1. Introduction

The full-scale military invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, launched on 24 February 2022, has imposed unprecedented challenges on the Ukrainian scientific community. The destruction of infrastructure, the displacement of researchers, and the escalation of economic hardship have severely disrupted academic activities and research continuity [1]. Among the many consequences, the restriction of financial resources for research dissemination has emerged as one of the most critical barriers, limiting Ukrainian scholars’ ability to maintain their international visibility [2].

In this context, ensuring opportunities for Ukrainian researchers to publish their work has become essential for preserving and strengthening the country’s scientific capacity. However, access to publication venues, particularly in prestigious open access journals, is often contingent on the ability to pay article processing charges (APCs), which may present an additional barrier for researchers operating under severe financial constraints.

Another critical dimension influencing access to gold open access publishing is the growing market concentration among academic publishers. Gold Open Access (Gold OA) refers to a publishing model in which scholarly articles are made immediately and freely available by the publisher upon publication, without access restrictions or subscription fees. Unlike hybrid models, Gold OA applies to entire journals, where all content is accessible to readers at no cost. As described by Laakso et al. [3], this model has grown rapidly since the early 2000s and now encompasses a wide range of journals across disciplines and publishers, from small independent outlets to high-volume commercial platforms such as those owned by the “Big Five” academic publishers.

Recent analyses reveal that five major companies – Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE – dominate a substantial share of the scholarly publishing market [4]. These publishers are central proponents of the APC model, and their market power enables them to maintain high article processing charges across both gold and hybrid open access journals. Consequently, while APC waivers and support initiatives help to mitigate individual-level barriers, broader structural inequalities in the global academic publishing economy persist.

To better understand the nature of this challenge, it is necessary first to define the concept of Article Processing Charges (APCs) and examine how they create obstacles to equitable participation in gold open access publishing.

Article Processing Charges (APCs) refer to the fees charged by publishers to authors (or their institutions or funders) to make their research articles openly accessible immediately upon publication. This model of financing emerged in the early 2000s, aligned with the rise of the Open Access (OA) movement and the growing demand to remove subscription barriers that restricted access to scientific knowledge [5, 6]. Initially, pioneering OA publishers such as BioMed Central and the Public Library of Science (PLOS) introduced APCs as an alternative to subscription revenue [5]. The underlying idea was that in a digital environment where the marginal cost of distributing content approaches zero, shifting costs from readers to authors would democratize access to research [7].

However, although APCs successfully removed paywalls for readers, they simultaneously introduced a new barrier – the ability to publish became contingent upon the ability to pay. As Tenopir et al. [8] observed, while many authors recognize the benefits of OA for readership and visibility, there is widespread concern that APCs present significant obstacles, especially for researchers without institutional or grant support. Klebel and Ross-Hellauer [9] further demonstrate that APCs have stratified access to publishing opportunities, favouring researchers affiliated with well-resourced institutions and those based in wealthier countries. The introduction of APCs has thus shifted the axis of inequality in scholarly communication – from consumption (access to reading) to production (access to publishing) [10].

While average APCs for fully OA journals typically range between $1,000–$2,000 USD [6, 11], hybrid journals often charge significantly higher fees, exceeding $3,000 USD per article [12, 13]. Importantly, as Borrego [14] notes, the market dominance of major publishers has allowed APCs to remain high despite expectations that increased competition would drive prices down.

Recognizing the exclusionary potential of APCs, some publishers have introduced mechanisms such as fee waivers to assist authors from low- and middle-income countries [15]. Nevertheless, as discussed later, such initiatives only partially mitigate the systemic inequalities introduced by APC-based models. Thus, while APCs have opened new paths for making research outputs accessible to global audiences, they have also entrenched financial barriers at the point of authorship, raising new questions about equity in academic publishing.

Recognizing the financial obstacles faced by researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and the need to foster equitable participation in global scholarly communication, a number of initiatives have been developed to support access to scientific resources and to mitigate publication costs. One of the most prominent examples is Research4Life, a public-private partnership established in 2002 by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), in collaboration with over 200 international publishers [16, 17]. Research4Life targets institutions in countries classified as low- and lower-middle income based on World Bank economic indicators, the United Nations Least Developed Countries list, and the Human Development Index​. Institutions from eligible countries are divided into Group A (free access) and Group B (low-cost access).

