Page Charges at A&A

The journal Astronomy & Astrophysics (A&A for short) announced last week that it was increasing page charges on longer papers. The table of new charges to be implemented is here:

A&A is published on behalf of the European Southern Observatory by EDP Sciences (Édition Diffusion Presse Sciences) which began life as a joint venture of four French learned societies in science, mathematics, and medicine. The company was acquired in 2019 by  China Science Publishing & Media (which has headquarters in Beijing). Judging by its social media activity, EDP Sciences sees A&A as a flagship journal; for a list of other journals it runs see here. I gave some background on A&A here.

A&A publishes papers through a curious hybrid model called “S2O” (Subscribe to Open; not to be confused with “420”). This is not fully Open Access because it requires libraries to pay a subscription to access the journal. For this reason it is not compatible with some institutional open access policies. Unlike some journals, however, A&A does allow authors to place their papers on arXiv without restriction, so they can be read there for free. Previously A&A required authors (or their institutes) to pay “Page Charges” – essentially an Article Processing Charge (APC) – if they were not from a “member country”; this policy was introduced in 2020. Authors from a member country will now have to pay APCs to publish (if their paper exceeds the page limit) but their institutional libraries still have to pay a subscription if they are to access the paper. In other words, A&A is double-dipping.

According to A&A,

… the average length of papers has also been increasing. Too often, papers are longer than necessary, leading to increased workload for authors, referees, and editors, and hindering the reader’s ability to efficiently grasp their content. As well as needing logistical consideration, the challenges related to the journal’s growth have financial implications that must be addressed to ensure long-term sustainability.

I agree that many papers are far too long. As a journal Editor myself I know that it is much harder to find people willing to review very long papers, a fact that some authors seem reluctant to recognize. On the other hand I very much doubt that any of the funds generated by page charges will be given to the refeees who do the most important – indeed I would argue the only important – work of a journal.

If the desired effect is to reduce the number of long papers this policy may work, though I suspect authors who are incurably prolix will respond by splitting their work into several shorter papers to avoid the page charges and thereby generating even more work for the journal. I suspect however that the desired effect is really to increase revenue; so often in the context of academic publishing “sustainability” really means “profitability”. I would also bet that these charges will increase further in future.

The changing charges at A&A have widespread implications, including for the Euclid Consortium, most of whose scientific papers are published there. I’m sure the Euclid Consortium Editorial Board will discuss this development. I’m not a member of the ECEB so it would be inappropriate to comment further on publication policy so I’ll leave the discussion to them. I would say, however, that the publication process at A&A is rather slow. The main post-launch Euclid Overview paper by Mellier et al., for example, was accepted for publication in August 2024 but has still not appeared. It is, however, available on arXiv, which is all that really matters. That paper, incidentally, is over 90 pages long. According to the table above that would cost about €12,000 in page charges. It was submitted in May 2024 and accepted quite quickly but is planned to appear in a special issue Euclid on Sky the publication of which is being delayed by other papers still going through the editorial process.

(Incidentally, Mellier et al. has already acquired 157 citations despite not yet being officially published, which illustrates how little difference “official” publication is actually worth.)

11 Responses to “Page Charges at A&A”

  1. Isn’t A&A free if the first author is based in europe?

    Or is it that this is not applicable for longer papers for which everyone has to pay?

  2. Never mind, I think the answer is yes

  3. We can’t publish in A&A anyway because publication funds cannot be used for hybrid journals, ones that charge subscription fees. I think the editosr have some leeway in waiving charges

  4. I wonder if this will just lead to more fragmented research, with authors breaking up their work to avoid charges.

  5. John Peacock's avatar
    John Peacock Says:

    Like you, I think it would be a good thing if papers became less rambling. But 12 pages seems excessively ambitious: most modern astronomy rests on quite a bit of technical detail, and there is a limit to how much you can shorten things while retaining enough information to allow reproducibility. I would have thought the old MNRAS limit of 20 pages was more like a practically sensible figure. But in any case, I do have some limited sympathy for A&A. I gather that the number of papers appearing in MNRAS has slumped by a third since their institution of excessive page charges – and guess where most of these refugees have gone? In fact, the number of A&A papers has soared even beyond absorbing authors fleeing MNRAS: almost a factor 2 since 2023. Now, one can argue with justice that A&A would still make a tidy profit even if its real publishing costs have gone up as a result of this extra activity. But at a minimum there is some objective basis for them seeking to raise income: it’s not simply wanting to increase their profit margin.

    • telescoper's avatar
      telescoper Says:

      Well, 12 pages plus 8 of appendices is your 20 pages, but I don’t see what difference it makes to A&A if it’s divided that way or just 20 pages of main paper!

      in 2023 MNRAS published 4131 papers and A&A 2354. Transferring 1/3 on MNRAS to A&A would increase the latter by about 60%. But of course the number of papers altogether is rising steadily.

      (OJAp increased by a factor of 2.4 between 2023 and 2024, but the numbers are far smaller than either MNRAS or A&A.

      Publishing Stats for Astrophysics Journals

    • telescoper's avatar
      telescoper Says:

      p.s. To increase revenue the publishers could increase subscription costs, but I suspect they don’t want to do that for fear that institutions unsubscribe and break the S2O model altogether.

  6. Longer papers may lead to ‘increased workloads for authors, referees and editors’ but I don’t see how that implies you should increase the costs – unless you are going to start paying authors and referees for their increased workloads, and pay editors more. (Do editors get paid?) If papers are too long that is something that presumably referees and editors are saying, so can provide feedback to authors at the reviewing stage on how to reduce their paper, not just charge them more money.

    However my experience over many years is that referee reports generally tend to increase the length of a paper as the referees want additional information.

    • telescoper's avatar
      telescoper Says:

      In the old days when journals existed only on paper, a standard question for referees to answer was “Could the paper be shortened without loss of clarity” that was because it actually did cost a lot per page to print. That cost is much lower nowadays.

  7. Nico Hayes's avatar
    Nico Hayes Says:

    Increasing page charges while still requiring subscriptions? Seems like a tough deal for authors. Maybe they need some AI assistance to keep things concise!

Leave a comment