The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) is poised to enact a new policy that will limit the funding of elevated article processing charges (APCs) for leading journals by its researchers. This initiative focuses on approximately 30 esteemed journals, such as “Nature Communications,” “Cell Reports,” and “Science Advances,” as indicated by “Science.” In a similar vein, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) is considering establishing limits on open access journal charges.
As stated in the report, a draft policy was disseminated among Chinese researchers to cease the utilization of academy funds for APCs, which are the fees necessary to make research articles available open access. In addition to CAS, this policy will also prevent other central government entities from covering these expenses. It seeks to reduce funding to over 100 journals that are suspected of having issues related to research integrity, according to “Science.”
Information scientist Stefanie Haustein from the University of Ottawa estimates that the APC cap intended by CAS is around $5000 (£3700). Nevertheless, CAS researchers will still have the option to publish in hybrid open access journals, such as “Nature,” where they can choose to either pay the $12,690 APC or keep the article behind a paywall.
Haustein’s analysis indicated that annual APC expenditures rose sharply from $910 million in 2019 to $2.5 billion in 2023, with significant contributors including companies like MDPI ($682 million), Elsevier ($583 million), and Springer Nature ($547 million).
Last year, the NIH declared that it was considering limitations on grant-supported researchers making APC payments. The global average APC was calculated at $1236, and the NIH deliberated banning APC spending or setting thresholds between $2000 and $3000. An alternative would cap publication expenses at 0.8% of a grant or $20,000 over the course of a grant, with a maximum APC of $6000.
Claudia Pagliari, a medical informatics expert at the University of Edinburgh, commented on China’s initiative, noting that APCs have surged despite flat or decreasing operational costs. Pagliari emphasized that although open access publishing began with commendable aims, it has resulted in a proliferation of journals, placing financial strains on researchers, especially those from economically disadvantaged regions or fields.
Publishers are accused of profiting from unwritten and unfunded research papers, heavily depending on complimentary peer review by the research community. Haustein’s findings indicate that profit margins exceed 30% for leading publishers, with Elsevier surpassing 37% consistently throughout the past decade. “Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Springer Nature also report similarly elevated profit margins,” states Haustein, pointing out that profits are redirecting funds away from academia to shareholders.
Haustein expresses worry that the introduction of caps may not achieve the intended outcome. “I doubt the major profit-driven publishers will comply by reducing their APCs,” Haustein remarks, implying they could revert to the pay-for-access model.
As per “Science,” the Chinese government aims to foster 400 high-quality scientific journals as budget-friendly alternatives to Western counterparts. “With the suggested withdrawal of funds potentially impacting these publishing entities, it’s uncertain whether there are plans to initiate dialogues with Western publishers or partners, or to create equivalent platforms with differing regulations,” Pagliari observes.
Pagliari shared her astonishment that CAS, the largest research funder globally with over 50,000 researchers, did not exert more leverage to secure improved terms. “Chinese researchers, as pioneers in adopting online open access publishing, were supported by China to disseminate their groundbreaking discoveries in leading research journals, reflecting an investment in global stature,” noted Pagliari.