Shifts to open access with high article processing charges hinder research equity and careers

We, as Associate Editors (AEs) for the Journal of Biogeography, have serious concerns about the widespread shifts by John Wiley Tennant et al., 2016). This creates a financial burden that falls heaviest on early career scientists and scientists from low- to middle-income countries, erecting barriers to equity in publishing. The typical APC fees for OA range from 2000 to 3500 USD but can even surpass 11,000 USD, while the Journal of Biogeography APC is currently 4800 USD per article. A shift from subscription-based to full OA-based business models with APCs also clearly shifts the economic incentives for journals away from quality and toward quantity. High-throughput and high-output publishing models in academia severely risk lowering research standards and jeopardise the reputation of journals that adopt this practice. Researchers in low-to-middle income (LMI) countries (e.g., in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, parts of Asia and Oceania)—collectively identified as the ‘Global South’ or ‘GS’ (Dados Reidpath Gonzalez-Brambila et al., 2016) and uptake of content produced by GS researchers (Gomez et al., 2022; Lund, 2019). This simultaneously favours researchers in more developed countries and increases opportunities for better-resourced researchers to fill research gaps and gain prominence in scientific fields (Demeter, 2019; Gonzalez-Brambila et al., 2016; Odeny Willinsky, 2006), OA has been co-opted by many journals into a problematic pay-to-publish business model, primarily by for-profit publishing houses (Tennant et al., 2016). Some academic institutions now require their researchers to only, or primarily, e.g. publish under the OA model. The full OA model is problematic for most researchers from GS countries because they simply lack the financial resources to cover high APCs (Kwon, 2022). GS countries tend to contribute only 1%–2% toward the total annual global research investment, while high-income countries contribute proportionally much more (Gonzalez-Brambila et al., 2016). Such small investment is compounded by a significant purchase-power disparity for GS researchers because APCs are charged in GBP, EUR or USD, and currencies from LMI economies depreciate against stronger currencies (Agénor Mekonnen et al., 2021). The financial imbalance produces a lower proportion of OA publications by GS-based researchers because many authors opt out of publishing in OA journals (Kwon, 2022; Smith et al., 2022), particularly in biogeographic fields (Edwards et al., 2022). The knock-on effect is that GS-based researchers have lower visibility and potentially fewer citations than their counterparts based in high-income countries, which leads to a disparity in research profiles (Gomez et al., 2022). Researchers from many fields have spoken out, demanding greater diversity in authorship (Nuñez et al., 2021; Odeny Raja et al., 2022) brought about by fundamental changes to the OA model to level the playing field. Without a radical shift in the OA business model, a cadre of researchers will increasingly be marginalised, equating to systemic epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007; Grasswick, 2017; Pitts, 2017) by excluding GS perspectives and approaches that would otherwise advance science (Thorp, 2023). This effect is particularly poignant for biogeographic research because most of the world's remaining biodiversity is situated in GS countries, and hence contributions from the GS are of special importance to combat the ongoing global biodiversity crisis. Although most academic publishers offer APC fee waivers to some GS-based authors, the eligibility list is short and based on the per capita GDP of the researchers' country. This typically provides some opportunity for researchers in low-income countries, but those from middle-income countries (MIC) often fall through the cracks. Some publishers offer discounts to MIC researchers, but these discounts are insufficient to address the financial disparity. Moreover, applications for discounts are sometimes not granted depending on e.g. the combination of authors on the article. On the surface, OA publishers appear to be addressing inequality, but the number of genuine waivers granted is few relative to the need (Kowaltowski et al., 2023). The reality is that MIC is fraught with income and wealth inequality, and by basing waivers on simple measures, such as per capita GDP, most GS researchers do not qualify. We therefore strongly advocate that the criteria for APC waivers and substantial discounts are based on more nuanced metrics such as wealth distribution, purchasing power (e.g., Gini-Index, PPP, CPI, among others), and percentage of GDP invested in science and technology. The signing of reasonable transformative agreements with GS countries that cover an array of research institutions must advance, as the contributions of GS researchers are being excluded from the most visible global scientific literature. True transformation will dismantle the barriers set up by APCs and be measured not in company profits but in bringing equity to OA academic publishing. Early career researchers (ECRs), defined here as any scientist within 10 years of PhD completion (Christian et al., 2021), are at the forefront of bringing new insights into the field of biogeography and thus play a critical role in advancing the discipline. For decades, Journal of Biogeography has served as a major source of research inspiration for ECRs, many of whom published their first papers in the journal and continue to do so as they advance in their careers. The 'ECR Featured Researchers' section on the journal's blog highlights recently published research in the Journal of Biogeography by ECRs and is