YOUR GO-TO INTELLIGENCE RESOURCE FOR THE SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING INDUSTRY

AAAS has submitted comments to the National Institutes of Health regarding its July 2025 proposal on ‘Maximizing Research Funds by Limiting Allowable Publishing Costs.’ In its comments, AAAS commends NIH for tackling the rise in article processing charges (APCs) that scientific journal publishers now require from NIH-funded researchers to publish their work.

As publishing models have shifted in recent years—often toward APC-based approaches—AAAS has supported models that do not place financial responsibility on individual researchers. At the same time, AAAS urges NIH to weigh potential unintended effects of immediately imposing APC caps on a system that has been built out and widely used for roughly two decades.

When used appropriately, APC fees support peer review; checks that verify key elements of a paper; and practices that ensure research remains findable and usable over the long term. Investment in these aspects of publishing is central to achieving the highest standards of science and to amplifying the impact of taxpayer funding. A sudden cap on APCs could push publishers that prioritize quality toward volume-driven approaches, which would not advance NIH’s objectives.

Drawing on studies of how scientists weigh tradeoffs to cover APCs, and on AAAS’s experience running five green open access journals (which make articles freely available without author fees), AAAS believes the research community should shift to public-access models financed by sources other than author payments, while still maximizing returns for taxpayers.

Among the options in NIH’s Request for Information, AAAS recommends Option 4—setting an upper limit on publication costs as a share of the overall grant—as the most practical near-term path. This approach addresses publishing expenses while allowing authors to choose journals they consider the best fit (ideally those emphasizing quality).

Over the longer term, AAAS encourages NIH to collaborate with publishers to incentivize non-APC models—or to revisit established ones such as green open access—keeping quality-focused outcomes at the center. AAAS also recommends that, when consistent with quality and cost goals, NIH policy supports U.S. publishers so that organizations guided by American standards of scientific excellence remain key arbiters of quality globally.