[vinni2]

While it is free for readers, authors or author institutions still need to pay to publish the papers.

> Authors from institutions not participating in ACM Open will need to pay an APC to publish their papers, unless they qualify for a financial or discretionary waiver. To find out whether an APC applies to your article, please consult the list of participating institutions in ACM Open and review the APC Waivers and Discounts Policy. Keep in mind that waivers are rare and are granted based on specific criteria set by ACM.

https://cc.acm.org/2026/open-access/

[random3]

Given the current trends in publishing "productivity" that may not be a bad thing.

[pm90]

Is that … a bad thing? I know that peer reviewing takes time (although iirc journals don’t pay reviewers). And there is overhead around publishing which needs to be covered somehow.

[shellac]

Academic publishing is _notoriously_ profitable. Authorship and the bulk of the editorial process is done by others for free, and these days you often aren't even creating a physical copy. Their overheads are really pretty minimal. What the money (subscriptions and / or APCs) gets is the kudos associated with the publication.

It is reasonable to say: well if they aren't providing anything of value then the market ought to bypass them. The reality is that the publishers have been very canny in protecting their position, and sharp practice is rife.

[ufo]

They charge a substantial premium for that service. The open access publication fees are typically hundreds or even thousands of dollars per article.

There are other platforms that can offer a similar service for much cheaper, but scientists incentivised to publish on established journals that have a higher impact metrics.

[azan_]

Very bad. APC fees typically are much larger than overhead of publishing and publishers have extreme profit margins.