An estimated $3.7 billion was paid in article processing charges (APCs) in 2025, roughly four times the $0.9 billion paid in 2019 after inflation, and $15.08 billion flowed to just 14 publishers over those seven years (Matthias et al., Estimating global APCs paid to 14 publishers, 2026). The money buys a real shift: 44% of the 4.2 million articles published in 2025 were gold open access, up from 17% a decade earlier (STM Association OA Dashboard, 2025 data). But the price tag at the top is steep, with Nature listing a $12,690 open access fee, and more than 85% of APC spending lands with a handful of large publishers. For the wider picture of how research itself is changing, see our AI in science statistics. We aggregated data from bibliometric studies (arXiv preprints and papers in Quantitative Science Studies and Scientometrics), the STM Association OA Dashboard, OpenAlex, Springer Nature’s results and open access reports, cOAlition S, the US Federal Register and UNESCO.
TL;DR
- $15.08 billion was paid in APCs to 14 publishers from 2019 to 2025, in 2025 dollars (Matthias et al., arXiv 2026).
- Annual APC spending quadrupled from $0.9 billion in 2019 to $3.7 billion in 2025, inflation-adjusted (Matthias et al., 2026).
- More than 85% of APC spending is concentrated among a few large publishers (Matthias et al., 2026).
- MDPI collected an estimated $681.6 million in APCs in 2023, Elsevier $582.8 million and Springer Nature $546.6 million (Haustein et al., 2024).
- Nature lists an open access fee of $12,690, Nature Communications $6,990 and PLOS ONE $2,382 (OpenAlex source records, 2026).
- 44% of 4.2 million global articles were gold OA in 2025, up from 17% in 2015 (STM Association OA Dashboard).
- Gold OA was an option for 84% of articles in 2025, but authors chose it only 52% of the time (STM Association OA Dashboard).
- Sweden publishes 83% of its articles gold OA, China 33% and India 25% (STM Association OA Dashboard, 2025).
- Transformative agreements supported 338,532 publications, or 18% of gold OA output, in 2025 (STM Association OA Dashboard).
- Open access in hybrid journals rose from 6.4% in 2019 to 19% in 2023, and agreements enabled 61% of it (Jahn, Scientometrics 2025).
- More than 440 journals abandoned diamond open access, mostly for APCs ranging from $8 to $5,300 (Matthias, Alperin and Laakso, 2026).
- NIH public access compliance does not require paying any open access fee (Federal Register, December 2024).
1. Global APC Spending: A $3.7 Billion Annual Market
The defining fact about APCs is that nobody publishes the total. Libraries, funders and individual researchers pay invoices separately, and transformative agreements bundle fees into opaque contracts. The best estimate therefore comes from bibliometricians who match publisher price lists against article counts. The newest version, covering 14 publishers, puts APC spending at $15.08 billion between 2019 and 2025, with the annual bill rising from $0.9 billion to $3.7 billion after inflation (Matthias, Schares, Alperin et al., 2026).
The growth is not mainly a price story. Article volume in open access journals expanded sharply, and the study finds that the median fee actually paid sits above the median listed price for both gold and hybrid journals, meaning authors cluster in the pricier titles. The earlier six-publisher estimate already showed annual spending nearly tripling from $910.3 million in 2019 to $2.538 billion in 2023 (Haustein, Schares, Alperin et al., 2024). The gap between the two studies (six publishers vs fourteen, and two more years) is itself instructive: every time researchers widen the lens, the bill gets bigger.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Global APCs paid to 14 publishers, 2019-2025 | $15.08 billion (2025 USD) | Matthias et al., arXiv 2608.16322, 2026 |
| Annual APC spending, 2019 vs 2025 (inflation-adjusted) | $0.9 billion vs $3.7 billion | Matthias et al., 2026 |
| Share of APC spending concentrated in a few large publishers | More than 85% | Matthias et al., 2026 |
| APCs paid to 6 publishers, 2019-2023 | $8.349 billion ($8.968 billion in 2023 USD) | Haustein et al., arXiv 2407.16551, 2024 |
| Annual APC spending, 6 publishers, 2019 vs 2023 | $910.3 million vs $2.538 billion | Haustein et al., 2024 |
| APC price dataset, 14 publishers | 12,540 journals, 69,856 journal-year records | Matthias et al., arXiv 2608.14116, 2026 |
| APC price dataset, 6 publishers | 8,712 journals, 36,618 journal-year records | Butler et al., arXiv 2406.08356, 2024 |
Context note: the 14 publishers in the 2026 study are ACS, Cambridge University Press, De Gruyter, EDP, Elsevier, Frontiers, IEEE, IOP, MDPI, Oxford University Press, PLOS, Sage, Springer Nature and Wiley. Fees paid to smaller society and regional publishers sit outside the estimate, so the true global total is higher. The price-list dataset behind it is documented in Matthias, Chavarro, Schares et al. (2026).
