Jean-Claude Guédon’s argument is that open access cannot be adequately understood as a benign improvement in scholarly distribution; it is a structural challenge to the historical machinery through which scientific authority has been concentrated. By mobilising Bourdieu’s notion of the scientific field, Guédon shows that journals, editorial boards, citation indexes and linguistic hierarchies convert technical competence into social power, thereby producing a global division between “principal” and “peripheral” science. The Science Citation Index becomes the exemplary case: by selecting a restricted set of journals, privileging English-language visibility and enabling impact-factor evaluation, it transforms a continuous spectrum of scholarly quality into a rigid boundary between recognised science and obscured knowledge. The article’s synthesis of Indian, Latin American and Venezuelan examples is especially revealing: locally urgent research, such as cholera investigation or regionally significant journals, may be devalued when judged by criteria designed for metropolitan centres, while peripheral researchers are pressured to contribute intellectual labour to agendas validated elsewhere. Against this asymmetry, Guédon identifies SciELO, institutional repositories and subsidised journal infrastructures as practical counter-models, because they strengthen local publishing ecologies without collapsing into provincial isolation. The conclusion is therefore political as much as bibliographic: open access becomes emancipatory only when it redistributes visibility, legitimates multilingual and locally grounded research, and dismantles the cartelised architecture that mistakes selective indexing for universal scientific excellence.