IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0253226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good

Author

Listed:
  • Stephan Puehringer
  • Johanna Rath
  • Teresa Griesebner

Abstract

This paper provides an institutional and empirical analysis of the highly concentrated market of academic publishing, characterized by over proportionally high profit margins for publishing companies. The availability of latest research findings is an important issue for researchers, universities and politicians alike. Open access (OA) publication provides a promising but also costly solution to overcome this problem. However, in this paper we argue that OA publication costs are an important, but by far not the only way for academic publishers to gain access to public funding. In contrast, our study provides a comprehensive overview of the channels through which public expenditure benefits big academic publishing companies. Furthermore, we offer the results of an explorative case study, where we estimate the annual financial flows of public expenditures in Austria for the field of social sciences. In all, these expenditures add up to about 66.55 to 103.2 million € a year, which amounts to a fourth of total public funding for this field. Against this background, we contribute to the debate whether and to what extent public subsidies are justified for economically successful companies.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephan Puehringer & Johanna Rath & Teresa Griesebner, 2021. "The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0253226
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253226
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253226
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253226&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0253226?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcin Kozak & James Hartley, 2013. "Publication fees for open access journals: Different disciplines—different methods," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(12), pages 2591-2594, December.
    2. Oliver Budzinski & Thomas Grebel & Jens Wolling & Xijie Zhang, 2020. "Drivers of article processing charges in open access," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2185-2206, September.
    3. James J. Heckman & Sidharth Moktan, 2020. "Publishing and promotion in economics - The tyranny of the Top Five," Vox eBook Chapters, in: Sebastian Galliani & Ugo Panizza (ed.), Publishing and Measuring Success in Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 1, pages 23-32, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    4. Bergstrom, Theodore C & Courant, Paul N & McAfee, R Preston & Williams, Michael A, 2014. "Evaluating big deal journal bundles," University of California at Santa Barbara, Recent Works in Economics qt4xf9h43j, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    5. David J. Solomon & Bo‐Christer Björk, 2012. "A study of open access journals using article processing charges," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(8), pages 1485-1495, August.
    6. Mark J. McCabe & Christopher M. Snyder, 2018. "Open Access as a Crude Solution to a Hold‐Up Problem in the Two‐Sided Market for Academic Journals," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 301-349, June.
    7. Jeffrey Beall, 2012. "Predatory publishers are corrupting open access," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7415), pages 179-179, September.
    8. Vincent Larivière & Stefanie Haustein & Philippe Mongeon, 2015. "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    9. Nisha Gaind, 2019. "Huge US university cancels subscription with Elsevier," Nature, Nature, vol. 567(7746), pages 15-16, March.
    10. Hendrik P. van Dalen & Kène Henkens, 2012. "Intended and unintended consequences of a publish‐or‐perish culture: A worldwide survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(7), pages 1282-1293, July.
    11. David J. Solomon & Bo-Christer Björk, 2012. "A study of open access journals using article processing charges," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(8), pages 1485-1495, August.
    12. Richard Van Noorden, 2013. "Open access: The true cost of science publishing," Nature, Nature, vol. 495(7442), pages 426-429, March.
    13. Mark Armstrong, 2015. "Opening Access to Research," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(586), pages 1-30, August.
    14. Pilar Mendoza, 2007. "Academic Capitalism and Doctoral Student Socialization: A Case Study," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 78(1), pages 71-96, January.
    15. Hadavand, Aboozar & Hamermesh, Daniel S. & Wilson, Wesley W., 2019. "Is Scholarly Refereeing Productive (at the Margin)?," IZA Discussion Papers 12866, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Marcin Kozak & James Hartley, 2013. "Publication fees for open access journals: Different disciplines—different methods," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(12), pages 2591-2594, December.
    17. Jakob Kapeller, 2010. "Citation Metrics: Serious Drawbacks, Perverse Incentives, and Strategic Options for Heterodox Economics," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(5), pages 1376-1408, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stephan Puehringer & Georg Wolfmayr, 2023. "Competitive Performativity of (Academic) Social Networks. The subjectivation of Competition on ResearchGate, Google Scholar and Twitter," ICAE Working Papers 150, Johannes Kepler University, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Oliver Budzinski & Thomas Grebel & Jens Wolling & Xijie Zhang, 2020. "Drivers of article processing charges in open access," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2185-2206, September.
    2. Frank, John & Foster, Rosemary & Pagliari, Claudia, 2023. "Open access publishing – noble intention, flawed reality," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    3. Andre Bruns & Niels Taubert, 2021. "Investigating the Blind Spot of a Monitoring System for Article Processing Charges," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-9, September.
    4. Thomas Eger & Marc Scheufen, 2021. "Economic perspectives on the future of academic publishing: Introduction to the special issue," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 1922-1932, December.
    5. María Bordons & Borja González-Albo & Luz Moreno-Solano, 2023. "Improving our understanding of open access: how it relates to funding, internationality of research and scientific leadership," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4651-4676, August.
    6. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    7. Li Yan & Wang Zhiping, 2023. "Mapping the Literature on Academic Publishing: A Bibliometric Analysis on WOS," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, March.
    8. Philipp Kohlgruber & Christoph Kuzmics, 2017. "The distribution of article quality and inefficiencies in the market for scientific journals," Graz Economics Papers 2017-11, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    9. Sumiko Asai, 2023. "Does double dipping occur? The case of Wiley’s hybrid journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5159-5168, September.
    10. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia & Jorge Chamorro-Padial, 2019. "The author’s ignorance on the publication fees is a source of power for publishers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1435-1445, December.
    11. Mark Armstrong, 2021. "Plan S: An economist's perspective," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2017-2026, December.
    12. Melissa H. Cantrell & Juleah A. Swanson, 2020. "Funding Sources for Open Access Article Processing Charges in the Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities in the United States," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, February.
    13. Erin C McKiernan, 2017. "Imagining the “open” university: Sharing scholarship to improve research and education," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, October.
    14. Sumiko Asai, 2020. "Market power of publishers in setting article processing charges for open access journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1037-1049, May.
    15. Rousseau, Sandra & Catalano, Giuseppe & Daraio, Cinzia, 2021. "Can we estimate a monetary value of scientific publications?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    16. Amy Forrester, 2015. "Barriers to Open Access Publishing: Views from the Library Literature," Publications, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-21, September.
    17. Hendrik P. van Dalen, 2019. "Values of Economists Matter in the Art and Science of Economics," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 472-499, August.
    18. You, Taekho & Park, Jinseo & Lee, June Young & Yun, Jinhyuk & Jung, Woo-Sung, 2022. "Disturbance of questionable publishing to academia," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    19. Stuart Lawson, 2015. "Fee Waivers for Open Access Journals," Publications, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-13, August.
    20. Mark J. McCabe & Christopher M. Snyder, 2018. "Open Access as a Crude Solution to a Hold‐Up Problem in the Two‐Sided Market for Academic Journals," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 301-349, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0253226. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.