In the ongoing shift toward Open Access (OA) publishing, one issue continues to stir debate across academic and publishing communities: the cost of publishing in scientific journals. With Article Processing Charges (APCs) now a major source of revenue for many publishers, concerns over pricing fairness, transparency, and equity have only grown louder. Our new study published in Profesional de la Información (Q1) introduces a timely and innovative method for evaluating whether journal APCs align with their actual scholarly value.
This study offers a fresh lens through which to assess journal worth. Rather than relying on prestige or brand recognition, we propose using a journal’s visibility as measured by bibliometric indicators to estimate what its APC should be. The result is a data-driven model that aims to bring balance, clarity, and rationality to a fragmented and often opaque system.
Why APC pricing needs a rethink?
If you’ve ever submitted an article to a high-profile journal only to discover a $4,000 APC, you’re not alone in wondering what exactly justifies that cost. Many journals charge widely varying fees, even within the same publisher and field, with no clear connection to the value they offer researchers in terms of visibility or impact.
The model: Estimating fair APCs with SJR
To explore this idea, we analyzed nearly 7,000 Scopus-indexed journals, collecting data on their APCs, publication volume, and five-year SJR metrics. After testing various statistical models, we found that a power regression model best predicted what a journal’s APC should be based on its visibility.
This model allowed us to calculate an estimated APC for each journal—essentially, what the journal should charge if pricing were tied to SJR rather than market dynamics. We also introduced a new concept: Journal Value, defined as the estimated APC multiplied by the number of articles published over five years. This creates a financial index that can be used to assess the economic footprint of individual journals across disciplines and regions.
Findings: Prestige still has a price tag
One of the most eye-opening results? Journals like Nature, Cell, and The Lancet were found to charge significantly more than their visibility alone would justify. This “prestige premium” shows that publishers continue to leverage brand recognition to demand higher fees—even when metrics don’t necessarily back up the pricing.
Meanwhile, some lesser-known journals were undervalued, charging modest APCs despite offering comparable visibility. This has major implications for researchers, especially those from underfunded institutions or low- and middle-income countries, who may be paying more than necessary for visibility—or missing out entirely.
CHECK THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Who gains from this model?
This new methodology isn’t just academic—it has real-world value for multiple stakeholders in the research ecosystem:
- Researchers can make more informed decisions about where to submit their work, maximizing impact while avoiding overpayment.
- Librarians and funders can use the model to guide subscription renewals, APC negotiations, and transformative agreements with publishers.
- Publishers have an opportunity to reassess their pricing structures and align them more closely with value delivered.
- Policy makers and coalitions (like Plan S) can adopt this approach to help monitor APC inflation and promote fairness in scholarly communication.
A call for equity in Open Access
As Open Access becomes the dominant publishing model, understanding and regulating its financial underpinnings is critical. We offer a thoughtful and practical way to tie journal pricing to real, measurable value—not just legacy or brand.
The next step is adoption. If publishers, libraries, and policy makers embrace visibility-based pricing, we could see a more transparent, fair, and sustainable Open Access landscape. And for the global research community, that’s a win worth striving for.
Want to explore how this model might apply to your institution’s publishing costs? Reach out for a consultation.
Keywords: Article Processing Charges (APCs), APC pricing model, APC transparency, SCImago SJR, Sustainable publishing, publishing equity
Read full paper: Halevi, G., Sánchez Jiménez, R., Guerrero Bote, V. P., & De-Moya Anegón, F. (2024). Estimating the financial value of scientific journals and APCs using visibility factors: A new methodological approach. Profesional De La información, 33(5). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2024.0512