Dear HIFA colleagues,
BACKGROUND
In October and November 2025 we had a thematic discussion on Open access, sponsored by Oxford Pharma Genesis. A summary is available in our blog: https://www.hifa.org/news/what-we-learned-about-open-access-publishing-h...
The question of APCs (article processing charges) took centre stage.
We discussed three options:
'Option 1: cap APCs – This was the most popular idea. Journals play a vital role in the publishing process, and so capping – rather than abolishing – APCs while encouraging journals to ensure transparency around costs would align with Plan S’ vision.
Option 2: stop paying APCs altogether – Although this would require overhaul of journal business models, this could substantially reduce predatory publishing. However, it would also eliminate important open access journals and limit where researchers can publish, and it is therefore not an optimal solution.
Option 3: mandatory preprints – The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation requires preprints for all its sponsored research. These can be useful for fast-moving fields, especially among researchers, but because they are not peer reviewed, they shouldn’t drive clinical decisions and are open to misinterpretation. As such, they should be seen as a partner to scholarly publishing rather than an alternative.'
I wrote: "The capped APC approach makes the most sense to me. It’s practical, it works with the current system, and it supports those leading open access journals that many researchers want to publish in. The “stop paying APCs” approach feels more ideologically driven and actually undermines good open access publishers. It also boxes authors into predetermined choices."
We noted that since January 1st 2025 the Gates foundation discontinued support for APCs (option 2).
SCHOLARLY KITCHEN
I was interested to see this new article in Scolarly Kitchen:
Proposed Uniform Guidance Revisions Would Eliminate Journal Subscriptions and APCs as Allowable Federal Grant Costs
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2026/06/01/guest-post-proposed-unifo...
The US Federal Government is now proposing to 'make publishing and journal subscription costs [such as APCs] unallowable against federal awards, directly and indirectly'.
The document is now open to public consultation.
It is hard to see how this would accelerate progress towards universal access to reliable healthcare information.
'The repercussions wouldn’t just fall on researchers, institutions, and the public whose tax dollars fund this work; they would also impact the broader enterprise that exists to improve our understanding of the world and the human condition, and our global leadership in innovation...'
'Eliminating the funding does not eliminate the costs.'
Best wishes, Neil
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org