[Updated. I replaced the spreadsheet on figshare twice as a couple of publisher names had to be corrected. This left a version with 101 unique publisher names –note that some might still be subsumable to other publisher names in the set.
I have also corrected the first bar chart and added another
one two on this post. Please bear in mind there might still be errors in the source data. The spreadsheet, write-up and charts are shared “as is” and “as available”; the information presented reflects the data as manually curated and refined in the latest dataset version at http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.966427.
This means that the number of publishers and costs and outputs associated to each publisher will depend on how the Publisher field has been refined; other quantifications and visualisations of the original dataset or other versions that have been refined differently are therefore likely to differ. I do not work for nor am I currently associated with the Wellcome Trust or any of the publishers mentioned here; these are not “official” figures and are openly shared here as research work in progress and should therefore be taken in that spirit].
In March 2014 the Wellcome Trust released a dataset via figshare giving information on their funding of Article Processing Charges in 2012/13.
The dataset includes all papers that the Trust is aware of paying money for.
Cameron Neylon subsequently shared a dataset on figshare (and github) with some of the inconsistencies refined:
Neylon, Cameron (2014): Wellcome Trust Article Processing Charges by Article 2012/13. figshare.
I worked with his version of the dataset and manually refined inconsistencies in the Publisher field (same publishers appeared under different names and spellings and other text formatting issues). I did not refine the journal titles.
I also focused on 11 publishers from the dataset and obtained totals as well as their maximum and minimum APCs.
I shared this version of the spreadsheet as
Some figures that stand out:
- Number of Publishers (once refined): 101
- Number of Published Outputs in the dataset: 2127
- Total amount paid in APCs according to the dataset: £3,884,787.52
- Highest APC in the dataset: £13,200.00, for the monograph: ‘Fungal Disease in Britain and the United States 1850-2000’ (Palgrave Macmillan)
- Highest APC payment for an article in the dataset: £6000 for ‘Laboratory Science in Tropical Medicine’, in the Public Service Review journal.
- Lowest APC in the dataset: £45.94 for the journal article ‘The association between breastfeeding and HIV on postpartum maternal weight changes over 24 months in rural South Africa’ on the American Society for Nutrition Journal.
- APC average (excluding the £13,000 one for the book) £1820.01
With many thanks to Cameron Neylon.
Hopefully this helps in some way to provide a quicker idea of the average cost of APCs from the major for-profit publishers.