Update. Here's another piece critical of #APCs (so far, so good), and reviewing other people's criticisms of APCs (even better). Yet it makes the wholly false assertion that all #OpenAccess journals charge APCs. ("In open access, instead of readers having to pay, the paper’s authors cover the expenses of publication.") It says this even though it also summarizes a position explicitly referring to #DiamondOA journals. It never mentions that most OA journals do not charge APCs.
https://undark.org/2026/01/07/apc-science-publishing/

_Environmental Health Perspectives_ was a #DiamondOA journal formerly published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ( #NIEHS, within the #NIH). When #Trump slashed the NIH and NIEHS budgets, the journal began the process of laying itself down. But now the American Chemical Society ( #ACS) will adopt it. Under the ACS, it will remain #OpenAccess but start charging #APCs.

See the ACS announcement.
https://www.newswise.com/articles/environmental-health-perspectives-joins-the-acs-publications-portfolio

See the coverage in Chemistry World.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/leading-environmental-health-journal-defunded-by-trump-administration-has-been-saved/4022745.article

#Chemistry #Funding #USPol #USPolitics

_Environmental Health Perspectives_ was a #DiamondOA journal formerly published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ( #NIEHS, within the #NIH). When #Trump slashed the NIH and NIEHS budgets, the journal began the process of laying itself down. But now the American Chemical Society ( #ACS) will adopt it. Under the ACS, it will remain #OpenAccess but start charging #APCs.

See the ACS announcement.
https://www.newswise.com/articles/environmental-health-perspectives-joins-the-acs-publications-portfolio

See the coverage in Chemistry World.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/leading-environmental-health-journal-defunded-by-trump-administration-has-been-saved/4022745.article

#Chemistry #Funding #USPol #USPolitics

Update. Here's another article that made it through peer review (at #WoltersKluwer) falsely asserting that all #OpenAccess journals charge #APCs.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004612
(#paywalled)

General thesis: Paying APCs is a hardship (true) and the prices are going up (true). Therefore, to help medical students publish OA, medical schools should fund their APCs.

The article never mentions no-fee OA journals (#DiamondOA) or no-fee OA repositories (#GreenOA).

#ScholComm

Update. Here's another article that made it through peer review (at #WoltersKluwer) falsely asserting that all #OpenAccess journals charge #APCs.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004612
(#paywalled)

General thesis: Paying APCs is a hardship (true) and the prices are going up (true). Therefore, to help medical students publish OA, medical schools should fund their APCs.

The article never mentions no-fee OA journals (#DiamondOA) or no-fee OA repositories (#GreenOA).

#ScholComm

Diethard Tautz and Paul Rainey propose criteria for journal quality entirely apart from citation impact and reputation. While you think over their proposal, don't overlook their case for some of the ways we'd benefit from having good criteria (no matter who first proposed them):
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/s44319-025-00649-5

1. They could help us assess the justification for "public payments for journal services, such as #OpenAccess fees" or #APCs.

2. They could help "immunize against the predatory and fraudulent practices that are currently threatening the scientific publication system."

3. They could help funders "finance journals according to the Diamond open-access [#DiamondOA] standards as a basic infrastructure for science."

#ScholComm

"Research Groups Oppose Capping #NIH Funding of Publisher Fees."
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/science-research-policy/2025/12/16/research-groups-oppose-capping-nih-funding

PS: These universities seem to be saying: "We accept the growth of the APC model. We just need help paying APCs." They don't take any responsibility for steering authors toward high-prestige, high-JIF, high-APC journals, and don't acknowledge their ability to change those incentives while upholding their historic standards of quality. They could say instead, "We will revise our research assessment (promotion and tenure) procedures to focus on the quality of research more than where it is published." Insofar as universities succeed at shifting those incentives -- admittedly a long game -- authors could submit work to no-fee or diamond OA journals, bypass APC-based journals, and face no blowback from their P&T committees. All researchers and research institutions would win, including those institutions that now want govt help in paying APCs.

#Academia #AcademicMastodon #APCs #Assessment #DiamondOA #OAintheUSA #OpenAccess #ScholComm #Universities

"Research Groups Oppose Capping #NIH Funding of Publisher Fees."
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/science-research-policy/2025/12/16/research-groups-oppose-capping-nih-funding

PS: These universities seem to be saying: "We accept the growth of the APC model. We just need help paying APCs." They don't take any responsibility for steering authors toward high-prestige, high-JIF, high-APC journals, and don't acknowledge their ability to change those incentives while upholding their historic standards of quality. They could say instead, "We will revise our research assessment (promotion and tenure) procedures to focus on the quality of research more than where it is published." Insofar as universities succeed at shifting those incentives -- admittedly a long game -- authors could submit work to no-fee or diamond OA journals, bypass APC-based journals, and face no blowback from their P&T committees. All researchers and research institutions would win, including those institutions that now want govt help in paying APCs.

#Academia #AcademicMastodon #APCs #Assessment #DiamondOA #OAintheUSA #OpenAccess #ScholComm #Universities

Diethard Tautz and Paul Rainey propose criteria for journal quality entirely apart from citation impact and reputation. While you think over their proposal, don't overlook their case for some of the ways we'd benefit from having good criteria (no matter who first proposed them):
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/s44319-025-00649-5

1. They could help us assess the justification for "public payments for journal services, such as #OpenAccess fees" or #APCs.

2. They could help "immunize against the predatory and fraudulent practices that are currently threatening the scientific publication system."

3. They could help funders "finance journals according to the Diamond open-access [#DiamondOA] standards as a basic infrastructure for science."

