This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen
Article processing charge is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access
This section is missing information about historical 18 U.S.C. §1734 statement, somewhat analyzed by Kent Anderson. Please expand the section to include this information. Further details may exist on the talk page.(July 2022)
Moving this to the Talk page because I find it difficult to understand the context. This section of the article address Criticisms of APCs, not the history of how articles were payed for. I suppose the criticism that could be gathered from Kent's blog post (not a reliable source in my opinion) is that APC-supported articles run the risk of being unreliable, biased studies because industry could pay for them. But industry pays for so many things long before the article lands in a journal. I would argue that a historical discussion of 18 U.S.C. §1734 would belong in an entry on the history of journal publishing and "page fees" from the print journal era. This is not directly relevant to the rise of APCs. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