written by ECRs. These highlights allow ECR authors to share with readers a more personal perspective on the motivations, challenges and novelty associated with their research, thus building a community around and beyond the journal itself. Finally, the Journal of Biogeography ‘Innovation Awards’ aim to acknowledge outstanding research contributions of ECRs in advancing the field of biogeography (Dawson et al., 2023). Together, these initiatives led by the senior editors have demonstrated a strong commitment by the Journal of Biogeography to support ECRs through advancing their professional growth, providing a platform for networking and knowledge sharing while also increasing their visibility and overall recognition within the wider research community. Unfortunately, the shift to excessive APCs for OA by for-profit publishers threatens the ECRs that these worthy initiatives seek to support. Because of the precarity of ECRs, both financially and with respect to the career stage, the high APCs associated with OA have particularly detrimental effects on career development. Moreover, a shift to full OA with high APCs would raise serious concerns about scientific integrity and compatibility with the values upheld by the biogeography community, including ECRs. ECRs represent the future of the discipline, and we have written this section to voice our concerns on behalf of ECRs everywhere. In summary, ECRs play a key role on editorial boards by promoting diversity and inclusion, helping the progression of other ECRs, and contributing novel perspectives and ideas that support journal development (e.g., new methodologies, emerging topics). We commend the Journal of Biogeography for its past commitments to supporting ECRs, and we strongly advocate against any consideration of a shift to a full-OA model that would jeopardise these commitments. Going forward, we recommend that academic journals prioritise ECRs' career growth and provide financial support for ECR publishing and editing, such as through APC fee waivers and compensation for reviewing and editing (Hotaling et al., 2023). These changes are essential for a sustainable academic publishing landscape. We also recommend stabilising or reducing targets for the number of special issues and general submissions, which are oversimplistic and subject to perverse incentives (see above), and instead focusing on helping authors of regular submissions publish their best work possible in a journal of high quality. Publishing high-quality scientific journals costs money, and we support a reasonable cost-recovery model for academic publishers based on charges to authors, institutions or subscribers. We also support the principle of OA that makes scientific content freely available. However, to keep advancing the field of biogeography and science in general, a new paradigm needs to be reached, one that keeps the costs of publishing affordable for authors and that compensates scientists for their professional services instead of one that is designed to produce a high-profit margin for the publisher. We have written this editorial and engaged in the work stoppage as a way of communicating to our colleagues and to profit-based journals the seriousness and depth of our concerns and as a way of promoting further dialogue. We are willing to discuss these concerns to reach a mutually beneficial compromise with the publisher of JBI. However, we are also ready to resign our positions as AEs if the publisher of JBI were to take the unfortunate step of shifting to a full OA model with high APCs without considering full equity for GS and ECR researchers. We recognise that some steps have been made along these lines, but this is yet inadequate and disproportionate to the considerable profits made by many publishers. AEs usually work without financial compensation or other incentives (such as discounts or credits), with the ultimate goal of advancing the field of biogeography by supporting high-quality, peer-reviewed, cutting-edge research. In contrast, Wiley, the owner and publisher of the Journal of Biogeography, has had a reported annual revenue in recent years of over 2 billion USD per annum with a gross profit margin averaging nearly 70%. Wiley reports their performance using the —i.e., operating profit as a percentage of revenue—controversial adjusted EBITDA profit metric, and this shows the company operates at a very satisfactory level of a 20% margin. Research-related publications reportedly form a large part of their revenue. Other academic publishers such as Elsevier show similar revenues and gross profits. Given that the Journal of Biogeography has a proud history as a thought leader in our discipline, we are firmly against a business model that maintains the already substantial profits made by academic publishing houses at the cost of the increased financial burden to authors, increased workload of volunteer editors and reducing the scientific quality of academic journals in jeopardy. We are grateful for advice and support from the senior editors of the Journal of Biogeography and in particular for their commitment to mentoring the Early Career Researchers on the editorial team. The authors of this editorial are currently Associate Editors or on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Biogeography, and most have recently participated in a temporary work stoppage. Many of the authors have previously published their research in the Journal of Biogeography or other Wiley outlets. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study. The authors are Associate Editors or on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Biogeography, and most are Early Career Researchers and/or researchers from the Global South. Author contributions: This team of authors conceived and co-wrote the article.