When researchers pay to publish: Results from a survey on APCs in four countries

TL;DR

This study surveys researchers in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa to analyze their practices, funding, and demographics related to paying Article Processing Charges (APCs) in open access publishing.

Contribution

It provides an empirical comparison of APC payment practices across four countries, highlighting disciplinary, national, and demographic differences.

Findings

Argentine researchers frequently apply for waivers and use personal funds.

South African researchers lead in APC publications due to better funding.

Younger researchers are less involved in APC payments across all countries.

Abstract

This paper provides an empirical overview of the impact and practices of paying Article Processing Charges (APCs) by four nationally categorized groups of researchers in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa. The data was collected from 13,577 researchers through an online questionnaire. The analysis compares the practice of publishing in journals that charge APCs across different dimensions, including country, discipline, gender, and age of the researchers. The paper also focuses on the maximum amount APC paid and the methods and strategies researchers use to cover APC payments, such as waivers, research project funds, payment by coauthors, and the option to publish in closed access, where possible. Different tendencies were identified among the different disciplines and the national systems examined. Findings show that Argentine researchers apply for waivers most frequently and often use personal funds or international coauthors for APCs, with younger researchers less involved in APC payments. In contrast, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico have more older researchers, yet younger researchers still publish more in APC journals. South African researchers lead in APC publications, likely due to better funding access and read and publish agreements. This study lays the groundwork for further analysis of gender asymmetries, funding access, and views on the commercial Open Access model of scientific dissemination.