Photo credit: www.publishersweekly.com
Concerns over Peer Review Practices Spark Antitrust Lawsuit Against Major Publishers
The peer review mechanism, integral to the evaluation of scholarly research, has long been viewed as a foundational element in academic publishing. However, a recent antitrust lawsuit filed in Brooklyn suggests that leading commercial publishers might be capitalizing on this process for profit.
The lawsuit targets six well-known academic journal publishers: Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, Wiley, Sage Publications, Taylor & Francis, and Springer Nature. Academics, including lead plaintiff Lucina Uddin from UCLA, accuse these publishers of engaging in practices that undermine the scholarly community and inflate their earnings.
The complaint outlines three key allegations against these publishers. Firstly, it asserts that they have collectively decided not to compensate scholars for their peer review work. Secondly, they require that researchers submit their manuscripts exclusively to one journal at any given time. Thirdly, they supposedly impose restrictions on scholars from sharing their findings while the manuscripts are under review, a process that can extend over several months.
The filing argues that in the competitive landscape of academia, where the mantra “publish or perish” prevails, these practices effectively hold scholars’ careers in limbo. Uddin contends that this situation transforms the peer review system into a “scheme” designed to enrich profit margins for the publishers.
According to the lawsuit, the financial implications of these policies are staggering. In 2023 alone, Elsevier reportedly generated $3.8 billion in revenue from its peer-reviewed publications, achieving an operating profit margin of 38%. Collectively, the named defendants amassed over $10 billion in revenue from their journal operations that same year. The plaintiffs allege that these inflated profit margins are a result of collusion and misappropriation of taxpayer funding initially intended for scientific research.
Further, the lawsuit accuses the publishers of forming a cartel through their trade association, STM (International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers), which is claimed to maintain control over pricing peer review labor by setting it at zero.
Despite ongoing scrutiny, the peer review system remains a critical mechanism in academia, and critics have long voiced concerns about its transparency and fairness. The allegations raised in this lawsuit, however, could prompt a reevaluation of the practices employed by major publishers. Wiley has publicly declared that the lawsuit lacks merit, suggesting they will vigorously contest these claims.
As the academic community grapples with these serious accusations, the outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for the future of scholarly publishing and the integrity of the peer review process.
Source
www.publishersweekly.com