Opinion | How Academic Publishing Exploits Public Science

"In July, the National Institutes of Health announced that it would cap excessive article-processing charges (APCs) for publishing taxpayer-funded research. The NIH is exploring a handful of different ways of accomplishing this, such as placing an all-out ban on using NIH funds for APCs or allowing APCs of differing amounts depending on whether the journal compensates peer reviewers. Their goal is to have a new policy by the start of 2026.

While this might seem like a technical change, it reflects a deeper principle: Publicly funded science should be treated as a nonexcludable, nonrivalrous public good — meaning no one should be excluded from access, and one person’s use should not diminish its value to others. Steep paywalls and inflated APCs violate both principles, transforming public knowledge into private profit.

To outsiders, academic publishing may seem like a small concern. In reality, it’s an enormous global industry, comparable to the music-recording and film industries but much more profitable. Elsevier, one of the sector’s dominant players, is part of a business unit that posted a 38-percent profit margin for its parent company in 2023."