Pay-to-Publish Academic Vanity Publishing
I’m not very good at keeping New Year’s resolutions, which is why I tend not to make many. I have however decided to make one for 2025. In future I will refer to any form of publishing in which the authors pay a fee as the ‘Pay-to-Publish’ model. This is much more descriptive of the reality of this form of the academic journal racket than terms such as “Gold Open Access”.
Many academic journals have switched to ‘Pay-to-Publish’ mode to maintain profit margines in response to demands that research outputs should be made freely available to read. This usually involves the payment of an Article Processing Charge, which is typically a four-figure sum in euros, pounds or dollars for each article.
Apart from the obvious danger with this model that the pressure to increase income by publishing more and more papers will lower editorial standards., the term ‘Open Access’ is inappropriate because, although the papers are free for anyone to read, authors are excluded if they cannot pay the fee. It seems to me that APC-driven publishers are therefore indistinguishable from what is usually called the Vanity Press. According to the Wikipedia page I just linked to,
[Vanity Publication]… has been described as a scam,[2] though, as the book does get printed, it does not necessarily rise to the level of fraud.[4]
I’ll leave it to readers to decide whether it is fraudulent to charge an “Article Processing Charge” has nothing to do with the real cost of processing an article. I couldn’t possibly comment on that. It is, however, beyond question that it is a scam. I’m not the only person to think this. It is, without doubt, unethical.
I would argue that academic vanity is one of the main reasons for the very perpetuation of a publishing system that is so palpably absurd. There is among many academics and, especially, managers an unjustified reliance on journal brand-name or even impact factor as a proxy for the quality of a paper. This is despite the fact that we can easily measure impact for individual articles so there’s no need to rely on such things.
In any case I do think that it would be quite reasonable to warn potential readers of an article that its authors paid to have it published. How would you react if you saw the statement ‘The authors of this article paid to have it published’ at the start of an article? At least it might make you think about the reliability of the accompanying hype.
December 23, 2024 at 7:42 pm
I have heard so many times this “we just could not publish this research, it kept getting rejected, so we opted for open access, paid it and it was easily published so we check the mark on getting the degree.”. Hence, the so-called gold open access felt like something ‘normally unpublishable’ in subscription-based or other means. The journal simply says, “You got to give me lots of money to publish this.”
December 24, 2024 at 12:41 pm
I would imagine that there are very few cases where authors are paying for papers to be published. Rather, its their universities or research institutes paying for this, driven as you note by management often focusing on brand names or impact factors of journals. The Research Councils in the UK support this as well via the block grants – and I assume so does the Irish government? And although many organisations have signed up to DORA, do individual scientists still look at a paper in a high impact journal and make at least part of their assessment based on the journal?
December 24, 2024 at 12:59 pm
“The authors’ institution paid for this article to be published’ would do as well…
December 24, 2024 at 2:47 pm
The excuse is to keep subscription costs low for universities in developing countries.
Online is the future!
April 17, 2025 at 8:12 pm
[…] story is based on a paper in the pay-to-publish Astrophysical Journal Letters with the title “New Constraints on DMS and DMDS in the […]
June 26, 2025 at 11:04 am
[…] Scientific publishing should not be vanity publishing. […]