In addition to facilitating reading access, Research4Life partner publishers and other major academic publishers responded to the humanitarian and research challenges arising from the full-scale war in Ukraine by introducing extraordinary temporary measures. Starting from 2022, many leading publishers – including Springer Nature, Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and others – implemented full APC waivers (100% discounts) for Ukrainian corresponding authors submitting to their gold and hybrid open access journals. These emergency policies are specifically designed to support Ukrainian researchers during wartime conditions, helping to maintain their ability to publish internationally despite disruptions to institutional operations, financial systems, and research funding streams.

Despite the existence of initiatives such as Research4Life and the emergency APC waivers introduced in response to the war in Ukraine, no comprehensive study to date has systematically assessed the actual impact of these policies on the publishing activity of Ukrainian researchers. While free access to reading materials and waived APCs can theoretically enhance research participation, the extent to which these measures have translated into increased publication outputs in gold open access journals remains unclear.

Moreover, it is not known whether the effects of publisher support have been uniform across disciplines, or whether differences exist between publishers in the scope and effectiveness of their waiver programs. In addition, while neighbouring countries such as Poland, Czechia, and Hungary did not experience wartime disruptions of comparable magnitude, comparative analysis is necessary to contextualize the trends observed in Ukraine.

To address these gaps, the present study is guided by the following research questions:

• Has the number and share of publications by Ukrainian authors in gold open access journals increased after 2022?

• Are there notable differences between publishers in terms of Ukrainian authors’ participation?

• Are there disciplinary patterns that influence the dynamics of Ukrainian open access publishing?

• How does the trajectory of Ukrainian gold open access publishing compare to that of neighbouring countries such as Poland, Czechia, and Hungary?

By answering these questions, this study aims to provide an evidence-based assessment of the real impact of APC waiver policies during crisis conditions, contributing to broader discussions on equity, resilience, and access in global scholarly communication.

2. Data and methods

The empirical analysis in this study is based on publication metadata extracted from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database, provided by Clarivate. WoS was selected due to several key strengths that ensure robust and reliable bibliometric data collection. First, WoS covers a comprehensive and carefully curated collection of peer-reviewed journals across all major scientific disciplines, providing consistent metadata necessary for comparative analyses. Second, WoS metadata includes reliable details regarding author affiliations, types of publication access (open vs. subscription-based), and publisher information. Third, this database allows for precise identification and filtering of fully Gold Open Access (OA) journals, which are central to the research objectives. Given these advantages, WoS represents an optimal source for addressing the proposed research questions.

To ensure relevance and comparability of collected data, several specific criteria were applied during data extraction:

• Publisher selection: The analysis is limited to journals published by the so-called “Big Five” academic publishers – Elsevier, Sage, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley. This choice reflects their substantial market share and influence on the scholarly publishing landscape, especially regarding the APC-based model [4].

• Open access status: Only fully Gold Open Access journals were selected. Unlike hybrid journals, fully Gold OA journals do not rely on subscriptions, thus guaranteeing unrestricted access to all published content and ensuring that authors must typically pay an Article Processing Charge (APC) unless eligible for a waiver.

• Publication timeframe: Publications within a six-year period (2019–2024) were selected. This interval allows assessment of publication dynamics both prior to and after the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, providing a sufficient baseline for identifying trends and shifts related to crisis-induced publisher waiver initiatives.

• Author affiliation: Articles were selected based on the country affiliation tag (CU=Ukraine) assigned by the Web of Science database. Due to metadata limitations in the exported records, it was not possible to systematically verify whether the first or corresponding author was affiliated with a Ukrainian institution. It was therefore assumed that Ukrainian-affiliated researchers played a primary role in these publications. This assumption should be considered when interpreting the results.

To contextualize the publication dynamics observed in Ukraine, the study includes a comparative analysis with three neighbouring countries: Poland, Czechia, and Hungary. These countries were selected based on their geographic proximity, historically similar scholarly communication patterns, and comparable socioeconomic contexts. Crucially, unlike Ukraine, these countries have not experienced active large-scale military conflict during the analysed period, thus serving as effective regional benchmarks for understanding the unique effects of crisis conditions on publication activity in Gold OA journals.

For each selected paper, the following metadata fields were systematically collected from the Web of Science: year of publication; publisher name; journal title; country affiliation tag assigned to the article; scientific discipline, classified according to the OECD fields of science classification. Using the standardized OECD classification allows consistent cross-disciplinary comparisons, helping identify potential differences in publication dynamics between various scientific fields.

