If research integrity now extends beyond publication to include how scholarship is discovered and used, then access is not a secondary concern. It is foundational.
In practice, this broader understanding of integrity quickly runs into a hard constraint: access. A significant percentage of academic publishing is still behind paywalls, and traditional library sales models fail to serve institutions with limited budgets or uneven digital infrastructure. Even where university libraries exist, access is often delayed or restricted to narrow segments of the scholarly record. The consequences are structural rather than incidental. When researchers and practitioners cannot access the peer-reviewed scholarship they need, it drops out of local research agendas, teaching materials as well as policy conversations. Decisions are then shaped by whatever information is most easily available, not necessarily by what is most rigorous or relevant. Over time, this weakens citation pathways, limits regional participation in scholarly debate, and reinforces global inequity in how knowledge is visible, trusted, and amplified.
The ongoing success of shadow libraries highlights this misalignment: Sci-Hub reportedly served over 14 million monthly users in 2025, indicating sustained and widespread demand for academic research that existing access models continue to leave unmet. This is less about individual behaviour than about a system that consistently fails to deliver essential knowledge where it is needed most.
The picture looks different when access barriers are reduced: usage data from open and reduced-barrier initiatives consistently show strong engagement across Asia and Africa, particularly in fields linked to health, education, social policy, and development. These patterns highlight how emerging economies rely on high-quality publishing in contexts where it directly impacts professional practice and public decision-making.
From a research integrity perspective, this is important. When authoritative sources are inaccessible, alternative materials step in to fill the gap. The risk is not only exclusion, but distortion. Inconsistent, outdated, or unverified sources become more influential precisely because they are easier to obtain. Misinformation takes hold most easily where trusted knowledge is hardest to reach.
Addressing access is about more than widening readership or improving visibility, it is about ensuring that high-quality scholarship can continue to shape understanding and decisions in the contexts it seeks to serve. For university presses committed to the public good, this challenge sits across discovery systems, licensing structures, technology platforms, and the partnerships that increasingly determine how research is distributed, interpreted, and reused. If research integrity now extends across the full lifecycle of scholarship, then sustaining it requires collective responsibility and shared frameworks. How presses engage with partners, infrastructures, and governance mechanisms becomes central to protecting both trust and impact.
For partnership inquiries, please contact:
Sara Crowley Vigneau
Partnership Relations Manager
Email: s.crowleyvigneau@zendy.io