Étiquette : article-processing charges

Catégories
EN

Research integrity and open access models: insights from Retraction Watch and OpenAlex

Author : Ben Rawlins

This study examines the relationship between research integrity and open access (OA) publishing models using data from Retraction Watch and OpenAlex. Analysing 60,608 retracted publications from 2009 to 2024, the article traces how retraction patterns have shifted alongside the expansion of OA, with gold OA surpassing closed access as the dominant modality among retracted articles by 2023.

The analysis also highlights the economic dimensions of research integrity and OA, with an estimated US$41.9 million in article processing charges (APCs) collected by publishers for research that was later retracted.

These findings raise concerns about APC‑based publishing models that directly link publisher revenue to publication volume, creating structural tensions for editorial oversight and quality control. Rather than framing OA as inherently more or less prone to integrity failures, the article argues that these challenges reflect broader incentive structures within contemporary scholarly publishing.

Addressing them will require co‑ordinated governance efforts among publishers, funders, libraries and research institutions to ensure that OA is matched by accountability, transparency and trust in scholarly research.

URL : Research integrity and open access models: insights from Retraction Watch and OpenAlex

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.763

Catégories
EN

The Age of APCs: Corresponding Author Approaches to Article Processing Charges and Open Access

Authors : Mitchell Scott, Ben Rawlins

Introduction

As open access and APCs reshape scholarly publishing, and with the University of Kentucky Libraries opting out of large transformative agreements (TA), this study explores how affiliated corresponding authors navigate APCs in relation to their personal, disciplinary, and institutional values.

Literature Review

The literature shows that faculty have mixed feelings about open access (OA) publishing, shaped by things like discipline, age, and concerns about quality and cost; but many are motivated by increased visibility and funder requirements, using a range of methods to cover APCs, from grants and institutional support to personal funds, with big differences across disciplines.

Methods

This study investigated how University of Kentucky-affiliated corresponding authors manage Article Processing Charges (APCs) and their perspectives on OA publishing through surveys and eight semistructured interviews with 383 unique authors identified from Scopus data for 2023–2024 OA publications.

Findings

Using Scopus to identify 383 University of Kentucky-affiliated corresponding authors of 2023– 2024 OA publications, this study explored how they manage APCs and view OA publishing through a survey and eight follow-up semistructured interviews.

Discussion

The discussion highlights key aspects of APC-driven OA, including authors’ experiences with paying for APCs, journals flipping to Gold OA, and difficulty with peer review, while also showing that the University of Kentucky is already spending significant funds on APCs. Conclusion: This study reveals corresponding authors’ conflicting views on transformative agreements, valued for easing APC burdens but seen as exploitative, while exposing funding inequities at the University of Kentucky and underscoring the need for a more coordinated OA strategy.

URL : The Age of APCs: Corresponding Author Approaches to Article Processing Charges and Open Access

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.20329

Catégories
EN

Pursuing transparency: How research performing organizations in Germany collect data on publication costs

Authors : Dorothea Strecker, Heinz Pampel, Jonas Höfting

This article presents the results of a survey conducted in 2024 among research performing organizations (RPOs) in Germany on how they collect data on publication costs. Of the 583 invitees, 258 (44.3%) completed the questionnaire.

This survey is the first comprehensive study on the recording of publication costs at RPOs in Germany.

The results show that the majority of surveyed RPOs recorded publication costs at least in part. However, procedures in this regard were often non-binding. Respondents’ ratings of the reliability of the collection of data on publication costs varied by the source of publication funding.

Eighty percent of respondents rated the contribution of collecting data on publication costs to shaping the open access transformation as « very important » or « important. » Yet, these data were used as a basis for strategic decisions in only 59% of the surveyed RPOs.

Moreover, most respondents considered the implementation of an information budget at their institutions by 2025 unlikely. We discuss the implications of these findings for the open access transformation.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.08340

Catégories
EN

Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts

Authors : Alexander Pohlman, Ayham M. Odeh, Shawn M. Purnell, Layan Alrahmani, Shanda H Blackmon, Julia M Coughlin, Zaid M Abdelsattar

Background

Many traditional journals have launched companion open access (cOA) journals with similar scope and aims. These journals seek better article dissemination through removal of the paywall and use of article processing charges (APCs). Traditional journals often suggest transfer to their cOA journal, leaving authors with a decision to accept transfer and pay an APC or resubmit elsewhere. We aim to compare costs and impact of these journals to better inform authors.

