Purpose: The open access (OA) movement has significantly improved access to academic content. However, the financial burden of article processing charges (APCs) and the lack of pricing transparency remain major concerns. This study aims to estimate APC costs by publisher and country, focusing on Korea, to inform policy decisions.Methods: We combined datasets from ScholCommLab (2019–2023), KESLI (2018–2024), and Web of Science (WoS). These sources were merged by aligning APC data with WoS-indexed articles, adjusting for missing values and currency differences. The final dataset included over 4.4 million records, enabling detailed analysis of APC expenditures by publisher and country.Results: From 2019 to 2023, global APC spending increased, with clear regional disparities. Italy showed the highest compound annual growth rate in APC costs at 34.17%, followed by moderate to high growth in Korea, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Korea and Italy allocated large proportions of APC spending to MDPI—38.71% and 37.53%, respectively—raising concerns about publisher dominance and potential quality issues. In contrast, Germany and the United Kingdom established national agreements aimed at controlling APC costs.Conclusion: This study underscores the growing global burden of APCs and the need for cost-management strategies. Policymakers should consider targeted financial support and promote equitable publishing models. Adoption of the diamond OA model—which removes APCs for authors and provides free access to readers—offers a sustainable and inclusive path forward for academic publishing, addressing both financial and ethical challenges in the current OA landscape.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jung et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: