China’s largest research institution, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), has notified its internal researchers that, starting March 1, 2026, it will stop using institutional research funds to cover Article Processing Charges (APCs) for certain high-cost open access (OA) journals. Once this announcement was made, it drew significant attention from both the international publishing and research communities. Several global publishers have yet to comment publicly, but industry insiders generally believe that this decision could have a substantial impact on the global open access publishing market.
According to disclosed information, approximately 30 journals have been placed on the restricted list. They are mainly concentrated in life sciences and multidisciplinary natural sciences and generally have high international influence. A common feature of these journals is their high APCs, most exceeding $5,000, with some approaching $7,000. While CAS has not released a complete list, multiple media reports mention journals such as Nature Communications, Science Advances, Cell Reports, and The Lancet Global Health as being under consideration. These journals have long attracted a large number of submissions from Chinese researchers, with Chinese authors accounting for nearly or over one-third of some journals’ publications.
Core Policy: Limiting Institutional Funding for High APCs
The open access publishing model has expanded rapidly worldwide in recent years. Unlike traditional subscription-based journals, OA journals typically charge authors—or their institutions—an APC in exchange for free public access to the paper. Proponents argue that this model increases the accessibility and dissemination efficiency of research. Critics, however, point out that as commercial publishers increasingly adopt the OA model, APCs have soared, putting growing pressure on research budgets. CAS’s new rule focuses on prohibiting the use of internal and central government research funds to pay APCs for specific high-cost OA journals, though it does not prevent researchers from submitting papers to these journals.
It is important to note that this move does not represent a blanket rejection of the open access model. Instead, it imposes a financial constraint on journals deemed “excessively expensive.” Reports indicate that the restricted journals generally have APCs above $5,000, whereas lower-cost OA journals, such as PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports, remain outside the restriction. Additionally, for hybrid journals like Nature or Science, researchers may still choose the traditional subscription route without paying OA fees.
CAS insiders noted that in recent years, the institution’s annual spending on APCs for international journals has been steadily increasing, becoming a significant part of the research funding structure. Against the backdrop of slowing growth in total research funding, optimizing fund allocation and avoiding excessive “publication cost inflation” has become a key management concern. Scholars have also pointed out that as China’s research output ranks among the highest globally, Chinese research funding contributes significantly to the international publishing market, and restricting high APC expenditures can be seen as a structural adjustment.
High Proportion of Chinese Authors and Potential Impact on Publishers
Data show that China has consecutively ranked first globally in research output. In journals such as Nature Communications and Science Advances, Chinese authors represent a significant proportion. Some publishing analysts note that Chinese research institutions are an important revenue source for these high-cost OA journals. If institutional funding for APCs is broadly halted, it could, in the short term, affect submission patterns and the financial models of certain journals.
However, some publishing insiders believe that researchers could secure funding through other channels or submit to journals not on the restricted list, thereby mitigating the impact. An anonymous executive from an international publishing group told the media that China’s research output is so large that journal editorial policies are unlikely to change solely due to one country’s funding decisions. In the long term, however, discussions among research funders worldwide regarding APC caps are increasing, and the publishing market may face stricter price transparency requirements.
In fact, controversies over APCs have been ongoing in Europe and North America. German research funding agencies have set reimbursement caps for APCs, while the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has proposed strengthening oversight of publishing costs. Europe’s “Plan S” initiative requires funded outputs to be open access while emphasizing pricing transparency. CAS’s recent move has been viewed by some international observers as part of a broader rethinking of the high-cost OA model in global research funding systems.
Potential Changes in Academic Evaluation and Publishing Ecology
High-impact open access journals have long played a key role in research evaluation systems. Some researchers worry that if institutional funding cannot cover these costs, it may temporarily affect submission strategies and channels for showcasing research. Scholars, however, note that the policy does not restrict researchers’ choice of journals but only changes the source of funding, so it does not directly affect research quality.
A deeper discussion concerns the transformation of the academic evaluation system. In recent years, Chinese research policies have repeatedly emphasized moving away from “paper count” and “impact factor” metrics. Reduced financial support for high-cost journals could further encourage institutions to focus on research quality and contribution rather than journal brand alone. Some domestic academic publishing professionals suggest that this may also create opportunities for high-quality local journals, enhancing the international competitiveness of China’s publishing platforms.
Analysts point out that CAS, as a key component of China’s research ecosystem, has significant influence. If other research institutions or funding bodies follow suit, the global open access publishing market could face more systematic pricing pressure. For international publishers, this may require adjustments to cost structures and pricing mechanisms in response to signals from a major research-producing country.
Overall, CAS’s plan to halt funding for certain high-cost OA journals is not merely a budget-cutting measure but a policy experiment aimed at improving research fund efficiency and reconsidering the business model of academic publishing. As global open access publishing enters a critical transition phase, the subsequent effects of this move remain to be seen. In the coming months, changes in journal submission patterns, publisher responses, and policy moves by other research institutions will be closely watched by the academic community.