Publishing Research Quarterly

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 64–70 | Cite as

Threats to the Survival of the Author-Pays-Journal to Publish Model

  • Aceil Al-KhatibEmail author
  • Jaime A. Teixeira da SilvaEmail author


While many agree that society as a whole, the progress of science, education, health care, patients, and policy makers would benefit tremendously from making access to research publications and data freely available to students, researchers, physicians and even the public, particularly in the case of publicly funded research, many questions regarding the future of the author-pays journal model to publish in open access journals remain unanswered, especially since article processing charges (APCs) fund peer review and publishing costs. Unlike the subscriber-pays traditional publishing model, the inherent interest in charging authors APCs as publication costs to have their work peer reviewed by experts in their field raises many concerns including the potential abuse by predatory publishers who may spot opportunities for profit, the objectivity and credibility of peer review, and the viability of this model in the light of rapidly evolving publishing practices and venues. In this piece, we discuss some challenges that may threaten the survival of the author-pays journal publishing model, evolving the “publish or perish” into a “pay to publish or perish” model.


Article processing charges Predatory publishers Credibility Open access 



Article processing charge




Open access journal


Post publication peer review


  1. 1.
    Al-Khatib A, Teixeira da Silva JA. What rights do authors have? Sci Eng Ethics. (in press) 2016. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Khatib A. Protecting authors from predatory journals and publishers. Pub Res Quart. (in press) 2016. doi: 10.1007/s12109-016-9474-3.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aulakh R. Mandatory publication in India: setting quotas for research output could encourage scientific fraud. Br Med J. 2016. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012;489:179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beall J. Predatory journals: ban predators from the scientific record. Nature. 2016;534:326. doi: 10.1038/534326a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berger M, Cirasella J. Beyond Beall’s list: better understanding predatory publishers. Coll Res Libr News. 2015;76:132–5.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Björk B-C, Solomon D. Article processing charges in OA journals: relationship between price and quality. Scientometrics. 2015;103:373. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1556-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    BMC (BioMed Central). Publication costs and funding. BioMed Central website. (2016). Accessed 24 Oct 2016.
  9. 9.
    Bornmann L. Measuring impact in research evaluations: a thorough discussion of methods for, effects of and problems with impact measurements. High Educ. (in press) 2016. doi: 10.1007/s10734-016-9995-x.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Butler D. The dark side of publishing. Nature. 2013;495:433–5. doi: 10.1038/495433a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cressey D. Concern raised over payment for fast-track peer review. Nature. 2015. doi: 10.1038/nature.2015.17204.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crotty D. Can highly selective journals survive on APCs? (2016). Accessed 24 Oct 2016.
  13. 13.
    FTC (Federal Trade Commission). FTC charges academic journal publisher OMICS Group deceived researchers. (2016). Accessed 24 Oct 2016.
  14. 14.
    Karlsson J, Beaufils P. Legitimate division of large data sets, salami slicing and dual publication, where does a fraud begin? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21:751. doi: 10.1007/s00167-013-2413-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Laakso M, Björk B-C. Anatomy of open access publishing—a study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Med. 2012;10:124. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013;64(1):2–17. doi: 10.1002/asi.22784View.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ludvigsson JF. The costs of open access papers should not be the responsibility of individual researchers. Acta Paediatr. 2016;105:1247–8. doi: 10.1111/apa.13554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marshall J. WordPress launches support for Facebook instant articles. Wall Street Journal. (2016). Accessed 24 Oct 2016.
  19. 19.
    Morrison H, Salhab J, Calvé-Genest A, Horava T. Open access article processing charges: DOAJ survey May 2014. Publications. 2015;3(1):1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pinfield S, Salter J, Bath PA. The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open-access environment: institutional approaches to funding journal article-processing charges in combination with subscriptions. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2016;67:1751–66. doi: 10.1002/asi.23446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ryan C, Vicini J. Why you should avoid predatory journals, welcome rigorous review. Forbes. (2016). Accessed 24 Oct 2016.
  22. 22.
    Shen C, Björk B-C. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015;13:230. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Siler K, Lee K, Bero L. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gate keeping. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:360–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418218112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smith R. The highly profitable but unethical business of publishing medical research. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:452–6. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.9.452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Solomon D, Björk B-C. Article processing charges for open access publication—the situation for research intensive universities in the USA and Canada. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2264. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Solomon D, Björk B-C. Publication fees in open access publishing: sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 2012;63:98–107. doi: 10.1002/asi.21660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Teixeira da Silva JA. Predatory publishing: a quantitative assessment, the predatory score. Asian Aust J Plant Sci Biotechnol. 2013;7((Special Issue 1)):21–34.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Teixeira da Silva JA. Debunking post-publication peer review. Int J Educ Inf Technol. 2015;1(2):34–7.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Acc Res: Policies Qual Assur. 2015;22(1):22–40. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.899909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Noorten R. The true cost of science publishing. Nature. 2013;495(7442):426–9. doi: 10.1038/495426a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of DentistryJordan University of Science and TechnologyIrbidJordan
  2. 2.Kita GunJapan

Personalised recommendations