Rethinking author fees for open access
Is your journal asking you to pay a fee to make your work open access? It can seem like author fees play a big role in open access publishing, but both research and UMN experiences give cause for critical thinking before paying.
The Libraries are committed to investment in models that have the potential to lead to real, lasting change to open access (OA) publication systems. Read more about our philosophy on OA at z.umn.edu/TowardsOA and our investments in OA at z.umn.edu/oa-partnerships.
What are author fees/APCs
APCs are fees paid to make a work open access (OA) and are typically charged to authors. They were initially introduced to create an option for journals to cover publication costs without charging subscription fees, either as part of a transition from a subscription-only model or for new fully OA publications, where all articles are openly available.
Journals that rely on subscriptions, but make some articles OA upon payment of an APC are referred to as “hybrid” access.
The Libraries do not support paying APCs for hybrid OA and we do not have funding available to pay APCs for individual articles. See z.umn.edu/oa-options for how you can make your work OA without paying a fee.
How APCs have played out
APCs have not created broad systemic change around open access. While they have been a mechanism for opening some articles, they have not decreased subscription costs, and we have not seen many previously-closed publications shift to open models. Instead, many APCs simply provide an additional revenue stream to publishers. The APC model has not shown itself as scalable or effective for changing the landscape of scholarly publication
Publication, even online, has costs, but open access is not inherently costlier than closed access. For hybrid journals, there is no additional cost associated with making an article open access if it was free (to the author) to publish closed: authors still provide their works to publishers for free and researchers still conduct peer review for free. Publishers’ expenses do vary, but the variation in APCs is broader than what can be explained by production costs.
How transparent a publisher is about their publishing costs and how they use income from APCs varies widely. Some publishers are transparent (see the cOAlition S Price Transparency Framework and Ubiquity) about their processes and we know they have set APCs near or below the cost of publication. Unfortunately, most publishers do not provide a clear accounting for how APC funds are used, or how APC prices are set. Some have made it clear that their prices are based on what they believe the market will bear.
Sometimes APCs are the only means of funding a fully OA journal, but hybrid journals highlight issues around what APCs are funding: instead of supporting a transition from closed to fully-open—as was originally intended—most hybrid publications have remained hybrid. They continue to take in subscription money, while also enjoying APC income. To date, few publishers have reduced subscription prices to reflect this additional income; instead subscription prices continues to rise (Romaine et al. 2024).
Finally, changes in APCs over time illustrate that publishers are using APCs in very different ways. Some publishers have kept APC fees stable over time but many other publishers have increased APCs very rapidly—from 2005 to 2018 average APCs increase three times the rate of inflation (Khoo, 2019) and continue to increase (Butler et al., 2024). Fees now range from a few hundred dollars, to over $6500 for some fully OA journals, and more than $12,500 for hybrid journals.
The APC model is not equitable
Charging a fee to share one’s research cuts many researchers out of the scholarly conversation. APC models favor select voices: researchers with grant funding, researchers at institutions that can afford an expensive publishing agreement, researchers from high income countries. Publishers have suggested that a system of waivers can address this problem. But waivers only partially address the issue. In reality, they reveal "a patronizing view of scientific sharing which translates into the control of science in the hands of rich countries and diminishes the Global South as a mere passive observer with no control...” (Debat and Babini, 2019). Publishers also limit the number and size of waivers they provide. Although they might give an automatic 100% waiver to authors from Low Income countries, they often only provide partial waivers to other authors. Even a guarantee to waive 50% of an APC could still mean an author faces a bill for thousands of dollars. Despite being at a highly funded institution in a high income country, even authors at the University of Minnesota are simply not in a position to pay all or part of an APC.
Scholarship from researchers in the Global South, from researchers who do not receive grant funding, from researchers who are not affiliated with a research institution matters. Publishing models that systematically prevent many researchers from participating are inherently inequitable.
What about books?
Book processing charges (BPCs) also exist and have become a part of some publishers’ business models for scholarly monographs and edited volumes. The environment around publishing OA scholarly book-length works continues to evolve. As with journals, the Libraries supports partnerships with book publishers that can reduce or eliminate BPCs and generally does not have funding to cover individual BPCs.
For more information on options for publishing open-access book-length works, contact Publishing Services at [email protected]
What this means at the University of Minnesota
For these reasons, in consultation with representatives of University governance, including faculty and graduate student authors, the University Libraries and OVPR decided to stop providing direct subsidy of individual fees as of June 30, 2019.
Instead, we focus on more global, collaborative, and strategic investment that will have greater overall impact, fostering more accessible and sustainable models of scholarly publication. In addition, we are working with scholars to pursue the many ways for authors to make their work open that don’t involve paying an APC.
Additional perspectives on APCs
Butler, L. A., Hare, M., Schönfelder, N., Schares, E., Alperin, J. P., & Haustein, S. (2024). An open dataset of article processing charges from six large scholarly publishers (2019-2023). arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08356.
Debat and Babini (2019) Plan S in Latin America: Primum non nocere. DOI: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3482932
Khoo, S. Y.-S. (2019). Article Processing Charge Hyperinflation and Price Insensitivity: An Open Access Sequel to the Serials Crisis. LIBER Quarterly, 29(1), 1–18. DOI: http://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10280
Kowaltowski, A., Oliveira, M., Silber, A., & Chaimovich, H. (August 31, 2021). The push for open access is making science less inclusive. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/push-open-access-making-science-less-inclusive
Mekonnen, A., Downs, C., Effiom, E.O., Razafindratsima, O., Stenseth, N.C., * Chapman, C.A. (August 12, 2021). What costs half a year’s pay for African scholars? Open Access. Nature (596): 189.DOI: 10.1038/d41586-021-02173-7
Romaine, S., Albee, B., Elliott, C.M., &. Bosch, S.,2024. Periodicals Price Survey 2024. https://www.libraryjournal.com/story/oa-ai-and-dei-triple-advantage-or-triple-threat-periodicals-price-survey-2024
South African National Information Consortium. (2020). SANLiC Statement on Open Access https://sanlic.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SANLiC-Statement-on-Open-Access-November-2020.pdf
Contact [email protected] with questions or comments.