Table of Contents
- Introduction
- The Anatomy of Double-Dipping
- The Origins of a Loophole
- A Crisis of Credibility and Cost
- Publisher Responses: Denial, Deflection, or Redesign?
- The Regulatory and Policy Landscape
- What This Means for Authors and Institutions
- Toward a More Transparent Future
- Conclusion
Introduction
In the high-minded world of academic publishing, one might assume transparency and ethical integrity form the backbone of the industry. After all, it’s about knowledge, right? But peer behind the curtain, and you’ll uncover a troubling reality: the practice of “double-dipping.” It’s a term that should make every scholar’s eyebrow twitch and every librarian’s budget scream. Double-dipping is when publishers charge authors (or their institutions) Article Processing Charges (APCs) to make articles open access, and then also charge libraries and readers for subscriptions that include those very same articles. It’s a classic case of having your cake, eating it too, and then billing the caterer twice.
The growth of open access (OA) was supposed to democratize knowledge, removing paywalls and boosting accessibility. But somewhere along the way, a loophole emerged—one that some major publishers have gleefully exploited. As open access becomes increasingly mandated by funders and governments, the academic publishing world finds itself grappling with a paradox: Are we creating a freer, more open system, or just building new toll booths on a supposedly public highway?
The Anatomy of Double-Dipping
To understand double-dipping, it helps to examine how traditional and open access publishing models coexist in today’s hybrid environment. Historically, academic publishers made their money from subscriptions. Libraries paid hefty annual fees to access journals, and readers without institutional access were met with steep pay-per-view charges. It wasn’t ideal, but it was straightforward.
Enter open access publishing, where articles are made freely available online. In the Gold OA model, authors—or more accurately, their funders or institutions—pay APCs to cover the costs of publication. The theory is simple: you pay upfront, and then anyone can read the work for free. So far, so noble.
But in the hybrid journal model—where only some articles are open access while the rest remain behind paywalls—things get murky. Many journals continue to collect subscriptions from libraries, even though a growing portion of their content is already paid for via APCs. This is the heart of the double-dipping scandal: publishers charging twice for the same content.
In other words, institutions are paying both to publish and to read. A university might fork out thousands in APCs for its faculty’s open access articles and then still pay subscription fees to access those same journals. It’s like buying a book, donating it to a library, and then paying the library to let you read it.
The Origins of a Loophole
Double-dipping didn’t arise out of thin air. It evolved naturally—if opportunistically—from the hybrid journal model. Initially promoted as a stepping stone toward full open access, hybrid journals were a pragmatic compromise. They allowed authors to fulfill OA mandates without forcing journals to overhaul their business models.
Publishers promised to adjust subscription fees to account for the growing volume of open access content. In theory, more OA articles meant lower subscription prices. In practice, well, that rarely happened.
Reports from funding bodies and academic coalitions show that few publishers provide transparent offsets for APC revenues. And those that do often apply convoluted discount schemes that are impossible to verify or audit effectively. It’s a game of numbers where the house always wins.
One of the earliest and loudest alarms came from the UK. The Research Councils UK (RCUK) and later UKRI pushed hard for OA mandates and invested heavily in APC funds. But when libraries asked why subscription prices weren’t falling, they were met with shrugs and spreadsheets that didn’t add up. The response from many institutions was frustration and a renewed demand for accountability.
A Crisis of Credibility and Cost
At the core of the double-dipping dilemma lies a question of credibility. How can publishers, who position themselves as partners in scholarly communication, justify such opaque and arguably exploitative practices?
The financial implications are staggering. Consider the budgets of major research universities, which often pay millions in subscriptions annually. Add APCs, which can range from $2,000 to $5,000 per article, and the totals are eye-watering. It’s not uncommon for a university to spend twice as much on publishing as it did a decade ago, with little to show in terms of improved access or affordability.
This isn’t just about cost—it’s about principle. Funders and institutions are paying to make knowledge accessible, only to see it folded back into the very systems they sought to dismantle. It’s a vicious circle that raises ethical questions about where the money goes, who benefits, and what it means for the future of scholarly publishing.
Moreover, the double-dipping model perpetuates inequity. Wealthier institutions can afford to absorb both subscription costs and APCs, effectively subsidizing access for the Global South. But for smaller universities and developing countries, the dual burden can mean exclusion from both reading and publishing. This isn’t open access—it’s gated access with a prettier fence.
Publisher Responses: Denial, Deflection, or Redesign?
