Is created by some of the world’s most highly educated scholars at prestigious institutions, who invest thousands of hours in its development.
Receives substantial subsidies from governments and foundations, including both direct payments and in-kind services.
Is reviewed and edited by volunteers, ensuring quality control without any financial compensation.
Is then given to you for free, with legal ownership and copyright despite no investment on your part.
Is sold at monopoly prices to the same volunteers’ colleagues and employers.
This describes the academic journal industry. Despite comprising hundreds of publishers, five giants control over half the market: Reed-Elsevier (Netherlands), SAGE (US), Springer (Germany), Taylor & Francis (UK), and Wiley-Blackwell (UK).
Historically, publishers bore the costs of compiling, printing, marketing, and mailing physical copies of journals. Digitalization, however, has reduced these expenses, edging the industry towards a state of “economic rent”—selling a nearly cost-free product that customers need and can find nowhere else. In 2010, Elsevier’s profit margin was 36%, higher than those of Apple and Google. By 2013-2014, it exceeded 40%. Wiley’s margin was 35% last year. These figures dwarf those of the most profitable industries, such as accounting and tax services, which had a margin of 18.4% in one recent year.
Criticisms and Controversies
Critics argue that the academic publishing model distorts science and exploits scholars. Physicist Adrian Sutton of Imperial College (London) stated, “We are all slaves to publishers.” Neal Young of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) added, “If you control access to the scientific literature, it is, to all intents and purposes, like controlling science.”
Three main arguments support the claim that publishers distort science:
Bundling: Similar to cable TV providers, academic publishers sell journals in bundles, mixing prestigious titles with lesser-known ones. This forces universities to buy entire packages to access must-have journals, leading to journal proliferation and an abundance of poor-quality articles.
Positive Skew: Journals compete for attention by favoring new or provocative research findings, leading to “publication bias” and “p-hacking,” where researchers manipulate data to achieve publishable results. This contributes to the “replication crisis,” where many published results cannot be replicated by independent scholars.
Inequality in Information Dissemination: Higher-status scholars with access to funding and publishing budgets can disseminate their work freely, while others remain behind paywalls. This disparity favors well-funded institutions and undermines the broader dissemination of knowledge.
Shifting Dynamics and Potential Reforms
Efforts to challenge the academic publishing oligopoly are gaining traction. The Biden Administration’s recent policy mandates that almost all non-defense-related federal government–funded research be made publicly available upon completion by 2026. This follows similar initiatives by other governments and organizations, aiming to increase access to scientific literature.
The University of California’s decision to walk away from a costly contract with Elsevier in 2019 is a notable example of libraries negotiating on more equal terms with publishers. Digital copies and open-access publishing are increasing, with the proportion of scholarly articles in open-access form rising from 7.9% in 2012 to 36% in 2020. This trend, combined with technological advancements, could significantly alter the academic publishing landscape.
Conclusion
The academic publishing industry faces increasing scrutiny and calls for reform. While publishers have long enjoyed substantial profits and control, evolving policies and technologies may shift the balance of power. Greater access to publicly funded research and a move towards open-access publishing could democratize knowledge dissemination, benefiting scholars and society as a whole.
Richard Phelps is the founder of the Nonpartisan Education Group, editor of the Nonpartisan Education Review, a Fulbright Scholar, and a fellow of the Psychophysics Laboratory. He has authored, edited, and co-authored books on standardized testing, learning, and psychology.
