NEJM APC and Open Access: What Authors Pay, What's Covered, and the OA Landscape

NEJM was one of the most vocal critics of mandatory open access policies. In a widely cited 2019 editorial titled "No Free Lunch," NEJM's editors argued that APCs shift publishing costs onto researchers and don't necessarily improve access for the people who need it most.

That philosophical position has softened under pressure from Plan S, NIH policy changes, and the broader move toward OA. NEJM now offers gold OA under CC BY, but the implementation feels bolted on rather than native. Here's the practical landscape:

What NEJM offers:

• Gold OA under CC BY license (satisfies Plan S)
• Green OA via PMC deposit after 6-month embargo (satisfies NIH)
• Immediate free access to some content (clinical practice articles, interactive features)

What NEJM doesn't offer:

• Widespread Read & Publish agreements
• Transparent, publicly listed APC pricing
• Automatic geographical waivers

The overwhelming majority of NEJM papers are published via the subscription track. This is free for authors and works as follows:

1. Your paper is accepted and published behind the NEJM paywall.
2. Subscribers (virtually every medical library and many individual clinicians) have immediate access.
3. After 6 months, NEJM makes most research articles freely accessible on its website.
4. You can deposit the accepted manuscript in PMC immediately if NIH-funded, or after the embargo for other deposits.

NEJM's 6-month embargo is shorter than many journals (Nature and Cell use 12 months). Combined with NEJM's enormous readership (over 600,000 subscribers and millions of monthly website visitors), the subscription track provides broad access even without formal OA.

For clinical research especially, the practical impact of a 6-month embargo is minimal. The clinicians who need to read your randomized trial today already have NEJM access through their institution.

This is where NEJM differs most from its competitors. The Massachusetts Medical Society has not aggressively pursued Read & Publish agreements:

Some large research institutions and funders have direct arrangements with NEJM for APC coverage. The Wellcome Trust, for instance, has agreements with many publishers (including NEJM) where the trust pays the APC directly. HHMI has similar arrangements.

If you're at a well-funded US medical school, your grants office may have an established process for NEJM APCs. Ask before assuming you'll need to pay personally.

NEJM's waiver policy is less structured than Springer Nature's:

• There is no automatic geographical waiver program comparable to Springer Nature's Research4Life system.
• NEJM considers waiver requests on a case-by-case basis.
• The journal has historically been more willing to waive or reduce fees for authors from low-income countries, but the process requires a direct request.
• For authors at well-funded Western institutions, waiver approval is unlikely.

The practical reality: if you're NIH-funded and need OA, your grant should include APC costs. If you're unfunded and need OA, the rights retention strategy (depositing the accepted manuscript in a repository immediately) may be your best option.

The NIH route is the most cost-effective: publish via subscription (free), deposit in PMC after 6 months. This satisfies the NIH public access policy without any APC.

For Plan S compliance: the ~$10,000 APC is steep, but many cOAlition S funders will cover it. Check with your funder's OA policy office.

The NEJM family has expanded beyond the flagship:

NEJM Evidence is worth knowing about if your research is strong but not flagship-level. It's fully OA with a much lower APC, and the review process is rigorous but faster than the flagship. The IF (8.2) is competitive with journals like Annals of Internal Medicine.

• No submission fee. NEJM does not charge to submit. This is notable because some medical journals do charge submission fees.

• No page or figure charges. Color figures are free. Supplementary appendices are free.

• Reprints cost money. If your institution or department wants printed reprints, these are charged separately. Most researchers don't need these anymore.

• The real hidden cost is time. NEJM's review process can take 3-6 months for a first decision. If you're budgeting APC costs against a grant timeline, factor in the review duration plus revision cycles.

For most NEJM authors, the decision tree is simple:

1. NIH-funded? Publish via subscription (free). Deposit in PMC after 6 months. Done.
2. Plan S funder? Pay the ~$10,000 APC for gold OA with CC BY. Check if your funder pays directly (Wellcome, HHMI often do).
3. No funder mandate? Publish via subscription. NEJM's readership is so large that the 6-month embargo barely limits real-world access.
4. Can't afford the APC but need OA? Use the rights retention strategy: deposit the accepted manuscript in your institutional repository immediately upon acceptance.

The APC decision is secondary to getting accepted. NEJM desk-rejects over 90% of submissions. The editorial question is whether your findings change clinical practice broadly enough to justify the flagship. If you want to gauge your paper's fit before submitting, NEJM submission readiness check to identify the issues that matter at this level.

Worth paying if:

• Your funder mandates open access (check Plan S / cOAlition S requirements)
• An institutional Read & Publish agreement covers the fee
• Open access visibility meaningfully benefits your research area
• The APC fits within your grant budget

Consider alternatives if:

• The APC is a personal out-of-pocket expense
• A subscription option or green OA (preprint + embargo) satisfies your funder
• Another OA journal with a lower APC would provide similar visibility