Abstract We aim to estimate the total amount of article processing charges (APCs) paid to publish open access (OA) in journals controlled by the five large commercial publishers (Elsevier, Sage, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley) between 2015 and 2018. Using publication data from WoS, OA status from Unpaywall, and annual APC prices from open data sets and historical fees retrieved via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, we estimate that globally authors paid $1.06 billion in publication fees to these publishers from 2015–2018. Revenue from gold OA amounted to $612.5 million, and $448.3 million was obtained for publishing OA in hybrid journals. Among the five publishers, Springer Nature made the most revenue from OA ($589.7 million), followed by Elsevier ($221.4 million), Wiley ($114.3 million), Taylor & Francis ($76.8 million), and Sage ($31.6 million). With Elsevier and Wiley making most of their APC revenue from hybrid fees and others focusing on gold, different OA strategies could be observed between publishers.

In the pre-Internet era, commercial publishers, such as Elsevier and Wiley, played an important role in disseminating new scientific ideas and discoveries. The emergence of the Internet has forced publishers to rethink their business model (Cope and Phillips, 2014), partly because scientists could, in principle, easily reach a broad audience and cut out the proverbial middleman. It is fair to say that commercial publishers adapted quite successfully as they arguably remain key players in the scientific publishing landscape (Cope and Kalantzis, 2014; Lariviere et al., 2015). However, academics have been criticizing publishers’ business practices for over a decade now [e.g., Dyer (2004)] and the call for reform has grown even louder in the past couple of years (Corbyn, 2012; Flood, 2012; Cope and Kalantzis, 2014). A prime example of such a reform initiative is the Cost of Knowledge campaign. Launched in response to a blog post by prominent mathematician Gowers (2012), the campaign specifically targets the publishing house Elsevier, denouncing its attempts to restrict the free exchange of information, the exorbitantly high prices for subscriptions, and the practice of selling journals in large bundles featuring many unwanted titles.1 Signatories of the petition pledge to not referee for, publish in, or do editorial work for Elsevier journals. Roughly 4 years after the boycott started, it seems appropriate to evaluate its impact and contemplate its future. As a result of the boycott, several academics resigned from the editorial boards of numerous Elsevier journals. Moreover, the entire editorial board of the Elsevier journal Lingua resigned and started a new, open access journal called Glossa (Greenberg, 2015). The boycott thus changed the publishing landscape to a certain extent but not as drastically as the organizers might have hoped. More importantly, however, over 80% of the nearly 16,000 signatories pledged to not publish in an Elsevier journal. This could gradua doi: 10.3389/frma.2016.00007 On the Cost of Knowledge: Evaluating the Boycott against Elsevier Tom Heyman*, Pieter Moors and Gert Storms Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Keywords: open access publishing, boycott, publication practices, social dilemmas, publication list In the pre-Internet era, commercial publishers, such as Elsevier and Wiley, played an important role in disseminating new scientific ideas and discoveries. The emergence of the Internet has forced publishers to rethink their business model (Cope and Phillips, 2014), partly because scientists could, in principle, easily reach a broad audience and cut out the proverbial middleman. It is fair to say that commercial publishers adapted quite successfully as they arguably remain key players in the scientific publishing landscape (Cope and Kalantzis, 2014; Larivière et al., 2015). However, academics have been criticizing publishers’ business practices for over a decade now [e.g., Dyer (2004)] and the call for reform has grown even louder in the past couple of years (Corbyn, 2012; Flood, 2012; Cope and Kalantzis, 2014). A prime example of such a reform initiative is the Cost of Knowledge campaign. Launched in response to a blog post by prominent mathematician Gowers (2012), the campaign specifically targets the publishing house Elsevier, denouncing its attempts to restrict the free exchange of information, the exorbitantly high prices for subscriptions, and the practice of selling journals in large bundles featuring many unwanted titles. 