I read with interest Stephen Hancocks' recent article1 on open access and academic publishing. For the results of research to be freely available to anyone interested in reading it is surely a good thing, as you indeed suggest. However, in the quest for open access publishing, I feel compelled to draw attention to the lack of equity experienced by academics and their employers versus the interests of publishing houses.

Traditionally, peer reviewers reviewed on a ‘pro bono' basis. I reviewed without pay on the basis that an anonymous colleague would do the same for me and my work would be published and the publishers would recoup their costs from subscribers to their journals. There was no financial cost to me and the system felt fair.

Now, in an open access era, I am still expected to carry out peer review with no recompense. However, to have my publication open access, as is required by the Research Excellence Framework, I must pay anywhere between £1,500 and £3,000. I need to find this money through grant funding or rely on my university to have paid a substantial sum to the publishing house to have an open access agreement, which sees me able to publish open access without additional charge.

I am therefore paying twice. The two or three hours that it takes me to review an article and write a report I must find out of my employers' or my own private time. And then my employers or I need to pay an open access fee.

The financial difficulties that face higher education institutions are well-publicised. My own institution, a Russell Group University, is facing a financial deficit of £30 million this year. Increasingly, academics are being asked by their employers to account for their time in hours and minutes. If I review two articles a week, that is six hours of my time that my university has to pay me or I have to work for free in the evenings or at the weekend.

The odds in the current open access system seem, to me, heavily stacked in the favour of the publishers. Worldwide, it is estimated that in the year 2020, peer reviewers worked 100 million hours, equivalent to over 15,000 years.2

Surely it is time that the publishers recognised in financial terms the true value of their peer reviewers, without whom the system would fall apart.

I feel that we have been taken for a ride long enough in working for publishers for free.