What is the issue?
There are numerous obstacles to achieving equity in scholarly publishing, and financial barriers can significantly impact access and inclusivity. Purchasing power varies significantly worldwide, making standard pricing for products and services accessible in wealthier countries unaffordable in many others. To foster greater equity, pricing approaches need to evolve in order to recognize and address global disparities and local purchasing power.
We recognize that many stakeholders prefer a scholarly publication ecosystem without charges of any kind, and particularly author-facing charges, for open access publishing. While charges remain part of the scholarly communication landscape, then we feel strongly that open and transparent data should be used to calculate more equitable prices that reflect local purchasing power.
While no single approach can satisfy all stakeholders, the approach presented in this article is underpinned by a thorough analysis and provides a solid foundation for broader discussion. It can be used with article processing charges (APCs), subscription fees, read-and-publish agreements, subscribe-to-open (S2O) agreements, collective funding models, membership models and more.
Some of the text in this article has also been used in a short informal blog and in the project report, but is not formally published anywhere else (Wise, 2024; Wise et al., 2024a).
What are some examples of challenges that could be solved?
Here are some examples to illustrate how the global fair pricing framework can be used.
To inform library/consortium discounts
While some publishers offer discounts to some library consortia in some countries for both reading and publishing, there is no consistent or transparent method for determining appropriate discount levels. Often, the reasons behind these discounts are unclear, lost in outdated agreements or tied to specific, possibly arbitrary, decisions – such as a consortium’s negotiation strategy or a publisher’s attempt to expand into a new market. This framework can be used to improve transparency and equity.
To expand inclusivity and transparency
EIFL, for example, undertakes impactful work by negotiating deeply discounted agreements and APC waivers on behalf of its 33 member countries, but this initiative cannot extend to all publishers or all developing nations (EIFL, 2024). As a result, many countries still struggle to participate in scholarly communication due to unaffordable costs. This framework can be used to enable discussions in a broader array of countries.
To reduce the need for waivers
While some publishers offer APC waivers to authors in certain countries – typically those classified as Group A by Research4Life (2024) – this is not a universal solution. Many other countries, where the cost of APCs remains prohibitively high for researchers and institutions, are left out. Many countries are wealthier than those in Group A, but not wealthy enough to afford the prices that countries with a high gross domestic product (GDP), such as the USA, Australia or Norway, can pay. Moreover, offering waivers for APCs can be problematic. It may come across as a form of charity, which risks being condescending and undermines the spirit of solidarity within the global research community. How can these challenges be addressed?
One possible solution is to apply purchasing power parity (PPP), a concept commonly used when comparing economic indicators, that could facilitate more equitable pricing by adjusting the prices of goods and services according to the economic strength of each country. Purchasing price indices (PPIs) provide independently calculated, transparent data for each country. Though originally developed for comparing economies, PPIs could serve as a foundation for creating fairer, context-sensitive pricing models in academic publishing.
In this context, applying PPP would enable publishers to adjust subscription fees, APCs and other fees according to the economic strength of each country, rather than charging a flat global fee or applying inconsistent and untransparent discounts. Using PPI data, publishers could tailor prices based on the relative cost of living and income levels. This means libraries and researchers in less wealthy countries would pay lower list prices, while those in wealthier countries would pay higher list prices.
This method ensures differential pricing is rooted in measurable economic factors, aiding transparency and avoiding the perception of arbitrary discounts or waivers.
Which PPI to use?
The ideal situation would be a PPI specifically designed to account for the costs associated with conducting research, as well as regional economic disparities within countries. However, such a PPI does not currently exist. Consequently, we evaluated several existing indices, including the Big Mac Index, Eurostat/OECD, ICP/World Bank, Numbeo and the United Nations Statistical Division PPIs (Wise et al., 2024b). Our evaluation focused on factors such as update frequency, country coverage, methodology and data quality as well as applicability for the purpose in hand.
In our view, the ICP/World Bank data is the best option with the most country coverage. The reasons for this are explained in the next few paragraphs.
The ICP/World Bank dataset contains 47 different PPIs. We evaluated these; some are too narrow in scope for usability in this context. We selected the World Bank GDP PPI because it has general applicability and broad country coverage (192 countries). There is a regular update schedule every three years (World Bank Group, 2024).
At least one pilot initiative has established a differentiated APC pricing structure for researchers from developing countries based on national income levels. However, our analysis indicates that using GDP informed by PPI as a basis for pricing – since it reflects income rather than a country’s overall purchasing power – could erode equity.
Income is not the same thing as spending power. GDP is the national income averaged across the population of a country and so does not necessarily reflect an institution’s or person’s ability to pay. There will be a wide array of regional and socio-economic differences within a country that come into play. Purchasing power, on the other hand, does reflect directly what an institution or person is able to purchase with a given budget.
