The history of APCs - Featured

Tracing the History of APCs: Why Authors Now Pay to Publish

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

Article Processing Charges, or APCs, have become the currency of the open access publishing world. If you’ve dabbled in academic publishing or even just followed the debates around open access, you’ve likely encountered this term. APCs are fees charged to authors to make their research freely accessible to readers, flipping the traditional subscription model on its head. Yet, despite their ubiquity today, APCs are a relatively recent innovation—and their rise is intertwined with the evolution of scholarly communication, technology, and business models.

This write-up uncovers the origins of APCs: how they came into existence, why they became the go-to mechanism for open access, and the complex ecosystem they now support. Along the way, we’ll explore the historical context of academic publishing, the disruptive power of digital technology, the ambitions of open access advocates, and the business realities that turned free-for-read into pay-to-publish. By understanding where APCs came from, we gain insight into their present controversies and future possibilities.

The Pre-Internet Era: Traditional Publishing and Subscription Models

Before the digital revolution, scholarly publishing was an entirely different beast. Academic journals existed primarily as print publications, with physical copies distributed mainly to university libraries and research institutions. The business model was straightforward: readers, or more accurately their institutions, paid subscription fees to access journals. Authors rarely paid to publish; instead, the costs were recovered by charging readers.

This print subscription system seemed stable, even if it had inefficiencies. Libraries spent significant portions of their budgets on journal subscriptions, often struggling to afford all the titles faculty demanded. Publishers enjoyed steady revenues, while authors’ roles were limited to producing manuscripts and peer reviewing. The content, once printed, was locked behind paywalls—physical or digital—accessible only by those who could afford the subscription or had institutional access.

The system worked, albeit imperfectly, for decades. The model also fostered oligopolies: a handful of large publishers dominated academic publishing, capitalizing on their brand prestige and control over essential journals. Despite complaints about cost and access, the model was entrenched, and little incentive existed to change it dramatically.

The Digital Disruption: Catalyst for Change

The arrival of the internet and digital technologies in the 1990s shattered many assumptions about academic publishing. Suddenly, distribution costs—printing, shipping, and physical storage—dropped dramatically. Digital publishing allowed instantaneous global dissemination at a fraction of the cost. In theory, scholarly knowledge could be democratized, accessible to anyone with an internet connection.

However, this shift also disrupted publishers’ revenue streams. Without the barrier of print distribution costs, the traditional subscription model was challenged. Publishers experimented with digital subscriptions, pay-per-view access, and hybrid models, but concerns lingered about affordability and access equity.

It was in this crucible of technological change and rising demand for openness that the idea of Article Processing Charges was born. The goal? To fund the costs of digital publishing through a different channel—charging authors or their funders to cover publication expenses, enabling free access for readers.

The Birth of Open Access and the First APC Models

Open access as a movement gained momentum in the early 2000s, with landmark declarations like the Budapest Open Access Initiative in 2002. Advocates argued that publicly funded research should be publicly accessible without paywalls. But a practical question loomed: who pays for publishing if readers don’t?

Enter APCs as a solution. By charging a fee at the point of publication, journals could cover peer review coordination, editorial work, typesetting, hosting, and archiving costs while making the final article free to all readers. This model aligned with the ethos of openness and allowed a sustainable business model without subscription fees.

One of the earliest large-scale adopters was the Public Library of Science (PLOS), launched in 2003. PLOS pioneered the APC-funded open access journal model with titles like PLOS Biology and PLOS ONE. The success of PLOS helped legitimize APCs as a viable alternative, inspiring a wave of open access journals and publishers to adopt similar schemes.

However, the APC model also sparked debates about equity: Would researchers with less funding be priced out of publishing? Would the pressure to pay APCs encourage predatory practices or lower editorial standards? These questions still resonate today.