Despite its strengths, this methodological approach has certain limitations. First, direct evidence of the usage of APC waivers by authors is not openly available through publication metadata, nor provided explicitly by publishers in their publicly accessible databases. Therefore, conclusions about waiver usage and impact are necessarily indirect, based primarily on observable trends – specifically, changes in the volume and share of publications in fully Gold OA journals by authors from Ukraine and comparative countries. Furthermore, the Web of Science export format does not consistently identify the corresponding author in bibliometric records. As a result, the analysis relied on the general country affiliation tag (CU=Ukraine) rather than direct authorship roles. While this approach ensures the inclusion of publications associated with Ukrainian institutions, it does not guarantee that the first or corresponding author was Ukrainian in every case.

In addition, while the Web of Science database is comprehensive, it does not capture every scholarly publication globally; thus, the findings represent trends within indexed journals rather than the complete spectrum of publication activity. Nevertheless, considering WoS’s extensive indexing policies and the dominance of the selected publishers in international scholarly communication, the results obtained through this methodology can reliably reflect broader patterns and shifts relevant to the study’s objectives.

3. Results

3.1. Overall publication dynamics (2019–2024)

The annual number of publications authored by Ukrainian researchers in fully Gold Open Access journals published by the five largest academic publishers (Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE) demonstrates a clear upward trend over the 2019–2024 period (Figure 1). While the output remained relatively stable between 2019 and 2022 – fluctuating between 344 and 380 articles per year – a sharp increase was observed starting in 2023.

Specifically, the number of publications rose from 376 in 2022 to 572 in 2023, representing a year-over-year increase of 52.1%. This growth continued into 2024, reaching 643 publications, which marks a further increase of 12.4% compared to 2023. These shifts contrast with the relatively stable pre-war baseline and suggest a marked rise in publication activity during the post-2022 period.

3.2. Publisher-specific trends

A breakdown of Ukrainian-authored Gold Open Access publications across the five major academic publishers reveals notable disparities in their relative contributions (Table 1). Over the entire period from 2019 to 2024, Springer Nature accounted for the highest number of publications (1,204 articles), followed by Elsevier with 1,013 publications. Together, these two publishers represented the vast majority of Ukrainian Gold OA output in the selected journals.

While Wiley contributed only modestly between 2019 and 2022, its role expanded significantly in 2023 and 2024, with 65 and 94 publications respectively, suggesting a growing importance in recent years. In contrast, Taylor & Francis and SAGE maintained consistently low publication volumes throughout the period, with totals of 94 and 89 articles, respectively.

3.3. Disciplinary profile: Top-10 research areas

The disciplinary distribution of Ukrainian Gold Open Access publications from 2019 to 2024 is shown in Figure 2. As expected, Physics consistently dominates the output across all years, while other disciplines exhibit varying temporal patterns.

In particular, General Internal Medicine, Oncology, and Surgery show a marked increase in publication volume during 2023 and 2024, likely reflecting shifts in scientific priorities in response to public health and wartime medical challenges. Similar trends are observed in Materials Science and Electrical Engineering, which show increasing activity in recent years – potentially linked to post-war reconstruction and technological resilience.

3.4. Comparative perspective: Ukraine and neighbouring countries

The number of Gold Open Access publications in the selected five countries – Ukraine, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania – reveals differing trends between 2019 and 2024 (Figure 3). Throughout the period, Poland consistently exhibited the highest volume of publications, followed by the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania. Ukraine, in contrast, maintained the lowest total publication count across all years.

However, a marked upward trajectory is evident in the Ukrainian data from 2022 onward. Between 2022 and 2023, the number of Ukrainian publications increased by over 50%, followed by continued growth in 2024. This trend is notably steeper than in the comparison countries, all of which experienced relatively stable or incremental increases over the same period. The sharp rise in Ukraine’s output may correspond to targeted publisher support initiatives – particularly APC waiver programs implemented in response to wartime conditions.

4. Discussion  

4.1. Interpreting the rise in Gold OA journals

The analysis reveals a substantial increase in the number of publications by Ukrainian researchers in fully Gold Open Access journals of the five largest academic publishers after 2022. This shift departs notably from the relatively stable publication output observed between 2019 and 2021, and appears temporally aligned with the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022.