1 Signatories of the petition pledge to not referee for, publish in, or do editorial work for Elsevier journals. Roughly 4 years after the boycott started, it seems appropriate to evaluate its impact and contemplate its future. As a result of the boycott, several academics resigned from the editorial boards of numerous Elsevier journals. Moreover, the entire editorial board of the Elsevier journal Lingua resigned and started a new, open access journal called Glossa (Greenberg, 2015). The boycott thus changed the publishing landscape to a certain extent but not as drastically as the organizers might have hoped. More importantly, however, over 80% of the nearly 16,000 signatories pledged to not publish in an Elsevier journal. This could gradually reduce the quality and thus the relevance of those journals. However, such a process takes time, and its effects may not be readily discernible. Furthermore, only 37% of the “won’t publish” signatories are clearly boycotting Elsevier by publishing elsewhere. Extrapolating this figure to other domains would altogether amount to about 5,000 research- Scientists sign petition to boycott academic publisher Elsevier. The Guardian . Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/ feb/02/academics-boycott-publisher-elsevier Gowers, T. (2012). Elsevier  –  My Part in its Downfall [Blog post]. Available at: https://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/elsevier-my-part-in-its-downfall/ Greenberg, J. (2015). Editors of the journal Lingua protest  –  quit in battle for open access. Wired. Available at: http://www.wired.com/2015/11/ editors-of-the-journal-lingua-protest-quit-in-battle-for-open-access/ Hartgerink, C. H. J. (2016). VSNU Failed Itself in Meagre Deal With Elsevier [Blog post]. Available at: https://universonline.nl/2016/04/28/ vsnu-failed-itself-in-meagre-deal-with-elsevier Kingsley, D. (2015). Dutch Boycott of Elsevier – A Game Changer? [Blog post]. Available at: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=192 Larivière, V ., Haustein, S., and Mongeon, P . (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS ONE 10:e0127502. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0127502 Norcross, J. C., Mrykalo, M. S., and Blagys, M. D. (2002). Auld Lang Syne: success predictors, change processes, and self-reported outcomes of New Y ear’s resolv- ers and nonresolvers. J. Clin. Psychol. 58, 397–405. doi:10.1002/jclp.1151 VSNU and Elsevier. (2015).

Two 17th century institutions-learned societies and scientific journals-transformed science in ways that still dominate our professional lives today. Learned societies like the American Society for Cell Biology remain relevant because they provide forums for sharing results, discussing the practice of science, and projecting our voices to the public and the policy makers. Scientific journals still disseminate our work, but in the Internet-connected world of the 21st century, this is no longer their critical function. Journals remain relevant almost entirely because they provide a playing field for scientific and professional competition: to claim credit for a discovery, we publish it in a peer-reviewed journal; to get a job in academia or money to run a lab, we present these published papers to universities and funding agencies. Publishing is so embedded in the practice of science that whoever controls the journals controls access to the entire profession. We must reform our methods for evaluating the contributions of younger scientists and deflate the power of a small number of "elite" journals. More generally, given the recent failure of research institutions around the world to strike satisfactory deals with publishing giant Elsevier, the time has come to examine the motives and methods of those to whom we have entrusted the keys to the kingdom of science.