Why APCs Became the Dominant Open Access Model

APCs gained traction for several pragmatic reasons. First, they provided a direct, transparent mechanism to fund publication costs. Institutions and funders could allocate budgets for APCs, creating a clear financial flow that supported open access without hidden charges.

Second, APCs fit neatly into the existing publishing infrastructure. Journals could transition from subscription to APC models without overhauling their entire operation. Publishers retained control over the editorial and peer review process, while adapting to a new revenue source.

Third, funders embraced APCs as part of their open access mandates. Many major research funders, including the Wellcome Trust and the European Commission, stipulated that funded research must be published open access, often providing dedicated APC funds to researchers. This institutional backing legitimized APCs and encouraged publishers to offer APC-based open access options.

Finally, APCs enabled rapid scaling. As open access gained popularity, journals could increase publication volume and reach global audiences without subscription barriers, potentially increasing citation impact and visibility for authors.

The Economics Behind APCs: Costs, Pricing, and Profit Margins

To understand where APCs come from, one must peek behind the curtain of publishing economics. Publishing involves multiple cost components: manuscript handling, peer review coordination, editing, typesetting, online hosting, archiving, marketing, and administrative overhead.

While digital publishing reduces printing and distribution costs, many of these activities still require staff and infrastructure. Professional publishing standards demand quality control, rigorous peer review, and compliance with ethical guidelines—all requiring investment.

Publishers calculate APCs to cover these costs and, for many commercial publishers, to generate profit. APCs vary widely—ranging from a few hundred to several thousand dollars—depending on journal prestige, field, and publisher. Elite journals can charge exorbitant fees, reflecting brand value and demand.

This pricing has led to criticism of “double dipping,” where publishers charge both subscription fees and APCs during a transitional “hybrid” phase, or exorbitant APCs that restrict access for authors from less wealthy institutions or countries. The market dynamics of APCs remain complex, reflecting tensions between access, quality, and commercial interests.

Criticisms and Controversies: APCs Under Fire

Despite their practical appeal, APCs have drawn sharp criticism. Detractors argue that APCs recreate inequities by shifting cost burdens to authors, favoring well-funded researchers and institutions while marginalizing others.

Predatory journals exploit the APC model by charging fees without providing legitimate peer review or editorial services, muddying the reputation of APC-funded publishing. This has fueled skepticism about the model’s integrity and the quality of open access content.

There are also concerns about the impact on scholarly communication culture. APCs may incentivize publishers to prioritize quantity over quality, as revenue depends on volume. The competitive pressure to publish could undermine rigorous review standards.

Moreover, the APC model often disadvantages researchers from developing countries, smaller institutions, or independent scholars who lack dedicated funds. While waivers and subsidies exist, they are unevenly applied.

Alternatives to APCs and the Future of Open Access Funding

The APC model is not the only way to fund open access. Other models have emerged, aiming to address its drawbacks. Institutional subsidies, consortial funding, cooperative publishing, and “diamond” open access (no fees for authors or readers) represent alternatives.

Plan S, an initiative by European funders, advocates for open access but allows for various funding mechanisms beyond APCs, pushing publishers and institutions toward more equitable models.

Technological innovations also hold promise. Preprint servers, overlay journals, and community-driven platforms could reduce costs and bypass traditional publishing altogether.

The future of open access funding will likely be pluralistic, combining APCs with innovative models to balance sustainability, equity, and quality.

Conclusion

Article Processing Charges emerged from a perfect storm of technological disruption, open access ambitions, and economic realities. They represent a pragmatic solution to fund publishing in a world where knowledge flows freely to readers but still requires investment to produce and maintain.

APCs have transformed academic publishing, democratizing access while raising new challenges around equity and commercialization. Understanding their origin illuminates why APCs exist, how they function, and the tensions they embody.

As the scholarly communication ecosystem evolves, APCs will continue to be debated, refined, or perhaps replaced. The task ahead is to build a publishing system that balances openness, quality, and fairness—one that truly serves the global scholarly community.

Leave a comment