Although causality cannot be definitively established, the data suggest that this rise was likely driven by a combination of factors. Most notably, several major publishers introduced or expanded Article Processing Charge (APC) waiver initiatives specifically targeting authors affiliated with Ukrainian institutions. Programs such as Research4Life and publisher-specific 100% APC waivers played a central role in removing financial barriers for Ukrainian authors at a time when institutional support for publication costs was severely constrained.

In addition to formal waiver mechanisms, more flexible editorial policies, including expedited review processes and reduced documentation requirements, may have further contributed to increased accessibility. Finally, an overarching sense of international academic solidarity, coupled with an international drive to sustain Ukrainian scholarship under extraordinary conditions, likely, helped Ukrainian authors overcome logistical and procedural obstacles to publish in high-visibility Open Access venues.

4.2. Alternative or complementary drivers

While APC-waiver programs appear to have facilitated publication access for Ukrainian authors during wartime, they are unlikely to be the sole explanation for the observed increase in Gold Open Access output. Other mechanisms of support, including emergency research grants, international partnerships, and humanitarian academic programs, may also have played a critical role. In particular, some Ukrainian researchers benefited from externally funded projects that either directly covered APCs or enabled participation in collaborative work where costs were absorbed by foreign institutions.

Moreover, previous studies indicate that authors from low- and middle-income countries, including Ukraine, often choose to publish in Gold OA journals even in the absence of full APC waivers. This behaviour is motivated not only by the need for open dissemination but also by strategic considerations such as journal indexation status, impact factor visibility, and rapid time-to-publication. As shown by [18], Ukrainian authors have increasingly favoured MDPI journals, which, despite not offering comprehensive APC discounts for Ukraine, continue to attract submissions due to their operational efficiency and international visibility. Nazarovets [19] similarly documents a sustained increase in Gold OA publishing from Ukraine in high-output commercial journals, highlighting that waiver availability is a significant, but not exclusive, driver of publishing decisions. Notably, MDPI journals were not included in the present dataset, further underscoring the broad appeal of Gold OA publishing for Ukrainian researchers beyond publisher-provided waivers.

These findings underscore the importance of viewing the recent growth in Ukrainian Gold OA publications through a multi-causal lens, acknowledging both structural incentives and individual-level publication strategies.

4.3. Awareness and institutional support

Although APC-waiver initiatives were introduced by multiple publishers in response to the wartime disruption of Ukrainian academia, their effectiveness depends not only on formal availability but also on institutional mediation and researcher awareness. Many Ukrainian institutions lack dedicated administrative units or trained personnel to assist researchers with navigating waiver application procedures, interpreting eligibility criteria, or advocating on behalf of authors. As a result, even where waivers exist, they may remain underutilized or inaccessible to the majority of potential beneficiaries.

However, a deeper structural issue goes beyond the publication phase itself. Submitting an article to a Gold Open Access journal represents the final step of a long research cycle – one that presupposes access to funding, laboratory infrastructure, fieldwork capacity, and stable academic employment. For many Ukrainian scholars, especially those working in conflict-affected regions or under resource-depleted conditions, the core challenge is not merely covering APCs, but producing research that meets the methodological and empirical standards required by high-impact journals. In this context, APC discounts, while valuable, are insufficient in the absence of broader systemic reforms. These include sustained international support for postwar reconstruction, institutional integrity, academic freedom, and targeted investment in scientific infrastructure.

Thus, meaningful inclusion of Ukrainian researchers in the global Open Access ecosystem will require not only publisher-level waivers, but also comprehensive policies that address the full research lifecycle – from idea to publication.

4.4. Methodological limitations

Several methodological limitations should be acknowledged when interpreting the findings of this study. First, it was not possible to directly verify whether individual publications were supported by APC-waivers. Publishers do not disclose waiver status at the article level, and such information is typically not captured in bibliometric databases. As a result, conclusions about the influence of waiver programs remain inferential, based on temporal correlations and aggregate patterns.

Second, the Web of Science Core Collection does not reliably identify the corresponding author in its metadata exports. Although the dataset was filtered using the affiliation tag CU=Ukraine, this approach cannot fully confirm whether the first or corresponding author was Ukrainian in each case, especially in multi-authored international collaborations.

Third, the analysis was restricted to fully Gold Open Access journals published by the five largest academic publishers. While this selection captures a substantial portion of the global APC-based Open Access ecosystem, it excludes diamond OA journals and non-commercial platforms, which may play an important role in regions with constrained research funding.

