Article Processing Charges Threaten Global Health Equity: Open Access is Closed Science.
Hyman, G. Y.; Wurdeman, T.; Kumar, N.; Alty, I. G.; Forbes, C.; Riviello, R.; Raykar, N. P.
10.1101/2024.11.22.24317779 medRxivShow abstract
IntroductionThe shift from subscription-based to open-access (OA) publishing sought to democratize scientific knowledge by eliminating access barriers. However, article processing charges (APCs) have raised concerns about equity, particularly for researchers from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). APCs shift costs from readers to authors, potentially limiting the ability of researchers to disseminate their work. This study aimed to quantify the effect of APCs on equity in global surgery by examining current APC costs and their association with journal metrics and LMIC authorship. MethodsA structured review was conducted on journals APCs and bibliometrics using data from the Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) and PubMed. Journals were included if they actively published human health research and had at least 100 articles with first author information. APC data were obtained from five major publishers (Elsevier, Wiley, Oxford, Sage, and Springer Nature) and supplemented manually. Journals were categorized into surgery, public health, and other groups. Data on APCs, bibliometrics (SJR ranking, H-index), and first author affiliations were analyzed using linear regression models to assess their relationship with APC costs and LMIC authorship. ResultsThe study included 2,001 journals with a median APC of $3,700 USD showing no significant cost differences across journal categories. The median percentage of LMIC first authors was 4%, with a significant negative association between APCs and LMIC authorship: each $500 increase in APC was linked to a 0.7% decrease in LMIC first authorship. While higher APCs correlated with slightly higher bibliometric indices, the academic impact was limited. ConclusionAPCs present a significant barrier to LMIC authors, undermining the equity goals of OA publishing. Alternative funding models, such as tiered pricing or expanded waivers, are needed to ensure OA remains accessible and equitable across all economic contexts.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigating the Nature of Open Science Practices Across Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Journals: An Audit 95%
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey 94%
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Drivers of COVID-19 policy stringency in 175 countries and territories: COVID-19 cases and deaths, gross domestic products per capita, and health expenditures 88%
- Inequities in Effective Coverage of Family Planning Services in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: Linking Households and Facility Surveys 86%
- Prevalence of malnutrition among children at primary cleft surgery: A cross-sectional analysis of a global database 86%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.