Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

(Global) Article Processing Charges are a Heavy Burden for Middle-Income Countries – The Scholarly Kitchen (Alicia J. Kowaltowski et. al | March 2023)

Posted by Connar Allen in Research Integrity on March 18, 2023
Keywords: Institutional responsibilities, Journal, Research results

The Linked Original Item was Posted On March 9, 2023

Male student hand holding an open book with a magic shining, golden key over a dark blackboard background. Symbol of unlimited access to knowledge and intelligence, educational concept, unlock wisdom.

Editor’s Note: Today’s post is by Alicia J. Kowaltowski, José R. F. Arruda, Paulo A. Nussenzveig, and Ariel M. Silber. Alicia is a Full Professor of Biochemistry at the University of São Paulo. José is Full Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Campinas. Paulo is Professor of Physics and Provost for Research and Innovation at the University of São Paulo. Ariel is a Professor at the Institute of Biomedical Sciences at the University of São Paulo.

Traditionally, academic publishers have covered their costs with subscription fees and paywalls. For some, the amount of profit some have been making might be regarded as profane. The drive towards open access for publicly funded research is disrupting this paradigm. Some publishers have introduced Article Processing Charge (APC) where the author pays a charge for their article to be published. The publisher makes their money by the APCs they receive.  Very quickly, it was pointed out that the APC system benefitted rich countries, and punished poorer countries. Rather than making scholarly publishing more democratic and open it created a class system that benefitted more wealthy countries and served to silence the voices of researchers without the same wealth.  Some publishers acted promptly to introduce concessions and supports for researchers from poor countries. This had a couple of obvious problems, middle income countries maybe more affluent than the poor but still be unable to afford the APC fees. The same is probably true of poorer institutions in affluent countries. Jurisdictions like France have responded to this challenge by directing that papers are published with Diamond Open Access publishers where there are no subscriptions or APC fees and their costs are covered by grants or philanthropic contributions.  Such an approach, would be genuinely open and egalitarian.

Many scientists worldwide have embraced the idea that research publications should be openly accessible to read, without paywalls. Rightfully so, as academic research is mostly supported by public funds, and contributes toward societal progress. Indeed, the quest for open publications has led to many groundbreaking initiatives, including the creation of new author-pays open access (OA) journals and publishers, the expansion of public preprint and postprint repositories, and the establishment of Sci-Hub, a radical open repository of scientific publications, often obtained illegally. But subscription publications persist, as well as resistance toward depositing preprints, leading to more recent initiatives to accelerate the universal transition to OA in scientific publications. Notably, a recent mandate established that US federal agencies must create policies to ensure all peer-reviewed publications are made publicly accessible by the end of 2025. This follows Plan S, launched in 2018 by a consortium of mostly European research funding and performing organizations, which requires that all publications from 2021 on must be OA. An additional mandate within Plan S is that hybrid models of publishing, in which authors can pay to publish OA papers in journals that also publish under subscription models, are acceptable only under certain circumstances, and only until December 31st, 2024. This means that major subscription journals wishing to publish work by authors with Plan S funding will need to transition to OA-only by 2025.

Plan S covers peer-reviewed publications, so depositing a preprint in a public and open archive platform (green OA through preprints) is not sufficient for compliance, although the practice is encouraged. Publishing in a subscription journal and making the accepted version of the manuscript immediately openly available in a public repository (green OA through postprints) is compliant with Plan S, but undesirable for many publishers. Although there have been concerted actions promoting the creation of alternative publishing models that are both open to read and free to publish (known as diamond or platinum OA), these are still rare or poorly publicized in most scientific areas. Diamond OA journals are often the result of personal efforts within small groups of scientists and will need time to reach adequate funding models, quality, visibility, reputation, and indexing, while repositories created by large organizations, such as Open Research Europe (European Commission), have limited visibility in the scientific community. As a result, authors of scientific papers who wish to equitably showcase their research may have limited choices outside of article processing charge (APC)-based journals as soon as 2025. In this scenario, the cost to publish OA is quickly becoming a new paywall in science, substituting the difficulty to read papers with the inability to showcase results in journals seen as reputable, due to the financial barrier of APCs.

Guest Post — Article Processing Charges are a Heavy Burden for Middle-Income Countries
The cost to publish OA is quickly becoming a new paywall in science, substituting the difficulty to read papers with the inability to showcase results in journals seen as reputable, due to the financial barrier of APCs.

Related Reading

(UK) Royal Society offers publishing discounts for peer reviewers – Times Higher Education (Jack Grove | January 2023)

Why I think ending article-processing charges will save open access – Nature (Juan Pablo Alperin |October 2022)

Removing author fees can help open access journals make research available to everyone – The Conversation (Jessica Lange | September 2022)

(USA) US orders publicly funded research be made free to access immediately – Times Higher Education (Paul Basken | August 2022)

Our Societies, Journals, and the Narrative of Accessibility and Equity in Open Research – Scholarly Kitchen (Haseeb Irfanullah | December 2021)

Article Processing Charges (APCs) and the new enclosure of research – London School of Economics Blog (Gunnar Sivertsen & Lin Zhan | August 2022)

Open access is closed to middle-income countries – Times Higher Education (Alicia Kowaltowski | April 2022)

(France) France to back not-for-profit diamond journals – Times Higher Education (David Matthews | July 2021)

(EU) Plan S Rights Retention Strategy, Copyright and the Academic Community – Part One – Scholarly Kitchen (Robert Harington | February 2021)

Publishers roll out alternative routes to open access – Science (Jeffrey Brainard | March 2020)

The gold rush: Why open access will boost publisher profits – LSE Impact Blog (Shaun Khoo | June 2019)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A diverse group discussing a topic

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in