publishing, Internet technology enabled the Big Five major scientific publishers—Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, Taylor and Francis and American Chemical Society—to Academic journal publishing reform is the advocacy for changes in the way academic journals are created and distributed in the age of the Internet and the advent of electronic publishing. Since the rise of the Internet, people have organized campaigns to change the relationships among and between academic authors, their traditional distributors and their readership. Most of the discussion has cent Rat… The… In… Scholars sometimes obtain articles from fellow scholars through unofficial channels, such as posting requests on Twitter using the hashtag "#icanhazpdf" (a play on the I Can Has Cheezburger? meme), to avoid paying publishers' access charges. In 2004, there were reports in British media of a "revolution in academic publishing" which would make research freely available online but many scientists continued to publish their work in the traditional big name journals like Nature. Mike Taylor argued that the Academic Spring may have some unexpected results beyond the obvious benefits. Referring to work by the biophysicist Cameron Neylon, he says that, because modern science is now more dependent on well-functioning networks than individuals, making information freely available may help computer-based analyses to provide opportunities for major scientific breakthroughs. Government and university officials have welcomed the prospect of saving on subscriptions which have been rising in cost, while universities' budgets have been shrinking. Although it has some historical precedent, open access became desired in response to the advent of electronic publishing as part of a broader desire for academic journal publishing reform. Electronic publishing created new benefits as compared to paper publishing but beyond that, it contributed to causing problems in traditional publishing models. Everyone should have greater awareness of the serious social problems caused by restricting access to academic research. Everyone should recognize that there are serious economic challenges for the future of academic publishing. Even though open access models are problematic, traditional publishing models definitely are not sustainable and something radical needs to change immediately. Moore proposes designing multiple infrastructural interventions to facilitate experiments in collectivity. Open access also has ambitions beyond merely granting access to academic publications, as access to research is only a tool for helping people achieve other goals. The academic publishing industry has increased prices of academic journals faster than inflation and beyond the library budgets. The pricing crisis does not only mean strain to budgets, but also that researchers actually are losing access to journals. Not even the wealthiest libraries in the world are able to afford all the journals that their users are demanding, and less rich libraries are severely harmed by lack of access to journals. Publishers also state that they add value to publications in many ways, and without academic publishing as an institution the readership would miss these services and fewer people would have access to articles. Critics of open access have suggested that by itself, this is not a solution to scientific publishing's most serious problem – it simply changes the paths through which ever-increasing sums of money flow. Evidence for this does exist and for example, Yale University ended its financial support of BioMed Central's Open Access Membership program effective July 27, 2007. One concern that academics have "are growing concerns about how to promote [Open Access] publishing." Park and Qin also state, "The general perception is that [Open Access] journals are new, and therefore many uncertainties, such as quality and sustainability, exist." Journal article authors are generally not directly financially compensated for their work beyond their The proposers of the law stated that it would "ensure the continued publication and integrity of peer-reviewed research works by the private sector". This followed other similar proposed measures such as the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act. These attempts to limit free access to such material are controversial and have provoked lobbying for and against by numerous interested parties such as the Association of American Publishers and the American Library Association. Critics of the law stated that it was the moment that "academic publishers gave up all pretence of being on the side of scientists." In February 2012, Elsevier withdrew its support for the bill. Following this statement, the sponsors of the bill announced they will also withdraw their support. === The Cost of Knowledge === In January 2012, Cambridge mathematician Timothy Gowers, started a boycott of journals published by Elsevier, in part a reaction to their support for the Research Works Act. In response to an angry blog post by Gowers, the website The Cost of Knowledge was launched by a sympathetic reader. An online petition called The Cost of Knowledge was set up by fellow mathematician Tyler Neylon, to gather support for the boycott. By early April 2012, it had been signed by over eight thousand academics. As of mid-June 2012, the number of signatories exceeded 12,000. Publishing Beyond the Market, Open Access, Care, and the Commons (open access). USA: University of Michigan Press. doi:10.3998/mpub.11781635. Retrieved 22 August 2025. Suber, Peter (2012). Open access (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-51763-8. Retrieved 2015-10-20. == External links == Nature's 2001 review of the changes happening in academic journal publishing What Needs to Happen in a Scholarly Publishing Reform?, a lecture by neuroscientist Björn Brembs OA Works, a charity focused on accelerating open access in research

