APC funding for open access - Featured

How to Secure APC Funding for Open Access Publishing in the US and UK

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

Securing Article Processing Charge (APC) funding has become a vital step for researchers and academic institutions looking to publish their work in open access journals. With the growing shift toward more transparent and widely accessible academic outputs, APCs can present a significant financial barrier—especially for early-career researchers or those without institutional backing. In both the United States and the United Kingdom, a variety of funding mechanisms, policies, and support structures have been developed to offset these costs, but navigating this landscape can be complex.

This article explores how researchers and academic publishers can effectively secure APC funding in the US and UK contexts. By understanding institutional policies, national frameworks, library consortia, and alternative models, stakeholders can make informed decisions about where and how to publish open access. We’ll look into major funders’ policies, explore routes through university and library budgets, and consider emerging strategies like transformative agreements and diamond open access. The goal is to offer practical, strategic insights to support successful and sustainable open access publishing.

Understanding APCs and the Open Access Landscape

Article Processing Charges (APCs) are fees charged by open access journals to cover the cost of publishing an article and making it freely available online. This model shifts the financial burden from the reader (via subscriptions) to the author or their institution. In theory, this allows for broader dissemination and impact of academic work, but in practice, it has led to challenges around equity, access, and budgeting.

In both the US and UK, the open access movement is growing rapidly—fueled by mandates from funding bodies, shifting university policies, and increased demand from the public for free access to taxpayer-funded research. However, APCs vary widely, from a few hundred dollars to several thousand, and this variance creates a funding gap that needs to be filled through a variety of means. Researchers need to understand the funding mechanisms available to them and align their publication strategies accordingly.

Institutional Funding in the United States

In the US, there is no central national funding body for APCs. Instead, APC funding tends to be decentralized, with each institution managing its own policies and budgets. Many universities allocate funds for APCs through library-based open access funds or through indirect costs in research grants.

For instance, the University of California system supports open access through campus-specific funds, often managed by university libraries. These programs typically prioritize fully open access journals (over hybrid OA) and require CC-BY licensing. Eligibility may extend to faculty and, in some cases, graduate students, though the criteria vary by campus. The UC also leverages transformative agreements to offset publishing costs, further expanding OA options.

Researchers at institutions without dedicated APC funding may still find support through internal grants, departmental funds, or indirect cost allocations in external research grants. Being proactive—by asking the university’s research office or library about APC support—can open up pathways that are not widely advertised.

National and Funders’ Policies in the United States

On the federal level, U.S. agencies have adopted open access policies with varying approaches. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), for instance, mandates that final peer-reviewed manuscripts be deposited into PubMed Central within 12 months of publication. While this policy doesn’t automatically include APCs, researchers can include APCs in NIH grant budgets when justified. Other agencies, like NSF and DOE, have similar OA mandates but use different repositories. Recent OSTP guidance (2022) further expands these requirements, mandating immediate public access to federally funded research by 2025.

Similarly, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Department of Energy (DOE) permit researchers to include APCs in grant budgets as allowable costs, provided these expenses are reasonable, well-justified, and directly tied to the proposed research. However, retroactive APC reimbursement is typically not allowed—researchers must plan and budget for these costs upfront. Given variations in agency policies (e.g., NSF’s reliance on repositories like NSF-PAR vs. DOE’s use of PAGES), consulting specific funder guidelines before submission is critical to ensure compliance.

Private funders like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) enforce some of academia’s most stringent open access policies. The Gates Foundation, for instance, requires immediate open access under a CC BY 4.0 license for all funded research and automatically covers APCs for publications in compliant journals.

Similarly, HHMI mandates OA without embargo and supports APCs through grants. Unlike some federal agencies, these private funders often provide dedicated, centralized APC funding, reducing administrative burdens on researchers. However, compliance is non-negotiable—failure to meet OA terms can affect future funding.

Institutional Funding in the United Kingdom

The UK operates within a more centralized open access (OA) funding landscape compared to the fragmented US system. National funders like UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), the Wellcome Trust, and the British Heart Foundation enforce clear OA policies and typically distribute block grants to institutions to cover the APCs. These funds are managed by university libraries or research offices, ensuring alignment with funder mandates.

APC allocations follow strict guidelines at leading institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge, and University College London. Researchers often must apply for funding in advance, with priority given to journals meeting funder criteria—usually fully OA journals or hybrid journals participating in transformative agreements (e.g., through Plan S compliance).

Beyond block grants, many UK universities maintain supplementary APC funds to support researchers ineligible for major grants (e.g., early-career researchers or unfunded projects). However, demand frequently exceeds available resources, prompting institutions to encourage early APC planning—sometimes even requiring funding confirmation before manuscript submission.

This centralized approach streamlines compliance but places administrative burdens on institutions to monitor evolving funder policies, such as UKRI’s 2022 shift requiring immediate OA for all funded research.

National and Funders’ Policies in the United Kingdom

UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) enforces one of the most comprehensive OA policies globally, requiring immediate OA for all peer-reviewed research outputs funded by its grants. Publications must appear in either fully OA journals or hybrid journals participating in approved transformative agreements (e.g., Jisc-negotiated ‘read and publish’ deals). To facilitate compliance, UKRI allocates block grants to universities, which cover APCs on researchers’ behalf.

