Sir, the recent article published in The Guardian1 highlighting the mass walkout of scientists from a prominent global science journal, Neuroimage, has sparked a crucial conversation regarding the dichotomy between open access and paywall publishing. This discourse requires us to examine the implications of both approaches and consider their relevance within the scientific community, particularly in dentistry.

Open access publishing allows for unrestricted access to research articles, ensuring the widespread dissemination of the latest discoveries. In contrast, paywall publishing creates barriers by restricting access to those who can afford the subscription fees. Whilst paywalls may provide financial benefits to publishers, they can hinder the potential impact of research, particularly for researchers in universities without subscription access or those from low-to-middle-income countries.

Within the field of dentistry, this issue is particularly relevant as several high-profile dental journals operate behind paywalls. However, a notable shift towards open access is gaining momentum. Recognising the importance of maximising the societal benefit of research, initiatives embracing open access models have emerged, including academic institutions and grant funders requiring open access dissemination of research findings. By removing financial barriers, these initiatives ensure that research is freely accessible to scientists, clinicians, policymakers, and the public, promoting collaboration and expediting global scientific progress. Examples include Springer Nature, the publisher of the British Dental Journal, committing to increasing the number of open access publications each year and aiming to promote full open access for primary research once a 75% open access threshold has been met.2 Whilst open access reduces barriers to accessing content, publishers will financially lose on paywall income, and this is met by the authors through an article processing charge (APC), which can become a barrier in itself. A high APC ($3,450 per article) was the reason the editors of Neuroimage left the journal citing such a cost is unethical. It is of note that journals such as BDJ Open waive processing charges for submissions from certain low-income countries.3

In light of these developments, it is crucial for scientific journals, including those in the dental field, to reassess their publishing policies. Embracing open access aligns with the principles of equity and inclusivity, facilitating broader dissemination of knowledge. By providing unrestricted access to the latest advancements, we empower researchers and practitioners by fostering innovation and promoting insight into the most current approaches of research. However, it is important to recognise that open access also empowers patients, enabling them to make more informed decisions about their own care. As journals shift their policy towards open access, it is essential to find a balance with APCs that ensures accessibility without creating new barriers; substantially large APCs will hinder researchers disseminating key findings due to the cost of publishing.

The recent article in The Guardian1 serves as a poignant reminder that the current paywall publishing model can fall short in the spirit of equal information dissemination to all members of our globally interconnected society. It is incumbent upon scientific journals to champion open access and pave the way for a more equitable and impactful future in research.