Elsevier, Inc. ( EL-sə-veer) is a Dutch academic publishing company specializing in scientific, technical, and medical content. Its products include journals such as The Lancet, Cell, the ScienceDirect collection of electronic journals, Trends, the Current Opinion series, the online citation database Scopus, the SciVal tool for measuring research performance, the ClinicalKey search engine for clin Elsevier, Inc. ( EL-sə-veer) is a Dutch academic publishing company specializing in scientific, technical, and medical content. Its products include journals such as The Lancet, Cell, the ScienceDirect collection of electronic journals, Trends, the Current Opinion series, the online citation database Scopus, the SciVal tool for measuring research performance, the ClinicalKey search engine for clinicians, and the ClinicalPath evidence-based cancer care service. Elsevier's products and services include digital tools for data management, instruction, research analytics, and assessment. Elsevier is part of the RELX Group, known until 2015 as Reed Elsevier, a publicly traded company. According to RELX reports, in 2022 Elsevier published more than 600,000 articles annually in over 2,800 journals. As of 2018, its archives contained over 17 million documents and 40,000 e-books, with over one billion annual downloads. As of 2019, Elsevier's about page no longer describes the company as a publisher, but as a "global information analytics business", with only their "roots in publishing". Elsevier has been criticized for its high profit margins and copyright practices. The company had a reported profit before tax of £2.295 billion with an adjusted operating margin of 33.1% in 2023. Much of the research that Elsevier publishes is publicly funded; its high costs have led to accusations of rent-seeking, boycotts against the company, and the rise of alternate avenues for academic publication and access, such as preprint servers and shadow libraries. In 2015, Stephen Leeder was removed f Elsevier, Inc. ( EL-sə-veer) is a Dutch academic publishing company specializing in scientific, technical, and medical content. Its products include journals such as The Lancet, Cell, the ScienceDirect collection of electronic journals, Trends, the Current Opinion series, the online citation database Scopus, the SciVal tool for measuring research performance, the ClinicalKey search engine for clinicians, and the ClinicalPath evidence-based cancer care service. Elsevier's products and services include digital tools for data management, instruction, research analytics, and assessment. Elsevier is part of the RELX Group, known until 2015 as Reed Elsevier, a publicly traded company. According to RELX reports, in 2022 Elsevier published more than 600,000 articles annually in over 2,800 journals. As of 2018, its archives contained over 17 million documents and 40,000 e-books, with over one billion annual downloads. As of 2019, Elsevier's about page no longer describes the company as a publisher, but as a "global information analytics business", with only their "roots in publishing". Elsevier has been criticized for its high profit margins and copyright practices. The company had a reported profit before tax of £2.295 billion with an adjusted operating margin of 33.1% in 2023. Much of the research that Elsevier publishes is publicly funded; its high costs have led to accusations of rent-seeking, boycotts against the company, and the rise of alternate avenues for academic publication and access, such as preprint servers and shadow libraries. In 2015, Stephen Leeder was removed from his role as editor of the Medical Journal of Australia when its publisher decided to outsource the journal's production to Elsevier. As a consequence, all but one of the journal's editorial advisory committee members co-signed a letter of resignation. In 2015, the entire editorial staff of the general linguistics journal Lingua resigned in protest of Elsevier's unwillingness to agree to their terms of Fair Open Access. Editor-in-chief Johan Rooryck also announced that the Lingua staff would establish a new journal, Glossa. In 2019, the entire editorial board of Elsevier's Journal of Informetrics resigned over the open-access policies of its publisher and founded open-access journal called Quantitative Science Studies. The resignation came in the context of Elsevier along among the major publishers declining to join the Initiative for Open Citations. Elsevier finally joined the initiative in January 2021 after the data was already available with an Open Data Commons license in Microsoft Academic. In 2020, Elsevier effectively severed the tie between the Journal of Asian Economics and the academic society that founded it, the American Committee on Asian Economic Studies (ACAES), by offering the ACAES-appointed editor, Calla Wiemer, a terminal contract for 2020. As a result, a majority of the editorial board eventually resigned. In 2023, the editorial board of the journal Design Studies resigned over Elsevier's 1) plans to increase publications seven-fold; 2) the appointment of an external Editor-in-Chief who had not previously published in the journal; and 3) changing the scope of the journal without consulting the editorial team or the journal's parent society. In December 2024, the editorial board of Journal of Human Evolution, including emeritus editors and all but one associate editor, resigned, citing actions by Elsevier that they said "are fundamentally incompatible with the ethos of the journal and preclude maintaining the quality and integrity fundamental to JHE's success". In addition to pricing, specific complaints also included interference in the editorial board, lack of necessary support from the company, and the disruptive use of generative AI by the company to alter submissions without informing editors or contributors. In 2003, various university librarians began coordinating with each other to complain about Elsevier's "big deal" journal