Consider two individuals earning the same income: one is married, has one child and owns a home with no mortgage, while the other is single, has three children, rents an apartment, works two part-time jobs and carries significant debt. Despite having the same income, their financial circumstances and ability to pay are vastly different. In this case, income alone does not reflect the full picture of financial capacity.
Relying solely on national income can oversimplify economic realities by neglecting internal disparities within a country. While PPIs offer insights into financial capacity, they also provide a more nuanced understanding of the economy.
We used the World Bank GDP PPI to assign a data point to all countries (Supplementary data). The table includes more than 192 countries, as some small countries and principalities are not covered by the World Bank data. These were dealt with in several ways. Firstly, any countries currently appearing on the Research4Life waiver lists were assigned a starting PPI of zero. Secondly, any regions with a close political affiliation to a larger country were assigned the PPI of the ‘parent’ country (e.g. the Faroe Islands to Denmark, Jersey to the UK). Finally, the few remaining countries were assigned a PPI based on that country’s economic status (e.g. Liechtenstein has one of the highest gross domestic products per person in the world) or based on countries with similar geographies and economies (e.g. Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba were allocated a PPI based on the average of Curacao, Saint Martin (French part) and Aruba).
A few countries have more than one data point – for example, there are PPIs for China, Hong Kong and Macao. We used the highest PPI in the World Bank data in these instances.
Bands
Separate prices for each country would not be manageable for any publisher and could also lead to instability when the World Bank revises the dataset, with many countries seeing a change in the price they are expected to pay. To address the challenge of managing differential payments for 192 countries, we recognized the need to group countries into bands. This approach simplifies administration and introduces stability, as most countries will remain within the same band even when data is refreshed, avoiding frequent shifts between pricing categories. It also allows publishers to explore a range of options for pricing each band, without being tied strictly to the PPI to calculate a price.
To help stakeholders visualize this banding system, we created an example (Figure 1) of how banding could be implemented. Each band groups countries with similar economic conditions, allowing for differentiated pricing. In this scenario, we use six bands, from Zeta to Alpha. This is just one example of how publishers can implement banding. They could opt for fewer or more bands depending on their needs and the needs of their customers.
Figure 1
An example of how banding could be implemented
In our example, the wealthiest countries in the Zeta band would pay a full list price (set here as 1.00), while the least wealthy countries in the Alpha band might pay a significantly lower list price (e.g. 0.05). These are illustrative figures, and publishers could customize the pricing as needed. For instance, a publisher might decide to set a price of zero for countries in the Alpha band.
Exchange Rates
While PPIs are distinct from exchange rates, libraries and researchers in countries with volatile exchange rates face additional equity challenges. For example, a consortium may agree on pricing in the autumn for the following year, but by the time the payment is due, currency fluctuations could significantly reduce the value of their funds, making the originally agreed-upon price unaffordable. Similarly, an author may believe they have sufficient funds when submitting a paper, only to find, upon acceptance, that the currency conversion leaves them short of what is needed to cover the APC. Publishers are generally better equipped to manage the risks associated with currency fluctuations for several reasons:
Impact on budgets: the financial sums involved for institutions in a given country can represent their entire budget, while for publishers, especially large ones, these transactions usually account for only a small portion of their overall revenue.
Risk diversification: the publisher is likely to be transacting in a wider range of currencies than the customer, and so the risk is spread across that range. Some currency shifts may be unfavourable to them, but others may work in their favour, helping to balance the overall impact.
Access to financial expertise: large publishers have access to expert financial advice and tools, enabling them to manage exchange rate volatility more effectively through hedging, a risk management mechanism to offset losses in forward currency income.
To alleviate the burden of fluctuating exchange rates on researchers and institutions, publishers could adopt the following approach:
Global pricing in base currency: the publisher sets globally differentiated prices, typically in US dollars (or another base currency).
Local currency translation: for countries in selected pricing bands, these prices are translated into local currencies using current exchange rates or an average rate over a specific period (e.g. a three- or six-month average).
Fixed, transparent prices: fixed prices for all bands are published and made transparent to customers, ensuring clarity on what they will pay.
Invoice issuance: publishers issue invoices at a fixed price in either US dollars or the local currency based on the country’s pricing band.
Responsibility for exchange costs:
• for customers invoiced in US dollars (or the publisher’s normal currency), the customer bears the cost of any currency exchange as at present.
• customers invoiced in local currencies convert the amount into the publisher’s base currency (e.g. dollars) at the time of payment.
