2025/03/21 by Dominique Vervoort · 1 voice
Computer Science · #Open Education and E-Learning #Research Data Management Practices
paper · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezaf092
openalex publication_date 2025/03/21 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30
Open-access (OA) publishing is on the rise [1]. Most cardiovascular journals provide OA avenues: 61% are hybrid journals, whereas 37% are fully OA [2]. In cardiology and cardiac surgery, article processing charges (APCs) cost a median of US3000 (IQR: US2500–3425) for 139 journals with APCs [2]. Hybrid journals are particularly costly, charging a median of US3250 (IQR: US3000–3500); only one-third of journals have discounts or waivers, thus primarily benefiting researchers capable of paying or fortunate enough to obtain waivers. Profit margins of up to 20–30% have created a multi-billion-dollar industry, wherein a handful of publishers dominate the market [3]. Unsurprisingly, an increasing number of predatory journals now seek to exploit unknowing researchers and researchers seeing no other way out [4]. The logical question, then, appears: ‘Is there an excess of OA?’ [1] Ethically, we have to balance situations wherein everyone is worse off (no or limited OA) with those wherein everyone is better off (OA for all). Simulating a plutocratic society, current APC trends create an undue division between those better off and those worse off. By contrast, a just society ensures equality of opportunity, wherein inequalities are only acceptable if they benefit those who are initially worse off [5]. The latter should be emulated in academic medicine. As clinicians, we aim to provide the best possible care according to the best available evidence. As researchers, our goal is to advance science and increase the reach of our findings. Why, then, should publishing be different?