APC Trap: qualitative analysis of open-access APCs

The PLOS ONE study by Cantrell et al. identified an "APC Trap, " eight overlapping themes that create moral and operational binds for authors paying open-access APCs. The qualitative sample included 154 substantive open-ended responses, and 90% of those contained at least one APC Trap theme. The post describes implications for PIs, libraries, UX/ops teams, and a 7-step workflow to reproduce the study’s analysis with an AI-enabled platform.

• Cantrell et al. published the study on July 1, 2026 and coded 154 substantive free-text responses into eight APC Trap themes.
• Survey collection occurred Oct 31–Nov 21, 2023, and 322 surveys were completed with 154 open-text responses used for coding.
• Ninety percent of the coded responses (n=139) showed at least one APC Trap code, with 62% containing 1–2 codes and 28% containing 3+ codes.
• Top concerns in the qualitative sample were Financial Concern (~34%) and Diversity/Equity (~32%), with demographic patterns showing HSS authors reported APC stress more often.

Fast take: Cantrell et al. (PLOS ONE, July 1, 2026) analyzed 154 substantive open-ended responses from authors at four U.S. R1 institutions and identified an "APC Trap" of eight overlapping themes.

Read the full paper: PLOS ONE.

• Study dates: survey collected Oct 31–Nov 21, 2023; published July 1, 2026.
• Core finding: 8 APC Trap codes (Financial Concern, Diversity/Equity, Threshold of Reasonableness, Restriction of Decisions, Grants Don’t Cut It, Academic Obligation, Academic Labor, Quality/Rigor).
• Sample: 322 completed surveys; 154 substantive free-text responses coded; 90% of those showed ≥1 APC Trap code.

Cantrell et al. appended two open-ended questions to a broader APC funding survey and used inductive thematic coding to identify eight overlapping APC Trap themes from 154 substantive replies.

Cantrell et al. combined responses from authors at four R1 U.S. universities and required coder consensus and iterative codebook refinement during analysis.

• Most responses contained 1–2 codes (62%); 28% showed 3+ codes, reflecting layered frustrations.
• Top concerns: Financial Concern (~34%), Diversity/Equity (~32%), and decisions restricted by fees.
• Demographic patterns: HSS authors reported APC stress more often; Hybrid OA authors showed more APC Trap codes than Gold OA authors.

This 7-step workflow explains how to convert raw survey exports into an actionable APC report using Evidano.

• 1) Import: upload your Qualtrics CSV or spreadsheet into Evidano and map the two free-text fields.
• 2) Normalize & clean: run PII redaction and merge responses per respondent (as the study did).
• 3) Import codebook: load the eight APC Trap codes (or adapt) as a hierarchical codebook.
• 4) Auto-code: run AI-assisted coding, tag conflicts, and batch-approve consensus codes.
• 5) Cross-segment: run by-discipline and by-institution cross-tabs and co-occurrence networks.
• 6) Extract quotes: filter representative quotes per code and export a stakeholder-ready brief.
• 7) Share & iterate: use Evidano visualizations in meetings, re-run after policy changes, and keep your dataset secure.

Wrapping up: the APC Trap reframes APC debates as issues of obligation, inequity, and academic labor, not just price.

• Action 1: Re-run a targeted qualitative sweep of your institution’s recent authors using the 7-step Evidano workflow.
• Action 2: Share a one-page brief with library and finance stakeholders using Evidano exports to argue for targeted APC support or policy changes.

See the study at PLOS ONE and Try Evidano for free to run a secure pilot and turn open-ended comments into decisions.