The promise was simple: Publicly funded research should be free to read. The U.S. government agreed; federal policy now requires taxpayer-funded research be publicly available upon publication. But the publishing industry found a workaround. Instead of charging readers to access papers, they now charge researchers to publish them. The paywall didn’t disappear. It just changed directions.

The global average for article processing charges is around $2,000, but the most prestigious journals — the ones that determine careers — cost far more. For example, they can reach $12,690 per paper at Springer Nature, a large academic commercial publisher. These prices are hurting researchers firsthand. A Brazilian biochemist was threatened with legal action by Elsevier after requesting a discount on a $3,810 fee because she worked in a less affluent country. She emailed the journal 12 times. This isn’t access. It’s extortion with an academic letterhead.

The backlash is mounting. The Chinese Academy of Sciences banned its researchers from using academy funds to pay APCs, thus cutting off more than 30 high-profile journals. The NIH proposed capping APC reimbursements, drawing over 900 public comments from researchers caught between publishing mandates and shrinking budgets. Meanwhile, in 2024, the four largest publishers generated over $7.1 billion in revenue, with their profit margins exceeding 30%. This was all built on research they didn’t fund, written by authors they don’t pay and reviewed by peers who volunteer their time.

Academic publishing economics remains deeply flawed. Top journals charge far beyond cost, while firms like Elsevier post profit margins around 37%. Open access hasn’t fixed this; it has shifted costs onto researchers, excluding those with fewer resources and draining research funding. It should make knowledge free to read, not expensive to publish. Without price caps or non-profit mandates, public money will keep fueling private profits.