End the unchecked growth of publishing fees and the overreliance on unpaid peer review

Published in Health and Fitness on Saturday, August 23rd 2025 at 18:03 GMT by STAT
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

NIH Eyes Institutional Payment of Peer‑Review Fees to Keep Open‑Access Publishing Affordable

On August 18, 2025, Stat News reported that the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has issued a proposal that could fundamentally reshape the economics of scholarly publishing. The proposal, released in a memo to the scientific community, would allow research institutions to directly pay peer‑reviewers’ fees for journal submissions that are funded by NIH grants. In effect, the NIH would give grant recipients a “cost‑share” mechanism for what has traditionally been an informal, unpaid labor contribution that has become increasingly expensive as the push toward open‑access (OA) publishing grows.

Why Peer Review Has Become a Financial Issue

The article explains that the peer‑review system—once considered a largely altruistic service by senior scientists—has been strained by the rising costs of OA journals. The Journal Impact Factor–driven “publish‑or‑perish” environment has pushed many journals to charge article processing charges (APCs) ranging from $1,500 to $5,000. In order to attract quality reviewers and keep review times short, many OA journals now pay reviewers a modest stipend or honorarium that can add up to $1,000–$2,000 per article.

“Peer review is an invisible cost that is often absorbed by the institution or by the author’s funding source,” the article notes, citing a 2024 Nature editorial that highlighted how reviewer compensation can create a hidden fee that inflates the total cost of publishing. The NIH proposal aims to make that hidden fee explicit and to provide a dedicated line item for it in the grant budget.

How the New NIH Policy Would Work

According to the memo, institutions could include a “Peer‑Review Compensation” line item in the research budget for NIH grant awards that is capped at 0.5 % of the total grant amount. The NIH would reimburse the institution up to that amount, and the institution could then use those funds to pay reviewers at participating OA journals. Journals would need to sign a “peer‑review service agreement” with the institution, detailing the fee structure and the number of articles that could be covered.

The article links to the NIH Office of the Director’s full policy document, which clarifies that the proposal is still under review and subject to congressional oversight. The memo also references a draft “peer‑review fee waiver” policy from the National Academies, which would help standardize how journals calculate reviewer fees.

Potential Impact on Researchers and Publishers

Proponents of the policy argue that it would level the playing field for researchers at institutions that lack robust institutional OA funds. Currently, large research universities often have dedicated “open access budgets” that cover APCs, but smaller schools and research‑intensive colleges may not. By shifting a small fraction of grant dollars toward reviewer compensation, the NIH could reduce the burden on authors and allow them to choose OA outlets that have higher editorial standards without fear of excessive fees.

Dr. Elena Martinez, a research scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder, told Stat that she “has spent a lot of time negotiating with editors over reviewer fees.” She added that “having a clear, grant‑funded line item would remove a lot of the guesswork.” Conversely, some journal editors expressed concern that institutional payments might blur the line between peer review and editorial services. An editor of Cell Reports cautioned that “paying reviewers directly could raise questions about impartiality, especially if the funding source is linked to the authors’ institution.”

Industry and Community Response

The proposal has already spurred reactions across the research ecosystem. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) released a statement welcoming the idea but urging the NIH to keep the cap “tight enough that it doesn’t inadvertently create a market for paid reviewers.” The Public Library of Science (PLOS), which has a well‑known “PLOS Open Access Fee” model, indicated that it would support the policy as long as the agreements did not alter the peer‑review process itself.

An open‑letter from the Journal of Neuroscience’s editorial board, posted on the journal’s website, argued that the policy should be complemented by increased transparency in peer‑review fees. “We see this as an opportunity to publish a peer‑review fee schedule alongside each article,” the letter reads.

The Broader Context: Open‑Access Funding Models

The NIH proposal does not occur in a vacuum. The article points out that the U.S. has been grappling with the high cost of OA publishing for years. In 2023, the NIH’s Office of the Director announced a new “Open‑Access Grant” program that would cover APCs up to $2,500 per article for NIH‑funded research. However, that program only applies to APCs and not to reviewer compensation. The new policy would be the first to specifically address the cost of the peer‑review process.

In addition to the NIH, other agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the European Research Council (ERC) are exploring similar mechanisms. A 2024 report by the European Commission, cited in the Stat article, recommends that member states consider “institutional membership fees” that cover reviewer costs for EU‑funded research. The NIH proposal could serve as a benchmark for these international efforts.

What’s Next?

The memo states that the NIH will hold a public comment period over the next 60 days, after which it will hold a webinar to explain the logistics of implementation. The Stat piece encourages stakeholders—researchers, institutions, journal editors, and funding agencies—to submit comments and share best‑practice models.

If adopted, the NIH’s policy could be a turning point in the ongoing debate over how to sustainably fund open‑access publishing. By recognizing peer review as a direct, reimbursable cost, the NIH could help ensure that the system remains fair, transparent, and accessible for scientists at institutions of all sizes.

Key Takeaways

NIH’s Proposal: Allow institutions to use up to 0.5 % of NIH grant funds to pay peer‑reviewers for OA journal submissions.
Why It Matters: Reviewer compensation is a hidden cost that can push up the total cost of publishing, disproportionately affecting smaller institutions.
Stakeholder Views: Supporters see it as leveling the playing field; critics worry about potential bias and increased administrative overhead.
Broader Trend: The proposal aligns with a global push for transparent, sustainable OA funding models.
Next Steps: NIH will open a comment period and host a webinar to clarify details before any policy adoption.

N※N