Tensiones y transformaciones en la producción científica institucional: dinámicas editoriales, costos y desafíos del acceso abierto en una organización nacional de investigación agropecuaria

Yajaira Romero-Barrera; Carlos Contreras-Pedraza; Diego-Hernando Flórez-Martínez

doi:10.5281/zenodo.20751500

Authors

Yajaira Romero-Barrera Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria AGROSAVIA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6512-7307
Carlos Contreras-Pedraza Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria AGROSAVIA https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7138-2147
Diego-Hernando Flórez-Martínez Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria, AGROSAVIA https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1246-6513

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20751500

Keywords:

scientific production, open access, publication costs, research evaluation, open science

Abstract

Over the past two decades, the scientific publishing ecosystem has undergone profound transformations driven by the expansion of open access, the strengthening of open science policies, and the consolidation of the global publishing oligopoly. Within this context, public research and development centers and institutions face growing challenges related to the economic sustainability of publishing, visibility in indexing systems, and the effectiveness of their internal scientific evaluation policies. This study aims to analyze how these tensions emerge within the dynamics of scientific production at the Colombian Corporation for Agricultural Research, AGROSAVIA, as a national agricultural research institute.

The study followed a mixed-methods research design that included bibliometric analysis methods based on Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO, and The lens databases information; a review of institutional data on productivity and publication costs from 2019 to 2023; and a structured survey administered to all researchers affiliated with the organization (589). A prior sample size calculation, stratified by position, established the minimum threshold for representativeness; 156 voluntary responses were obtained. The survey examined perceptions, experiences, and barriers within the editorial process.

The findings reveal an increasing dependence on pay-to-publish models, particularly article processing charges (APCs), with a cumulative 273% increase in the average cost per article and an estimated USD 911,938 paid to publishers between 2021 and 2023. These trends converge with internal and external operational constraints, including overlaps between project timelines and publishers’ editorial workflows, funder restrictions, and specific features of the institutional ranking system, particularly those related to recognition and incentives for knowledge generation. The study concludes that, to address current challenges, institutions urgently need to redesign policy instruments governing scientific publication, prioritize sustainable funding mechanisms, and promote governance models aligned with the principles of open science.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abbasi, Z., Shekofteh, M., Shahbodaghi, A., & Kazemi, E. (2019). Citation indicators’ comparison of lis open access and subscription publications based on scopus. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 68(4–5), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-02-2018-0016

Abdel-Razig, S., Stadler, D., Oyoun Alsoud, L., Archuleta, S., & Ibrahim, H. (2024). Open Access Publishing Metrics, Cost, and Impact in Health Professions Education Journals. JAMA Network Open, 7(10), e2439932. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.39932

Aguado-López, E., Becerril-García, A., Chávez-Ávila, S., Aguado-López, E., Becerril-García, A., & Chávez-Ávila, S. (2019). Reflexión sobre la publicación académica y el acceso abierto a partir de la experiencia de {Redalyc}. Palabra Clave, 8(2), 9–10. https://doi.org/10.24215/18539912e067

Alperin, J. P., Nieves, C. M., Schimanski, L. A., Fischman, G. E., Niles, M. T., & McKiernan, E. C. (2019). How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents? ELife, 8. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.42254

Álvarez, I. V. (2015). La concentración editorial: una aproximación conceptual al fenómeno. Trama & Texturas, 28, 43–53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26156274

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Asai, S. (2020). Market power of publishers in setting article processing charges for open access journals. Scientometrics, 123(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03402-y

Bardiau, M., & Dony, C. (2024). Measuring back: bibliodiversity and the Journal Impact FactorTM brand, a case study of IF-journals included in the 2021 Journal Citations ReportTM. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.633

Beallslist. (2018). Beall´s List of predatory journals and publishers. In Beallslist (Vol. 128, Issue 7).

Beigel, F. (2025). The transformative relation between publishers and editors: Research quality and academic autonomy at stake. Quantitative Science Studies, 6, 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00343

Berger, M. (2021). Bibliodiversity at the Centre: Decolonizing Open Access. Development and Change, 52(2), 383–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12634

Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2015). Article processing charges in OA journals: relationship between price and quality. Scientometrics, 103(2), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1556-z

BOAI, B. O. A. I. (2002). Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI). Interlending & Document Supply, 30(2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/ilds.2002.12230bab.012

Bojo-Canales, C., Sanz-Lorente, M., & Sanz-Valero, J. (2021). Trends in the Searching Information on the Collections SciELO, Redalyc and Dialnet Conducted through Google. Revista Espanola de Documentacion Cientifica, 44(2). https://doi.org/10.3989/REDC.2021.2.1765