2. Who Collects the Fees: Publisher Economics
APC revenue is now large enough to reorder the industry. In 2023 MDPI, a fully open access publisher, out-earned both Elsevier and Springer Nature on APCs, with an estimated $681.6 million against $582.8 million and $546.6 million (Haustein et al., 2024). Volume-driven, author-pays publishing has become a mainstream business model rather than an experiment.
Springer Nature’s own filings show how deeply open access is embedded in a traditional publisher. Its Research segment reported revenue of 1,517.2 million euros in 2025, with 7.4% underlying growth, and more than 53% of its primary research articles were published open access. Article numbers rose by more than 12% across the portfolio and about 25% in fully open access journals (Springer Nature, FY 2025 results, March 2026). When over half of a major publisher’s research output is paid for at the article level, the APC is no longer a side revenue line.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| MDPI estimated APC revenue, 2023 | $681.6 million | Haustein et al., arXiv 2407.16551, 2024 |
| Elsevier estimated APC revenue, 2023 | $582.8 million | Haustein et al., 2024 |
| Springer Nature estimated APC revenue, 2023 | $546.6 million | Haustein et al., 2024 |
| Springer Nature group revenue, 2025 | 1,926.4 million euros (1,847.1 million in 2024), 6.2% underlying growth | Springer Nature FY 2025 results, 2026 |
| Springer Nature Research segment revenue, 2025 | 1,517.2 million euros, 7.4% underlying growth | Springer Nature FY 2025 results, 2026 |
| Springer Nature primary research published OA | More than 53% (2025) | Springer Nature FY 2025 results, 2026 |
| Springer Nature article growth, 2025 | More than 12% overall, about 25% in fully OA journals | Springer Nature FY 2025 results, 2026 |
Context note: publishers argue the fees buy visibility. A Springer Nature white paper analyzing 204,781 articles published in 2023 across 1,812 hybrid journals found gold OA articles received almost seven times more downloads and 50% more citations on average than non-OA articles (Springer Nature, September 2026). That is a publisher-run analysis of its own content, so treat it as an interested party’s evidence, not an independent estimate.
3. What Journals Charge: Listed APC Prices in 2026
List prices split into two tiers. PLOS ONE, with 342,827 published works, lists $2,382 per article, while Nature lists $12,690, more than five times as much ($12,690 / $2,382 = 5.3). The mega-journals compete on price and volume; the flagships charge for prestige, and the Haustein and Matthias findings that paid medians exceed listed medians suggest authors keep choosing the pricier titles.
