Estimating global article processing charges paid to six publishers for open access between 2019 and 2023 (2407.16551v1)

Abstract: This study presents estimates of the global expenditure on article processing charges (APCs) paid to six publishers for open access between 2019 and 2023. APCs are fees charged for publishing in some fully open access journals (gold) and in subscription journals to make individual articles open access (hybrid). There is currently no way to systematically track institutional, national or global expenses for open access publishing due to a lack of transparency in APC prices, what articles they are paid for, or who pays them. We therefore curated and used an open dataset of annual APC list prices from Elsevier, Frontiers, MDPI, PLOS, Springer Nature, and Wiley in combination with the number of open access articles from these publishers indexed by OpenAlex to estimate that, globally, a total of \$8.349 billion (\$8.968 billion in 2023 US dollars) were spent on APCs between 2019 and 2023. We estimate that in 2023 MDPI (\$681.6 million), Elsevier (\$582.8 million) and Springer Nature (\$546.6) generated the most revenue with APCs. After adjusting for inflation, we also show that annual spending almost tripled from \$910.3 million in 2019 to \$2.538 billion in 2023, that hybrid exceed gold fees, and that the median APCs paid are higher than the median listed fees for both gold and hybrid. Our approach addresses major limitations in previous efforts to estimate APCs paid and offers much needed insight into an otherwise opaque aspect of the business of scholarly publishing. We call upon publishers to be more transparent about OA fees.

• The paper estimates a total APC expenditure of $8.349 billion (or $8.968 billion in 2023 dollars) over the 2019–2023 period.
• It uses a comprehensive dataset combining publisher APC lists and OpenAlex article counts, revealing a 178.8% increase in annual spending.
• The findings raise concerns about the sustainability and transparency of the author-pays model as hybrid APC costs surge.

Estimating Global Article Processing Charges Paid to Six Publishers for Open Access Between 2019 and 2023

The paper authored by Haustein et al. presents an empirical analysis of global expenditure on Article Processing Charges (APCs) paid to six major publishers (Elsevier, Frontiers, MDPI, PLOS, Springer Nature, and Wiley) for open access (OA) dissemination between 2019 and 2023. Utilizing a meticulously curated dataset that aggregates APC list prices and the volume of open access articles indexed by OpenAlex, the paper highlights significant trends and offers a nuanced insight into the financial aspects of the OA publishing market.

Key Findings

The paper estimated a total global expenditure of $8.349 billion on APCs during the period under investigation, which, when adjusted for the inflation rates of advanced economies, equates to$8.968 billion in 2023 US dollars. Notably, the annual spending on APCs surged from $910.3 million in 2019 to$2.538 billion in 2023. This growth is indicative of both an increase in the number of published OA articles and the rising APC prices charged by publishers.

Several strong numerical results emerge:

1. Publisher Revenue: In 2023, MDPI led with the highest revenue from APCs at $681.6 million, followed by Elsevier ($582.8 million) and Springer Nature ($546.6 million).
2. Inflation Adjusted Spending: There was a near tripling of annual spending on APCs, which increased by 178.8% over the analyzed period.
3. OA Type: 73.2% of the expenditure was on gold OA articles, with hybrid APCs growing at a faster rate than gold, highlighting the significant reliance on the hybrid publishing model.

Implications and Methodology

The significant rise in APC expenditure underscores the increasingly pivotal role of the author-pays model in scholarly publishing. This growth trajectory suggests that publishers are heavily capitalizing on the OA movement, yet this comes with criticisms regarding the sustainability and equity of such models. For instance, the aggregation of higher APCs in hybrid models, which should theoretically cost less given their supplementary income from subscriptions, raises concerns about market practices and the economic burden on researchers.

The methodology employed in the paper builds on previous work but extends it by compiling a comprehensive dataset that combines APC price information from annual publisher price lists with publication counts from OpenAlex. This dataset encompasses 8,712 unique journals and 36,618 journal-year combinations. The paper's approach also incorporates inflation-adjusted metrics to present a more accurate analysis of the economic impact over time.

Analysis and Future Directions

The comparison of listed APCs versus paid APCs reveals that higher-priced journals attract more publications, indicating a preference or perceived value associated with certain journals despite the cost. This trend calls for a deeper examination of the factors driving researchers' publication choices, particularly in relation to journal prestige and impact metrics.

The paper also identifies critical issues such as the opacity in publisher pricing strategies, unaccounted waivers, and the need for greater transparency in financial reporting. These limitations suggest that while the presented data is robust, an exact quantification of APC expenditure remains elusive due to these broader systemic issues.

Looking forward, the paper recommends enhanced transparency from publishers regarding APCs and related revenues. Furthermore, advocating for responsible OA practices, such as diamond OA models, which eliminate APCs for authors, could alleviate some of the financial burdens currently placed on researchers and institutions.

Conclusion

Haustein et al. contribute a vital and data-driven perspective to ongoing discussions about the economics of OA publishing. By presenting detailed estimates of APC revenues and highlighting key patterns, the paper provides a foundation for more informed decision-making among stakeholders in the academic publishing ecosystem. As the OA landscape continues to evolve, further research is needed to address current gaps and support the development of equitable and sustainable models for scholarly communication.