Borrego, Á. (2023). Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review. Learned Publishing, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1558

Borrego, Á., Anglada, L., & Abadal, E. (2021). Transformative agreements: Do they pave the way to open access? Learned Publishing, 34(2), 216–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1347

Budzinski, O., Grebel, T., Wolling, J., & Zhang, X. (2020). Drivers of article processing charges in open access. Scientometrics, 124(3), 2185–2206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03578-3

Buitrago Ciro, J. (2022). How are academic libraries in Spanish-speaking Latin America responding to new models of scholarly communication and predatory publishing? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 54(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211016533

Butler, L.-A., Hare, M., Schönfelder, N., Schares, E., Alperin, J. P., & Haustein, S. (2024). An open dataset of article processing charges from six large scholarly publishers (2019-2023). 1–13. http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.08356

Butler, L. A., Matthias, L., Simard, M. A., Mongeon, P., & Haustein, S. (2023). The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272

Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry. Scientometrics, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280

Cantrell, M. H., Mezick, J. A., Estill, M., Caldwell, R., & Collister, L. B. (2025). An APC Trap? Privilege and the Perception of Reasonableness in Open Access Publishing. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18184

Collyer, F. M. (2018). Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: Global North, global South. Current Sociology, 66(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116680020

Cox, E. (2023). Research Outputs as Testimony & the APC as Testimonial Injustice in the Global South. College and Research Libraries, 84(4). https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.84.4.513

Da Costa, M. P., & Leite, F. C. L. (2016). Open access in the world and Latin America: A review since the Budapest Open Access Initiative. In Transinformacao (Vol. 28, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892016002800003

Delgado-López-Cozar, E., & Martín-Martín, A. (2024). The profit route in scholarly publishing: From journals as a business to journals focused on the business. The source of the publishing business: The business of scientific evaluation with bibliometric tools; [La ruta de oro de la publicación científica: . Revista Mediterranea de Comunicacion, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.14198/MEDCOM.26763

Demeter, M., & Istratii, R. (2020). Scrutinising what Open Access Journals Mean for Global Inequalities. Publishing Research Quarterly, 36(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-020-09771-9

Di Zio, M., Liseo, B., & Ranalli, M. G. (2024). Bayesian Ideas in Survey Sampling: The Legacy of Basu. Sankhya A, 86(Suppl 1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13171-023-00327-5

Ellers, J., Crowther, T. W., & Harvey, J. A. (2017). Gold open access publishing in mega-journals: Developing countries pay the price of western premium academic output. In Journal of Scholarly Publishing (Vol. 49, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.49.1.89

Fuchs, C., & Sandoval, M. (2013). The diamond model of open access publishing: Why policy makers, scholars, universities, libraries, labour unions and the publishing world need to take non-commercial, non-profit open access serious. TripleC, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.31269/vol11iss2pp428-443

Greussing, E., Kuballa, S., Taddicken, M., Schulze, M., Mielke, C., & Haux, R. (2020). Drivers and obstacles of open access publishing. A qualitative investigation of individual and institutional factors. Frontiers in Communication, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.587465

Grossmann, A., & Brembs, B. (2021). Current market rates for scholarly publishing services [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 10(20). https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.27468.2

Halevi, G., Sánchez-Jiménez, R., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & De-Moya-anegón, F. (2024). Estimating the Financial Value of Scientific Journals and APCs using Visibility Factors: A New Methodological Approach. Profesional de La Informacion, 33(5). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2024.0512

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. In Nature (Vol. 520, Issue 7548). https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a

Ikokoh, C. E., & Ikokoh, D. P. (2026). Open access publishing and research dissemination in developing countries: Evolution, impact, problems and prospects. Journal of Library Services and Technologies, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.47524/jlst.v7i4.155

Ili, B. (2025). Academic Quality or Commercial Concern? The Role of APCs in Open-Access Communication Studies Journals. TripleC, 23(1), 74–93. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v23i1.1547

Jama, J. M. (2025). Why Diamond Open Access in the Global South? Dhaxalreeb, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.13169/dhaxalreeb.21.2.0013

Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. John Wiley & Sons.