Unsurprisingly, publishers don’t like the term “double-dipping.” Many deny the practice outright, pointing to discount models, offset agreements, and transformative deals that allegedly prevent it. Others argue that managing hybrid models is complex and that they’re simply recovering costs for services rendered.
Some big names—like Springer Nature, Wiley, and Elsevier—have made efforts to shift toward transformative agreements (TAs), which bundle publishing and access into a single contract. On paper, TAs offer a fairer model, as institutions pay a lump sum that covers both reading and publishing. But even these arrangements have come under scrutiny for a lack of transparency and sky-high costs.
What’s more, transformative deals often favor large research-intensive institutions. Smaller colleges with lower publication output may find themselves paying disproportionately for access or being excluded altogether from national deals. So while TAs might curb overt double-dipping, they don’t necessarily solve the deeper problems of imbalance and opacity.
And let’s not forget the branding. Publishers often wrap these deals in glowing rhetoric—“open science,” “accelerating discovery,” “democratizing knowledge.” But when libraries are still coughing up seven-figure invoices, it’s fair to ask: Whose democracy is this, exactly?
The Regulatory and Policy Landscape
In response to growing concerns, some governments and consortia have begun tightening the screws. Plan S, launched by cOAlition S, is one of the most aggressive efforts to eliminate hybrid publishing and mandate full OA. Under Plan S, funders won’t reimburse APCs for hybrid journals unless they’re part of a transformative agreement.
The logic is simple: starve the double-dipping beast. But implementation has been rocky. Some publishers have adapted; others have resisted. And authors caught in the middle often face confusing, contradictory policies that make compliance a bureaucratic nightmare.
National and regional consortia have also stepped in. In Germany, Projekt DEAL struck groundbreaking agreements with publishers, including a massive deal with Wiley that includes both reading and publishing rights. In the U.S., the University of California system walked away from Elsevier for over a year, citing the unsustainable cost of double-dipping and lack of progress on OA.
Yet despite these efforts, many institutions still find themselves in a bind. Refusing to pay can mean cutting off faculty from vital research. But continuing to pay means legitimizing a system that many believe is fundamentally broken.
What This Means for Authors and Institutions
For authors, the double-dipping model presents a cruel irony. You’re encouraged—often required—to publish OA. But your institution is footing the bill twice, and confusing access models and restrictive licenses dilute the supposed benefits of openness. Add to this the prestige economy of academic publishing, and it becomes clear that choice is an illusion.
Institutions, meanwhile, are forced into triage. Do they support more APCs? Negotiate transformative deals? Cancel subscriptions? There’s no easy answer, especially when every decision affects research, reputation, and resource allocation.
Some universities have started building their own infrastructure: institutional repositories, preprint servers, and library-led publishing platforms. These grassroots efforts aim to reclaim control and reduce dependency on commercial publishers. But the scale and visibility of these alternatives remain limited, at least for now.
Toward a More Transparent Future
Ending double-dipping requires more than policy tweaks. It demands a fundamental reimagining of the academic publishing ecosystem. At the heart of this reimagining is transparency around costs, contracts, and value.
First, publishers must be held accountable for offsetting APC revenues against subscription costs. This means clear reporting, independent audits, and enforceable agreements. No more sleight-of-hand with discount models that hide more than they reveal.
Second, institutions and funders need to collaborate more aggressively, sharing data and strategies to build leverage. National deals should reflect collective bargaining power, not fragmented negotiations that leave smaller institutions at a disadvantage.
Third, we need to invest in sustainable, community-owned alternatives. Open infrastructure, non-profit publishers, and cooperative models offer a path away from double-dipping and toward a system rooted in equity and access.
The good news? Momentum is building. From Plan S to university-led initiatives, the tide may finally be turning. But as long as publishers can get paid twice for the same product, the incentives to change remain weak.
Conclusion
Double-dipping is more than an accounting trick—it’s a symptom of a deeper malaise in academic publishing. It reflects a system where profit often trumps principle and where the noble ideals of open access are being distorted by market logic. As institutions, funders, and scholars navigate this terrain, one thing is clear: the status quo is not sustainable.
The good news is that awareness is growing, and so is resistance. Transformative agreements, policy reforms, and alternative platforms are all steps in the right direction. But real change will require more than new deals—it will require a new ethos, one that puts access, equity, and transparency at the center.
Because in the end, open access should mean just that: open, not opportunistic.