The table below uses the APC fields that OpenAlex maintains for each journal (OpenAlex sources API, DOAJ-listed journals sorted by output). Hybrid titles in the same Nature family list identical fees: Nature Medicine, Nature Genetics, Nature Methods and other Nature research journals all show $12,690 (OpenAlex, Nature journals query).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Nature open access fee | $12,690 / 10,690 euros / 9,190 pounds | OpenAlex source record, 2026 |
| Nature Communications APC | $6,990 / 5,890 euros / 5,290 pounds | OpenAlex source record, 2026 |
| The Lancet Global Health / Cell Reports APC | $6,680 / $5,620 | OpenAlex source records, 2026 |
| Science Advances / Frontiers in Immunology APC | $4,500 / $3,801 | OpenAlex source records, 2026 |
| Sensors and Energies (MDPI) / Applied Sciences (MDPI) APC | $3,137 / $2,896 | OpenAlex source records, 2026 |
| Scientific Reports / eLife APC | $2,690 / $2,500 | OpenAlex source records, 2026 |
| PLOS ONE APC (342,827 works) | $2,382 | OpenAlex source record, 2025 price |
| IEEE Access / BMJ Open / RSC Advances APC | $2,075 / $1,839 / $1,042 | OpenAlex source records, 2026 |
Context note: listed fees are not what everyone pays. Waivers, discounts and agreement-funded articles change the effective price, and the 2026 spending study notes that transformative agreements make actual costs harder to see. When 13,577 researchers in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa were surveyed, Argentine scholars frequently pursued waivers or used personal funds and international collaborators to cover fees (Gallardo et al., When researchers pay to publish, 2024). Publishing fees land on the same university budgets that fund teaching, a cost picture tracked in our college tuition statistics.
4. Open Access Uptake: Gold Passes 44% of Global Output
Open access is no longer the minority route. In 2025, 44% of the world’s 4.2 million journal articles, reviews and conference papers were gold open access, up from 17% in 2015, while subscription-only output fell from 66% to 50% (STM Association OA Dashboard, uptake of open access). Gold OA grew at a 15% compound annual rate over the decade, against 2% for subscription-only articles.
The more revealing number is the choice rate. Gold was an option for 84% of articles in 2025, yet authors chose it for 52%, leaving almost 1.7 million articles that could have been gold but were not. That gap looks like a funding gap: the countries and funders with central fee arrangements (sections 5 and 6) are the ones with the highest uptake. OpenAlex, which indexes a broader set of journals than Scopus, tells the same directional story: articles in gold, hybrid or diamond venues rose from 1,879,677 in 2019 to 3,992,283 in 2025 (OpenAlex works API, 2019-2025).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Gold OA share of global articles | 44% in 2025 vs 17% in 2015 | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| Subscription-only share | 50% in 2025 vs 66% in 2015 | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| Diamond-classified articles (OpenAlex) | 1,728,905 in 2025 vs 1,081,934 in 2019 | OpenAlex works API, 2026 query |
| Gold OA compound annual growth, 2015-2025 | 15% (subscription-only 2%) | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| Articles where gold OA was an option | 84% in 2025 vs 64% in 2015 | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| Authors choosing gold when offered | 52% in 2025 vs 27% in 2015 | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| Articles in gold, hybrid or diamond venues (OpenAlex) | 3,992,283 in 2025 vs 1,879,677 in 2019 | OpenAlex works API, 2026 query |
| Hybrid OA articles (OpenAlex) | 1,085,096 in 2025 vs 263,590 in 2019 | OpenAlex works API, 2026 query |
Context note: the two datasets measure different universes. STM uses Scopus; OpenAlex covers far more journals and classifies DOAJ journals without fees as diamond. By OpenAlex counts, closed articles were 29.3% of 2025 output (2,149,942 of 7,346,909) versus 51.7% in 2019 (3,288,936 of 6,363,934), our calculation from the 2025 and 2019 group-by results. Social sciences and humanities now match science, technology and medicine on gold availability, at 84% each in 2025, and SSH authors choose gold slightly more often (54% vs 52%).
5. By Country and Funder: Europe Pays, Asia Publishes
The geography of open access tracks who funds the fees. Sweden published 83% of its 2025 articles gold open access, the Netherlands 77% and the United Kingdom 70%, while China reached 33% and India 25% (STM Association OA Dashboard, by countries and regions). The leaders are the countries where transformative agreements are most widespread (see section 6); in China and India the option exists for more than four in five articles (83% and 81%), but authors mostly do not take it.
That produces an unusual split: European Union authors account for 16% of global output but almost a quarter (23%) of the world’s gold OA articles, while China produces 30% of global output and 22% of gold OA. Funders mirror countries. The top 25 funders are acknowledged in 31% of global articles, and 92% of their funded articles could have been gold OA (STM Association OA Dashboard, funded research). Ten of those 25 are Chinese, and for those ten funders subscription-only publication exceeded 60% of output.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Gold OA share, Sweden / Netherlands / Switzerland | 83% / 77% / 75% (2025) | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| Gold OA share, UK / Germany / Spain | 70% / 69% / 67% (2025) | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| Gold OA share, China / India / Russian Federation | 33% / 25% / 37% (2025) | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| Gold OA availability, China / India | 83% / 81% (2025) | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| Share of global output, China / USA / EU27 | 30% / 11% / 16% | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| Share of world’s gold OA articles, EU / China / USA | 23% / 22% / 11% | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| Papers from 36 funders in 20 countries analyzed for OA mandates | 5 million (plus 11 million from other funders) | Cespedes et al., arXiv 2603.03457, 2026 |
| NIH share of global articles / gold OA availability | 2% / 98% | STM Association OA Dashboard |
Context note: the country breakdown counts articles by author affiliation, so internationally co-authored papers can count toward more than one country. Funder analysis from a separate team, covering 5 million papers supported by 36 funders in 20 countries, also found funded papers more likely to be open access than unfunded ones, and credited Plan S and read-and-publish deals for much of the European lead (Cespedes, Hare, van Bellen et al., 2026).
6. Transformative Agreements and Hybrid Journals
Transformative agreements (read-and-publish deals that fold APCs into subscription contracts) are the engine of hybrid open access. Since 2021 they have enabled the majority of open access articles in hybrid journals, reaching 61% of hybrid OA in 2023 by the open hoaddata measure, and 64% to 68% in Scopus and Web of Science (Jahn, Scientometrics 2025). Across more than 13,000 hybrid journals, the OA share rose from 6.4% in 2019 to 19% in 2023.
The flip side is that 81% of hybrid journal articles (100% minus 19%) were still closed in 2023, eight years into the agreement era. An earlier study of 11,189 hybrid journals found Elsevier, Springer Nature and Wiley held 49% of the journals but 74% of agreement-funded articles, and that 94% of agreement-linked OA came from OECD institutions (Jahn, How open are hybrid journals in transformative agreements, 2024). An analysis of more than 1,000 contracts in the ESAC registry concluded institutions appear ‘trapped’ in these agreements, entrenching hybrid models and the incumbents’ advantage (Rothfritz, Schmal and Herb, 2024).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Publications supported by transformative agreements, 2025 | 338,532 (18% of gold OA output) | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| OA share in hybrid journals, 2019 vs 2023 | 6.4% vs 19% (hoaddata) | Jahn, Scientometrics 2025 |
| Share of hybrid OA enabled by agreements, 2023 | 61% (hoaddata), 64% (Scopus), 68% (Web of Science) | Jahn, Scientometrics 2025 |
| Hybrid journals OA, 2018 vs 2022 | 4.3% vs 15% (11,189 journals) | Jahn, Quantitative Science Studies 2025 |
| Elsevier, Springer Nature and Wiley share of agreement-funded articles | 74% (49% of hybrid journals) | Jahn, Quantitative Science Studies 2025 |
| Agreement-linked OA from OECD institutions | 94% | Jahn, Quantitative Science Studies 2025 |
| Springer Nature transformative agreements | 101, covering more than 4,400 institutions | Springer Nature fifth OA report, July 2026 |
| Springer Nature agreement-funded articles | About 300,000 since 2015; over 165,000 in the last three years | Springer Nature fifth OA report, July 2026 |
Context note: Springer Nature reported 85 agreements covering over 4,000 institutions at year-end 2025 and 101 by July 2026, with OA publishing through agreements up 12% in 2025 (Springer Nature, fifth open access report, July 2026). cOAlition S ended its financial support for transformative agreements at the end of 2024, while still counting the resulting articles as Plan S compliant (as noted in Jahn, 2024). The ESAC registry is now maintained as OA Forward’s registry of open publishing agreements, last updated September 25, 2026.
