The University of California recently submitted a response to NIH’s Request for Information on Maximizing Research Funds by Limiting Allowable Publishing Costs. In this Request for Information (RFI), NIH asked for input on ways the agency could control costs, particularly with regard to limiting the amount of grant funds that could be spent on article processing charges (APCs). 

In its response, UC did not support any of the five options for such savings as suggested by NIH in the RFI, predicting that APC caps would shift costs onto authors rather than reducing the amount that publishers charge, and could “unintentionally narrow author choice in where to publish.” 

UC’s letter also:

  • Recommended that NIH consider negotiating directly with publishers about their APC costs, in coordination with other federal funders;
  • Emphasized the importance of “transparency in pricing and clear financial guardrails;” and 
  • Expressed concern over the potential risks involved in direct financial compensation of peer reviewers.

NIH has not yet published the comments it has received, but a review of several responses shared publicly by other organizations reveals that no commenter has wholeheartedly endorsed any of the five options included in the RFI. Below is a list of organizations with public responses. If you are aware of additional  publicly posted responses to this RFI, please share them in the comments.

Share