Dear HIFA colleagues,
We are having an interesting discussion about APCs on the Scholarly Kitchen blog. Below is a link to the blog and discussion, with my latest contribution.
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2026/05/14/apc-caps-and-bans-why-fun...
==
Thanks for your comments David Crotty. Good discussion.
“Do we assume that eLife is greedy and seeking to make huge profits because their APC ($3000) is higher than that of Springer Nature’s Scientific Reports ($2850)?”
I think my original suggestion [I thought APCs were so high because the publisher wants to make huge profits] would be better stated as [I thought APCs were so high because the publisher wants to make as much income as they can]. In terms of motivation for income, this is a priority for most publishers, whether commercial or non-profit.
“The market is not fully rational. My apocryphal understanding is that the initial PLOS APC of $3000 was largely pulled out of thin air, and that seems to have set some sort of anchor for the market over the years.”
Except that APCs vary enormously, from zero to several hundred pounds.
I would see the market as being quite rational. Publishers will charge what they think they can get. They would be levelling their APCs to generate significant income while keeping them attractive to researchers. The more prestigious the journal, the more desirable they are and th higher they are able to charge.
High APCs are also a way to dissuade some of the 90% of researchers you referred to whose papers would be rejected, thereby saving time for processing of such papers.
With regard to AI, I look forward to seeing any research that looks into whether and how AI can be used to screen submissions. I think AI might prove to be faster, cheaper and more effective than human editor assessment for some tasks.
==
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org