CAS APC Policy Reform: Halts Reimbursement for 30+ High-Cost Open Access Journals Like Nature Communications

Background on Open Access and Article Processing Charges in Chinese Research

Open Access (OA) publishing has transformed how scientific research is disseminated worldwide. In OA models, articles are freely available to readers immediately upon publication, shifting costs from subscriptions to authors via Article Processing Charges (APCs). These fees, often thousands of dollars per paper, cover peer review, editing, and hosting. In China, the world's largest producer of research papers, OA adoption has surged due to mandates from funders and the prestige of high-impact OA journals.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), employing over 50,000 researchers across 100 institutes, has been a major player. CAS funds much of China's basic research, and its scientists publish prolifically in international OA journals. However, skyrocketing APCs—averaging $2,000 globally but exceeding $5,000-$12,000 for top titles—have strained budgets, prompting scrutiny over value for money.

The New CAS Policy: Key Details and Effective Date

On February 24, 2026, Science magazine reported CAS's draft policy, set to take effect March 1, 2026. It prohibits using CAS funds or central fiscal allocations (including from the Ministry of Science and Technology and National Natural Science Foundation of China) to pay APCs for over 30 high-cost pure OA journals where fees exceed $5,000 per paper. Hybrid journals like Nature require subscription-based publishing (no APC).

Additionally, funding is barred for 120 journals on CAS's research integrity warning list. Researchers can still publish using personal or other grants, but CAS money is off-limits. This targets unsustainable spending on foreign publishers.

Affected Journals: High-Profile Titles in the Spotlight

While the full list isn't public, prominent examples include:

• Nature Communications ($7,350 APC)
• Science Advances ($5,450 APC)
• Cell Reports ($5,790 APC)
• Results in Physics
• Advanced Science

Lower-cost OA like PLOS One and Scientific Reports remain eligible. In 2025, CAS authors contributed ~10% of papers to Nature Communications and Science Advances, with ~40% from Chinese institutions overall.

Reasons Behind the Reform: Cost Control and National Priorities

CAS aims to curb escalating costs funneled to international publishers, viewed as profiteering. APC revenues disproportionately benefit Western firms, while China seeks self-reliance. Since 2019, the government targets 400 world-class journals; by 2023, China had 178 English OA titles, half APC-free.

This aligns with broader reforms emphasizing efficiency, integrity, and domestic growth. Gengyan Tang, a PhD student studying China's policies, notes it's part of promoting local journals, not rejecting OA.Science.org full report

Photo by Lan Lin on Unsplash

Impacts on CAS Researchers and Chinese Universities

CAS institutes, like the Institute of Physics or High Energy Physics, host top talent. Researchers must seek alternative funding for prestige journals, potentially shifting output to lower-APC or Chinese venues. Universities under CAS influence, such as University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, may adapt quickly.

Step-by-step process: 1) Submit paper; 2) If accepted in blacklisted journal, decline OA option or self-fund APC; 3) Publish subscription if hybrid. This encourages strategic choices balancing impact and cost.

For early-career faculty eyeing promotions, journal prestige matters. Explore higher ed faculty jobs amid shifting priorities.

Broader Effects on Global OA Publishers

OA giants like Springer Nature (Nature Communications) and AAAS (Science Advances) rely on Chinese authors. Losing CAS funding could pressure fees downward or force diversification. Meagan Phelan of Science journals: "Authors from China, including CAS, are important contributors."

Global parallels: Germany's DFG caps APCs; NIH considers limits. China, with massive output, could reshape market dynamics.Guancha.cn analysis (Chinese)

Stakeholder Reactions and Chinese Perspectives

CAS researchers shared internal memos privately. Public Chinese comments support: "Overdue—fund domestic journals," "Stop enriching foreigners." Observers predict emulation by other funders.

Lin Zhang, Wuhan University: Reflects tension between OA ambitions and fiscal sustainability.

Historical Context: China's OA Evolution

China's OA push began with CAS/NSFC mandates for deposits. Publication surged, but integrity lists (e.g., CAS Warning List) flagged issues. This reform builds on 2022 Global OA Monitoring Report by CAS's National Science Library, highlighting APC proliferation.China academic opportunities

Photo by Liam Read on Unsplash

Alternatives and Strategies for Researchers

Options include:

• Diamond OA (no APC) Chinese journals
• Lower-fee internationals like MDPI (if not blacklisted)
• Hybrid subscription publishing
• Preprints (arXiv, bioRxiv) for rapid sharing
• Negotiate waivers or consortia deals

Boost visibility via academic CV tips. Track reforms via Rate My Professor.

Future Outlook: Reshaping Chinese Research Publishing

This could accelerate China's journal ecosystem, reducing foreign dependence. Expect more no-APC OA, AI-assisted reviews for efficiency. Globally, it signals pushback against APC inflation. For CAS affiliates, pivot to quality over venue prestige; explore research jobs and university jobs in evolving landscape. Positive: More funds for actual research.

Check higher ed career advice and higher ed jobs for adaptation strategies. Engage via comments below.