Is "Open Scholarship" still locked?

Scholars writing about Open Educational Resources (OER), including myself, use expansive vocabulary about the potential for the democratization of learning.  For instance, this "lockbox" statement from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (2013) regarding the OER movement provides an example of such liberal democratic sentiment:

 "These digital materials have the potential to give people everywhere equal access to our collective knowledge and provide many more people around the world with access to quality education by making lectures, books, and curricula widely available on the Internet for little or no cost. By enabling virtually anyone to tap into, translate, and tailor educational materials previously reserved only for students at elite universities, OER has the potential to jump start careers and economic development in communities that lag behind. Millions worldwide have already opened this educational lockbox, but if OER is going to democratize learning and transform the classroom and teaching, then it must move from the periphery of education practice to center stage."

This "education for everyone, everywhere" philosophy of unlocking the lockbox applies to open scholarship, as well.  Publishing scholarship openly should allow people all over the world, regardless of situation, to have access to the most current information.  In this way, learning is "unlocked."  However, Velstianos and Kimmons (2022) suggest taking a constructively critical view of these assumptions.

The problem is that the potential for open scholarship is in conflict with multiple difficult realities.  For instance, these authors point out, scholars publishing in open access journals may be asked to pay (through their institutions) for publishing costs, which sets up a paywall and limits all voices from participating equally.  Hence, learning appears to be open but is still selectively locked. Furthermore, Velestianos and Kimmons (2022) point out how MOOCs that were originally meant to provide educational opportunities for those without traditional access to higher education has become "commodified education" in the case of initiatives like Coursera and Udacity and EdX.  As the embodied practices of openness iterate, it is important that they not iterate too far from the ideals of OER founders.  The danger is that the most vulnerable learners and scholars will be blocked by the banner of openness in a way that openness actually obscures their disenfranchisement.