Last month, we submitted a manuscript to a reputable journal in the field of ecology, and we promptly received a rejection, with an offer of transferring the manuscript to several other journals by the same publisher. A quick review told us that our work fitted the scope of only two of them.

After some discussion, we made the mistake of accepting the offer for the transfer, without checking the pros and cons. And soon enough, I received an email explaining the Article Processing Charges (APCs), which, even after a discount (of 10% offered by the journal for the transfer, and a further discount thanks to a society membership I have), was about 70% of my monthly salary, and higher than the per capita annual research support budget assigned to us by our institute.

This work was not funded by a research grant, and in India, most research grants do not support APCs. Our institute provides some funds for APCs, but this would cover only one-fifth of the APC being charged by the journal, after discount. Unfortunately, the manuscript had been submitted, and was already under review. We decided to wait for the comments from the reviewers and editor. We know that we will be forced to withdraw the manuscript even if it is accepted, because I simply cannot pay the APC at this rate.

This is a personal story, but also the story of most researchers across the Global South. We cannot afford the APCs that most journals charge, and so we cannot aspire to publish our research in the most sought-after journals of the world. Of course, some good journals do not charge for publishing, but they also keep access to publications behind paywalls. Researchers from the Global South suffer at both ends, either because the open access publishing charges are too high, or the subscription access to publications is too high.

It is now well understood that open access allows more viewing, downloading, reading, and citing of papers. This means that people like us, facing resource constraints, become less and less visible to the scientific community, as our research is not openly accessible, while at the same time we have less and less access to the knowledge that is locked behind paywalls.

The open science policy of the EU, and now the US, are welcome initiatives for advocates of open science, a community to which I belong. Nevertheless, I cannot help wondering what this would mean for researchers in the Global South whose research is not backed by funders in the EU or the US. I cannot help wondering if the business of academic publishing will make use of this opportunity to charge higher APCs, thereby making open science even more difficult to achieve in the Global South. Most major universities of the Global North have agreements with major publishers that allow them to access open science at lower and more reasonable rates. This, too, is beyond the scope of most universities in the Global South, simply because the universities cannot afford such publisher contracts.

Can a solution be envisaged? I believe so. If major publishers can pledge to make science truly open, they can charge different APCs for different countries. While this is already done to some degree, the list of countries that receive full or partial waivers is not exhaustive. In fact, the journal we submitted our article to has this scheme in place, but my country, India, does not feature in any of its lists.

I understand that journals need revenue to run the show, and I would like to point out that the APC model can be used responsibly. Several publishers, including Frontiers, have the clear policy of separating the editorial assessment of the article from the authors’ or the institutes’ ability to pay a full or partial APC, in which all accepted articles are published. I have myself received both full and partial waivers from Frontiers and other journals in the past, and on one occasion, I decided to withdraw a manuscript during the reviewing process, because I could not pay the APC. But some publishers are using a combination of subscription fees and exaggerated APCs to drive a profit-focused commercial strategy. This leads to researchers being pressed hard from both sides, and only those with ample resources can win in this game.

Does this mean Indian scientists can afford the APC? The answer is a loud and clear no. India might not be listed because it is not considered economically weak enough to deserve this listing. However, I would point out that the health of the economy of a country does not necessarily reflect the condition of the funding available to scientists in that country. Waiver lists need to consider the currency conversion factor, as well as the science funding status of each country to establish equitable and inclusive policies for APC discounts. 

Moreover, we, as a scientific community, need to revisit the entire concept of publishing. The process that was established when manuscripts needed to be published in journals that had to be printed no longer seems necessary when publication is virtual. Why can’t we move towards a system where we put manuscripts on a portal and anyone interested in the topic is allowed to comment and engage in a discussion with the authors, much like we do on social media? The Frontiers journals have an excellent system of open peer review, which is a step toward such progressive modalities. But we need to go further by making every piece of research accessible in an inclusive system that takes everyone along.

The question is, why should publishers agree to such a revolution? After all, they are here for business. This model would suit the researchers and the seekers of knowledge, but not the publishers. But they would still earn revenue from advertisements, which would also have a greater reach if access were open.

The new memo released by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) on 25 August makes me wonder if we are indeed progressing a little toward such new horizons. “Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research,” is the aim of this new policy document. This envisages open sharing of data generated from federally funded projects, the lifting of embargoes on manuscripts and open access to all publications.

This could be a game changer, if funders think out of the box and establish new models of open access that can then be adopted by others. For example, we might have an academic social media portal for sharing data, reports, preprints, without going through formal publications. Imagine how much time this would save for all – the authors, editors, reviewers. After all, none of us get paid for the work we do in these roles.

Ultimately, we need to see a paradigm shift, not only in publishing models, but also in assessment models. Only then will such revolutionary ideas work. Perhaps this is wishful thinking on my part, but as a relatively young researcher, I have hope that someday, we will achieve true inclusiveness in open science. 

Biography

Anindita Bhadra is an Associate Professor and Associate Dean of International Relations and Outreach at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Kolkata, India. She was the Founding Chair of the Indian National Young Academy of Science and is a co-chair of the Global Young Academy.