7. Diamond Open Access, Equity and Policy
Diamond open access, free to both readers and authors, is the counterweight to APC growth, and it is more fragile than its share suggests. A 2026 study identified more than 440 journals that abandoned the diamond model, most of them by introducing APCs ranging from $8 to $5,300 (Matthias, Alperin and Laakso, Diamond Fractures, 2026). The authors warn that charges introduced as a stopgap have historically escalated, and that funder mandates normalizing APCs will accelerate these exits. In Canada, where university libraries host many titles, 62% of 1,256 catalogued journals use the diamond model (van Bellen and Cespedes, 2024).
The open journal base is broad and global: OpenAlex flags 23,485 sources as listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, with Indonesia (2,626), the UK (1,538) and Brazil (1,353) hosting the most (OpenAlex, DOAJ sources by country). Policy keeps pushing toward access without dictating who pays. The NIH’s 2024 policy states that ‘compliance with the Policy does not require the payment of an open access fee to a journal’ and removes the old embargo of up to 12 months (Federal Register, NIH Public Access Policy, December 2024). cOAlition S now counts 28 funders and its 2026-2030 strategy endorses diamond, preprints and publish-review-curate models alongside APC routes (cOAlition S Strategy 2026-2030).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Journals that abandoned diamond OA | More than 440; new APCs from $8 to $5,300 | Matthias, Alperin and Laakso, arXiv 2026 |
| Canadian journals using diamond OA | 62% of 1,256 journals (944 active) | van Bellen and Cespedes, arXiv 2024 |
| Sources listed in DOAJ (per OpenAlex) | 23,485 | OpenAlex sources API, 2026 query |
| DOAJ-listed sources, Indonesia / UK / Brazil / US | 2,626 / 1,538 / 1,353 / 1,196 | OpenAlex sources API, 2026 query |
| NIH Public Access Policy effective date (as published) | Manuscripts accepted on or after December 31, 2025 | Federal Register, December 18, 2024 |
| Public comments on NIH draft policy | 144 | Federal Register, December 18, 2024 |
| cOAlition S member funders | 28 | cOAlition S Strategy 2026-2030 |
| Countries backing the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science | 193 (adopted 2021) | UNESCO Open Science |
Context note: equity gaps run through every dataset. All five of Elsevier, Sage, Springer Nature, Taylor and Francis and Wiley introduced 100% APC waivers for Ukrainian authors after 2022, and Ukraine’s gold OA output rose markedly afterward (Nazarovets, 2025), a sign of how much the fee itself suppresses participation. The UNESCO Recommendation, agreed by 193 countries, sets shared principles but no price data. Libraries that fund many of these agreements also face their own budget pressures, as our public library statistics show, and the integrity side of publishing is covered in our AI writing detection statistics.
