Academic Jobs Logo

CAS Open Access Publication Fee Reform: Chinese Academy of Sciences Halts High APC Reimbursements for Journals Like Nature Communications

CAS Policy Shakes Up OA Publishing in China

Be the first to comment on this article!

You

Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

A sign on a door that says open as usual
Photo by Miguel A Amutio on Unsplash

Promote Your Research… Share it Worldwide

Have a story or a research paper to share? Become a contributor and publish your work on AcademicJobs.com.

Submit your Research - Make it Global News

The Announcement and Key Details of the CAS Reform

In late February 2026, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), the world's largest research organization with over 50,000 researchers across nearly 100 institutes, issued internal notifications signaling a major shift in its open access (OA) publication funding policy. Effective March 1, 2026, CAS will prohibit the use of its own funds or other central government research grants—such as those from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) or the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST)—to reimburse Article Processing Charges (APCs) for papers published in more than 30 high-fee international OA journals. This CAS Open Access Publication Fee Reform targets journals with APCs exceeding approximately $5,000 USD, a threshold far above the global average of around $2,000.

The policy stems from CAS's annual 'Early Warning Journal List,' which flags journals based on high APCs and potential research integrity risks. While the full 2026 list remains internal and unpublished as of early March, leaked excerpts circulating on Chinese social media highlight prominent examples like Nature Communications, Science Advances, and Cell Reports. Researchers affiliated with CAS can still submit to these journals using non-central funds or opt for subscription (paywalled) options in hybrid journals, which incur no APCs.

Background: China's OA Journey and Escalating APC Costs

China has been a global leader in embracing open access publishing to accelerate scientific dissemination and elevate its research profile. Since the early 2010s, Chinese institutions have poured resources into OA, with national APC spending tripling from $910 million in 2019 to $2.5 billion by 2023. This surge fueled breakthroughs but also exposed vulnerabilities: high-APC journals from Western publishers like Springer Nature and Elsevier captured a disproportionate share, with profit margins exceeding 30%—Elsevier at 37% over the past decade.

CAS, as China's premier research body, has long reimbursed APCs to incentivize high-impact publications. However, the rapid fee hikes—Nature Communications rose from $6,990 to $7,350 in 2026 alone—prompted scrutiny. In 2025, about 10% of papers in Nature Communications and Science Advances featured CAS authors, and 40% had any Chinese affiliation, per Web of Science data. This made China a key revenue source, but at the expense of domestic journal development.

The government's 2019 plan aims for 400 world-class Chinese journals by 2025, with nearly half already OA and fee-free or low-cost by 2023. The reform aligns with this vision, prioritizing fiscal efficiency amid tightening budgets.

Affected Journals and Their Steep APCs

The policy singles out fully OA journals with APCs over $5,000, sparing lower-fee ones like PLOS One (~$2,000) or Scientific Reports (~$2,500). Here's a table of confirmed high-profile examples:

JournalPublisherAPC (USD, 2026)CAS Papers (2025 %)
Nature CommunicationsSpringer Nature7,350~10%
Science AdvancesAAAS5,450~10%
Cell ReportsCell Press/Elsevier5,790N/A
Advanced ScienceWiley6,730N/A
Results in PhysicsElsevier3,500+N/A

Leaked lists suggest 34 such titles, plus 123 on integrity warnings. For context, hybrid giants like Nature charge $12,690 for OA but allow free paywalled publishing.

Table comparing APCs for high-fee OA journals affected by CAS reform

How the CAS Warning List Works

CAS's annual Early Warning Journal List, first issued in 2020, uses quantitative metrics (e.g., self-citation rates, retraction data) and expert reviews to categorize journals into high, medium, low risk for APC excess or misconduct. The 2026 edition expanded to flag ~30 high-APC OA titles and 120+ integrity-risk ones, prohibiting central fund reimbursements. While non-binding outside CAS, it influences universities nationwide, as many align with CAS rankings for evaluations.

a large building with a flag on top of it

Photo by Lan Lin on Unsplash

  • High-risk criteria: APC >$5,000, high self-cites, retractions.
  • Process: Data from Web of Science, Scopus; peer consultations.
  • Past trends: Lists shrank from 65 (2020) to 5 (2025), but 2026 surges due to APC hikes.

Drivers Behind the Reform: Cost Control and National Priorities

The reform addresses ballooning costs amid static grant sizes, with publishers' profits—fueled by unpaid peer review—drawing ire. Experts like Claudia Pagliari note OA's noble start devolved into 'journal proliferation' burdening poorer regions. Information scientist Lin Zhang frames it as balancing OA ideals with fiscal sustainability.

