Publishers Struggle to Clarify Publishing Costs

Host: “I’d like to delve into the topic of open access publishing. We were both present during the early discussions at Nature regarding open access, which is now profoundly influencing publishers’ business and editorial models. What’s your take on the current landscape of open access?”

JB: “This is a fascinating moment in the ongoing narrative of open access, which has been a significant part of my career. Initially, concerns revolved around the straightforward business model for publishers: more published papers lead to higher revenues. This creates a drive to increase publication volume, especially among commercial entities, but also among non-profits aiming to keep their market relevance.”

W: “While the incentive exists to publish more, many traditional publishers understand that quantity cannot compromise quality. This has led to the establishment of tiered journal systems that allow for both high-volume open access options and low-volume, high-impact factor journals that uphold the publisher's reputation.”

JB: “Over time, we’ve moved into an article processing charge (APC)-driven economy where publishers earn based on the articles they publish, which has led to unforeseen ramifications. Although open science and access are undeniably the future, achieving this equitably while serving publisher interests is essential. Unfortunately, our industry has inadequately communicated the complexities and costs associated with publishing, leading to misunderstandings about the necessity of these expenses.”

W: “Many authors are often unaware of what their APCs actually fund. There is a pressing need for greater pricing transparency. For instance, PLOS publishes reports on their price and service transparency framework, which is a commendable start, though I would prefer a more detailed cost breakdown.”

Large commercial entities like Elsevier and Springer Nature should also adopt similar transparency practices. Their primary customers—authors and funding agencies—deserve clarity regarding how APCs are determined and what specific expenses they cover, including initial assessments, peer reviews, and more. When an editor allocates extra time to secure peer reviewers due to declining acceptance rates, authors should see how this impacts the APCs.

Pricing model transparency is crucial. In selective journals, a significant portion of the APC (up to 50% in some Nature journals) supports peer review and editorial services for submissions that ultimately don’t get published. There's also considerable variation in costs among journals within the same publisher, with some high-tier options barely breaking even.

JB: “I’m particularly concerned about the rising tension between editorial and publishing aspects, which I first noticed in the medical field with advertising practices. Historically, medical journals avoided placing ads from pharmaceutical companies next to relevant studies, maintaining a clear boundary between editorial content and commercial interests. This separation worked well, but now it seems more ambiguous.”

JB: “The recent resignations from editorial boards reflect the pressure on editors to publish more, while they prioritize quality and impact. This tension is regrettable, especially since the push for open access and science is fundamentally important. As a broader community, including academia and funding bodies, we must find a way to navigate these challenges.”

W: “This ongoing tension is very real. Editorial boards are often composed of external academics who don’t have a direct financial stake in the publisher’s success. Many researchers have a strong aversion to the commercial aspects of publishing, often driven by ideological beliefs. Hence, increased transparency and communication from publishers is essential.”

The Value of Selective Journals

Host: “The landscape has turned into a numbers game, intensifying the tension between editorial integrity and commercial interests. Do you believe that the existence of highly selective journals remains justified, especially in a climate where every valuable piece of research should be published?”

JB: “My background shapes my bias here; I’ve dedicated two decades to working on selective journals, and I believe they hold immense value. The research that could significantly influence the scientific community needs thorough scrutiny. The real question is whether the standard publishing process is necessary for most scientists, including niche studies.”

W: “That’s a valid point. Many PhD projects, including mine, were rather niche. We might find better ways to allocate publication resources and reviewer efforts. However, as you mentioned, publishing remains the primary way we evaluate research, even if few read the final papers.”

JB: “In discussions about preprints and peer review, I find the focus on lower-tier journals intriguing. High-profile journals like Nature and Cell serve a purpose by providing the extra scrutiny that visible papers require, ensuring that they are seen and recognized.”

JB: “When asked about the role of publishers and editors, I often simplify it to three functions: filter, enhance, and amplify. They identify the most interesting research, improve it through peer review, and crucially, amplify its visibility. For example, data from Coalition S recently highlighted the significant traffic to renowned journals like Nature, indicating their effectiveness in garnering attention.”

W: “When considering the cost per article view, prestigious journals like Nature and Cell seem to offer better value than lower-tier options. While an APC of $12,290 may seem steep, if it results in 30,000 views compared to just 1,000 for a lower-cost journal, the expense could be justified. However, one must question whether the same paper would have garnered more views if published in a high-tier journal instead of a niche one.”

JB: “This visibility is not solely due to branding, although that plays a role developed over decades; it also involves the journal’s website and the efforts of press teams. Academics aspire to publish in prestigious journals to enhance their CVs and ensure their important work receives the readership it merits. Conversely, niche studies often do not require such amplification. Therefore, amplification remains a crucial function of publishers, and those unable to provide it may struggle in the future.”

JB: “Perhaps we won’t always need traditional publications for amplification. Future discussions may revolve around preprint servers where publishers flag noteworthy work. However, that reality is still some time away.”

The Significance of Brand Value

Host: “Those points about amplification are vital. We should also consider how researchers are assessed based on their work. While the impact factor has been heavily criticized, it still carries weight. Is there potential for meaningful change in how researchers are evaluated?”

JB: “Honestly, I’m uncertain. Organizations like COAR are making strides, but changes must largely come from funding bodies. The current academic assessment system has largely been delegated to publishers, who benefit from it but did not design it. Should this change in the future, it could alter the role of different journal tiers. Academia tends to evolve slowly, so while change is inevitable, it may take time.”

JB: “One thing that likely won’t change, despite dissent, is the concept of branding. Branding is an intrinsic part of human nature. Everything we engage with, from supermarket choices to vehicles, involves some level of branding. Thus, I find it hard to envision a scientific communication landscape devoid of branding or tiering. While the system may adapt, the need for signaling what is interesting and important will persist.”

W: “Researchers place immense value on reputation and branding. Despite resistance to high APCs, submissions to selective journals continue to rise, indicating that market forces are not driving prices down. A significant part of the value derived by authors comes from association with brands recognized for quality research, which bolsters their professional standing and is accepted by science funders.”

The Importance of Research Integrity

Host: “I concur; this aspect is unlikely to change. We must rely on experts like you to discern what merits attention. Another challenge is ensuring research integrity. There have been notable issues with retractions and the conflation of open access with questionable publishing practices. What are your thoughts on these challenges?”

JB: “Any publisher claiming they have no issues is likely deceiving themselves. Publishers must confront problems directly, and those that have publicly acknowledged their challenges deserve commendation. It requires significant courage to admit to issues like paper mills, especially when financial implications are at stake. We need to foster a culture where transparency is prioritized, particularly when problems arise.”

JB: “Investing in maintaining research integrity is crucial. Discussions about profit margins should also encompass the need for investment in tackling integrity issues. If publishers neglect this, they risk damaging their brand and business.”

W: “This underscores the value of having knowledgeable human editors involved. They need the time and expertise to critically evaluate papers, supported by technological advancements such as Signals and Clear Skies.”

JB: “From a business standpoint, many publishers are already allocating significant resources to integrity teams and technologies to identify problematic papers early on. However, the rise of large language models (LLMs) will likely exacerbate these challenges. Individuals fabricate papers for their CVs and tenure requirements due to pressures linked to research assessments. This system is counterproductive.”

JB: “The necessity for a reliable dataset will only increase. We need mechanisms that endorse the quality of papers, ensuring they are credible. If open platforms become inundated with misinformation, their value diminishes, particularly for AI firms.”

JB: “This presents a dilemma for scholarly publishers, who might consider retaining rights to published work due to potential future commercial opportunities, despite the push for open access and science.”

JB: “Recent months have introduced new tensions stemming from rapid technological advancements, affecting both publishers and academic integrity.”

JB: “Finally, discussions surrounding Green Open Access, which pertains to the auto-accepted manuscript, highlight the importance of the version of record. In my view, this version should be made available openly.”

JB: “I have witnessed numerous instances, especially in medical fields, where critical errors, such as confusing milligrams with micrograms, are rectified during the editing phase. Such mistakes can have serious consequences for patients, highlighting the necessity for quality control. Striving for ‘good enough’ may be acceptable in some scientific domains, but not in clinical sciences—accuracy is paramount.”

JB: “This aspect demands careful consideration and funding. Increasing requests for additional checks and balances from publishers are entirely justified. While we desire quality, all these measures incur costs. Thus, we face high APCs, which can be challenging for authors to secure funding for in various regions. The financial model supporting this quality control must be thoroughly evaluated, ensuring we do not overburden editors without providing them with sufficient resources.”

W: “Indeed, the number of required checks and evaluations for editors has significantly increased recently. Editors now invest more time per paper than they did just three years ago, not accounting for the challenges posed by overburdened reviewers. While some of these processes may be automated through LLM applications, they will still entail costs.”

LLMs in Scientific Publishing

Host: “You’ve raised some excellent points, James. It's remarkable to consider that had we discussed this a year ago, the role of AI and AI-powered tools would likely not have emerged as a topic. You mentioned large language models and other AI technologies that publishers are exploring. Have you come across any particularly compelling examples that the academic community should note?”

JB: “I am not an expert in technology, but I have observed issues such as hallucinations in LLMs, which need addressing. For instance, generating fictitious references is problematic when trying to substantiate an argument. Such challenges will eventually be resolved, but I remain skeptical of the extent to which AI will change the landscape without observing its practical applications over time.”

JB: “The future of scientific papers is another interesting consideration. The standard IMRAD format suits human readers well, as storytelling is a natural human trait. However, I wonder how the format might evolve if scientific writing shifts from being human-centric to being designed for machines, potentially altering the way we engage with primary resources.”

JB: “The prospect of utilizing models to enhance or expedite writing, publishing, and quality control is promising, but whether it will lead to a radical transformation remains uncertain. We are certainly on the cusp of change.”

W: “Indeed, we are experiencing a wave of developments. While the applications of LLMs for authors remain undefined, their utility for publishers is clearer. Many editorial review aspects—such as verifying p-value reporting, scrutinizing sensitive language, and ensuring ethical compliance—are suitable for LLMs, which could help streamline the process. I envision a future where checklists are pre-filled for editors, simplifying their workflow.”