Risk management by publishers: the publisher receives payments in their base currency and bears the risk that the exchange rate may have changed between the time they set the price and the time the payment is received. While exchange rate management offers a potential solution for larger publishers to mitigate the impact of currency fluctuations on global APC pricing, it may be too risky or administratively burdensome for smaller publishers without the same level of financial flexibility.
Principles for global differentiated pricing that fosters equity
Stakeholder feedback led us to develop a set of principles to support the framework for differential global pricing. This is because if applied by publishers without dialogue, transparency and in alignment with shared principles, then differential pricing can be – and has been – perceived as a blunt instrument to serve only self-interests.
Global differentiated pricing that fosters equity is:
part of a broader commitment to equity, inclusion, diversity, and belonging. Any concerted effort also requires steps to empower and involve historically excluded stakeholders across global regions, institutions and disciplines
aligned ideally with a consistent approach developed in meaningful, open and transparent consultation with the research community (i.e. libraries/consortia, funders, and researchers). For example, while moving to more equitable differentiated global pricing may not be cost neutral, publishers should consider that offsetting this by simply increasing prices for the wealthiest countries may not be perceived as equitable either
relative to the context of each country, including income and purchasing power
clearly communicated, easy to understand and transparent to all
transparently based on, and regularly updated in line with, independent, open datasets that can be accessed, validated and reused by everyone
based on shared risk. For example, currency fluctuation can significantly impact the ability of some customers to pay for publishing services, even if prices are differentiated globally. Customers and publishers should share such risks.
Tools to support implementation by publishers
Stakeholder feedback also made us appreciate how essential it would be to provide publishers with practical implementation tools.
When implementing a global differential pricing framework, publishers must consider several key factors, especially if they are transitioning from an existing pricing model or developing a new one for a service or product. For those making a transition, the process largely depends on their current business models and pricing structures. Publishers shifting from an existing APC model, for example, will need to analyse the global distribution of their authors and assess how a new pricing framework might impact their current revenue streams. Even though lower differential pricing may attract more authors in the lower band countries, this is unlikely to offset the overall reduction in income from those countries.
To assist publishers in this transition, we developed a spreadsheet-based tool (Information Power, 2024) that allows them to model their own pricing bands and APCs using the same open, transparent data. This tool enables publishers to input data such as the number of articles published (or projected to be published) from each country and details of any existing waiver or discount regimes.
Publishers can use this tool to evaluate how transitioning to a differential pricing model will affect their overall revenues and how best to structure pricing for the different bands. This analysis is crucial for publishers aiming to maintain financial sustainability while promoting global equity in academic publishing. A common concern among publishers was that to maintain the same income level, they would need to raise prices in wealthier countries to compensate for lower prices in less affluent regions. The impact of implementing differential pricing on overall revenues will vary from publisher to publisher, depending on the geographical origin of their submissions. This is particularly relevant for an APC model.
Our modelling tool assists publishers in assessing the impact of this pricing framework, allows them to evaluate the financial effects of different pricing scenarios and to explore various options. By carefully establishing pricing bands, publishers can alleviate some of the financial challenges faced during this transition.
How might this framework be used in practice?
For publishers, the framework provides a starting point for internal discussions for those that wish to provide more equitable pricing or to engage more readers or authors from countries under-represented in their journals. The spreadsheet-based tool will enable them to model scenarios to inform those internal discussions.
The framework also offers publishers a chance to engage in data-driven discussions with both new and existing customers. The data can enable them to better understand their customers’ needs. Presenting data to support proposed differential pricing can help their credibility and demonstrate a fairer approach to pricing. That is not to say that individual consortia or libraries will or should just accept new pricing, but it does mean that the negotiations have an evidence base as a starting point.
The framework also provides library consortia and libraries with a starting point for their discussions with publishers, whether discussing the renewal of an existing agreement or participation in a new agreement. The success of negotiations is enhanced by utilizing independent data, and the PPI of a country should be considered as one of the factors in the negotiations. Information Power enabled a webinar for cOAlition S for library and library consortia discussing the possibilities (cOAlition S, 2025). Imagine if a couple of forward-thinking publishers teamed up with consortia to embark on a groundbreaking pilot programme. Their journey and experiences could offer invaluable insights that could shape future collaborations!
Supplementary data
The supplementary data for this article can be found as follows:
World Bank GDP PPI data points for all countries in 2021 released June 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.695.s1
Abbreviations and Acronyms
A list of the abbreviations and acronyms used in this and other Insights articles can be accessed here – click on the following URL and then select the ‘full list of industry A&As’ link: http://www.uksg.org/publications#aa.
Competing Interests
Author Lorraine Estelle declares a competing interest as she is also a co-editor of Insights journal. All other authors have declared no competing interests.