms, compensation for peer reviewers, and the establishment of global norms that prioritize knowledge as a public good. The fight against the monopolization of academic publishing is, at its core, a fight for the soul of education and the promise of progress for all.  But in most cases, the publishers are reluctant to accede to these demands

India has introduced a new model, which can be easily replicated across the global south. India’s One Nation One Subscription (ONOS) initiative addresses the inequities in academic publishing by providing universal access to over 13,000 international scholarly journals. The scheme was approved by the cabinet this week. With a Rs 6,000 crore allocation over three years, ONOS covers nearly 1.8 crore students, researchers, and faculty across 6,300 government-managed higher education and research institutions. Supported by the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF), the initiative ensures access to high-quality academic resources nationwide, including in Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities, removing barriers posed by financial and geographic constraints.

Unlike the gold open-access model, where authors or institutions bear publication costs, ONOS centralizes access costs at a national level. The program eliminates paywalls by negotiating directly with publishers and opens academic content to all participating institutions. This strategy challenges the existing profit-driven practices of global publishers and aligns with India’s National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which emphasizes research accessibility and inclusivity across institutional and regional divides.

ONOS shifts the focus from private control to collective access, framing knowledge as a public good. The program ensures equitable distribution of research benefits by equipping millions of researchers with the tools to innovate and collaborate. This initiative offers a replicable model for other nations, demonstrating how policy can dismantle traditional gatekeeping in academic publishing.

India’s ONOS provides a scalable framework for countries in the Global South to address the challenges of restricted access to academic resources. Many developing nations face financial and infrastructural constraints that limit their ability to participate in the global research ecosystem. By centralizing negotiations with publishers and funding access nationally, ONOS demonstrates how governments can pool resources to democratize knowledge without placing additional burdens on individual researchers or institutions.

India’s model shows that through strategic policymaking, the Global South can leverage collective bargaining power to challenge the monopolistic practices of academic publishers, making high-quality scholarly resources accessible to millions and fostering a more inclusive global research community.

(Aditya Sinha is OSD, Research, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author