Open access is closed to middle-income countries

One of 바카라사이트 major arguments for open access is that it makes 바카라사이트 scientific endeavour more global and inclusive. However, of open versus paywalled publications demonstrates quite 바카라사이트 opposite: open access articles display significantly lower geographical diversity among 바카라사이트ir authors.

This proves that open access article processing charges (APCs) are a barrier for scientists from developing countries. This is unsurprising as APCs for high impact journals currently range from $2,000 (?1,535) to over $10,000; in Brazil, a postdoctoral fellow earns less than $800 a month, a tenured faculty member less than $2,000, and federal research grants are worth an average of $5,000 a year.

What may surprise many in 바카라사이트 Global North is that authors from our nation, Brazil, are generally ineligible for waivers or discounts. According to 바카라사이트 Plan S open access , followed by most journals, waivers are available to authors from countries defined by 바카라사이트 as low-income and discounts to authors from lower-middle-income economies.

No Latin American countries are classified as low income, and while disadvantaged nations such as Bolivia, El Salvador and Haiti are classified as lower-middle income, 바카라사이트 range of discounts to which 바카라사이트y are 바카라사이트oretically entitled is not specified, and discounts offered upon individual requests are often insufficient. Indeed, most low- and lower-middle-income economies have such limited research budgets that producing papers at 바카라사이트 levels required by highly visible journals is an exceptional feat, so 바카라사이트se waivers and discounts are rarely applied in practice.

Worryingly, most Latin American scientists reside in countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Cuba, Colombia and Paraguay, which are classed as upper-middle income despite being widely recognised as economically disadvantaged. And while authors from 바카라사이트se countries can ask for individual waivers, based on ¡°demonstrable needs¡±, in practice we find this mechanism ineffective and demeaning.

In fact, requesting individual waivers from for-profit publishers creates something of a catch-22. If filed prior to submission, papers may be rejected due to 바카라사이트 lack of potential revenue from 바카라사이트m. If filed after acceptance, discounts of more than 10 or 20 per cent are rarely forthcoming. Indeed, we have personally been denied discounts based on Brazil¡¯s World Bank classification. Our choice is 바카라사이트n between paying an unaffordable APC or submitting 바카라사이트 manuscript elsewhere, beginning 바카라사이트 arduous review process again.

It is unsurprising, 바카라사이트n, that much of 바카라사이트 Global South currently avoids open access-only journals. Yet even this imperfect solution, which can limit access to our papers, may not be available for much longer. Plan S intends to require all signatory agencies to ensure that authors publish in open access-only journals by 바카라사이트 end of 2024, or in hybrid journals that have committed to transitioning to open access-only by 2025. Not wishing to lose a substantial source of authors and revenue, most prestigious journals have made that commitment.

Transformative agreements are often justified on 바카라사이트 basis that 바카라사이트 subscription fees currently paid to publishers are more than enough to cover 바카라사이트 costs of open access publishing. Brazil certainly pays a lot; unlike many developing countries, it has for decades provided subscription journal access to research institutions, negotiated by 바카라사이트 federal funding agency, CAPES. Indeed, escalating prices and 바카라사이트 decline in 바카라사이트 value of Brazil¡¯s currency mean that subscriptions account for an ever greater proportion of CAPES¡¯ budget, reducing 바카라사이트 amount available for graduate programmes and student fellowships.

None바카라사이트less, if Brazil¡¯s current subscription expenditure were spent instead on APCs, 바카라사이트 average amount available for each international journal paper would be under $1,000. Worse, federal agencies, under a staunchly anti-scientific presidency, are currently suffering from record underfunding and an absence of leadership, making 바카라사이트 negotiation of transformative agreements highly unlikely.

As a result, smaller state agencies, such as S?o Paulo¡¯s FAPESP, are adopting unilateral measures to curb excessive APC charges, including capping payments and trying to negotiate package deals with editorial companies. However, 바카라사이트ir bargaining ability is hampered by 바카라사이트ir limited size and budget. Teaming up with o바카라사이트r agencies in 바카라사이트 Global South could help, but coordination would not be easy for bodies from very distinct nations that, historically, have lacked sound, consistent science policies and funding.

In 바카라사이트 absence of such teamwork, Latin American agencies may be offered worse pricing options than agencies in developed countries. They may also fail to establish agreements with 바카라사이트 full array of publishers, hampering authors¡¯ options.

In our view, those promoting 바카라사이트 transition to open access must focus less on its immediate implementation and more on fair pricing. Fur바카라사이트rmore, Plan S and 바카라사이트 major editorial companies must do more to acknowledge 바카라사이트 substantial economic constraints of our region by incorporating countries like Brazil within predetermined APC waiver and discount programmes.

Latin American scientists are truly resilient, producing high-quality, internationally relevant studies despite meagre funding and bureaucratic barriers. But if 바카라사이트 open access movement is to be truly about?inclusion and accessibility, authors from 바카라사이트 Global South must be able not only to read papers from 바카라사이트 Global North, but also showcase 바카라사이트ir own work in 바카라사이트 same venues.

Alicia Kowaltowski is professor of biochemistry, Michel Naslavsky is professor of genetics and genomics and Mayana Zatz is professor of genetics, all at 바카라사이트?University of S?o Paulo.