The Case Against Academic Publishers

It seems appropriate to pass on news of a federal antitrust lawsuit being brought in the United States against six commercial academic publishers, including the “Big Four” (Elsevier, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley). The case is filed by lawyers Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein. The plaintiff is Lucina Uddin, Professor of Psychology at UCLA.

I suggest you read the full document linked to above for details, but in a nutshell the case alleges three anticompetitive practices:

  1. agreeing to “fix the price..at zero” for the labour of authors and peer reviewers;
  2. agreeing not to compete for manuscripts by forcing authors to submit to one journal at a time;
  3. agreeing to prohibit authors from sharing their work while under peer review, “a process that often takes over a year”

I’ve spoken to a few people who know a bit about US law on such matters and they all say that the plaintiff’s legal representatives have a good track record on antitrust litigation. Nevertheless, there is some doubt about whether the case is winnable but at the very least it will bring a lot of attention to the Academic Journal Racket, so is probably a good move even if it doesn’t succeed. If it does succeed, however, it might blow a hole in the entire commercial publishing industry, which would be an even better move…

As an interesting postscript (found here) is that, in 2002, the UK Office of Fair Trading reviewed complaints about anticompetitive practices in academic publishing; see here. It found market distortions but decided not to act because of the recent rise of Open Access. I quote

It is too early to assess what will be the impact of this … but there is a possibility that it will be a powerful restraint on exploiting positional advantage in the STM journals market.

Now that 22 years have passed, is it still too early?

P.S. Comments from legal experts would be especially welcome!

4 Responses to “The Case Against Academic Publishers”

  1. gregametcalfe's avatar
    gregametcalfe Says:

    The problem I have with the UK Office of Fair Trading approach is that I don’t want the practice restrained. I want it destroyed. These are very different things.

  2. I can see why reviewers should be paid, but why authors? Aren’t they already being paid to write papers..?
    And how would journals competing against each other for manuscripts be good for science? Wouldn’t the authors end up picking the journal with the “best” referee reports?
    I’m no fan of the current system, but these arguments against it don’t sound like the best ones to be making

  3. The problem is that universities to a large extent are complicit in this; career progression can be based on the ‘quality’ of research indicated by the ‘quality’ of the journal. Even though many have signed up to DORA, I wonder if individual university managers always follow it. Also the fact that in the UK the research councils give block grants to cover the costs – taking money away from research. Does the Irish government also provide funding for page charges?

    • Indeed. I think this is in part because there are many people involved in running universities who think that the public sector exists only to channel taxpayers’ money into the pockets of private sector businesses.

      Maynooth has signed up to DORA, but there’s scant evidence of it paying any attention to it. The latest research report, for example, goes on and on about Scopus-listed journals.

      If I had my way I would make it a disciplinary offence to spend university money on an APC.

      I’m not sure the extent to which the Irish government funds page charges, but if it does it shouldn’t.

Leave a comment