Black Humor in Academic Publishing: The Shady Dealings Behind Page Charges

Everyone, let’s talk about the ins and outs of the academic publishing world today. First, we need to address the issue of publishing articles in international journals. Why are some people worried that if an article is published in an international journal, the Americans will just rip it off? Actually, publishing in an international journal is like showcasing your best moves at a martial arts tournament—why would you be afraid that your opponents will steal your techniques? The reason is simple: we’re showcasing China’s solutions and defining the next generation of technical standards. The barriers to entry lie in engineering—for example, rare-earth materials and precision manufacturing capabilities—which can’t be mastered just by reading papers. But your intuition is spot-on; there is indeed a growing trend toward reducing publications in foreign journals. Starting March 1 of this year, the Chinese Academy of Sciences announced it would stop paying fees for papers published in 30 high-cost journals, including *Nature Communications* and *Cell Reports*. These journals charge an average of $5,000 per paper, exceeding the industry average of $2,000. This fee is called an Article Processing Charge (APC)—essentially, you contribute knowledge, but first you have to pay a publication fee. The traditional model relies on institutions or readers paying subscription fees, but since there aren’t that many people eager to learn, subscription growth is limited. Consequently, major publishers introduced the “open access” model, shifting the costs onto the authors. Career prospects are tied to publication output: the more papers published, the more money publishers make. Moreover, peer review is free, and the editorial costs for online distribution are virtually zero—yet access to these publications is not free. Consequently, academic publishing has become a highly capitalized, highly profitable industry with profit margins exceeding 40 percent—far surpassing those of Fortune 500 companies. Meanwhile, knowledge creators are constantly exploited, leading to severe exploitation. This distorted ecosystem is a major headache for us. Starting more than a decade ago, China’s research institutions became among the most enthusiastic adopters of the “open access” model. On the one hand, this was to elevate the level of scientific research; on the other, it stemmed from a reverence for international journals. In short, recognition from international journals may be even more important than the research findings themselves. Consequently, submitting to international journals offers excellent value for money, and the proportion of Chinese authors has continued to rise. In 2023, approximately 10% of the authors in *Science Advances* (a *Nature* journal) were from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, while another 30% came from other research institutions. Overall, 25% of the authors of all open-access papers and more than 30% of the profits come from China. We prefer journals with high impact factors, which correspondingly charge higher publication fees. Page charges paid by Chinese authors for publishing in international journals rose from 290 million in 2019 to 910 million in 2024, with an annual growth rate exceeding 20%. Publishers treat researchers’ essential needs as an opportunity to fleece them, which is why page charges keep skyrocketing. Earlier this year, the cost of publishing an article in *Nature Communications* rose from $6,990 to $7,350—more than 50,000 RMB. This has created a vicious cycle: researchers have become cash cows for international journals, and their academic contributions are being used to solidify the industry’s position at the expense of the development of domestic journals. To address this issue, we launched the “China Science and Technology Journal Excellence Action Plan” in 2019, with the goal of developing world-class science and technology journals. During the first five-year cycle, the number of domestic Chinese- and English-language journals receiving funding increased to 200. Breakthroughs were achieved in certain key fields, and the number of high-quality journals grew. By 2024, 154 journals had entered the top 25% in their respective international subject rankings, and four journals—including *Cell Research*—had entered the global top 100. Stopping the reimbursement of exorbitant publication fees for certain foreign journals is not merely about saving money; it is also about curbing international publishers’ exploitation of our nation’s public assets, reclaiming academic evaluation authority and discourse power, preventing raw data, research trends, and talent profiles from falling into the hands of Western commercial data providers, and safeguarding the security of our knowledge sovereignty. An independent knowledge system and a controllable knowledge infrastructure are absolutely essential. Ladies and gentlemen, we must recognize this trend and strive to develop domestic journals while enhancing the domestic recognition of our scientific achievements. This is the true path to academic autonomy—not a mere survival strategy under the exploitation of foreign journals.