The rise of open access (OA) publishing has been followed by the expansion of the Article Publishing Charges (APC) that moves the financial burden of scholarly journal publishing from readers to authors. We introduce the results of an international randomly selected sampled survey (N=3,422) that explores attitudes towards this pay-to-publish or Gold OA model among scholars. We test the predictor role of age, professional position, discipline, and income-level country in this regard. We found that APCs are perceived more as a global threat to Science than a deterrent to personal professional careers. Academics in low and lower-middle income level countries hold the most unfavorable opinions about the APC system. The less experimental disciplines held more negative perceptions of APC compared to STEM and the Life Sciences. Age and access to external funding stood as negative predictors of refusal to pay to publish. Commitment to OA self-archiving predicted the negative global perception of the APC. We conclude that access to external research funds influences the acceptance and the particular perception of the pay to publish model, remarking the economic dimension of the problem and warning about issues in the inequality between center and periphery.

翻译：随着公开查阅(OA)出版量的上升,文章出版费(APC)也随之扩大,从而将读者对出版学术期刊的财政负担转移给作者。我们介绍了随机抽查的国际抽样调查(N=3 422)的结果,该调查探索了学者对这一付费出版或黄金OA模式的态度。我们测试了年龄、专业地位、纪律和收入水平国家在这方面的预测作用。我们发现,APC更多地被视为对全球科学的威胁,而不是对个人职业生涯的威慑。中低收入国家的学者对APC系统持有最不受欢迎的意见。与STEM和生命科学相比,实验学科对APC持有的负面看法较少。年龄和获得外部资金的机会是拒绝付款的消极预测因素。OA自我整理承诺预测了全球对APC的负面看法。我们的结论是,获得外部研究资金会影响对公布模型的接受程度和特别认识,说明问题的经济层面,并警告中心与外围之间的不平等问题。