Summary: Open Access Article Processing Charges by the Numbers
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Global APCs paid to 14 publishers, 2019-2025 | $15.08 billion | Matthias et al., 2026 |
| Annual APC spending, 2025 | $3.7 billion (vs $0.9 billion in 2019) | Matthias et al., 2026 |
| APC spending concentrated in a few large publishers | More than 85% | Matthias et al., 2026 |
| MDPI estimated APC revenue, 2023 | $681.6 million | Haustein et al., 2024 |
| Elsevier / Springer Nature estimated APC revenue, 2023 | $582.8 million / $546.6 million | Haustein et al., 2024 |
| Springer Nature primary research published OA | More than 53% (2025) | Springer Nature FY 2025 results |
| Nature open access fee | $12,690 | OpenAlex source record |
| Nature Communications APC | $6,990 | OpenAlex source record |
| PLOS ONE / Scientific Reports APC | $2,382 / $2,690 | OpenAlex source records |
| Gold OA share of global articles | 44% (2025), 17% (2015) | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| Hybrid OA articles (OpenAlex) | 1,085,096 (2025) vs 263,590 (2019) | OpenAlex, 2026 query |
| Gold OA available vs chosen | 84% vs 52% | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| Sweden vs China gold OA share | 83% vs 33% | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| EU share of world gold OA articles | 23% | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| Publications supported by transformative agreements | 338,532 (18% of gold OA, 2025) | STM Association OA Dashboard |
| Hybrid OA enabled by agreements | 61% (2023) | Jahn, Scientometrics 2025 |
| OA share in hybrid journals | 19% (2023) | Jahn, Scientometrics 2025 |
| Journals that abandoned diamond OA | More than 440 | Matthias, Alperin and Laakso, 2026 |
| Sources listed in DOAJ | 23,485 | OpenAlex, 2026 query |
Methodology and Sources
Every figure above was read during research for this article, either on the publisher or agency page, in a paper’s abstract or full text, or as a live query result from the OpenAlex API (queries run October 3, 2026, linked where cited). Percentages derived from raw counts show their math in the text. Several primary sites blocked automated access (DOAJ, PLOS, MDPI, OpenAPC, Jisc, NIH grants pages and the RELX annual report), so we used figures from other primary documents instead and did not cite those sites.
- Matthias, Schares, Alperin et al.: Estimating global article processing charges paid to 14 publishers for open access between 2019 and 2025 (2026) and the companion APC dataset from 14 publishers (2026)
- Haustein, Schares, Alperin et al.: Estimating global APCs paid to six publishers, 2019-2023 (2024); Butler et al.: Open dataset of APCs from six publishers (2024)
- STM Association OA Dashboard (Scopus-based, 2025 data): uptake of open access, by countries and regions, by funded research, by discipline, transformative agreements
- OpenAlex API: DOAJ-listed sources with APCs, Nature journals APCs, OA articles by year, DOAJ sources by country
- Springer Nature: FY 2025 results (March 2026), fifth open access report (July 2026), gold OA advantage white paper (September 2026)
- Transformative agreements research: Jahn, Scientometrics (2025), Jahn, Quantitative Science Studies (2025), Rothfritz, Schmal and Herb (2024)
- Diamond OA and equity: Matthias, Alperin and Laakso, Diamond Fractures (2026), van Bellen and Cespedes (2024), Cespedes et al., funder mandates (2026), Gallardo et al., APC survey in four countries (2024), Nazarovets, APC waivers and Ukraine (2025)
- Policy: Federal Register, NIH Public Access Policy (December 2024), cOAlition S Strategy 2026-2030, Plan S Annual Review 2025, UNESCO Open Science
- Data watch: The 2026 fourteen-publisher spending figures come from an August 2026 preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed; per-publisher 2025 figures were not readable in full text, so per-publisher revenue uses the peer-reviewed 2023 estimates. The two spending studies are not directly comparable (6 vs 14 publishers, 2023 vs 2025 dollars). STM (Scopus) and OpenAlex disagree sharply on the closed share (50% subscription-only vs 29.3% closed in 2025) because OpenAlex indexes many more journals and labels fee-free DOAJ journals as diamond; we report both and do not merge them. OpenAlex APC fields are list prices as recorded in its source metadata and can lag publisher price changes; PLOS ONE’s value is tagged as the 2025 price. The Canadian diamond figure is from a 2024 study (most recent available data). The NIH effective date is as published in the Federal Register in December 2024; NIH grants pages were unreachable, so any later change to the timing or to rules on allowable publication costs is not reflected here. The Plan S Annual Review 2025 PDF could not be parsed, so its figures are not cited. Springer Nature’s agreement counts differ between its March 2026 results (85) and July 2026 report (101) because of timing.
Last updated: October 3, 2026. We update this roundup quarterly, and the next refresh is expected when the 14-publisher APC study completes peer review and the STM Association updates its OA Dashboard with 2026 data.