‘Give us your research money,
And we will not threaten you with legal action.’
‘Give us your research money,
And your students will not go to conferences.’
‘Give us your research money,
And you can put our Impact Factor in your CV.’
Let’s take the case of Alicia Kowaltowski, a researcher at the University of São Paulo, which offers a stark illustration of the complex and often contentious landscape of open access publishing. Kowaltowski’s experience, characterized by exorbitant fees, threats of legal action, and a perceived lack of fairness, raises fundamental questions about the future of scientific communication.
The Rise of Open Access: A Double-Edged Sword
Open access, a model that grants free and unrestricted access to research articles, has gained significant momentum in recent years. The benefits are clear: wider dissemination of knowledge, increased collaboration, and greater transparency in research. However, the model also comes with its challenges.
One of the most pressing issues is the cost. While open access publishers often rely on article processing charges (APCs) to cover their expenses, these fees can be prohibitively high, especially for researchers from low-income countries. Kowaltowski’s case highlights this disparity, as she was expected to pay a substantial fee despite being from a region with limited research funding.
Moreover, the rise of open access has not necessarily led to a decline in subscription revenues. In fact, some publishers have been able to increase their overall income by combining subscription fees with APCs. This raises questions about the true economic impact of open access and whether it is truly benefiting researchers and the broader scientific community.
The Power Dynamics in Academic Publishing
The Kowaltowski case also sheds light on the power dynamics in academic publishing. High-impact journals, such as those published by Nature and Science, often have significant market power and can dictate terms to authors. This can create a situation where researchers feel pressured to publish in these journals, even if it means paying exorbitant fees, in order to advance their careers.
The consequences of this can be far-reaching. Researchers from less affluent institutions may be at a disadvantage, as they may be unable to afford the fees associated with top-tier journals. This can perpetuate existing inequalities in scientific research and limit the diversity of voices in the field.
These numbers make me miserable:
1. France will pay € 134,500,000 to Elsevier.
It’s the cost of “national license for global OA and publication agreement”.
Again – 134 MILLION Euros. And it’s just one country and one publisher!
And it’s not about France.
For example, CSIC (Spain) would pay $120 million to Elsevier + Wiley + Springer Nature to have their studies published with OA between 2021 and 2024.
2. Scientists paid $1.06 billion to the five main publishers between 2015-2018 [study by Dr. Haustein et al].
This is ONLY publication fees and many years ago! This excludes the subscriptions paid by universities / institutes.
3. Revenue from the two MEGA journals from Nature Springer [study by Dr. Haustein et al]:
Scientific Reports – $105.1 million
Nature Communications – $71.1 million
Here is how:
Sci Reports published >20,000/year with $2,490 / paper.
Nature Comm published ~ 7,500/year with $6,490 / paper.
4. The REAL cost of publishing:
$200 / paper “in modern, large scale publishing platforms using post-publication peer-review.”
$1000 / paper “in prestigious journals with rejection rates exceeding 90%.”
[estimation by Grossmann & Brembs]
Compare it to the OA fee in Nature: $12,290.
5. In 2023, Elsevier had a revenue of $3.06 Billion.
Overall adjusted operating margin – 33% !
“This means that for every $1,000 that the academic community spends on publishing in Elsevier, about $400 go into the pockets of its shareholders,” – Dr. Haustein says.
📍Isn’t it an ideal business?
Scientists pay to publish its their studies.
Scientists do peer review for free (equal to consulting).
Institutions pay large subscription fees.
And you have 30-40% margins.
I am pretty sure that those billions could be spent in a better way.
For example:
– to enable mentorship training for professors.
– to enable bigger PhD salaries
– to let students attend more conferences & network
Scientific Publishers are insanely lucky. Even at non-profits, executives can make unbelievable salaries.
And at for-profit publishing (Wiley, Springer Nature, Elsevier, Frontiers)?
Don’t ask me. Huge open-access fees + pricy subscription give outstanding income.
Below is publicly available data for NON-PROFIT societies:
1. American Chemical Society (2022)
Revenue – $711 Million
President – $1,833,224
Chief Executive Officer – $1,139,404
Treasurer & CFO – $584,300
2. American Physical Society (2022)
Revenue – $71 Million
Chief Executive Officer – $628,757
Editor In Chief – $628,652
Chief Information Officer – $299,964
3. American Association For The Advancement Of Science (AAAS) (2022)
Science Magazine is published by AAAS.
Revenue – $115 Million
Secretary and CEO – $872,075
Editor In Chief – $629,660
➡ Let’s compare with another society & publisher:
4. Microscopy Society Of America (2022)
Revenue – $2.5 Million
President – $0.
President Elect – $0.
📍 In case you don’t know:
1. Scientific publishing is a great business. Margins can be close to 40%.
In academia, we are pushed to publish in good journals (otherwise – “no funding, no students, no science”).
We have no choice.
And publishers can easily take advantage of this!
2. Peer review is the KEY difference between a journal and arXiv (free repository).
But peer reviewers are paid ZERO.
Despite huge article processing fees & high subscription fees.
Peer review is a FREE service.
❗️ My point is:
We are the authors. We are the peer reviewers.
Publishers just connect us together in ‘incognito mode’.
And we pay A LOT for this connection!
So, why not making this connection ourselves?
Community peer review is emerging (e.g. see alphaXiv by the Stanford team).
Now what we need is this:
Funders should start recognizing arXiv manuscripts (peer-reviewed by community) as publications ❗
Long-term, this will make science and academia better.
The Need for Reform
The Kowaltowski case underscores the urgent need for reform in the open access publishing landscape. Here are some potential solutions:
- Government funding for open access: Governments can provide funding to support open access publishing, either directly or through research funding agencies. This can help to reduce the financial burden on researchers and ensure that research is freely accessible to all.
- Negotiation of lower fees: Research institutions and universities can negotiate lower open access fees with publishers. This can be done collectively, through organizations such as the Association of Research Libraries (ARL).
- Development of alternative open access models: New models, such as community-led publishing or preprint servers, can provide more affordable and equitable options for researchers. These models can also help to reduce the dominance of commercial publishers.
- Increased transparency and accountability: Publishers should be required to provide more transparency about their pricing and business practices. This can help to ensure that fees are fair and that researchers are not being exploited.
In addition to these measures, it is essential to address the broader issue of academic publishing. The current system, which is heavily reliant on prestige and impact factors, can create perverse incentives and distort the research process. Reforms are needed to ensure that research is evaluated based on its quality and contribution to knowledge, rather than on where it is published.
By implementing these reforms, we can create a more equitable and sustainable open access publishing ecosystem that benefits researchers, institutions, and society as a whole.
References: