The Hidden Price Tag of Open Access: Who Really Pays for Scientific Publishing?

Redacción HC
12/07/2025

As the global shift toward Open Access (OA) accelerates, so does the cost of keeping research freely available. A new preprint by Haustein et al. reveals a startling reality: the academic world has spent nearly $9 billion on Article Processing Charges (APCs) to just six major publishers between 2019 and 2023. This comprehensive bibliometric study sheds light on the opaque financial underpinnings of OA and questions whether this model is truly equitable—or merely shifting the burden from readers to researchers.

Open Access at a Cost

Open Access was born out of a promise to democratize knowledge, making scientific research freely accessible to all. Yet for many researchers, especially in low- and middle-income countries, this vision comes with a heavy cost. To publish in OA journals, authors often pay APCs—fees that can range from hundreds to thousands of dollars per article.

This new analysis focuses on six major players in the OA publishing ecosystem—Elsevier, Frontiers, MDPI, PLOS, Springer Nature, and Wiley. By combining publicly available APC price lists with article-level metadata from OpenAlex, the researchers estimate how much was spent, by whom, and how spending patterns have evolved in just five years.

Methodology: Data-Driven but Conservative

The study uses a robust bibliometric approach:

• Data collection: APC list prices from 2019 to 2023 were matched with articles published under OA licenses.
• Inflation adjustment: All costs were converted to 2023 USD using the Consumer Price Index.
• Article type: Only fully OA or hybrid articles with Creative Commons licenses were counted.
• Estimates, not invoices: The study relies on list prices—not actual paid invoices—which means the estimates are likely conservative or indicative, not exact.

This method allowed the team to bypass opaque publisher contracts while still offering meaningful insight into APC trends.

Key Findings: Billions and Growing Fast

1. Nearly $9 Billion Spent in Five Years

From 2019 to 2023, global spending on APCs to these six publishers is estimated at:

• $8.349 billion in nominal USD
• $8.968 billion adjusted for inflation

Annual APC spending nearly tripled, growing from $910 million in 2019 to $2.5 billion in 2023. This trajectory suggests that OA, far from being free, is becoming a lucrative sector of the publishing economy.

2. Publishers Earning the Most

In 2023 alone, the APC revenues per publisher were:

• MDPI: $681.6 million
• Elsevier: $582.8 million
• Springer Nature: $546.6 million

Together, these three accounted for over 70% of total APC revenue, highlighting a concerning concentration of market power in the hands of a few.

3. Hybrid OA Now Dominates

Interestingly, hybrid OA articles—where authors pay APCs in subscription journals—are now outpacing gold OA articles. This means institutions may be paying both subscription fees and APCs, a phenomenon critics call “double dipping.”

The median APC paid was also higher than the list price, hinting at hidden costs, variable discounts, and inconsistent waivers. The study points out that brand prestige and journal impact appear to justify inflated APCs, regardless of transparency.

4. Who Gets Left Behind?

These rising costs pose a serious threat to research equity:

• Institutions with large budgets can afford to pay.
• Researchers in the Global South risk exclusion from high-impact journals.
• There’s no standard mechanism to ensure fair pricing or universal waivers.

This is particularly worrying for early-career scientists and institutions that cannot afford annual APC bills in the millions.

Practical Implications: More Than a Budget Issue

The authors outline several urgent recommendations:

• Policy makers need transparent, real-time data on APC spending to ensure budgets are used efficiently.
• Libraries should question hybrid OA deals and demand clearer pricing from publishers.
• Funders must ensure that APC support includes safeguards for equity and sustainability.
• Publishers are urged to disclose actual APC payments, not just list prices.

As one of the authors, Stefanie Haustein, noted, “Without access to accurate APC data, institutions can’t make informed decisions about OA strategies.”

Can Diamond OA Be the Answer?

Diamond Open Access—where neither authors nor readers pay—emerges as a potential alternative. Regional initiatives like SciELO and Redalyc in Latin America have shown it’s possible to publish high-quality OA without APCs.

However, scaling this model globally will require stronger public funding, governance reform, and a culture shift away from journal prestige as a proxy for quality.

Conclusion: Transparency is the Missing Link

The findings of Haustein et al. don’t just show how much is being spent—they reveal how little is known about how those billions are allocated. In a world striving for equitable, accessible science, APC pricing must be transparent, fair, and regulated.

Otherwise, Open Access could become just another paywall—this time, one that locks out authors instead of readers.

“A transparent scholarly ecosystem is the only way to ensure Open Access benefits everyone—not just those who can afford it.”

Topics of interest

Open Access