ADA pushes back on NIH proposal to cap research publishing costs
The ADA is raising concerns about a National Institutes of Health proposal to limit how much grantees can spend on publishing their research in professional journals, warning that certain options under consideration could unintentionally harm scientific integrity, early-career researchers and smaller projects.
In a formal Sept. 15 response to a National Institutes of Health request for information, ADA leaders supported the agency’s goal of promoting open access and fiscal responsibility but urged a “data-driven and flexible” approach. ADA President Brett Kessler, D.D.S., and Elizabeth Shapiro, D.D.S., J.D., emphasized the Association’s role as a long-standing publisher of peer-reviewed dental research through its flagship journals, the Journal of the American Dental Association and JADA Foundational Science, both of which publish some federally funded research.
The National Institutes of Health is weighing five options to limit the use of federal grant money for article processing charges, which cover costs such as peer review, editing and distribution. The ADA expressed support for option 4, which is a total cost cap per grant — but only with adjustments.
“We believe Option 4 — a total cost cap per award — offers the best foundation for equity across disciplines and institutions,” the ADA wrote, adding that the proposed cap of $20,000 or 0.8% of direct costs is “disconnected from real-world publishing data.”
The ADA urged the National Institutes of Health to reject options 1 and 2, which would either prohibit article processing spending altogether or cap it at $2,000 per article. Drs. Kessler and Shapiro said these amounts would prevent federally funded researchers from publishing in reputable journals. For context, JADA charges $3,810 per article, while JADA FS charges $2,500.
“These options would severely limit the ability of federally funded researchers to publish in rigorous, high-impact, peer-reviewed journals that operate with transparent editorial standards,” the letter stated.
Drs. Kessler and Shapiro also expressed caution regarding option 3, which ties higher publication cost allowances to whether journals pay peer reviewers or publish peer reviews openly. The group warned that such policies could introduce bias and logistical burdens without proven benefits. They noted that reviewer compensation can introduce bias, cautioning against rushed policy shifts without broader consensus.
“The ADA supports NIH’s commitment to promoting open access while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. [The] ADA is deeply aligned with these values and actively works to expand transparent, affordable open access options without compromising editorial quality,” the letter said. “We look forward to working with you to advance those values in a way that is practical for real-world publishers.
JADA Editor-in-Chief Tim Wright, D.D.S., played a large role in obtaining the ADA’s response to the National Institutes of Health proposal. After learning of the request for information, Dr. Wright urged ADA staff to develop language on behalf of the journal.
"It is critical that the results of research studies be published to educate clinicians to inform them in their decision making based on the best available evidence,” Dr. Wright said.