Finally, the study covers a six-year time frame (2019–2024), which allows for the identification of short-term trends, especially those related to crisis response. However, it remains to be seen whether the observed growth in Ukrainian Gold OA output is sustainable over the long term, or whether it reflects a temporary peak driven by exceptional circumstances.

5. Conclusions

This study shows that the number of publications by Ukrainian researchers in fully Gold Open Access journals of the five largest academic publishers has markedly increased after the onset of the full-scale war in 2022. While this growth is likely influenced by publisher-led APC-waiver initiatives targeting authors from Ukraine, the broader picture suggests a more complex interplay of factors, including international grants, collaborative projects, and institutional pressures to publish in visible, indexed venues.

These findings underline the potential of targeted support mechanisms during crises but also reveal the structural inequalities inherent in the APC-based model. Greater transparency in waiver policies and better dissemination of available support are needed. Future research should expand this analysis to other countries, incorporate non-commercial OA models, and explore author-level motivations through survey-based approaches. Strengthening these pathways will be essential to ensure equitable and resilient scholarly communication in times of crisis.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank all Ukrainian defenders for the possibility to finalize and publish this work.

Data availability

The dataset supporting the findings of this study is openly available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15450551

Competing interests

The author does not have any competing interests.

Funding statement

This study was not supported by any sponsor or funder.

References

1. Nazarovets M, Teixeira da Silva JA. Scientific publishing sanctions in response to the Russo‐Ukrainian war. Learn Publ. 2022;35(4):658–670. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1487

2. Gaind N, Abbott A, Witze A, Gibney E, Tollefson J, Irwin A, et al. Seven ways the war in Ukraine is changing global science. Nature. 2022;607(7919):440–443. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01960-0

3. Laakso M, Welling P, Bukvova H, Nyman L, Björk B-C, Hedlund T. The development of Open Access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(6):e20961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961

4. Butler L-A, Matthias L, Simard M-A, Mongeon P, Haustein S. The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges. Quant Sci Stud. 2023;4(4):778–799. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272

5. Beasley G. Article processing charges: A new route to open access? Information Services and Use. 2016;36(3–4):163–170. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-160815

6. Solomon D, Björk B-C. Article processing charges for open access publication—the situation for research intensive universities in the USA and Canada. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2264. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2264

7. Green T. Is open access affordable? Why current models do not work and why we need internet‐era transformation of scholarly communications. Learn Publ. 2019;32(1):13–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1219

8. Tenopir C, Dalton E, Christian L, Jones M, McCabe M, Smith M, et al. Imagining a Gold Open Access Future: Attitudes, behaviors, and funding scenarios among authors of academic scholarship. Coll Res Libr. 2017;78(6). https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.6.824

9. Klebel T, Ross-Hellauer T. The APC-barrier and its effect on stratification in open access publishing. Quant Sci Stud. 2023;4(1):22–43. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00245

10. Halevi G, Walsh S. Faculty attitudes towards article processing charges for open access articles. Publ Res Q. 2021;37(3):384–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09820-x

11. Björk B-C, Solomon D. How research funders can finance APCs in full OA and hybrid journals. Learn Publ. 2014;27(2):93–103. https://doi.org/10.1087/20140203

12. Borrego Á, Anglada L, Abadal E. Transformative agreements: Do they pave the way to open access? Learn Publ. 2021;34(2):216–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1347

13. Budzinski O, Grebel T, Wolling J, Zhang X. Drivers of article processing charges in open access. Scientometrics. 2020;124(3):2185–2206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03578-3

14. Borrego Á. Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review. Learn Publ. 2023;36(3):359–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1558

15. Lawson S. Fee waivers for open access journals. Publications. 2015;3(3):155–167. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications3030155

16. Hill T. Research4Life: Landscape and situation analysis: Review. Learn Publ. 2021;34(3):468–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1367

17. Anyaoku EN, Anunobi CV. Measuring HINARI use in Nigeria through a citation analysis of Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice. Health Info Libr J. 2014;31(2):148–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12056

18. Damaševičius R, Zailskaitė-Jakštė L. The impact of a national crisis on research collaborations: A scientometric analysis of Ukrainian authors 2019–2022. Publications. 2023;11(3):42. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11030042

19. Nazarovets S. Paradoxical growth of publications by authors from developing countries in gold open access journals: A commentary on Dr. Cernat’s, 2024 article. Scientometrics. 2024;129(12):7981–7984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05186-x