Why are article processing charges expensive - Featured

Why Are Article Processing Charges Expensive? Rethinking the Economics of Open Access Publishing

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

In the evolving landscape of academic publishing, Article Processing Charges (APCs) have become both a prominent and controversial feature, particularly in the world of open access journals. As more researchers turn to open access models to maximize the visibility and reach of their work, they often face steep fees ranging from a few hundred to several thousand dollars per article. While the rationale behind APCs is understandable—someone has to bear the cost of making research freely available to readers—the actual amounts being charged have raised significant questions about transparency, fairness, and sustainability.

At the heart of the matter lies a fundamental tension: academic research is largely publicly funded, produced by researchers working in publicly funded institutions, and reviewed voluntarily by peers, yet the cost to publish it continues to climb. This paradox is fueling intense debate within the scholarly community, with many calling for a reassessment of APCs and a move toward a more balanced, equitable model. This article will explore why APCs are so expensive, how the costs break down, and why lowering these charges to an optimal level is not only possible but essential for the future of academic publishing.

The Economics Behind APCs

To understand the pricing of Article Processing Charges, it’s essential to consider the cost structure that supports a typical open access journal. Publishers often point to various legitimate operational expenses that APCs are meant to cover. These include editorial processes, typesetting, digital preservation, plagiarism checks, DOI registration, indexing, and the technological infrastructure to support submission platforms and online hosting.

Additionally, salaries are paid to editorial staff, marketing teams, and administrators, particularly in large publishing houses. High-quality journals also improve user experience and integrate digital tools that enhance discoverability and citation tracking. From a business standpoint, these services incur costs that need to be recouped somehow, especially when subscription revenue is no longer part of the model.

However, while these costs are real, many critics argue that they don’t fully justify the magnitude of some APCs being charged today. A breakdown of operational expenses, particularly in well-established, large-scale journals, often reveals significant profit margins that extend far beyond cost recovery. Despite shifting to open access models, some of the world’s top publishers continue to report profit margins exceeding 30%—levels rarely seen in most other industries. The imbalance suggests that APCs are driven by cost, market power, and brand prestige.

Market Forces and Brand Value

One reason APCs remain high is the branding power of established publishers. Journals with a strong reputation or high impact factor can command significantly higher APCs simply because researchers are more willing to pay for the visibility and academic prestige of publishing in those outlets. This brand premium distorts the market, allowing publishers to set prices far exceeding actual costs.

This creates a significant barrier to participation in the global academic conversation for early-career researchers or those from less wealthy institutions. When APCs reach $3,000 or more for a single article, it effectively limits access to publication to those with institutional funding or external grants, often sidelining valuable voices, especially from the Global South. This has led to a growing divide in who gets published and recognized.

The APC pricing model also reinforces inequalities between disciplines. STEM fields, which tend to have better funding, can afford higher APCs, while researchers in the humanities and social sciences, where grant money is more limited, may struggle to cover even modest fees. This market dynamic entrenches existing disparities, making it harder for all scholars to share their work equally.

The Role of Institutional Funding and Grant Dependency

Much of the current APC model relies on institutions and research funders to absorb publication costs. For example, Plan S—an initiative by a coalition of European research funders—mandates that publicly funded research be published in open access journals, often with APCs covered by funders. This approach helps support open access goals, but it also creates a system where researchers increasingly depend on external funding to publish their work.

This dependency introduces multiple problems. First, it makes researchers’ publication potential contingent on their ability to secure grants, not just on the quality of their research. Second, it creates administrative burdens for institutions managing APC budgets, and third, it allows publishers to price according to what they believe institutions are willing to pay rather than actual value.

There’s also the risk of “double-dipping,” where hybrid journals (those that charge subscription fees but also offer open access for a fee) benefit from both models, increasing overall costs to institutions. Even well-meaning attempts to support open access through institutional agreements can inadvertently reinforce the high-price ecosystem by legitimizing inflated APCs.

Transparency Issues and Cost Justification

A major concern surrounding APCs is the lack of transparency in how the fees are calculated. Unlike other service industries, where clients can compare price quotes and understand what they’re paying for, academic publishing offers little clarity on what an APC covers. Some publishers provide vague breakdowns, but few offer detailed, auditable reports.

