Running head: APCS & AUTHOR DIVERSITY 1 1 Assessing the effect of article processing charges on the geographic diversity of authors using 2 Elsevier’s ‘Mirror Journal’ system ,1 ,1 1 1 3 Audrey C. Smith† , Leandra Merz† , Jesse B. Borden , Chris K. Gulick , Akhil R. 1 1 4 Kshirsagar , & Emilio M. Bruna 1 5 University of Florida 6 A preprint of this article has been posted at MetaArXiv Preprints 7 (osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/s7cx4). 8 ORCID: LM: 0000-0003-2356-7483 | EB: 0000-0003-3381-8477 | JB: 0000-0001-9413-9537 | 9 AS: 0000-0003-1278-8889 | AK: 0000-0001-5986-6608 | CG: 0000-0002-4482-711X | APCS & AUTHOR DIVERSITY 2 10 Author Note 11 A. C. Smith, L. Merz, & A. R. Kshirsagar: and Department of Geography, University 12 of Florida, PO Box 117315, Gainesville, Florida, 32611 USA J. B. Borden: School for 13 Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Florida, PO Box 116455, Gainesville, 14 Florida, 32611 USA C. Gulick: Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University 15 of Florida, PO Box 110430, Gainesville, Florida, 32611 USA E. M. Bruna: Department of 16 Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, PO Box 110430, Gainesville, 17 Florida, 32611 USA and Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida, PO Box 18 115530, Gainesville, Florida, 32611 USA 19 The authors made the following contributions. Audrey C. Smith: Methodology, 20 Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing - Original Draft Preparation, Writing - Review & 21 Editing; Leandra Merz: Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing - Original 22 Draft Preparation, Writing - Review & Editing; Jesse B. Borden: Methodology, Investigation, 23 Software, Formal analysis, Writing - Review & Editing; Chris K. Gulick: Methodology, 24 Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing - Review & Editing; Akhil R. Kshirsagar: 25 Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing - Review & Editing; Emilio M. Bruna: 26 Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Visualization, 27 Writing - Original Draft Preparation, Writing - Review & Editing, Project administration, 28 Supervision. † Audrey C. Smith and Leandra Merz contributed equally to this work. 29 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emilio M. Bruna, 30 Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida, PO Box 110530, Gainesville, 31 Florida, 32611-0530 USA. E-mail: embruna@ufl.edu APCS & AUTHOR DIVERSITY 3 32 Abstract 33 Journals publishing open access (OA) articles often require that authors pay article 34 processing charges (APC). Researchers in the Global South often cite APCs as a major 35 financial obstacle to OA publishing, especially in widely-recognized or prestigious outlets. 36 Consequently, it has been hypothesized that authors from the Global South will be 37 underrepresented in journals charging APCs. We tested this hypothesis using >37,000 38 articles from Elsevier’s ‘Mirror journal’ system, in which a hybrid ‘Parent’ journal and its 39 Gold-OA ‘Mirror’ share editorial boards and standards for acceptance. Most articles were 40 non-OA; 45% of articles had lead authors based in either the United States of America 41 (USA) or China. After correcting for the effect of this dominance and differences in sample 42 size, we found that OA articles published in Parent and Mirror journals had lead authors 43 with similar Geographic Diversity. However, Author Geographic Diversity of OA articles was 44 significantly lower than that of non-OA articles. Most OA articles were written by authors in 45 high-income countries, and there were no articles in Mirror journals by authors in 46 low-income countries. Our results for Elsevier’s Mirror-Parent system are consistent with the 47 hypothesis that APCs are a barrier to OA publication for scientists from the Global South. 48 Keywords: Open access, Global North, Global South, Gold OA, hybrid journals, Parent 49 journals, Simpson’s Index, waivers 50 Word count: 5301 APCS & AUTHOR DIVERSITY 4 51 Assessing the effect of article processing charges on the geographic diversity of authors using 52 Elsevier’s ‘Mirror Journal’ system 53 1 Introduction 54 Open Access articles can be read without payment or subscription to the journal in 55 which they were published, and the number of OA articles published annually continues to 56 grow dramatically (Piwowar et al., 2018). In addition to benefiting readers without access to 57 traditional subscription-based journals, open access (i.e., OA) publishing can also benefit an 58 article’s authors (reviewed in McKiernan et al., 2016; Tennant et al., 2016). For instance, 59 OA articles can garner more online views, have higher download rates, and accrue more 60 citations over time than articles in subscription outlets (Davis, 2011; Eysenbach, 2006; Wang, 61 Liu, Mao, & Fang, 2015). Metrics such as these are increasingly taken into consideration 62 when conducting performance evaluations of scientists, including the tenure and promotion 63 process in academic institutions (Schimanski & Alperin, 2018). Publishing OA articles can 64 therefore play an important role in a scientist’s professional advancement and status 65 (MacLeavy, Harris, & Johnston, 2020; McKiernan et al., 2016). These benefits may accrue 66 regardless of whether publishing in ‘Gold OA’ journals, where all articles are immediately 67 available, in ‘hybrid’ journals that publish both OA and subscription-only content, or when 68 authors place a version of their article in a repository (i.e., self-archiving or “Green OA) 69 (Piwowar et al., 2018). However, the professional value of OA is likely to be especially high 70 when publishing in Gold OA journals, especially if they have other characteristics valued by 71 evaluators: name recognition, high impact factor, perceived prestige, or association with 72 certain academic societies (Gray, 2020; Schimanski & Alperin, 2018). 73 Furthermore, publication in Gold OA journals is increasingly required by government 74 agencies and private foundations that fund research (Björk & Solomon, 2014; Pinfield, 2013). 75 Most Gold OA journals allow authors to publish at no expense (Crow, 2009). However, the 76 vast majority of OA articles are published in a subset of OA journals that require authors 77 pay an ‘article processing charge’ (APC) to help defray the cost of journal operations or lost APCS & AUTHOR DIVERSITY 5 78 subscription revenue (Crow, 2009; Kozak & Hartley, 2013; OpenAPC, 2020; Pavan & 79 Barbosa, 2018; Piwowar et al., 2018). A recent survey found that OA journals charging 80 APCs – a list that includes the most prestigious and widely recognized Gold OA outlets – 81 the average APC was $908 ( $608 SD, N = 4418 journals), with 500 journals charging at ± 82 least $2000 and 12 journals charging APCs over $4000 (Morrison, 2019; Singh & Morrison, 1 83 2019). For many researchers, especially those working in the Global South , these APCs are 84 an insurmountable financial obstacle that prevents them from publishing in the most 85 desirable OA journals (Bahlai et al., 2019; Matheka et al., 2014; Peterson, Emmett, & 86 Greenberg, 2013). This is especially true for scholars writing without any coauthors that 87 could potentially contribute a portion of the APC. It is even the case for those with access to 88 funding, as even modest APCs can consume a large fraction of their research budget (Pavan 89 & Barbosa, 2018). Although publishers have attempted to address this with policies aimed 90 at reducing or even waiving APCs for authors in some countries, many researchers in the 91 Global South are ineligible for even partial waivers (Ellers, Crowther, & Harvey, 2017; 92 Lawson, 2015, Table S1). This has led many to argue that the APCs allowing authors in 93 low-income countries to read previously inaccessible journals simultaneously prevent them 94 from publishing in the same journals (Ellers, Crowther, & Harvey, 2017; Fontúrbel & 95 Vizentin-Bugoni, 2021; Matheka et al., 2014; Poynder, 2019). 96 Despite the prevalence of this assertion, tests of whether APCs shape author 97 representation in the OA literature remain rare (Ellers, Crowther, & Harvey, 2017). This is 98 largely because it has been challenging, if not impossible, to identify journals for comparison 99 whose primary difference is whether or not they charge APCs. In 2018, however, the 100 publishing company Elsevier introduced the concept of ‘Mirror" journals’ – Gold OA versions 101 of established Hybrid titles with identical editorial boards, peer review procedures, and 102 standards for acceptance (Cochrane, 2018; Harrison, 2019). The goal was for this identical 1 The world’s ‘developing’ or ‘emerging’ economies primarily located in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East (Brandt, 1980). APCS & AUTHOR DIVERSITY 6 103 editorial structure, coupled with a nearly identical name (e.g., Journal of Dentistry / 104 Journal of Dentistry: X, Ecological Engineering / Ecological Engineering: X), to elevate the 105 visibility and status of the OA Mirrors to a level comparable to their Hybrid”Parent" journal 106 (Harrison, 2019), thereby attracting authors preferring to publish in a Gold OA journal or 107 required to do so by the organization funding their research. All Mirror journals charge an 108 APC (median = $2600, range = $1318–$3750, Table 1); as with most Hybrid journals there 109 is no cost to authors publishing in Parent journals unless they wish their article to be open 110 access. For many of the Parent-Mirror pairs the APC was identical, but in cases where it 111 was not the