1
When research is funded by a federal grant, who should primarily bear the cost of publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal?
Results
(172 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-672631That's the way it's been and should continue
- Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-190288most of the time the grant ends and the researcher is stealing off another grant to pay. the institution has no magic pots of money, how much does it really cost the journal to publish online when they are charging 3K per pub.
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-842404If publication is a key part of the federal funding, then the costs of publishing need to be covered. Not all institutions have the resources to cover APC costs. Publisher use of APCs makes sense in light of the shift to individual article downloads, as opposed to subscription to the entire journal.
- The federal government should fund publication through a dedicated mechanism separate from individual grantsuser-477051If the federal government cares about its people, and if scientists (authors) write their abstracts in language the public can understand—at least in the form of a plain language summary—then, in my view, ensuring this happens is the federal government's responsibility. I'm not an American citizen, but more or less the same situation applies in Türkiye as well. The world's elites, tax evaders, tax systems that fail to encompass the public, all the amnesties granted to the rich? But when it comes to publishing articles that would benefit the public, the government runs away? The federal government absolutely should fund this.
- Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-390144Publishing scientifoc resulta has become a business model. Publication of academic and scientific research should be online, paper free, and without any charge. If academic personells can review research articles and serve as editors for free, pn honorary basis, then the results can be published for free as well.
- Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-208008It's ridiculous. Publishers need to make money, but if you do self-funded or low cost research it is impossible to publish without outside funding. This skews the data.
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-911600Part of the grant research process!
- Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-359434The system is currently rigged in favor of publishers: Researchers pay to publish, the reader pays to read, and journals do not pay the reviewers (the same researchers that have to pay to publish) withouth whom publishing peer reviewed papers would be impossible.
- Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-286882The APCs are too high, the review system is broken, several papers can be published from a single grant but the grant won't cover the APCs. The only advantage of publication over sitting on Arxiv is the indexing that let's the article be found.
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-543438As a requirement of being a grant recipient, I believe a portion of the funding should be explicitly for dissemination - both in manuscript and presentation form. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ask for a sufficient amount and for the funding agency to supply that funding.
- Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-480186The open access system was disigned to divert public funds to private hands, those of publishing houses. The result was an unprecedented proliferation of predator journals.
- Publishers should reduce or eliminate APCs and fund operations through other revenue modelsuser-541511While in an ideal world research is published for free, labor is involved in publishing. However, the primary labor in publishing outside of the manuscript writing is in reviewing and finalizing the publication for the journals. Therefore, payments should be made to primary reviewers, and trainee reviewers should be brought on to intern for free, these activities should be funded in small part by a fee paid by the researcher, additionally advertising space in journals for the newest technology and products should be included to subsidize the cost similarly to conferences.
- The federal government should fund publication through a dedicated mechanism separate from individual grantsuser-498547
- Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-487884The original idea was that public funded science should be freely available to the people who paid taxes for the research. But there is a new harsh reality: pharmaceutical companies use open-access medical data to develop drugs they sell for massive profits and the resercher gets no compensation. This idea argues that making publicly funded science completely free is a taxpayer subsidy to private companies.
- Publishers should reduce or eliminate APCs and fund operations through other revenue modelsuser-975109Researcher work is to do the research. If the APC charges is to much high, it's very difficult to publish his research work in high NAAS journal.
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-890708任何机构要运转就要支付正常运营费用，当然从政府资助的费用中列支。
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-616480A key component of conducting a research study is the translation of results into action. This translation is improved when the results are readily accessible in the scientific literature, with the increased credibility that comes from peer review. Incorporating these publication costs within the grant is justifiable to ensure the objectives of the research are fully met.
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-429130
- Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-832029You give the knowledge
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-3202411. The “Full-Funded Research” Principle
When a federal agency funds a research project, it implicitly funds the entire research lifecycle, from design and data collection to analysis and publication. Excluding publication costs from the grant budget means funding incomplete research. Knowledge that is produced but not made available to the public is effectively a waste of public funds.
Some institutions cannot afford these costs.
This is precisely why the first option is preferable to the second (institutional funding).
If we rely on institutions, we are implicitly saying:
"Your ability to publish your research depends on how wealthy your employer is." - Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-402918APC is bad model and it should change
- Publishers should reduce or eliminate APCs and fund operations through other revenue modelsuser-616368The current model is aberrant. The goverment is paying and allowing copyright transfer to a private company of the information generated with the budget supported by public taxes. All this at very expensive prices and getting no revenue.
- Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-434227The real question is not who should pay for publication, but why publication costs are so high in the first place.I established a journal and simulated the entire publishing workflow. Based on my experience, the actual cost of processing and publishing a manuscript is around $100 per article. Given that, why are researchers routinely charged several thousand dollars in article processing charges (APCs)?The current system is difficult to justify. Researchers spend months or years writing grant proposals, conducting the research, analyzing the data, writing the manuscript, and revising it in response to peer review. Reviewers, who are themselves researchers, provide their expertise voluntarily and without compensation. After all of this work has been completed by the scientific community, publishers primarily provide the platform for hosting and disseminating the article, yet they often charge thousands of dollars for publication.The result is a system in which taxpayers fund the research, researchers produce the content, reviewers provide quality control for free, and publishers capture a disproportionate share of the value. While publishing certainly involves real costs, the gap between the actual cost of publication and the APCs charged by many journals raises serious questions about whether the current model is serving science or simply sustaining an inefficient and highly profitable industry.As a researcher, I find this deeply frustrating. I used AI models to improve English not point of view.
