The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is poised to impose caps on article processing charges (APCs) for scholarly publishing, a move that could reshape how researchers share their work. As reported by Chemical & Engineering News, the NIH’s request for information, concluded in September 2025, explored options like limiting APCs to $2,000, $3,000, or $6,000 per paper or tying publishing budgets to a grant percentage. This follows a 6.5% rise in APCs last year, with some journals charging fees that outstrip the budgets of smaller labs, raising concerns about profiteering by publishers. The decision comes amid broader NIH challenges, including reinstated grants facing potential cuts post-Supreme Court rulings.
Proponents argue caps are essential to curb exploitation in open-access publishing. Biochemist Jeremy Berg, quoted in the article, notes that some publishers are “making an awful lot of money” from APCs. A $6,000 cap, however, wouldn’t cover 10% of journals NIH-funded researchers typically use, potentially limiting publication options. Critics, like information scientist Stefanie Haustein, warn that caps could push researchers toward paywalled journals, undermining the NIH’s new immediate open-access mandate, effective July 1, 2025.
Publishers, represented by groups like the STM association, oppose the caps as “market-distorting”. Meanwhile, alternatives like the Gates Foundation’s decision to stop funding APCs entirely highlight varied approaches to the issue. For researchers, especially in chemistry and biomedical fields, these caps could strain budgets already stretched by rising journal fees and uncertain grant renewals.
The NIH’s decision, expected soon, will likely set a precedent for balancing open-access goals with fiscal responsibility. Researchers should prepare for shifts in publishing strategies, potentially prioritizing lower-cost journals or advocating for institutional support to navigate this evolving landscape.
Click here for the Japanese version.