The Wellcome Trust adopts a similarly rigorous policy but goes further by mandating rights retention and CC BY licensing as non-negotiable terms. Wellcome also provides dedicated APC funding through both direct grant allocations and institutional funds, ensuring researchers can meet its OA requirements without financial barriers.

Both funders actively monitor compliance, with universities held accountable for ensuring adherence. This oversight has driven UK institutions to establish specialized OA support teams, offering guidance on:

  • Journal selection (avoiding non-compliant hybrid options)
  • Licensing (prioritizing CC BY for reuse)
  • APC funding workflows (streamlining applications for block grants)

The result is a tightly coordinated national system prioritizing accessibility while shifting administrative burdens from researchers to institutions.

Transformative Agreements and Library Consortia

Transformative agreements (TAs) have emerged as one of the fastest-growing solutions for covering APCs. These innovative contracts—often called ‘read and publish’ or ‘publish and read’ agreements—bundle institutional journal subscriptions with open access publishing rights, effectively prepaying APCs for affiliated authors.

In the UK, Jisc has pioneered large-scale TAs, negotiating nationwide deals with major publishers like Springer Nature, Wiley, and Taylor & Francis. These agreements cover thousands of hybrid and fully OA journals, enabling researchers at participating institutions to publish OA at no direct cost while ensuring compliance with funder mandates (e.g., UKRI, Wellcome).

The US landscape is more decentralized, but it is gaining momentum. Individual institutions (e.g., MIT, University of California) and consortia like the Big Ten Academic Alliance have secured TAs independently, often tailoring terms to local needs. However, coverage remains patchy compared to the UK’s system-wide approach. Researchers are advised to consult their library’s OA team to identify available agreements and eligibility requirements.

While TAs simplify APC funding, challenges persist—including publisher transparency, long-term cost sustainability, and equitable access for unfunded researchers. Nevertheless, they represent a critical step toward flipping the subscription model to full open access.

Alternative Models and Diamond Open Access

Not all open access models require APCs. Diamond open access refers to journals that charge neither authors nor readers. These journals are often supported by universities, scholarly societies, or grant funding, and they represent an increasingly attractive option for researchers concerned about APC costs.

Examples of diamond journals exist in many disciplines and are sometimes hosted on university platforms or funded by national initiatives. In the UK, the COPIM (Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs) project supports sustainable OA publishing models. In the US, projects like the Open Library of Humanities and the Public Knowledge Project provide platforms for APC-free publishing.

While these journals may not always have the same impact factor or visibility as larger commercial titles, they play a crucial role in the scholarly ecosystem. Researchers with limited APC funding should actively seek out reputable diamond journals as part of their publishing strategy.

Practical Strategies for Researchers

Securing APC funding requires a combination of planning, communication, and adaptability. Researchers should begin by identifying which funding sources—grants, institutional budgets, library programs—are available to them. This means contacting the research office or library early, ideally before submitting a manuscript.

APC funding for open access - Research discussion

It’s also important to select journals strategically. Publishing in a journal that’s part of a transformative agreement or fully funded by a university could significantly reduce or eliminate APC costs. Researchers should also keep track of their funders’ policies and ensure they are compliant, as failing to meet open access requirements can jeopardize future funding.

For those applying for grants, including anticipated publication costs in the proposal is essential. Many funders accept APCs as a line item in the budget, but only if they are justified and relevant to the scope of the research. Being specific about which journals the researcher intends to publish in can improve the chances of approval.

Role of Publishers and University Presses

Academic publishers and university presses play a pivotal role in facilitating APC funding. By clearly communicating which journals offer open access options, how transformative agreements work, and which institutional affiliations qualify for discounts, publishers can help demystify the process for authors.

University presses, especially those transitioning toward open access models, often experiment with new pricing structures or collaborate with libraries to fund publishing initiatives. Transparency in pricing, licensing, and workflow is critical. Some presses have also begun offering APC waivers or discounts for authors from underrepresented backgrounds or institutions.

To be effective partners in the open access ecosystem, publishers should integrate open access funding information into their submission platforms, offer clear rights retention policies, and collaborate with libraries on shared infrastructure. These steps not only ease the burden on authors but also strengthen the entire scholarly communication system.

Conclusion

Securing APC funding is a crucial step in navigating the open access publishing process in both the United States and the United Kingdom. While the systems differ significantly—centralized and funder-driven in the UK, decentralized and grant-oriented in the US—there are ample opportunities for researchers to access financial support. By understanding the landscape of institutional funding, national policies, transformative agreements, and alternative models, researchers can make informed and cost-effective decisions about how to publish their work.

Moreover, the future of open access will depend on continued collaboration between researchers, funders, libraries, and publishers. As the ecosystem evolves, so too will the mechanisms for funding and distributing open scholarship. Staying informed and proactive is the best strategy to ensure both compliance and impact in a publishing world that increasingly values openness, equity, and accessibility.

Leave a comment