This opacity makes it hard for researchers, funders, or institutions to evaluate the fairness of APCs. Without transparency, there’s little incentive for publishers to keep fees reasonable or align them with actual production costs. This disconnect creates an environment ripe for price inflation and market exploitation, particularly among larger commercial publishers that dominate the industry.

Transparency is crucial not just for ethical reasons, but also for practical ones. When publishing costs are clear and well-justified, stakeholders can make informed decisions about where to allocate resources. It also promotes trust and accountability in the system. A sustainable publishing ecosystem requires publishers to justify their pricing in ways that can be independently verified.

Exploring Alternatives: Diamond Open Access and Cooperative Models

One of the most promising developments in the open access space is the rise of diamond open access, where neither authors nor readers pay. These journals are typically supported by institutions, consortia, or government bodies and often rely on volunteer editorial work. While they may lack the commercial polish of larger operations, many diamond open access journals provide high-quality publishing at a fraction of the cost.

There’s also growing interest in cooperative publishing models, where academic institutions, libraries, and scholars collaboratively fund and manage journals. These models emphasize community ownership, transparency, and cost control. Initiatives like the Open Library of Humanities or the Public Knowledge Project (PKP) demonstrate that sustaining scholarly publishing with minimal or no APCs is possible, especially when technological infrastructure is shared and centralized.

Why are article processing charges expensive - Research writing

While these alternatives may not yet scale to match the volume of commercial publishing, they offer a blueprint for more equitable and efficient systems. Investing in shared infrastructure and rethinking ownership of scholarly publishing can significantly reduce costs and restore balance to the current model.

Toward an Optimal APC Model

It’s not enough to simply criticize high APCs; the real question is what an optimal, fair APC should look like. Ideally, APCs should reflect the actual cost of services rendered, without excessive markup. Studies suggest that high-quality publishing can be sustained at around $300 to $1,000 per article, depending on the journal’s infrastructure, labor model, and technological investments.

A fair APC model would also be tiered or scaled based on the financial capacity of the author’s institution, the country’s income level, and the discipline involved. Many journals already waive or discount APCs for authors from low-income countries, but these policies can be inconsistent or poorly communicated. A more structured and transparent approach is needed.

There’s also a strong case for moving toward collective funding models that pool resources at the institutional or national level to support open access publishing without relying on individual APCs. Known as “subscribe to open” or “collective action” models, these systems aim to transition journals to open access while maintaining financial sustainability and avoiding individual author fees altogether.

The Ethical Imperative to Lower APCs

Beyond economics, the debate around APCs also centers on ethics. Knowledge production and dissemination are central to human progress, and restricting access to publishing based on one’s ability to pay undermines the entire mission of academia. By keeping APCs high, we risk reinforcing a pay-to-play system that benefits elite institutions and marginalizes independent researchers, underfunded departments, and voices from the Global South.

Academic publishing should be a public good. Lowering APCs to a sustainable and equitable level ensures that research remains accessible to readers and contributors. It supports a healthier, more diverse ecosystem where scholarship is judged by its merit, not by the size of the author’s budget.

The responsibility to move toward fair APCs lies with publishers, institutions, and funding bodies alike. Publishers need to open their pricing models to scrutiny and reduce unnecessary overhead. Institutions should push back against exorbitant contracts and invest in alternative models. Funders must support innovation and resist the normalization of ever-increasing APCs. And researchers must continue advocating for systems that reflect the values of equity, accessibility, and academic integrity.

Conclusion

The current landscape of article processing charges reflects a complex web of cost structures, market dynamics, and entrenched interests. While APCs were initially introduced to support the noble goal of open access, they have, in many cases, evolved into mechanisms that perpetuate inequality and inflate costs. As academic publishing continues its digital transformation, the scholarly community must collectively rethink what constitutes fair value.

Lowering APCs to an optimal level isn’t just about reducing costs—it’s about preserving the integrity and inclusivity of academic discourse. By embracing more transparent pricing, supporting non-commercial alternatives, and fostering global cooperation, it’s possible to reshape the publishing ecosystem into one that genuinely serves the academic mission.

The question isn’t whether we can afford to lower APCs. The real question is: can we afford not to?