On May 21, 2026, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its report Federal Research: Agencies Should Better Manage Anticipated Publishing Cost Increases Amid Shift to Public Access (GAO‑26‑107738). In response, the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) issued a statement addressing the implications of the findings.
SPARC emphasized that the federal government’s primary obligation in public access policy is to ensure taxpayers can freely access the results of publicly funded research. It argued that the government is not responsible for protecting commercial publishers’ business models. According to SPARC, the GAO report conflated public access with pay‑to‑publish practices, treating commercial publishing arrangements as structural necessities rather than optional business models.
The GAO described the publishing market as dominated by a small number of large firms. SPARC stated that the appropriate policy response should be investment in alternatives that return control of the scholarly record to the research community and the public.
The report suggested there was “no practical way” for researchers to have their work peer‑reviewed without paying publication charges. SPARC countered that this was inaccurate, noting that peer review has historically been conducted voluntarily by researchers. It argued that publishers coordinate peer review but do not own it, and that commercial publishers seek to control the process by charging fees.
SPARC highlighted that publisher business decisions should not dictate federal policy, particularly when alternatives exist. It pointed to scholarly societies, university presses, overlay journals, community‑led review platforms, and discipline‑based preprint servers with formal review layers as examples of models that support public access without imposing fees on researchers.
The organization urged Congress and federal agencies to:
• Distinguish public access from pay‑to‑publish, noting that federal mandates require free availability of research outputs under the federal purpose license, which does not necessitate commercial publisher involvement.
• Recognize risks of pay‑to‑publish, arguing that such models increase costs, compromise scientific integrity, and incentivize quantity over quality. SPARC referenced documented issues such as paper mills, editorial board resignations, and large‑scale retractions linked to APC‑based publishing.
• Avoid treating current market conditions as fixed, stressing that agencies should explore infrastructure investment and coordination to build durable alternatives to fee‑based publishing.
SPARC concluded that while the shift to public access benefits science and the public, pay‑to‑publish is not a sustainable path forward. It asserted that the federal government has the legal authority to make publicly funded research available without paying commercial publishers, and that policymakers must decide whether to continue funding publisher business models or fulfill obligations to taxpayers.
Click here to read the original press release.
