Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Scientific publishing has shifted from a reader-pays subscription model to an author-pays open-access economy built on article processing charges (APCs). Global APC payments to six large publishers alone are estimated at US$8.35 billion for 2019–2023, nearly tripling from $910.3 million in 2019 to $2.54 billion in 2023, while flagship APCs now exceed US$12,000. This transition interacts with two under-examined phenomena in lower- and middle-income countries: promotion-driven publishing in predatory venues, an ecosystem of 11,000–19,000 + listed journals whose estimated 420,000 articles (2014) average 2.6 citations, 60% remaining uncited; and a retreat from experimental work toward computational-only studies, decoupling publication metrics from application. A third workaround completes the picture: transnational co-authorship, in which unfunded authors borrow funded Gulf or Asian co-authors to access APC-funded mega-journals such as MDPI. We integrate these dynamics into a single pay-promote-compute framework and propose five measurable indicators, including an Experimental Validation Rate. Applying the protocol to Algeria, we extracted 116,299 works (2015–2025) from OpenAlex: computational-only articles (10.3%) reach twice India's measured share (5.2%), the 2022–2024 retraction rate is 0.99 per 1,000 publications, predatory exposure reaches 3.71% (about twice India's 1.73%), and the strict Experimental Validation Rate stands at 70%. In Algeria, our focal case, the 1998–2018 Arab-region record already showed the highest retraction proportion of any Arab country, with plagiarism the dominant cause. Cross-country benchmarking against India, Turkey, and Egypt, a lenient-versus-strict validation analysis, and policy recommendations for the Global South complete the study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
ZIDANI et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: