A Twitter model for pricing
your research
Should article publication charges be linked to downloads?
If, instead of discussing the costs and bill, they talk to you about your investment, be wary of being fooled. —
For many years, academic journals relied on a subscription-based model to cover their operational costs. While authors freely submit their articles for peer review, readers often encounter paywalls that significantly restrict the accessibility of scientific output. However, in recent years, numerous funding agencies have spearheaded a strong movement towards the Open Access (OA) model, which allows articles to be freely accessible to readers, thus resolving the issue of limited dissemination. To ensure the financial sustainability of journals under this new paradigm, the cost dynamics have been reversed, and now the authors must pay article publication charges (APC) so their accepted peer-reviewed articles receive a publishing stamp. In our present scientific culture, the ultimate testament of the article’s scholarly value stems from a journal’s template and bona fide DOI number.
The Open Access (OA) model presents numerous nuances and challenges that need to be addressed. These include ensuring the sustainability of society journals, resolving the crisis faced by authors lacking consistent and sufficient funding — typical in developing countries, and addressing the harmful incentives that arise from a system that rewards quantity rather than quality. I must admit that my knowledge on this topic is still limited and perhaps naive. However, one doesn’t need to be an expert to observe the emergence of alarming strategies within the community. It begs the question: What direction do we wish to pursue?
How do we set the price of APCs, and what makes it fair? Undoubtedly, there are costs associated with producing an article, and as an editor, there is no denying that it pays for my salary. But instead of looking at the expenses, the industry now argues that visibility is the ultimate elixir, the valuable commodity scientists are paying for. Following this reasoning, if papers in Journal X are downloaded on average ten times more than in Journal Y, the fact that Journal X charges four times higher APCs is advertised as a considerable bargain. Let’s pause for a moment. Does the nature of my work change when I handle a popular or trending manuscript? The processes and procedures that I follow remain the same. In addition, the work of my colleagues involved with press interaction and producing media coverage is most likely even easier. If anything, it’s the journal that benefits from the visibility of an article with news value, not the other way around. Are the authors really willing to pay for this fable of obtaining ‘more value for money spent’?
Publishing is not a tech product. Let me clarify, I have no objections to pricing a product based on the value it offers. An idea certainly cannot be priced based on the number of cells that are used to store it in one’s brain. However, what we’re discussing here is a complete inversion of values. In fact, let’s consider approaching this proposition from a different perspective, one that scales the publication charges with the article’s impact. If you produce valuable research that advances knowledge on a niche field, you pay a modest fee, perhaps as little as the cost of a cup of coffee. In contrast, if you happen to make groundbreaking discoveries like detecting gravitational waves, the APC could amount to the GDP of your entire country. How does that sound? Frankly, the fact that certain journals have more downloads than others merely indicates a mix of good results, hyped outcomes, studies by well-connected authors, and so on. It’s an important metric; nonetheless, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Regardless, I commend the editorial teams for accomplishing their strategic goal: achieving high visibility. Nothing against that. However, it’s outrageous to justify exorbitant charges that penalize exceptional authors or inadvertently exclude those with fewer resources by claiming superior benefits.
I ask my fellow scientists: What model do you envision for scientific articles? Maybe it’s time to assess how far we want to go with the Twitter culture. Do we allow the significance of a research outcome to be measured solely by how much buzz it generates among the crowd? In other words, should your research be treated as ‘likes’ on a mundane tweet? Or should we instead assess its true worth by its tangible progress, potential to address challenges, and genuine insights?
If we are to adhere to the mandates of Open Access (OA), society journals have a crucial role to play in collaborating with scientific communities to facilitate the transition. It should be a two-way process, where we collectively redefine what OA signifies and how it is implemented. In my view, the ultimate objective should be to ensure access for all and, as inherently non-profit entities, contribute back to the community. Let us remain steadfast in preserving the core values of science.
