I can't weigh in on MDPI's editorial standards, but here is one analysis of the actual costs of academic article publishing: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8276192/

The authors estimate the actual cost (in 2021) to the publisher of publishing one article at $400 USD, ranging from under $200 to $1000. The authors found a big gap: according to their estimates, only 15% or less of a typical academic publisher’s revenue appears to be spent on publishing the articles.

I don’t think this is a problem restricted to open access journals. With open access, whoever is funding the research (taxpayers, donors, etc) also usually has to fund the APCs/publication fees. With non-open-access articles that are behind a paywall, the public does not have access unless they purchase the article (thus paying for the research a second time if it is publicly funded). Open access is a good thing in theory, but someone has to pay for it, so I agree that it’s important for the costs to be reasonable and justified.

I recently submitted an article that I didn’t have funding for, so I had to find a journal that didn’t charge publication fees/APCs, and that ended up being a non-open-access journal. If published, the article will likely not reach as large of an audience as it might have without a paywall.

In the US, legislation passed in 2022 will require all taxpayer-funded research to be published as open access by 2026. While this will increase public access to scientific results, I am concerned that it will just shift the cost to researchers, and in turn to taxpayers who fund most of those researchers. It could also restrict publication opportunities to better-funded individuals and institutions that can afford the publication fees.

Are there journals/academic publishing organizations that are doing this better? I know that some academic journals are run by nonprofits or scholarly associations, but have they been able to bring costs down to the actual costs of publishing, or close to it? It seems that non-profit publishing is no guarantee of lower prices, but I would be interested to know if there are publishers that are really doing a great job at this.

I share many of the concerns already expressed in this discussion, especially regarding the cost-effectiveness of open-access publishing. While I strongly support the principles of open access—as it enables broader dissemination and visibility of scientific research—I often find myself preferring traditional or hybrid journals due to what I see as unjust and disproportionate article processing charges (APCs).

In theory, open access should democratize knowledge. However, in practice, the financial burden has simply shifted—from readers and institutions to authors and their funders. This raises serious equity concerns, particularly for researchers from underfunded institutions or countries. Although universities sometimes offer APC support, it is not always available or sufficient.

A relevant example is PeerJ, which initially stood out by offering open-access publication via a low-cost membership model, making it a rare and admirable alternative. However, PeerJ was eventually acquired by Taylor & Francis in 2023. This shows that while sustainable and fair open-access models are possible, they may be difficult to maintain independently in a competitive publishing environment. Still, PeerJ’s early success demonstrates that such models are not impossible—but building and maintaining a reputable academic journal takes time and sustained effort, which may be the most significant barrier.

Traditional journals, while often paywalled, are usually accessible through university library subscriptions. This system works relatively well for academics affiliated with institutions. However, for independent researchers or those in institutions without subscriptions, this creates a real access barrier. On the other hand, open-access articles are universally available but come at a significant cost to the author or their institution.

I also agree with the point that paywalled articles limit public access to publicly funded research, effectively forcing the public to “pay twice”—once through taxes, and again to access the findings. However, I’d like to add a nuance: when researchers with public funding pay APCs, those fees are also covered by the same public sources. In that case, open-access publishing doesn’t necessarily avoid the “double payment” problem—it just shifts where and how the payment occurs.

This complex landscape suggests that neither system is perfect. What we need is more transparency, cost-justification from publishers, and support for innovative models that prioritize both accessibility and fairness.

I’m glad to learn about PeerJ – thank you. I just looked over their website and they are still offering a per-author lifetime membership, which in many situations will be less expensive than an APC.

What do you think about how PeerJ (anonymously) publishes the peer reviewers’ comments along with the articles? I think this could be a helpful way to open up discussion and increase transparency, along with things like the ability to submit comments on published articles (like at PubPeer). I know some journals have experimented with this, but most don't currently publish peer reviews or include a comment section.

I’d be interested in connecting with people and groups who are working on these issues. I’m working on a book that focuses on efforts to maintain the quality of scientific research and to increase relevance of research to the public, so peer review issues are very relevant.