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-568782A research is an interesting,
intellectual, practical and financial continuous process (including proposal project writing, research performing and data analysis, paper's writing and publication, knowledge sharing via national or international conference, and sponsor seeking). This important process or research journey needs a budget to be funded to achieve a proposal project plan. That why it is pertinent to integrate the APC fee to the research budget. Therefore, a grant application should take into account APC fee as a part of the research budget. - The researcher's institution should cover publication costs from overhead or institutional fundsuser-675913Institutions take money from research grant. They should do it as a small part of the money they get.
- Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-512689APC in a standard journal is often more than my month's salary. This outrageously high APC system is the biggest hindrance for an open participation, unless one is funded. Furthermore, funded publications are often not in the best interest for the people. Subscription system may be there for access, to cover the expenses, but let there be option for no-cost-to-publish. Institutions should take subscription for the institutional library, government/institutional authority should pay for the subscription so that the burden is never shifted to the researchers. If one is financially strong, may choose to pay an open access APC, to ensure better reach.
- Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-673903Researchers do the work and the grants are meant to fund the research. $3K is a lot of money that could be further used for research. I someone can't afford to pay, then the federally funded research could get lost in journals that are not open access.
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-445218This seems like the most logical approach to me.
- The federal government should fund publication through a dedicated mechanism separate from individual grantsuser-960476Publication costs should come from a separate fund, not individual grants. The public pays for the research, so there's a fair case for open access, but it shouldn't eat into the budget for the actual work. Even so, it can't become a blank check for whatever publishers charge. It needs spending caps, real transparency about where the money goes, and genuine support for repositories and non-profit publishing rather than defaulting to the big commercial fees, which prices out early-career researchers and smaller institutions first.
- Publishers should reduce or eliminate APCs and fund operations through other revenue modelsuser-110809It's standard to have pub costs on grants, but I don't like that
- Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-984622I feel that services most journals now provide are quite minimal and don't warrant APCs- reviewers and handling editors are typically unpaid, and yet they do the vast majority of the work that goes into publishing. It feels like APCs are enabling academic publishers to profit on the free labor of highly skilled academics and taxpayer dollars that currently fund APCs. I also think the APCs incentivize predatory and also established journals to accept sub-par articles to drive profits, which is bad for science.
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-78358The principle investigator should have a budget that specifically alocates APC
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-217222This is easy to do. When generating a proposal a publication cost line item should be included in the budget.
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-887652If the purpose of the grant is to generate a finding, it should include the costs of publishing that finding.
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-883415Publishing is an essential part of federally funded research, so grants should include reasonable publication costs to ensure public access and dissemination.
- Publishers should reduce or eliminate APCs and fund operations through other revenue modelsuser-110802I believe Article Processing Charges (APCs) should not exist, and publishers should adopt alternative and more sustainable business models. The current publishing system is fundamentally unfair. Researchers must first compete for limited grant funding to conduct their research, then use part of those same funds to pay often very high publication fees, and finally volunteer their time as peer reviewers without compensation. This creates a system where the scientific community provides the research, the funding, and much of the editorial work, while commercial publishers capture most of the financial benefits.
Furthermore, suggesting that research institutions should cover APCs is simply unrealistic in many developing countries. Many universities and research institutes struggle to fund basic operations, and governments often underfund scientific research. Under these conditions, expecting institutions to pay the high APCs charged by many top-tier (Q1) journals only reinforces global inequalities in scientific publishing and limits the participation of researchers from lower-income countries.
Declaration of AI Use: English is not my native language; I am a native Spanish speaker. I used ChatGPT as assistant solely to improve the clarity, grammar, and readability of my responses in English. The ideas, opinions, and arguments expressed are entirely my own. AI was used exclusively for language assistance and not to generate or influence the content of my responses. - The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-648105Some federally funded programs allow itemization for publication costs (E.g., SERDP).
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-964797Research funded by the U.S. Federal government should have as one of its main goals access by all Americans. There should be a priority on public availability with the simplest solution including funding in the research grant.
- Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-11803Regardless of the source of the money to pay for publication costs, I believe that the process that initially increases access to information has transformed into a business model that goes beyond the pure purpose of disseminating knowledge.
- Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-862972Researchers should not have to pay to publish their own research, which was funded by a federal grant. There should be a separate mechanism for publishing that completely removes profit-making from it. As in the current system, the person who does the research and funds it doesn't make any money, but some random company that just publishes the results makes millions.
- I don't have a clear view on thisuser-533989If the finders are insisting on publication in high profile journals they should be prepared to pay for the work to be published in an open publication. But journals also have a responsibility to reduce charges to a minimum so tht open access to all papers is possible.
- Publishers should reduce or eliminate APCs and fund operations through other revenue modelsuser-269790Until not too long ago, publishers made their budget from advertisements and institutional subscriptions. That's the way it should be. Pay to publish corrupts the system and introduces an unnecessary burden on authors.
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-188641The publication costs were funded by a grant. The financial burden on the author was reduced.
- Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-5378Publication fees are out of control and have let to an industy of fraudulent science. Not all research projects are funded by federal grants and some have no funding at all. Publication is central and fundamental for the scientific method. The system has been hyjacked by those only interested in profit.
- The grant itself should cover publication costs as a standard part of doing federally funded researchuser-685111The publication of the research is an integral part of the research itself. These are inseparable.
- Researchers should not have to pay to publish; the current APC model is fundamentally broken regardless of who paysuser-77091The costs of publishing are outrageous and need to be curbed. The fact that scientific publishing relies on peer-review which is not renumerated makes this an archaic and completely inappropriate mechanism that is taken advantage of by publishing houses. A new and fairer approach is required that takes on board the time and effort required to review a manuscript.