question:  Which of these is not an expected impact of OA on academic inquiry?
context: In any case, we can be more specific about which access barriers OA removes. OA removes price barriers. OA removes these permission barriers. OA makes work more useful in both ways, by making it available to more people who can put it to use, and by freeing those people to use and reuse it. OA was defined in three influential public statements: the Budapest Open Access Initiative (February 2002), the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (June 2003), and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (October 2003). I sometimes refer to their overlap or common ground as the BBB definition of OA. The purpose of OA is to remove barriers to all legitimate scholarly uses for scholarly literature, but there’s no legitimate scholarly purpose in suppressing attribution to the texts we use. The basic idea of OA is simple: Make research literature available online without price barriers and without most permission barriers. Even the implementation is simple enough that the volume of peer-reviewed OA literature and the number of institutions providing it have grown at an increasing rate for more than a decade. If there are complexities, they lie in the transition from where we are now to a world in which OA is the default for new research. In principle, any kind of digital content can be OA, since any digital content can be put online without price or permission barriers. 1.1 What Makes OA Possible? OA is made possible by the internet and copyright-holder consent. Second, scholarly journals generally don’t pay authors for their research articles, which frees this special tribe of authors to consent to OA without losing revenue. The academic custom to write research articles for impact rather than money may be a lucky accident that could have been otherwise. This peculiar custom does more than insulate cutting-edge research from the market and free scholars to consent to OA without losing revenue. It frees researchers to challenge conventional wisdom and defend unpopular ideas, which are essential to academic freedom.
output:  Scholars will be tempted to leave academia to pursue publishing options that they can make money from
options:  It shoud allow more open discussion of a wide variety of topics  More people will be able to pursue specialized knowledge that does not have a large target audience  There will be less of a reason for researchers to work only inside of popular trends  Scholars will be tempted to leave academia to pursue publishing options that they can make money from