Who Gets to Publish? How Article Processing Charges Are Undermining Scientific Diversity

Redacción HC
13/10/2023

In recent years, Open Access (OA) publishing has become a powerful movement promising to democratize knowledge. By removing paywalls for readers, OA helps ensure that research is freely available to anyone, anywhere. But this model comes with a cost that often goes unnoticed: article processing charges (APCs), which can run into thousands of dollars — and are paid by authors.

A new study published in Quantitative Science Studies by Audrey C. Smith and colleagues from the University of Florida offers compelling evidence that APCs may inadvertently reinforce global inequities in who gets to contribute to science. Drawing on a unique dataset of more than 37,000 scientific articles, the study reveals that researchers from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are largely absent from journals that require APCs — despite the promise of inclusivity that Open Access advocates.

A Natural Experiment: The "Mirror Journal" System

Understanding the Parent–Mirror Model

Elsevier, one of the world’s largest academic publishers, operates a system known as Parent–Mirror journals. In this setup, a traditional subscription-based journal (Parent) has a counterpart (Mirror) that is fully Open Access and funded through APCs. Both share the same editorial board and peer review standards, allowing researchers to compare publications with and without APCs under nearly identical scientific conditions.

This setup provided the ideal framework for the researchers to test their core question: Do APCs reduce the geographic diversity of published authors, particularly from underfunded regions?

Quantifying Diversity

To measure diversity, the team used the inverse Simpson index (D₂) — a metric that accounts for both the number of countries represented and how evenly authorship is distributed among them. They analyzed papers published between 2015 and 2020 in 38 journal pairs and controlled for outliers such as China and the U.S., the two most prolific contributors to global science.

Key Findings: Inclusion Gaps in the Open Access Landscape

Similar Selection, Unequal Representation

When comparing Open Access articles published in Parent versus Mirror journals, the study found no significant difference in geographic diversity. This suggests that editorial practices are not driving inequity — the financial barrier posed by APCs is.

However, when comparing Mirror (APC-based) articles with subscription-based ones, the data showed a significant decline in diversity:

• D₂ index dropped from ~24.2 to ~17.5 when moving from subscription-based to APC-funded OA articles.
• This trend persisted even after excluding articles from China and the U.S., further highlighting the structural exclusion of Global South voices.

Who’s Missing?

Most strikingly, no first authors from low-income countries appeared in Mirror journal publications. Meanwhile, authors from upper-middle and high-income countries dominated APC-funded OA outputs. Even in the Parent OA articles (which also charge APCs), LMIC representation remained minimal.

These findings highlight an uncomfortable truth: Open Access is not inherently equitable. While it grants access to readers, it often closes the door to authors who can’t afford to publish.

Consequences for Global Science

Reinforcing Knowledge Inequity

Science thrives on diversity — of ideas, geographies, and lived experiences. When entire regions are underrepresented in academic literature due to financial barriers, the world loses out on valuable insights, particularly on issues like public health, food security, and climate resilience that disproportionately affect LMICs.

The absence of voices from the Global South means that research agendas become skewed toward the interests and contexts of wealthier countries, limiting the global applicability of scientific knowledge.

The Urgent Need for Policy Reform

Smith et al. argue that publishers and academic institutions must take immediate action to address the structural barriers posed by APCs. Their recommendations include:

1. Automatic APC waivers or subsidies for authors from low- and lower-middle-income countries, based on World Bank classifications.
2. Development and promotion of Diamond Open Access models, which are free for both authors and readers.
3. Reforms in grant structures to ensure APC coverage for underfunded researchers.
4. A global shift toward evaluating research based on quality and impact, not the ability to pay for publication.

Conclusion: Open Access Without Open Doors?

The findings from this study point to a paradox in modern science: Open Access is expanding readership but restricting authorship. As institutions and journals promote OA as the gold standard, they must also confront the financial hurdles that exclude entire regions from participating in the creation of knowledge.

True scientific equity requires more than just free access to read — it demands equal opportunity to publish, contribute, and be heard. Without reform, APC-based publishing risks deepening the very inequities that Open Access was meant to overcome.

Topics of interest

Open Access