Kumar, A., Pandey, D., Srivastava, L., & Srivastava, S. (2024). Measures to Protect Ethical Publications Getting Trapped Under Unethical Practices: Preying by Predatory Journals. Springer International Handbooks of Education, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3895-7_64-1

Kwon, D. (2022). Open-access publishing fees deter researchers in the global south. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00342-w

Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS ONE, 10(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

Macdonald, S. (2025). The Scandal of Academic Publishing. Publishing Research Quarterly, 41(3–4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-025-10042-8

Martínez-Saldarriaga, J., Henao-Rojas, J. C., Flórez-Martínez, D. H., Cadena-Chamorro, E. M., & Yepes-Betancur, D. P. (2025). Methodological framework for supporting phytochemical bioprospecting re-search: A case study on carrot (Daucus carota L.) crop by-products. Heliyon, 11(3), e41822. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e41822

Martínez Galindo, F. J., Fernández-Burguete, S., & Rubio, F. J. (2023). Present and future of transformative agreements in Spain. Hipertext.Net, 0(27 SE-Articles. Monograph), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.31009/hipertext.net.2023.i27.09

Martinino, A., Campagnoli, G., Dallavalle, S., Soto, A., Pouwels, S., & Smeenk, F. (2024). Investigating Country-Specific Perceptions of Predatory Journals and Their Impact on Scholarly Integrity: A Systematic Review. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.64674

Memon, A. R. (2019). Dealing with predatory publishing is a shared responsibility: The role of Latin American journals. In Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias (Vol. 91, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201920180631

Muñoz-Vélez, H., Pallares, C., Echavarría, A. F., Contreras, J., Pavas, A., Bello, D., Rendón, C., Calderón-Rojas, J., & Garzón, F. (2024). Strategies for Negotiating and Signing Transformative Agreements in the Global South: The Colombia Consortium Experience. Journal of Library Administration, 64(1), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2023.2287945

Nejadghanbar, H., & Hu, G. (2022). Where predatory and mainstream journals differ: A study of language and linguistics journals. Learned Publishing, 35(4), 574–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1485

Nicholas, D., Revez, J., Abrizah, A., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Clark, D., Xu, J., Swigon, M., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H. R., & Herman, E. (2024). Purchase and publish: Early career researchers and open access publishing costs. Learned Publishing, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1617

Packer, A. L., Biojone, M. R., Antonio, I., Takemaka, R. M., García, A. P., Silva, A. C. Da, Murasaki, R. T., Mylek, C., Reis, O. C., & Delbucio, H. C. R. F. (2001). SciELO: Una metodología para la publicación electrónica. ACIMED, 9(SUPPL. 4). https://doi.org/10.1590/s1135-57272001000400004

Pinfield, S., & Johnson, R. (2018). Adoption of open access is rising – but so too are its costs. LSE Impact Blog.

Porter, A. L. (2005). QTIP: Quick technology intelligence processes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(9), 1070–1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2004.10.007

Ruggiero, A. (2023). The price of quality: Scholarly publishing business is the primary predictor of citation-based indicators of journal performance in ecology and evolutionary biology. Research Evaluation, 32(2), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad012

SCImago. (2016). SJR - SCImago Journal & Country Rank. SJR - SCImago Journal & Country Rank.

Smith, A. C., Merz, L., Borden, J. B., Gulick, C. K., Kshirsagar, A. R., & Bruna, E. M. (2022). Assessing the effect of article processing charges on the geographic diversity of authors using Elsevier’s “Mirror Journal” system. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(4), 1123–1143. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00157

Talbott, J. A. (2016). Salami Slicing, Duplicative Publication, and Data Set Utilization: Where to Draw the Line. In Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (Vol. 204, Issue 11). https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000630

van Bellen, S., Alperin, J. P., & Larivière, V. (2025). Scholarly publishing’s hidden diversity: How exclusive databases sustain the oligopoly of academic publishers. PLOS ONE, 20(6), e0327015. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327015

van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

van Norden, R. (2013). The true cost of science publishing: Cheap open-access journals raise questions about the value publishers add for their money. Nature, 495((7442)).

Wexler, E. (2015). What Open-Access Publishing Actually Costs. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Williams, J. W., Taylor, A., Tolley, K. A., Provete, D. B., Correia, R., Guedes, T. B., Farooq, H., Li, Q., Pinheiro, H. T., Liz, A. V., Luna, L. W., Matthews, T. J., Palmeirim, A. F., Puglielli, G., Rivadeneira, M. M., Robin, V. V., Schrader, J., Shestakova, T. A., Tukiainen, H., … Zizka, A. (2023). Shifts to open access with high article processing charges hinder research equity and careers. In Journal of Biogeography (Vol. 50, Issue 9). https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.14697

Zarif, A. (2023). The Economics of Scientific Publishing. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 96(2). https://doi.org/10.59249/OMSP9618

Zedda, M. (2025). Making open access: History, developments and new challenges; [Fare open access: storia, sviluppi e nuove sfide]. Recenti Progressi in Medicina, 116(2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1701/4450.44440