Abstract

Open access publishing has frequently been proposed as a solution to the serials crisis, which involved unsustainable budgetary pressures on libraries due to hyperinflation of subscription costs. The majority of open access articles are published in a minority of journals that levy article processing charges (APCs) paid by authors or their institutions upon acceptance. Increases in APCs is proceeding at a rate three times that which would be expected if APCs were indexed according to inflation. As increasingly ambitious funder mandates are proposed, such as Plan S, it is important to evaluate whether authors show signs of price sensitivity in journal selection by avoiding journals that introduce or increase their APCs. Examining journals that introduced an APC 4-5 years after launch or when flipping from a subscription model to immediate open access model showed no evidence that APC introduction reduced article volumes. Multilevel modelling of APC sensitivity across 319 journals published by the four largest APC-funded dedicated commercial open access publishers (BMC, Frontiers, MDPI, and Hindawi) revealed that from 2012 to 2018 higher APCs were actually associated with increased article volumes. These findings indicate that APC hyperinflation is not suppressed through market competition and author choice. Instead, demand for scholarly journal publications may be more similar to demand for necessities, or even prestige goods, which will support APC hyperinflation to the detriment of researchers, institutions, and funders.

Highlights

  • IntroductionScholars and librarians have struggled with the cost of scholarly communication

  • For over three decades, scholars and librarians have struggled with the cost of scholarly communication

  • Concerns about the affordability of open access have been expressed (Green, 2019), others have argued that inflation of the article processing charges (APC) frequently charged to authors in gold open access models will be controlled by the price sensitivity of authors who can choose different outlets in a competitive market (Pinfield, 2013)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Scholars and librarians have struggled with the cost of scholarly communication. Open access was proposed as one way of coping with these costs because articles would not require ongoing subscriptions to remain accessible (Prosser, 2003; Tananbaum, 2003). Journal prestige and related indicators such as impact factor and indexing are frequently at the top of author considerations (Nicholas et al, 2017; Wijewickrema & Petras, 2017). These findings suggest that authors may be unlikely to consider cost very highly because the importance of publishing their work in the most “prestigious” outlet available is the most important component of their publishing strategy

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call