Examining Journal Subscription Costs Across Universities and Publishers

Examining Journal Subscription Costs Across Universities and Publishers

Few topics generate as much quiet frustration within universities as the cost of academic journal subscriptions. For decades, libraries have struggled with rising prices while simultaneously facing shrinking budgets, increasing student demand and the widening expectation of digital access. Scholars across disciplines have expressed concern that subscription fees—especially for journals published by large for-profit firms—bear little relationship to the real costs of producing scholarly content. But a growing body of research suggests that the situation may be even more inequitable than previously understood.

A recent study, reported by The Guardian and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), sheds further light on how journal pricing works behind the scenes. It reveals hidden contracts, nondisclosure agreements and significant discrepancies in what universities pay for identical bundles of electronic journals. The findings raise important questions about fairness, transparency and sustainability in scholarly communication.

1. Why Journal Prices Are So High

Academic journals have always been costly, and several structural factors explain why. Large commercial publishers control many of the most prestigious journals—titles that faculty rely on for career advancement, grant applications and academic credibility. These publishers typically bundle journals into large subscription packages, requiring universities to purchase entire collections rather than individual titles. This bundling system dramatically increases costs and makes it difficult for institutions to disengage from expensive contracts.

At the same time, the value of journals to universities has increased. Electronic access allows multiple users simultaneously, supports remote learning and plays an essential role in research productivity. Students and faculty expect comprehensive digital access, which pressures libraries to maintain or expand subscriptions even when budgets are strained.

Yet the profits earned by for-profit publishers—often exceeding 30% annually—prompt frequent criticism. Much of the labour that makes journals possible (writing, peer review, editorial input) is performed by academics who are not paid by publishers. Because universities supply both the content and the readership, many ask whether the pricing structures are fair.

2. What the PNAS Study Reveals

The PNAS study addressed a major obstacle to understanding subscription costs: publishers rarely disclose prices. Many contracts include strict nondisclosure clauses, preventing libraries from sharing information about what they pay. As a result, universities have little basis for negotiating or comparing prices.

To overcome this barrier, researchers filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to obtain pricing contracts from public universities in the United States. The results were striking. Institutions that appeared similar in size, research activity or academic profile sometimes paid dramatically different prices for identical electronic journal bundles.

Even more concerning, for-profit publishers consistently charged higher prices and delivered lower value—as measured by a cost-per-citation metric—than non-profit scholarly societies. Although cost-per-citation is an imperfect tool, the broad pattern reveals meaningful differences: non-profit publishers generally provided more content and greater research value for every dollar spent.

3. Variations in Pricing Across Institutions

The study found that subscription fees varied widely, even among universities purchasing identical bundles. Some institutions with large enrolments and high doctoral production paid less than smaller, less research-intensive schools. In some cases, universities secured favourable pricing through negotiation. Others, unaware that negotiation was possible or lacking leverage, simply accepted the publisher’s initial pricing.

This lack of transparency creates an uneven playing field. Wealthy universities or those with experienced library negotiators may secure lower prices, while smaller institutions end up paying disproportionately more. Because the contracts are confidential, institutions cannot benchmark their costs or push for equitable pricing.

The result is a market in which different universities pay vastly different amounts for the same product—an unusual situation compared with most consumer markets, where buyers can compare prices openly.

4. Consequences for Libraries, Researchers and Students

High journal subscription costs have far-reaching effects across academic ecosystems. University libraries often find themselves forced to make difficult choices: reduce the number of journal packages, negotiate lower-cost tiers that limit access or reallocate funds from other areas such as monograph purchases, special collections or student support services.

When libraries reduce journal access, the quality of teaching and research suffers. Students lose access to cutting-edge scholarship, graduate researchers face barriers when conducting literature reviews and faculty members may not have the breadth of sources needed for publication-quality work. In disciplines that rely heavily on current research—such as STEM fields—these limitations directly affect academic productivity and competitiveness.

The impact extends to students, who are already burdened by rising tuition fees and living costs. Cuts to library resources can affect their learning experience, especially in research-intensive programmes. Ironically, universities that pay more for journal access may be forced to compensate by raising student fees or cutting other services, placing the financial strain on individuals least able to absorb it.

5. Market Dynamics and the Role of Prestige

The pricing power of large commercial publishers is reinforced by the academic prestige economy. Because journals are tied to hiring, promotion and tenure decisions, institutions feel pressure to subscribe to “must-have” titles. Scholars likewise feel pressure to publish in these journals, reinforcing demand.

This dynamic means that publishers can continue raising prices because libraries cannot realistically cancel subscriptions without undermining scholarship on their campuses. The result is a market imbalance where publishers face little risk of losing customers, regardless of price increases.

In contrast, non-profit publishers—often scholarly societies—tend to reinvest subscription revenue into research communities, conferences and member services. Their pricing structures tend to be more transparent and aligned with academic values, yet they often receive less attention than high-prestige commercial titles.

6. Potential Solutions and Paths Forward

Various strategies have been proposed to address journal pricing inequities, though most are difficult to implement at scale. One option is universal open access, which would remove paywalls and make research freely available. However, implementing open access globally requires coordinated funding structures, shared agreement among publishers and major cultural shifts in academic publishing.

Some scholars advocate boycotting high-cost commercial journals in favour of lower-cost, non-profit alternatives. While symbolically powerful, such boycotts have limited impact unless adopted widely across disciplines and institutions.

Another proposal involves compensating universities for the peer review and editorial labour that faculty provide. Because publishers benefit directly from unpaid academic work, compensating this labour could help balance the economic model. But the change would fundamentally alter the publishing ecosystem and require collective action across institutions.

A more achievable immediate solution is greater pricing transparency. If nondisclosure clauses were removed—or prohibited—universities could compare contract terms openly, negotiate more effectively and push for rational pricing. Public knowledge of subscription costs could help prevent the most extreme discrepancies and encourage publishers to adopt fairer pricing structures.

7. Fair Pricing as a Matter of Academic Equity

The question of whether journal prices are fair extends beyond budgetary concerns. It affects who has access to knowledge and which institutions can participate fully in global research networks. When smaller or less wealthy universities pay disproportionately more, disparities widen. Students at well-funded universities enjoy full access to journal databases, while students at underfunded institutions may face barriers that limit their education and career prospects.

Ensuring equitable access to scholarship is fundamental to the mission of higher education. Transparent and reasonable journal pricing supports that mission by helping universities allocate resources fairly and sustain broad access to research.

Final Thoughts

Institutional journal pricing remains an opaque and often inequitable system. While commercial publishers provide valuable services and distribute high-impact research, their pricing structures frequently lack transparency and fairness. As long as nondisclosure clauses conceal contract details, universities will struggle to negotiate equitable rates or challenge unjustified price increases.

A more transparent system would not solve every publishing challenge, but it would move universities closer to an environment where scholarly communication supports—rather than strains—research, teaching and student success. By promoting fairness and clarity, universities and publishers can work together to uphold the academic community’s shared commitment to disseminating research widely and responsibly.

For authors seeking to prepare research for journals—whether commercial or non-profit—our journal article editing service and manuscript editing service can help ensure your work is clear, polished and publication-ready.