Even as tsunami of misinformation swamp digital information channels, much of the world’s trustable information is inaccessible to most people behind journal paywalls.

Most academic research is funded by the public purse, yet access is controlled by publishers. Researchers and universities are incentivised to optimise their positions in bibliometrics-driven rankings by publishing in prestigious journals. Yet not all universities can afford a Rolls-Royce suite of subscriptions, and even where they do subscribe, researchers pay additional fees to have their work published open access.

This is why successive Australian governments have asked me to consider open access to research literature for the national benefit. The broader topic of open science is important, but open access is the first step towards it.

In August, after deliberations over the nearly four years of my tenure as chief scientist, I released my advice and the evidence it is based on – drawing on input from librarians, universities, publishers big and small, research organisations, industry, governments of all jurisdictions and the broader community.

̽����Ƶ

My proposal is that a central authority – perhaps a library or similar agency – negotiate single agreements with each publisher on behalf of the Australian government to make their content free to read for all Australian residents and to make all papers with an Australian lead author fully open access across the world.

The strong support for better access to research literature was clear at a public webinar I held in September to discuss this “public model”, which attracted more than 800 registrations. Participants spoke about the opportunities it would open up, including for teachers, students and health professionals, and its potential to drive innovation in the economy. Some issues were raised that I wish to address, and I want to explain my rationale for recommending this model.

̽����Ƶ

First, there is no bucket of spare money, so the only route to open access is to use existing budgets more efficiently. An audit by my office estimated that about A$500 million (£255 million) of public funds is spent each year on subscription payments and open access fees – most of that (71.5 per cent) through universities. That is a very substantial figure.

I’m sympathetic to concerns about changes in funding arrangements, especially when universities are struggling. But I am confident that funding can be repurposed to target only the money spent on publishing and subscriptions, protecting the wider research system. I agree, however, that legislation or a similar mechanism will be needed to avoid the counterproductive outcome of making subscription funding vulnerable to government funding decisions and budget cycles.

Second, I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I don’t accept the criticism that the public access model entrenches a fundamentally flawed academic publishing system: journals have an important role that should be retained.

The publication of peer-reviewed research is the foundation of trust in the research sector – especially science. Journals are a global repository of record. Publishers handle complaints, corrections and retractions. They manage peer review to ensure that research is robust and of high integrity. They oversee the mechanics of the editing and publishing process. They provide searchability and discoverability. And they reinvest some of their profits in high-end IT systems and research tools, such as the Web of Science and Scopus, which have become embedded in all aspects of research – although many readers will know that I have reservations about use of research metrics in performance measurement (the subject of another project).

̽����Ƶ

I know that much of the work that sustains this system is unpaid – Elsevier, which undertakes 17 per cent of the world’s academic publishing, uses the volunteer contributions of 1.5 million referees. However, publishers provide the digital capability to handle the millions of submissions made annually – including those that are rejected. They maintain manuscripts for perpetuity, collect metadata and manage the post-publication process – all of which is critical to maintain trust. None of this is cheap. It costs about $2,500 (£1,900) to publish a paper online when all publishers’ costs are considered.

In my view, it is better to approach academic publishing with a refreshed business model, working with publishers to optimise the system, rather than shooting it down and building a new parallel system. Researchers demonstrated a strong desire to retain their choice to publish in a diverse range of journals, and the “long tail” of smaller publishers support specific research fields, and in some cases have important cultural connections or an Australian focus.

Unlocking the potential of open access and open research

Discussions with these micropublishers identified that a public open access model needs to be combined with work in the professional societies to broaden their value proposition to fee-paying members beyond access to their society journal. This was seen positively.

A third underlying principle is that the system must improve access and not erect new barriers. It’s obviously not tenable to have an Australian scheme that provides back-door access for other nations, undermining the subscription system that sustains journals. However, it would be counterproductive if maintaining security forced readers to jump through extra hoops. I originally proposed using a government log-in system to authenticate Australian users, but my consultations suggest that there may be easier solutions.

̽����Ƶ

Finally, we need to be pragmatic and keep our eyes on the goal. There’s a well-known tenet in science that the simplest explanation is often the best; a public access model is achievable and has the quality of simplicity. Yes, moving towards it will be complicated, but the challenges are not Everest-scale – and the prize will be worth the effort.

My hope is that over the next couple of months we can knuckle down on the details to resolve the implementation questions and establish a clear pathway for the government to consider.

̽����Ƶ

Cathy Foley is Australia’s chief scientist. A longer version of this article can be read .