Methods

The top 15 U.S.-based traditional journals within medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and OB/GYN were identified based on 2023 impact factor. Those with cOA journals were included, and all publication data between 2011 and 2023 were extracted. Citation counts were compared using Poisson regression; author demographics were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

Results

There were 14 traditional journals with cOA counterparts, constituting 52,232 publications from 36,577 authors. cOA articles had half the citations of traditional publications (9.4 vs 18.2) and collected an estimated $35 million in APCs. Female and low/middle income country (LMIC) authors were more likely to publish in cOA journals (aOR = 1.23, 1.14, respectively).

URL : Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2575211

Catégories
EN

APC waivers and Ukraine’s publishing output in Gold OA journals: Evidence from five commercial publishers

Author : Serhii Nazarovets

This study examines the effect of article processing charge (APC) waivers on the participation of Ukrainian researchers in fully Gold Open Access (Gold OA) journals published by the five largest academic publishers – Elsevier, SAGE, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley – during the period 2019-2024.

These publishers were selected because, in response to the full-scale war launched against Ukraine in 2022, all five introduced emergency 100% APC-waiver policies for Ukrainian authors. Using bibliometric data from the Web of Science Core Collection, the study analyses publication trends in Ukrainian-authored articles in fully Gold OA journals of these publishers before and after 2022.

The results show a marked post-2022 increase in Ukraine’s Gold OA output, particularly in journals published by Springer Nature and Elsevier. Disciplinary and publisher-specific patterns are evident, with especially strong growth in the medical and applied sciences. The findings underscore the potential of targeted support measures during times of crisis, while also illustrating the inherent limitations of APC-based publishing models in fostering equitable scholarly communication.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.12134

Catégories
EN

Inequity, precarity, and disparity: Exploring systemic and institutional barriers in open access publishing

Authors : Philips Ayeni, Vincent Larivière

Despite increasing advocacy for open access (OA), its uptake in some disciplines has remained low. Existing studies have linked the low uptake of OA in the humanities and social sciences (HSS) to disciplinary norms, limited funding for article processing charges (APCs), and researchers’ preferences.

However, there is a growing concern about inequity in the scholarly communication landscape, as OA publishing has remained unaffordable to many researchers. This study investigates systemic and institutional barriers to OA publishing in Canada, as well as strategies for improving the uptake of and equity in OA publishing.

Using semi-structured interviews, qualitative data was collected from 20 professors from the HSS disciplines of research-intensive universities in the country. Data was analyzed using the NVivo software, following the reflexive thematic analysis approach.

Findings revealed five systemic and institutional barriers to OA publishing: (1) unaffordable APCs; (2) precarious career stage and tenure requirements; (3) unequal privileges; (4) gender; and (5) conflicting and unsupportive institutional OA policies.

We conclude that there needs to be a concerted effort in promoting and funding viable and sustainable OA models, which removes the financial burden of OA publishing from researchers.

There is also an increasing need to promote OA culture within academia and provide institutional support for OA publishing. Notably, the model of academic scholarship that places prominence on journal metrics for tenure and promotion needs to be reformed. Some recommendations for reducing systemic and institutional barriers to OA publishing are provided.

URL : Inequity, precarity, and disparity: Exploring systemic and institutional barriers in open access publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006251353385

 

Catégories
EN

An APC Trap? Privilege and the Perception of Reasonableness in Open Access Publishing

Authors : Melissa H. Cantrell, Jennifer A. Mezick, Matthew Estill, Rachel Caldwell &
Lauren B. Collister

Introduction: This article investigates funding sources reported by authors of open access (OA) articles at four R1 (doctoral-granting institutions in the United States with very high research activity) universities, along with these authors’ perceptions of Article Processing Charges (APCs). The study suggests a cognitive dissonance among many respondents, in which there appears to be a desire and willingness to participate in OA publishing, which is at odds with a sense of unreasonableness and an uneven distribution of the ability of researchers to participate.

Literature review: Much of the literature on APCs centers on rising prices, how commercial publishers profit from this model, and the resulting inequities in OA publishing. Some information exists about resources for funding APCs, including grant funding, library programs, and fee waivers.

Methods: We surveyed authors who published an OA article in the calendar year 2022. The survey asked whether there was an APC, the funding source for the fee, and the author’s perception of the reasonableness of APC prices and their relative ability to pay compared with their peers.

Results: From 321 total respondents, grant funding was the largest source of APC funding, and authors reported fees of over $1,500 in U.S. dollars as unreasonable.

Discussion: This study confirms the hypothesis that external grants are the primary support for authors paying APCs, and beyond that, authors use a variety of sources to support their publishing fees. Respondents characterized APCs in general as unreasonable for less well-resourced colleagues.

Conclusion: Though authors were generally able to find funding or have fees waived, they perceive a threshold of reasonableness for APCs.

URL : An APC Trap? Privilege and the Perception of Reasonableness in Open Access Publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18184