China seeks 'discourse power' in science via domestic journals, echoing Germany's APC caps and NIH deliberations ($2K-$6K limits proposed). Science magazine details the policy's roots.

Impacts on Researchers and CAS Institutes

CAS researchers face hurdles for prestige OA but retain options: non-central funds, paywalled hybrids, or lower-APC venues. Career pressure persists, as high-impact pubs aid promotions, but policy pushes diversification. Social media reactions: 'Overdue—fund domestic journals'; some worry for early-career scholars.

Broader: May reduce China submissions (40% in some journals), prompting quality focus over quantity. Ties to China's research evaluation reform breaking 'publish or perish'.

Craft a strong academic CV highlighting diverse pubs for higher ed jobs.

Stakeholder Perspectives: Mixed but Largely Supportive

Chinese netizens applaud curbing 'academic colonialism'. Publishers silent; Springer Nature notes selectivity justifies fees. Gengyan Tang (U Calgary): Part of efficiency push, not OA rejection. Stefanie Haustein predicts read-publish deals over APC cuts.

CAS insiders confirm internal rollout pre-New Year; no official statement yet.

Global Ripple Effects on OA Publishing

Publishers lose big: China ~10-40% papers in affected titles. Mirrors Plan S pushback, accelerating 'diamond OA' (no-fee). Boosts Chinese journals, potentially reshaping rankings.

For international researchers, signals pressure on APC models; explore research positions in China amid rising domestic pubs.

Chemistry World analyzes publisher impacts.

Alternatives for Researchers: Strategies and Opportunities

  • Lower-APC OA: PLOS, MDPI select (under $5K), Chinese journals (many free).
  • Hybrids: Nature, Science—paywall free.
  • Diamond OA: Community-led, no fees; growing in China.
  • Preprints: arXiv, bioRxiv for visibility.
  • Negotiate deals: Institutions may shift to transformative agreements.

Check postdoc advice for publication strategies.

Growth of Chinese open access journals as alternatives to high-APC international titles

Future Outlook: Toward Sustainable OA in China

The reform accelerates China's journal ecosystem, with 178 English OA titles by 2023. Expect emulation by universities, NSFC caps. Globally, pressures publishers to lower fees or innovate. For CAS researchers, a pivot to quality over quantity, enhancing long-term impact.

Explore China academic opportunities, research jobs, and professor ratings. Browse higher ed jobs or career advice for navigating changes. University jobs in China await talented researchers.

Portrait of Sarah West

Sarah WestView full profile

Customer Relations & Content Specialist

Fostering excellence in research and teaching through insights on academic trends.

Discussion

Sort by:

Be the first to comment on this article!

You

Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

New0 comments

Join the conversation!

Add your comments now!

Have your say

Engagement level

Frequently Asked Questions

📜What is the CAS Open Access Publication Fee Reform?

The reform prohibits CAS and central gov funds for APCs over ~$5K in 30+ OA journals, effective March 1, 2026.

📚Which journals are affected by the CAS APC policy?

Key examples: Nature Communications ($7,350), Science Advances ($5,450), Cell Reports ($5,790). Full leaked list has 34 high-APC titles.

💰Why did CAS implement this APC reimbursement halt?

To control rising costs (China spent $2.5B on APCs by 2023), promote domestic journals, and ensure fund efficiency. Ties to annual warning list.

Can CAS researchers still publish in high-APC journals?

Yes, using non-central funds or paywalled hybrid options (no APC). Preprints and lower-fee OA remain viable.

⚠️What is the CAS Early Warning Journal List?

Annual list flagging high-APC or integrity-risk journals. 2026 version bars funding for 30 high-fee OA + 120 integrity issues.

🏢How does this affect publishers like Springer Nature?

Significant revenue loss; China authors ~40% in some titles. May spur negotiations or APC reductions globally.

🔄What alternatives exist for Chinese researchers?

Free/low-APC Chinese OA journals (178+), diamond OA, hybrids paywall. Check research jobs emphasizing quality.

🌐Will other Chinese institutions follow CAS policy?

Likely, as CAS leads; universities often align for evaluations. NSFC may cap too.

📈What stats show China's OA spending growth?

Tripled to $2.5B (2019-2023); CAS ~10% authors in top affected journals (2025).

🛠️How to prepare for CAS APC reform as a researcher?

Diversify targets, use preprints, build CV with impact. See career advice and prof ratings.

🌍Global context of CAS-style APC caps?

Germany caps, NIH proposes $2-6K limits. Pushes sustainable OA models.

🎓Impacts on early-career researchers in China?

Challenges prestige chase but encourages quality; more postdoc opportunities in growing domestic ecosystem.