Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42384648›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

"The system is obviously bonkers": The APC Trap and the bind of scholarly publishing across four research intensive institutions in the U.S.

Melissa H Cantrell, Rachel Caldwell, Jennifer A Mezick, Matthew Estill, Lauren B Collister

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Melissa H CantrellUniversity Libraries, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado‌‌, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6759-1624
Rachel CaldwellUniversity Libraries, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6203-9387
Jennifer A MezickUniversity Libraries, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4505-9316
Matthew EstillUniversity Library System, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania‌‌, United States of America.
Lauren B CollisterInvest in Open Infrastructure, Portland, Oregon, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5767-8486

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study analyzes the cognitive dissonance displayed by authors at research intensive institutions in the United States (U.S.) regarding the scholarly publishing of Open Access (OA) publications. A qualitative analysis of 154 open-ended responses was conducted. Eight codes were identified, then each response was analyzed for the codes. The codes themselves coalesce around a phenomenon the authors of this study term the article processing charge (APC) Trap, in which privileged and well-resourced researchers in the U.S. experience highly contradictory sentiments about OA publishing. The cognitive dissonance characteristic of the APC Trap result in strong feelings of conflict as well as powerlessness. The qualitative analysis reveals the APC Trap as a deeply layered phenomenon, with manifestation dependent on positionality, including demographic features and interactions between APC Trap codes. While much has been made of the failings of the APC model of OA publishing for under-resourced researchers, this study reveals the ways this publishing model is unsustainable even for privileged researchers most well-positioned to participate.

Indexed as

Open Access PublishingPublishingResearch PersonnelAcademiaHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID42384648
PMCPMC13322547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.