When researchers pay to publish: Results from a survey on APCs in four countries

Abstract: This paper provides an empirical overview of the impact and practices of paying Article Processing Charges (APCs) by four nationally categorized groups of researchers in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa. The data was collected from 13,577 researchers through an online questionnaire. The analysis compares the practice of publishing in journals that charge APCs across different dimensions, including country, discipline, gender, and age of the researchers. The paper also focuses on the maximum amount APC paid and the methods and strategies researchers use to cover APC payments, such as waivers, research project funds, payment by coauthors, and the option to publish in closed access, where possible. Different tendencies were identified among the different disciplines and the national systems examined. Findings show that Argentine researchers apply for waivers most frequently and often use personal funds or international coauthors for APCs, with younger researchers less involved in APC payments. In contrast, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico have more older researchers, yet younger researchers still publish more in APC journals. South African researchers lead in APC publications, likely due to better funding access and read and publish agreements. This study lays the groundwork for further analysis of gender asymmetries, funding access, and views on the commercial Open Access model of scientific dissemination.

• The paper uncovers significant disparities in APC payment practices across Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa, shaped by varied funding sources and institutional support.
• It employs a robust cross-national survey of 13,577 researchers using standardized questionnaires to ensure reliable and comparable data.
• Findings highlight the influence of gender and academic age on APC involvement, pointing to systemic inequities in open-access publishing.

Article Processing Charges in Diverse Research Contexts: A Comparative Analysis

This paper provides an empirical analysis of the impact and practices surrounding the payment of Article Processing Charges (APCs) across four geographically and contextually distinct countries: Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa. Through a methodologically robust survey involving 13,577 researchers, the paper explores several dimensions of APCs, including variations by country, discipline, gender, and age.

Key Findings

The study reveals significant disparities in APC practices across the examined countries. In Argentina, researchers predominantly rely on personal funds or international co-authorships to manage APC payments. By contrast, South African researchers benefit from more accessible institutional funding and agreements such as "read and publish." Argentine researchers, particularly the younger cohort, are less involved in APC payments compared to their counterparts in Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico.

Gender discrepancies are noticeable, with men generally more involved in publishing in APC journals, except in South Africa where women's involvement is notably higher. The academic age of researchers also plays a critical role; younger researchers in Brazil and South Africa are more inclined to publish in APC venues, while in Argentina, age does not significantly alter this trend.

Methodological Approach

The paper employs a cross-national survey method, ensuring comparability through a standardized questionnaire translated into local languages. The responses, collected with varying response rates, offer a comprehensive overview of the national research contexts. Argentina and Brazil, where official institutions facilitated distribution, saw higher participation rates, enhancing the reliability of findings from these nations.

Implications and Future Directions

The findings underscore the economic barriers posed by APCs, particularly in regions where institutional support is limited. With South Africa leading in APC publications, this suggests effective utilization of funding mechanisms and agreements. The study highlights the need for equitable access to publishing resources, accentuating potential systemic inequalities in scientific dissemination.

Future research could explore gender dynamics in publishing and explore the interplay between authorship positions and APC payment responsibilities. Moreover, examining the impact of APCs on collaboration choices presents a fertile ground for further inquiry.

Conclusion

This study provides a granular understanding of how APCs influence publication practices in diverse global contexts. While presenting a critical baseline, the research calls for more nuanced investigations into the socio-economic and institutional factors that shape access to open-access publishing in the Global South. In doing so, it contributes valuable insights into the ongoing discourse on equity and accessibility in academic publishing.