Council of Australian University Librarians and Open Access Australasia Statement on
the American Chemical Society’s new Article Development Charges
9 October 2023
The Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) and Open Access Australasia wish to express
our joint concerns over the recent introduction of the Article Development Charge (ADC) model by
the American Chemical Society (ACS). At the heart of CAUL's mission is the commitment to facilitate
connection and collaboration, and optimise collective knowledge, expertise, and resources, toachieve strategic outcomes at scale in priority areas for the university library sector. As an advocacyorganisation for Open Access, Open Access Australasia is committed to working towards diverse
approaches to open access that support equity – both to read and publish research. We believe thatthe equitable pursuit of knowledge and its dissemination should be at the core of any scholarly
publication model.
While we recognise that publishers need to evolve in the changing landscape of scholarly
communication, the current ADC approach taken by ACS raises serious concerns:•Undermining Open Access Transition: The ADC model, as presented, appears to divert fromthe broader scholarly community's ambition of transitioning towards a sustainable andequitable open access publishing system. Charging authors to make their unpublishedmanuscripts immediately accessible in repositories, while still placing the Version of Record
behind paywalls, is contrary to the aims and principles of Open Access and the importantrole of repositories.

•"Double Dipping" Concerns: By charging an ADC for manuscripts which will eventuallyreside behind paywalls, ACS is charging the community twice for the same process. Under
this model, ACS are paid twice – once by authors (through the ADC) and again by subscribers(through subscription fees). This dual-revenue approach can only be interpreted as "doubledipping" and does not reflect a transparent, equitable or sustainable financial model for
scholarly communication.

•Inhibiting Equitable Access: The ADC model may further widen the divide between authors
at well-resourced institutions and authors who are not associated with these institutions,potentially inhibiting many authors from sharing their research immediately. While waivers
and discounts are mentioned, the broader implications of such financial barriers need to befully addressed.

•Questioning Value Proposition: The distinction between the costs covered by the ADC andthe traditional APC is not clear-cut, and the value proposition of the ADC to the scholarly
community remains ambiguous. ACS state that the ‘ADC covers the cost of ACS’ preacceptance publishing services, from initial submission through to the final editorial decision’.

Given that most editorial and peer-review work is undertaken by academics for free, andthat the broader costs of publication are covered by existing subscription costs, CAUL andOpen Access Australasia believes that the justification for this additional charge isunfounded.

•This ADC charge conflicts with Rights Retention policies of funders and institutions that
require researchers or institutions to not transfer copyright to publishers, and to retain
other rights enabling articles to be deposited in in repositories.

Chair of the CAUL Content Procurement Service, Hero Macdonald, states:“We value the importance of mission-based publishers in their role within the scholarly
communications ecosystem. However, the introduction of Article Development Charges on hybrid
journals is a concerning proposal that can only be interpreted as double-dipping by ACS. Libraries
already pay subscriptions for hybrid journals, which more than cover the cost of production. This is aconcerning new model that is clearly designed to further monetise our community’s commitment toequitable and sustainable open access and undermines what should be an essential right of authors
to deposit their unpublished manuscripts in institutional repositories for free without embargo. The
introduction of new charges like ADCs, and particularly those without clear justification ortransparency around pricing, simply seek to redirect public funds away from researchers andresearch institutions that should be used to support research itself. The continued attempts bycommercial publishers to monetise the Open Access movement at the expense of research needs tobe challenged.”
Kim Tairi, Chair of the Open Access Australasia Executive Committee said: “In attempting to impose acharge on the deposit of author accepted manuscripts to an institutional repository, it is very
disappointing that ACS have acted unilaterally without consultation with affected parties. Theiraction shows a lack of understanding of the role of repositories not only in providing access tocontent created by their researchers, but also in holding and preserving the institutional record ofuniversities. It fails to understand the potential effect on less resourced authors, institutions andcountries, potentially furthering already existing inequities. Such an approach contradicts theUNESCO Recommendation on Open Science which upholds both diversity and inclusivity in knowledge
creation and dissemination, a goal that cannot be attained if less affluent researchers andinstitutions are excluded from sharing the results of their research by imposing this additional fee. To
accept this practice from ACS would set a dangerous precedent for other publishers to follow.”
CAUL and Open Access Australasia firmly believe in fostering an environment where scholarly
research is not only accessible but can be shared widely without unnecessary financial burdens on
the researchers or institutions: where there is equity to both publish and read.
CAUL Members and others across the Australian scholarly community have expressed many
concerns in recent days, which are reflected in this statement. We urge ACS to reconsider thismodel, taking into account the broader implications for the academic community, especially thoseconcerning open access, transparency, and equity, and to support broader efforts to ensure authors
retain rights – at no cost – over their accepted manuscripts.
We remain committed to working with publishers, including ACS, to ensure that scholarly publishingmodels truly serve the needs of researchers, universities, and the wider community.

Contact:
Council of Australian University Librarians: Angus Cook, Director Content Procurement(angus.cook@caul.edu.au)
Open Access Australasia: Virginia Barbour, Director (director@oaaustralasia.org)