The Rising Shift to Open Access Journals in Neurosurgery with Exuberant Fees: Challenges and Limitations

Introduction: The rise of open-access publishing in scientific journals has reshaped the landscape of academic dissemination, especially in high-impact fields like neurosurgery. While intended to enhance access to scientific research, open-access models often require authors to bear substantial article processing charges (APCs). This financial burden can hinder the equitable dissemination of research, particularly among researchers from underfunded institutions.

Methods: This analysis reviews the current open-access trends in neurosurgical journals, including a detailed examination of APCs charged by prominent journals and explores the implications for researchers. Ethical considerations, financial accessibility, and potential consequences for submission quality were assessed based on comparative journal data, prior studies on citation trends, and open-access policies.

Results: We found that open-access APCs have increased significantly, with fees up to $3990 per article in neurosurgical journals, creating barriers for researchers from less funded institutions and raising ethical concerns about “pay-to-play” dynamics. Although open-access articles generally receive higher citations, potentially due to broader availability, the marketing of this advantage by some publishers risks prioritizing visibility over scientific rigor. Furthermore, high APCs may reduce submission numbers, potentially leading to a decrease in journal selectivity and an increased acceptance of lower-merit manuscripts. Finally, the absence of compensation for peer reviewers—who play a critical role in maintaining scientific integrity—adds to the financial strain on underfunded contributors to the peer review process.

Conclusion : While open-access publishing has the potential to democratize access to scientific research, its current structure may inadvertently foster inequity in neurosurgical publishing. We advocate for the exploration of more inclusive publishing models, including potential compensation for peer reviewers, to mitigate the financial strain on authors. Such steps are necessary to maintain an ethical, rigorous, and equitable framework for scientific dissemination in neurosurgery and beyond.