#ScholComm

1/ I'm sympathetic to #NIH-funded authors who want to publish in certain #APC-based #OpenAccess journals and can't find the money to pay the APCs. But it's false to say that they must publish in those journals, in any other APC-based OA journals, or even in OA journals. Shame on _Inside Higher Ed_ for leaving this false impression..
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/research/2025/12/05/nih-policy-holding-researchers-hostage

PS: I repeat: Compliance with the NIH OA policy is free of charge. Moreover, compliance is all about depositing in a certain repository, not publishing in a certain journal or kind of journal. The NIH has a #GreenOA policy, not a #GoldOA policy. The same is true for all the other federal agencies with OA policies, not just the NIH. When a journal charges NIH-funded authors an APC to publish, the fee is to publish in that particular journal, not to comply with the NIH policy. Don't be fooled by the widespread misunderstanding that compliance with these policies requires paying any kind of fee. Don't be fooled by journals and publishers that cynically spread this myth themselves or leave it uncorrected. You can help by correcting this falsehood wherever you see it. You can also help by working with hiring, promotion, tenure, and funding committees to care more about the quality of research than the journals in which it is published.

🧵

#APCs #NelsonMemo #NIH #OpenAccess #OAintheUSA #PublicAccess #Repositories

Update. The #NIH just released the 914 public comments it received on its plan to cap the use of grant funds to pay #APCs.
https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Compiled-Public-Comments-on-the-RFI-on-Maximizing-Research-Funds-by-Limiting-Allowable-Publishing-Costs.pdf

#Funding #Medicine #OAintheUSA #ScholComm

"For Researchers in the Humanities, Is Open Really Fair?"
https://katinamagazine.org/content/article/open-knowledge/2025/for-researchers-in-the-humanities-is-open-really-fair

PS: This article objects to #APCs and "transformative" (#ReadAndPublish) agreements, especially in the humanities. So far, so good. But then it leaves the false impression that all or most #OpenAccess falls into those two categories, which is false and harmful. It never mentions #GreenOA. It mentions #DiamondOA once, for books, and never for articles. It's strong on problems and very weak and even misleading on solutions.

I share the objections to APCs and read-and-publish agreements. I wrote stronger versions of them, extended to all disciplines, for the Budapest Open Access Initiative 20th anniversary statement.
https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai20/

I'm in the humanities and (with the exception of one 1999 book) have made all my books and articles OA. I've never paid an APC and never will. I boycott APC-based publishers both as an author and referee and encourage others to do so.

Scholars in the humanities need accurate info about their OA options, not one-sided criticism of OA as such.

#BOAI20 #Humanities

Thanks to #SPARC ( @sparc) for this new "Guide for Authors Complying with U.S. Federal Agency Public Access and Publisher Policies."
https://sparcopen.org/our-work/guide-for-authors-complying-with-policies/

Bottom line: Compliance with the US federal #OpenAccess policies is free of charge. Publishers who charge fed-funded authors a fee to make their work OA are charging to publish in their journals, not charging to comply with fed policy. You can publish elsewhere and avoid those fees.

#APCs #Funders #OAintheUSA #USA

The #NIH is calling for public comments on its plan to cap the use of grant funds to pay #APCs. It seeks comments on five listed options and/or suggestions for other options.
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-138.html

The comment deadline is September 15, 2025. The NIH plans to start implementing its APC-capping policy on January 1, 2026.

#Funding#Medicine #OAintheUSA

The #NIH just announced that it will "cap how much #publishers can charge NIH-supported scientists to make their research findings publicly accessible."
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-crack-down-excessive-publisher-fees-publicly-funded-research

We don't yet know the cap or how NIH will calculate or enforce it.

#APCs#DefendResearch#GoldOA#OpenAccess#ScholComm #Trump #TrumpVResearch#USPol#USPolitics

The #NIH just announced that it will "cap how much #publishers can charge NIH-supported scientists to make their research findings publicly accessible."
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-crack-down-excessive-publisher-fees-publicly-funded-research

We don't yet know the cap or how NIH will calculate or enforce it.

#APCs#DefendResearch#GoldOA#OpenAccess#ScholComm #Trump #TrumpVResearch#USPol#USPolitics

Update. Here's a published article making a cluster of false claims about #OpenAccess journals: "In the OA model…costs are…covered by Article Processing Charges ( #APCs) paid by the authors ( #GoldOA); in relatively rare cases, some funders cover the full costs of a journal ( #DiamondOA) to make it free for readers and authors alike."
https://www.ssph-journal.org/journals/international-journal-of-public-health/articles/10.3389/ijph.2025.1608614/full

1. It claims that most OA journals charge APCs and that diamond OA journals are rare. But most OA journals do NOT charge APCs and diamond OA journals predominate.

Today the #DOAJ ( @DOAJ) lists 21,597 OA journals, of which 13,735 or 63.5% are diamond.
https://doaj.org/

2. It claims that at APC-based OA journals, APCs are (always) paid by authors. But while this tends to be true in the global south, even there it's only a tendency, not a universal truth. In the north, APCs are usually NOT paid by authors but by their funders or employers.
https://suber.pubpub.org/pub/j1jk6hu9

3. There are many ways to fund a diamond or non-APC OA journals, not just by having funders cover their costs.

BTW, this piece is called a "commentary" and might not have been peer-reviewed.

In the rest of the piece, the authors complain about misunderstandings of their journal.

Update. Here's another piece that made it through peer review (at Oxford UP) falsely assuming that all #OpenAccess journals charge #APCs.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaf092

The author concludes that there is *not* too much OA, but only because APC discounts and waivers exist. Imagine how much she could have strengthened her argument by bringing in #DiamondOA and #GreenOA.

#ScholComm