CAS Implements APC Cap on High-Cost Open Access Journals

The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), the country’s premier research institution with more than 50,000 researchers across roughly 100 institutes, has introduced a policy that restricts the use of academy and central government funds for article processing charges (APCs) in high-cost fully open-access journals. The measure, reported to take effect on 1 March 2026, targets journals charging APCs of at least US$5,000 per paper.

Internal communications shared with researchers indicate that more than 30 international titles fall under the restriction. Prominent examples include Nature Communications, Cell Reports and Science Advances. The global average APC stands at approximately US$2,000, making the CAS threshold notably higher than typical fees.

The policy also extends the restriction to funds from other central government sources, including those administered by the Ministry of Science and Technology and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Researchers may still publish in the affected journals using personal funds or by choosing hybrid options in journals that offer both open-access and subscription routes.

Background on APCs and Open-Access Publishing in China

Article processing charges, or APCs, are fees paid to publishers to make research articles immediately free to read. In fully open-access journals, every article incurs this fee. China has become the world’s largest producer of scientific papers, and CAS researchers contribute a substantial share of that output.

Over the past decade, Chinese institutions have increasingly supported open-access publishing through institutional agreements and direct reimbursement. The new cap reflects growing concerns over escalating costs and the sustainability of public research budgets.

CAS already maintains an annual “journal warning list” that flags titles associated with research-integrity issues or unusually high APCs. Journals appearing on that list now face additional funding restrictions when authors seek reimbursement from academy or national sources.

Key Journals Affected and Cost Threshold

Reports identify more than 30 fully open-access journals with APCs at or above US$5,000. Nature Communications, for instance, charges approximately US$7,350, while Cell Reports and Science Advances exceed the US$5,000 mark. In contrast, lower-cost titles such as PLOS One and Scientific Reports remain eligible for reimbursement.

The cap allows continued support for hybrid journals, including Nature, where authors may opt for a paywalled version without incurring the full open-access fee. This flexibility preserves options for high-impact dissemination while controlling expenditure on fully open-access outlets.

Rationale Behind the Policy

Cost control forms the primary driver. With public research funding under pressure, CAS seeks to redirect resources toward domestic publishing initiatives and lower-cost international options. Officials have also cited the need to address research-integrity concerns associated with certain high-APC titles.

The move aligns with broader national efforts to build a stronger domestic journal ecosystem. Government targets include developing approximately 400 world-class Chinese journals capable of competing globally without relying on foreign publishers for open-access dissemination.

By limiting reimbursement for the most expensive outlets, CAS signals that public funds should support reasonable fees rather than subsidising premium pricing models.

Photo by Zhu Edward on Unsplash

Impact on Researchers and Publishing Behaviour

CAS-affiliated authors now face a clear choice: publish in lower-cost or hybrid journals using institutional funds, or cover high-APC fees personally. Many researchers are expected to shift submissions toward titles that remain eligible for reimbursement or toward domestic Chinese journals receiving increased government support.

Early indications suggest the policy may accelerate the growth of Chinese-language and China-based open-access platforms. It could also prompt greater scrutiny of APC pricing across the global publishing industry.

Collaborations with international partners remain unaffected, as co-authors from other institutions may still use their own funding sources.

Reactions from the Publishing Community

Publishers of affected journals have not issued formal responses in the initial reporting period. Industry observers note that the decision challenges the sustainability of high-APC models when a major funder representing tens of thousands of researchers withdraws support.

Some analysts argue the policy may encourage publishers to offer more competitive pricing or enhanced value-added services to retain Chinese authors. Others anticipate continued growth in diamond open-access models that do not charge authors.

Broader Context: China’s Evolving Open-Access Strategy

CAS’s decision builds on earlier initiatives, including institutional read-and-publish agreements with major publishers such as Elsevier. These agreements provide partial support for open-access publishing while authors contribute the remainder of the APC.

The policy also reflects China’s dual emphasis on international visibility and self-reliance in scholarly communication. While researchers retain the freedom to publish anywhere, the funding signal clearly favours cost-effective and domestically supported outlets.

Future Outlook for Chinese Researchers

Over the coming months, CAS institutes are expected to issue detailed implementation guidelines. Training sessions on journal selection, APC negotiation and alternative publishing routes are likely to increase.

Younger researchers and those in early-career stages may feel the impact most acutely, as they often rely on institutional funding for publication costs. Senior scientists with personal grants or international collaborations may retain greater flexibility.

Long-term, the policy could contribute to a more balanced global open-access landscape in which price sensitivity influences journal choice alongside traditional impact metrics.

Photo by Spencer Gu on Unsplash

Implications for University Administrators and Policy Makers

University leaders across China are monitoring the CAS precedent. Many institutions already maintain their own APC reimbursement policies and may align them with the new national threshold to ensure consistency.

Policy makers at the Ministry of Education and the National Natural Science Foundation of China are likely to review similar caps for other funding streams. The move underscores the government’s commitment to responsible stewardship of public research investment.

Actionable Steps for Academics

Researchers are advised to review the latest CAS journal warning list before submitting manuscripts. Consulting institutional librarians or research offices can clarify eligible funding sources and alternative publishing options.

Early-career scholars should prioritise journals that offer both high visibility and reasonable APCs, or explore diamond open-access venues that charge no fees. Building awareness of these choices now will help navigate the evolving funding environment.