The headlong rush towards further adoption of open-access models demands careful thought, says Prof Sarah Kember . Elsevier is a strong supporter of open access, says its vice-president of global policy, Gemma Hersh . The UK has moved further and faster than any other major research funding country, says Stephen Lotinga . It is difficult to find good (unpaid) reviewers for every article in scientific journals, says John Boardman

Your analysis of the scandal of aspects of scientific publishing (Editorial, 5 March) was on point in highlighting that, despite the best intentions, open-access routes have thus far delivered little by way of savings for universities (and therefore the taxpayer).

The headlong rush towards further adoption of open-access models demands careful thought. While questions around access to scientific research tend to grab attention, the long tail of implications are a particular concern for those of us working in the arts and humanities.

With little prospect of extra government funding to cover increased article – let alone book – preparation costs, university libraries will be forced to carve up ever-shrinking funding pots. In turn, in all but the most specialist institutions, the sciences will win out as a priority for acquisitions.

The consequences of this would not only be that public research money continues to end up into the pockets of the major publishers, but that arts and humanities titles in particular become even less viable.

Other options are available: Goldsmiths Press is one of a number of small publishers exploring how universities might work together in a way that enables public access to research, while respecting the purpose of public funding and the value of academic endeavour.

Professor Sarah Kember

Director, Goldsmiths Press, Goldsmiths, University of London

• In response to your editorial on academic publishing and Elsevier, we want to set the record straight. Our customers, particularly JISC, the UK’s library negotiating organisation, have said Elsevier provides higher than average quality research articles at below industry average prices. Furthermore, UK freedom of information requests have shown annual spend by British universities on Elsevier journals has risen less than the spend on nine other top publishers, while the number of articles published by Elsevier has grown substantially, and the quality of its journals increased.

What’s most important is that Elsevier is a strong supporter of open access. It might surprise some to know that we are one of the leading open-access publishers in the world, with hundreds of thousands of open-access articles available. The real issue concerns how rapidly and to what extent open access will be realised. It’s more challenging than some think and it’s not up to us to decide. We are working with the scientific community to move the “pay to publish” model forward. However, our customers have varied needs and preferences and many authors still prefer the subscription model, where they can publish for free. As such, we provide open-access options alongside subscription offerings so that authors can choose which option best suits their needs. Ultimately, author choice will continue to determine the offerings we provide. We welcome the opportunity to share our point of view and be part of the robust dialogue about the future of scientific publishing.

Gemma Hersh

Vice-president, global policy, Elsevier

• It is manifestly untrue that the UK has so far failed in its approach to open access. It has moved further and faster than any other major research funding country.

As UK research is world-leading, so too is its approach to open access. Academic publishers are pro-access and have been at the forefront of a global shift, facilitating and championing that transition.

The proportion of UK research available open-access has risen from virtually nothing to 54% of articles according to research from Universities UK. In comparison, the total number of global articles published open-access is calculated to be 32%.

There are some who would argue that is not enough and the industry is determined to meet the challenge to further improve access to publicly funded research.

When we started down this path, there was a common recognition that there would be costs associated with being a world leader of open-access publishing. These costs are necessary to facilitate maximum access, as is some flexibility in models and the timescales for further transition.

Of all industries, the news industry should understand that the best publishing has a cost attached if we want to maintain quality. Quality matters in news, of course. But in research it is paramount.

Stephen Lotinga

Chief executive, The Publishers Association

• You rightly point out the pros and cons of the open-access (OA) system, including the costs to universities and the profits for publishers. But the whole system is under great strain partly because of the difficulty of finding good (unpaid) reviewers for every article in scientific journals. Also, not everyone has access to funds for OA. As a retired academic (14 articles in the last two years, one of which was OA), I don’t have funding for OA. However, I still get two or three articles a month to review and keep the publishing system functioning!

John Boardman

Emeritus professor, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition