It is common knowledge that the “pay-to-publish” business publishing model, increasingly adopted by scientific journals across virtually every discipline, skews who gets represented as an author: those who can afford publication fees can publish far more easily than those with less financial means. From this, it follows that authors from countries with smaller science budgets end up largely shut out. We now know this isn’t just a general feeling; it’s a demonstrated fact, as shown in our latest published work on the subject.

A few years ago, I did an internship in Berlin, where I mentioned to my colleagues the growing difficulty Argentine scientists face in publishing their research. I was surprised to find that most of them had no idea this was even an issue, so I did my best to explain it in my somewhat halting English. I told them that when choosing a journal, we draw up a list of candidates but almost automatically rule out any that operate under a strict pay-to-publish model. Unlike Germany, Argentina has no system in which universities cover publication costs. So unless a project happens to be funded by a grant that specifically covers publication fees (which is rare) it’s simply impossible for an Argentine scientist to afford the exorbitant fees these journals charge. Even when a researcher does choose to submit to one of these journals, the best they can hope for is that, once the manuscript clears peer review, the editor-in-chief will do us a favour and grant a full fee waiver.

This bias isn’t only geographic, something that became even clearer after we received a string of mails from colleagues who sympathize with our findings. One of them pointed out that entire segments of the scientific community are unable to cover publication costs, regardless of what country they’re in. Among them, scientists nearing the end of their careers, who are largely or fully retired from their formal positions at universities or research institutes. Many of them, however, still have tons of unanalyzed data, active projects, and new ideas to develop. They keep doing science and publishing their research, but they simply can’t afford the steep fees many journals demand. So what can be done? As exemplified above, there is a clear need to spread the word further, so that more and more scientists become aware of this ongoing situation. Nothing will truly change until a critical mass of scientists is in the same boat. Within the publishing landscape, there are several possible solutions, from choosing diamond open-access journals (free both to read and to publish in) to encouraging scientific communities and scientific societies to launch more journals of this kind. Ultimately, though, it comes down to a political gesture: national science councils need to increasingly recognize and reward publications in journals that uphold a fair, equitable publishing system for everyone.

Pablo Yair Huais, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina.