The Changing Landscape of 2025: Addressing the Remuneration Problem in Scholarly Publishing
I was scrolling through a recent online post by the head of a university research office in the Philippines when I encountered a wall of cold, hard math. Usually, such updates announce new grants or celebrate creative breakthroughs. This one was different. It read like a plea for help, or perhaps a warning.
The office had just received an unprecedented request: USD 3,700, which translates to approximately ₱206,000 in local currency.
At first glance, I assumed the amount was intended for a major laboratory upgrade, a multi-year climate study, or perhaps the expansion of a university library. I was wrong. The request was for an Article Processing Charge (APC) for a single journal article. Fewer than twenty pages, authored by a Filipino researcher, yet the university was being asked to pay over two hundred thousand pesos simply to make the work “free” for the world to read.
As a member of the academic community, I was both shocked and dismayed. This is not merely an administrative challenge in a country where research resources are already strained. It is an ethical one. The long-standing adage publish or perish has, by 2025, taken on a more troubling meaning: publish and pay, or remain unseen.
This ₱206,000 invoice is not an isolated incident. It is a symptom of a much larger and more troubling problem. While the global Open Access (OA) movement was designed to democratize knowledge, the dominant Gold Open Access model has simply replaced a pay-to-read barrier with a pay-to-publish one.
The “Gold” Gatekeeper
₱206,000 is far from a modest sum for a Philippine university. That single fee could have supported two or three small research grants for junior faculty, funded essential laboratory upgrades, or provided full-year scholarships for several students. Instead, funds, often sourced from public budgets, are redirected into the multi-billion-dollar revenues of large commercial publishers such as Elsevier and Springer Nature.
University rankings, heavily influenced by citation metrics, intensify this pressure. Open Access articles are cited more frequently, compelling institutions to absorb these costs simply to remain visible. Quality becomes tied to liquidity. As a result, rigorous Philippine research often remains hidden behind paywalls, while less substantial studies from wealthier institutions dominate global discourse simply because they can afford to be openly published.
According to a report by the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities (ALLEA), publishers generate approximately USD 2 billion annually from APCs.
The logic is difficult to justify. Scholars, many employed by public institutions, conduct the research, write the manuscripts, and review one another’s work without compensation. Publishers then charge thousands of dollars to host the final digital file. It is, quite literally, paying a premium for bread one has already baked.
The Philippine Resistance: Successes in the Diamond Model
Fortunately, the story does not end with ₱206,000 invoices. An alternative approach, Diamond Open Access, is actively benefiting the Philippines. Under this model, journals are funded by institutions or government bodies and are free for both authors and readers.
Today, more than twenty peer-reviewed journals, including Science Diliman and Kasarinlan, are hosted on the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform of the University of the Philippines Diliman.
These journals operate entirely without APCs, demonstrating that institutional publishing can be both sustainable and academically rigorous.
The Philippine Journal of Science (PJS) provides another compelling example. As the country’s oldest scientific journal, managed by the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), PJS operates under a Diamond Open Access model while maintaining Scopus indexing.
Its success clearly shows that high-quality research dissemination does not require ₱206,000 fees.
The national vision is equally promising. The PAGTANAW 2050 foresight document, published by the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST), emphasizes Science for the People.
It envisions digital infrastructures that bring locally produced research to farmers, fisherfolk, and policymakers, not only to those who can afford subscription access.
What Others Can Learn from the Philippine Experience
The shortcomings of the current Open Access system point to a deeper question: for whom are we writing? If science is truly meant to serve society, allowing global publishing conglomerates to dictate the terms of knowledge dissemination undermines that mission.
Key lessons for the global conversation include:
- Institutional solidarity: Universities in the Global South can pool resources to develop high-quality, non-commercial publishing infrastructures.
- Public accountability: Research funded by public money should remain publicly accessible, without transferring financial burdens back to researchers.
- Sustainable alternatives: Diamond Open Access models demonstrate that ethical, accessible publishing is not only possible but already functioning.
In 2025, the Philippines is moving in the right direction. By supporting Diamond Open Access and embracing the vision articulated in PAGTANAW 2050, the country is choosing a model that prioritizes public benefit over profit. The call for genuine Open Access is ultimately a call to step away from dependency on a profit-driven industry and to build a truly shared global intellectual conversation.
Keywords
Open Access publishing Article Processing Charges (APCs) Scholarly publishing ethics Diamond Open Access Gold Open Access Research equity Global South academia Philippine research ecosystem Academic publishing economics Science for the public
Dr. Jeanne Alejo-Abitago, from the Philippines, holds a Bachelor of Science in Criminology from the University of Southern Mindanao, and a master's and Doctor of Philosophy in Criminal Justice with a criminology specialization from the University of Mindanao. She currently serves the Philippine National Police Davao City Police Office as Women’s and Children Protection Desk Investigator. She is also a faculty member at St. Peter’s College of Toril's Criminology Department and a guest lecturer at the University of Mindanao. Her editorial work includes the Public Administration Research team with the Canadian Center of Science and Education (partnered with ResearchGate) and the International Journal of Advanced Research. She's been awarded by Academic Business Current Data Index for reviewing journals and is a certified reviewer with ReviewersCredits, HQ based in Berlin, Germany (ID 256384). Additionally, she's an active member of the Professional Criminologist Association of the Philippines, International Association of Crime Analysts, the Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration, and the Asian Council of Science Editors, with her membership sponsored by ScienceAlert. Through her active involvement in practice and academia, alongside her research publication and editorial contributions, she is dedicated to promoting research and scholarly publishing integrity.
View All Posts by Jeanne Alejo-AbitagoDisclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of their affiliated institutions, the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE), or the Editor’s Café editorial team.
Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
FENDZI MBASSO WULFRAN
01 January, 2026Powerful framing: APCs have become a gatekeeping mechanism that reshapes whose knowledge enters the global record. For many institutions, a single high APC can crowd out student support, equipment, or multiple small grants—so the equity trade-off is real. The Philippine Diamond OA pathway you describe is a strong model for other regions: invest in shared infrastructure, keep governance public-facing, and treat dissemination as part of the research mission—not a luxury add-on.
02 January, 2026
Thank you! You’ve perfectly captured the 'equity trade-off.' Every dollar sent to a commercial publisher is a dollar taken away from a student's scholarship or essential lab equipment. The core goal of research is to solve problems and share knowledge for the public good, not to serve as a revenue stream for a profit-driven industry.