In einem seltenen Zeichen der Einigkeit verschärfen die US-Gesetzgeber die Kontrolle wissenschaftlicher Veröffentlichungspraktiken. In einer Anhörung vor dem Kongress ging es um den Aufstieg der Papierfabriken und die Kosten der Open-Access-Veröffentlichung – es herrschte jedoch wenig Einigkeit darüber, was die Reform mit sich bringen würde.

>From ‘paper mills’ that [sell authorships](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01824-3) on fake or low-quality research papers to the costs associated with open-access publishing, US lawmakers are paying increasing attention to widely-debated issues in scientific publishing. In a rare show of unity, members of the US House of Representatives from both sides of the political aisle agreed at a hearing that these issues deserve more attention from government — but there was less unity on what the solutions should be.

>The hearing, on 15 April, was run by the the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee of the US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. It addressed a provision in the [US government’s proposed 2027 budget](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/budget_fy2027.pdf) that would prohibit researchers and universities from spending federal funds on “expensive subscriptions” to academic journals and “prohibitively high” publishing fees.

>These fees became common as funders, such as the[ US National Institutes of Health (NIH](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01938-8)), stepped up the pressure on grant recipients to make peer-reviewed papers either free to read, or fully open access, as soon as they are published. This prompted some publishers that rely on journal subscriptions for revenue to offer open-access publishing options — and to charge fees to publish articles through this route.

>Journals say that these [article processing charges (APCs](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03506-4)) are necessary to cover the costs of evaluating and publishing papers. But critics, [including the NIH](https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-138.html), say that APCs can be a problem because they reduce the amount of funding available for research. APCs typically cost between US$1,000 and $5,000, or nearly $13,000 to publish in *Nature* and some of its affiliated journals.

Here’s an excerpt of the story. I’m the reporter who wrote the story. Note that *Nature*’s news team is editorially independent of its journals team and its publisher, Springer Nature. As always, I’m keen to hear if there’s anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.