India’s Research Publishing In The Era Of Open Access
India ranks third globally in research output, but excessive focus on quantity over quality threatens research integrity and innovation.
Published : November 17, 2025 at 6:30 AM IST
India’s research ecosystem stands at a defining moment. The country now ranks third globally in the number of research publications, a remarkable achievement that signals expanding participation in higher education and R&D. Yet, behind these impressive figures lies an uncomfortable truth: the relentless pursuit of quantity has begun to eclipse quality.
The growing pressure to publish, often driven by institutional and regulatory incentives, has created distortions in the academic landscape. The result is a proliferation of papers that may satisfy numerical targets but do little to advance knowledge or innovation. For India to emerge as a true global research power, it must address the twin challenges of ensuring research integrity and enabling equitable access to quality publication avenues, challenges now made more complex by the commercial dynamics of open access publishing.
The burden of metrics
The Academic Performance Indicator (API) system introduced by the University Grants Commission (UGC) was intended to encourage scholarship and performance-based evaluation. However, in practice, it has fostered a “publish or perish” culture that rewards volume over value. Many researchers, pressed to meet numerical targets for promotions or grants, resort to practices like “salami slicing”, dividing a single study into multiple smaller papers or publishing in dubious journals that offer rapid publication with minimal peer review.
Such practices dilute scientific credibility and divert attention from the more meaningful pursuit of discovery and impact. The problem is not unique to India, but its effects are more pronounced in a developing country where institutional support systems, mentoring, and research ethics training are still evolving. The issue now intersects with a new global trend, the rise of Article Processing Charges (APCs) in open access publishing.
The open access paradox
Open access (OA) publishing was born out of a noble idea: to make scientific knowledge freely available to everyone. Unlike traditional subscription-based models where readers or institutions pay to access journals, OA shifts the cost to the authors or their funders. Authors pay an APC to make their paper freely accessible to the public.
In principle, this model democratizes access to knowledge. But in practice, it has created new inequities, especially between researchers in wealthy countries and those in the developing world. APCs vary widely across journals and publishers. For reputable, high-impact journals published by major international houses, the APC can range from US$2,000 to US$10,000 (₹1.7–8.5 lakh) per paper.
Even mid-tier journals often charge US$1,000–2,000, a sum that is prohibitive for most researchers in India, whose project grants are modest and often do not include publication costs. For an Indian researcher working with a grant of ₹20–30 lakh over three years, publishing just a few papers in top-tier open access journals could consume a significant share of the research budget, an unsustainable proposition, even if it is permitted in the project.
The commercial angle
The open access model has inadvertently transformed scholarly publishing into a multi-billion-dollar global industry. Major publishers have successfully replaced subscription revenue with APC income, while maintaining high profit margins. The growing number of fully open-access and hybrid journals (which charge APCs even when subscriptions exist) has created what critics describe as a “pay-to-publish” environment. This commercialisation has raised concerns about whether the ability to pay, rather than scientific merit, is beginning to influence what gets published and where. Wealthy institutions and research groups in developed countries can afford to publish in elite journals, maintaining visibility and prestige, while those in developing nations risk being pushed to the margins.
At the other end of the spectrum, predatory publishers have exploited the APC model by setting up journals that promise quick acceptance and publication for a fee, without meaningful peer review. These “journals” often have misleading titles that mimic legitimate ones, misleading young or inexperienced researchers. The combination of publish-or-perish pressure and unaffordable APCs has created fertile ground for such exploitative outlets.
Affordability and equity
For developing countries like India, the issue of affordability is central to the sustainability of open access publishing. Unlike researchers in Europe or the United States, Indian academics rarely have institutional or national mechanisms to cover APCs. Most universities do not have publication funds, and research grants often exclude APC support. This inequality leads to a paradoxical situation: Indian researchers may conduct high-quality work but struggle to publish it in visible international platforms due to financial constraints. Consequently, they may resort to lower-tier journals with minimal charges or, worse, predatory outlets that compromise credibility.
In contrast, many European nations have institutional arrangements to address this. For example, Germany’s Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) co-funds publication costs through institutional grants; the Netherlands and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) have national agreements with publishers to integrate APCs into research budgets. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) allow APCs as legitimate grant expenses.
In Asia, similar practices are emerging. Japan’s JST and JSPS include APCs in research grants and promote institutional OA policies; Taiwan and Singapore provide limited institutional-level APC support, while South Korea’s National Research Foundation allows grant-based APC coverage and encourages national publisher agreements.
Against this backdrop, India’s “One Nation One Subscription (ONOS)” initiative to support APC for the articles published in a selected list of fully OA journals represents a landmark, centrally coordinated model. A forward-looking component of ONOS is its central funding of ₹150 crore annually to meet APCs for Indian researchers publishing in a curated list of high-quality OA journals.
This provision directly addresses a persistent obstacle: while open access enhances visibility and impact, the high APCs, often several thousand dollars, have remained unaffordable for most researchers. The challenge, however, lies in maintaining transparent journal selection, monitoring research integrity, and ensuring that quality, not quantity, defines India’s expanding scientific footprint.
Rethinking what counts as quality
While the economics of publishing need reform, the cultural dimension is equally critical. India’s academic evaluation systems must evolve to reward originality, rigour, and societal impact rather than sheer numbers. Universities should move away from counting papers and instead assess contributions based on citation quality, reproducibility, innovation, and relevance.
A few promising steps are visible. The UGC and several science ministries have begun discussions on revising evaluation criteria to discourage publication in questionable journals and to promote quality-based assessment. But systemic change requires more than policy. It demands a mindset shift from “publish more” to “publish meaningfully.”
Ethical training and mentorship should become integral to research education. Institutional ethics committees and research integrity offices must be strengthened to prevent plagiarism, ghost authorship, and data manipulation. Universities could also create publication support offices that guide scholars toward legitimate journals and help navigate the complex OA landscape.
Towards a balanced ecosystem
The global research community is already experimenting with alternatives to the high-APC model. Some leading universities are establishing “diamond open access” platforms, journals that are both free to read and free to publish in, funded through consortia, philanthropic support, or public funding. Initiatives such as SciELO (Latin America) and Open Library of Humanities (UK) demonstrate that equitable and sustainable OA publishing is possible without shifting the burden entirely onto authors.
India, with its large public university system and national R&D agencies, is well placed to explore similar models, perhaps through consortia that negotiate collective publishing rights with major publishers, or by strengthening domestic journals that follow ethical, low-cost OA practices. The real goal should not be to publish more papers but to publish better science. True progress will come when every research output reflects careful inquiry, transparency, and purpose, not institutional compulsion.
A call for quality-driven reform
As India aspires toward Viksit Bharat @2047, its scientific advancement must rest on integrity, openness, and excellence. OA publishing holds the promise of democratising knowledge, but without addressing the affordability gap and commercial distortions, it risks deepening inequality in global science.
Reforming research evaluation, providing support for ethical and affordable publishing, and cultivating a culture that values depth over quantity are now national imperatives. India’s future as a knowledge leader will depend not on how many papers its scholars produce, but on how profoundly their work transforms understanding, policy, and society.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of ETV Bharat)
Also Read
