ArticlePloS one2025
Variability in article processing charges of open-access publishing across medical specialties.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article processing charges in colorectal surgery journals: a cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of cost, citation impact, and geographic disparity.Annals of coloproctology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOpen-access (OA) journals provide public access to research but often impose a financial burden on researchers through article processing charges (APCs). The connection between APCs and indicators of journal prestige, such as journal impact factor (JIF), and their variation across medical specialties remains unclear. This study investigates how publication costs relate to journal prestige across diverse medical fields.
methodsData from 1,117 hybrid and OA journals across 29 medical specialties were compiled from Journal Citation Reports and journal websites. Pearson correlation coefficients between APCs and journal characteristics (JIF, journal citation indicator, citation counts, and percentage of OA publications) were calculated. Linear regression was used to assess the impact of these journal characteristics on APC variance. Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variances was performed to evaluate differences in APC variance across specialties and publishing models. Journal counts by country of origin and corresponding median APCs were also analyzed.
resultsSignificant variation in APCs was observed across specialties, with hematology/oncology journals having the highest median APC ($4,690) and primary care journals the lowest ($2,690). Hybrid journals had higher median APCs than OA journals ($4,248 vs. $2,909, p < 0.001). JIF and the proportion of OA publications accounted for only 14.1% of the APC variance in Q1 journals. Weak positive correlations were found between APC and both JIF (r = 0.38) and citation counts (r = 0.38), and a weak negative correlation between APC and the proportion of OA publications (r = -0.28).
conclusionsAcross all medical specialties, hybrid journals have higher APCs than fully open-access journals. Although APCs vary within specialties, differences across fields are less pronounced. The weak correlations between APC and journal prestige metrics suggest that factors such as JIF, citation counts, and the proportion of OA publications account for only a small fraction of APC variability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.