SoylentNews

upstart [soylentnews.org] writes:

████ # This file was generated bot-o-matically! Edit at your own risk. ████

Academic journals are a lucrative scam – and we’re determined to change that [theguardian.com]:

‘It’s never been more evident that for-profit publishing simply does not align with the aims of scholarly inquiry.’ Photograph: agefotostock/AlamyView image in fullscreen‘It’s never been more evident that for-profit publishing simply does not align with the aims of scholarly inquiry.’ Photograph: agefotostock/AlamyAcademic journals are a lucrative scam – and we’re determined to change that Arash Abizadeh [theguardian.com]

Giant publishers are bleeding universities dry, with profit margins that rival Google’s. So we decided to start our own

• Arash Abizadeh is a philosopher and the Angus professor of political science at McGill University, Canada

If you’ve ever read an academic article, the chances are that you were unwittingly paying tribute to a vast profit-generating machine that exploits the free labour of researchers and siphons off public funds.

The annual revenues of the “big five” commercial publishers – Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Springer Nature, and SAGE – are each in the billions, and some have staggering profit margins approaching 40%, surpassing even the likes of Google. Meanwhile, academics do almost all of the substantive work to produce these articles free of charge: we do the research, write the articles, vet them for quality and edit the journals.

Not only do these publishers not pay us for our work; they then sell access to these journals to the very same universities and institutions that fund the research and editorial labour in the first place. Universities need access to journals because these are where most cutting-edge research is disseminated. But the cost of subscribing to these journals has become so exorbitantly expensive that some universities are struggling [theguardian.com] to afford them. Consequently, many researchers (not to mention the general public) remain blocked by paywalls, unable to access the information they need. If your university or library doesn’t subscribe to the main journals, downloading a single paywalled article on philosophy or politics can cost [vox.com] between £30 and £40.

The commercial stranglehold [theguardian.com] on academic publishing is doing considerable damage to our intellectual and scientific culture. As disinformation and propaganda spread freely online, genuine research and scholarship remains gated and prohibitively expensive. For the past couple of years, I worked as an editor of Philosophy & Public Affairs, one of the leading journals in political philosophy. It was founded in 1972, and it has published research from renowned philosophers such as John Rawls [jstor.org], Judith Jarvis Thomson [jstor.org] and Peter Singer [jstor.org]. Many of the most influential ideas in our field, on topics from abortion and democracy to famine and colonialism, started out in the pages of this journal. But earlier this year, my co-editors and I and our editorial board decided we’d had enough, and resigned en masse [dailynous.com].

We were sick of the academic publishing racket and had decided to try something different. We wanted to launch a journal that would be trulyopen access, ensuring anyone could read our articles. This will be published by the Open Library of Humanities [openlibhums.org], a not-for-profit publisher funded by a consortium of libraries and other institutions. When academic publishing is run on a not-for-profit basis, it works reasonably well. These publishers provide a real service and typically sell the final product at a reasonable price to their own community. So why aren’t there more of them?

To answer this, we have to go back a few decades, when commercial publishers began buying up [www.cbc.ca] journals from university presses. Exploiting their monopoly position, they then sharply raised prices. Today, a library subscription to a single journal in the humanities or social sciences typically costs more than £1,000 a year. Worse still, publishers often “bundle [nih.gov]” journals together, forcing libraries to buy ones they don’t want in order to have access to ones they do. Between 2010 and 2019, UK universities paid more than £1bn [timeshighereducation.com] in journal subscriptions and other publishing charges. More than 90% of these fees went to the big five commercial publishers (UCL and Manchester shelled out over £4m each). It’s worth remembering that the universities funded this research, paid the salaries of the academics who produced it and then had to pay millions of pounds to commercial publishers in order to access the end product.

Even more astonishing is the fact these publishers often charge authors for the privilege of publishing in their journals. In recent years, large publishers have begun offering so-called “open access” articles that are free to read. On the surface, this might sound like a welcome improvement. But for-profit publishers provide open access to readers only by charging authors, often thousands of pounds, to publish their own articles. Who ends up paying these substantial author fees? Once again, universities. In 2022 alone, UK institutions of higher education paid more than £112m [zenodo.org] to the big five to secure open-access publication for their authors.

This trend is having an insidious impact on knowledge production. Commercial publishers are incentivised to try to publish as many articles and journals as possible, because each additional article brings in more profit. This has led to a proliferation of junk journals that publish fake research [wsj.com], and has increased the pressure on rigorous journals to weaken their quality controls. It’s never been more evident that for-profit publishing simply does not align with the aims of scholarly inquiry.

There is an obvious alternative: universities, libraries, and academic funding agencies can cut out the intermediary and directly fund journals themselves, at a far lower cost. This would remove commercial pressures from the editorial process, preserve editorial integrity and make research accessible to all. The term for this is “diamond” open access [coalition-s.org], which means the publishers charge neither authors, editors, nor readers (this is how our new journal will operate). Librarians have been urging this for years. So why haven’t academics already migrated to diamond journals?

The reason is that such journals require alternative funding sources, and even if such funding were in place, academics still face a massive collective action problem: we want a new arrangement but each of us, individually, is strongly incentivised to stick with the status quo. Career advancement depends heavily on publishing in journals with established name recognition and prestige, and these journals are often owned by commercial publishers. Many academics – particularly early-career researchers trying to secure long-term employment in an extremely difficult job market – cannot afford to take a chance on new, untested journals on their own.

This is why, as editors of one of our field’s leading journals, we feel a strong responsibility to help build collective momentum towards a better arrangement: a publishing model that no longer wastes massive amounts of public resources feeding profits to private corporations, secures editorial independence against the pressures of profit-making and makes research available to everyone, free of charge. This isn’t just an academic problem. A revolution in the publishing landscape could also help stem the tide of disinformation and propaganda in the public sphere. Such an alternative is available, but it’s hard to get there. We want to change that.

• Arash Abizadeh is a philosopher and the Angus Professor of Political Science [theguardian.com] at McGill University, Canada

• Arash Abizadeh is a philosopher and the Angus Professor of Political Science [theguardian.com] at McGill University, Canada

• Arash Abizadeh is a philosopher and the Angus Professor of Political Science [theguardian.com] at McGill University, Canada

Explore more on these topics

• Peer review and scientific publishing [theguardian.com]
• Opinion [theguardian.com]
• Science (Education) [theguardian.com]
• Academics [theguardian.com]
• Research [theguardian.com]
• Magazines [theguardian.com]
• Higher education [theguardian.com]
• Newspapers & magazines [theguardian.com]
• comment [theguardian.com]

Share [mailto]Reuse this content [theguardian.com]

Original Submission