This study critically examines the economic, reputational, and structural dimensions of chargeable journals within the open access (OA) publishing model, with a particular focus on Article Processing Charges (APCs). While open access increases visibility and accessibility of research, it shifts substantial financial and intellectual burdens onto authors, raising concerns about fairness and exploitation. Using a conceptual and thematic analysis of peer-reviewed literature from 2015 to 2025, the study highlights how commercial publishers capture disproportionate economic benefits, leverage prestige, and maintain structural control over scholarly communication. Findings reveal systemic inequities, including financial barriers for researchers from underfunded institutions and low- and middle-income countries, the rise of predatory publishing, and market-driven APC pricing structures. Despite these challenges, alternatives such as Diamond Open Access, institutional support, and policy reforms offer more equitable pathways. The study contributes to debates on scholarly equity and provides recommendations for more transparent, ethical, and inclusive publishing models.
Shrestha et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: