In a groundbreaking move that spotlights mounting dissatisfaction among scientists with the inner workings of academic journals, a group of researchers has decided to take on the industry giants in court. They contend that the system is not only exploitative and exorbitantly priced but also engages in illicit and anticompetitive behaviors. This legal battle involves four scientists who have filed a lawsuit against six of the largest academic publishers globally: Elsevier, John Wiley & Sons, Sage Publications, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wolters Kluwer. The core allegations revolve around these publishers breaching federal antitrust laws by conspiring not to compensate researchers for reviewing manuscripts, restricting authors from submitting papers to multiple journals simultaneously, and blocking them from discussing or sharing their work once submitted.
The crux of the lawsuit, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, paints a stark picture of the publishers’ actions. These practices, according to the plaintiffs, have been immensely lucrative for the defendants while inflicting significant harm on scientific progress and the public good. The publishers, however, have refuted these claims, dismissing the allegations of collusion as baseless and indicating their intent to seek dismissal of the case.
This legal showdown could have far-reaching consequences for the scientific community. The publication of research papers plays a pivotal role in scientists’ professional advancement and the sustainability of their careers. Over the years, researchers have decried the heavy reliance on unpaid or underpaid labor in academia. Yet, the novelty of such arguments playing out in a federal court setting has drawn attention from scientific and legal experts. While the outcome of this particular lawsuit remains uncertain, the growing discontent poses a threat to the very foundation entrusted with scrutinizing, archiving, and disseminating biomedical breakthroughs.
Historical Evolution of Academic Publishing
The landscape of academic publishing has undergone a significant transformation since its modest beginnings in the 17th century when scientific societies published the works of their members. Today, the norm entails subjecting new discoveries to peer review, a crucial process where external experts offer constructive criticism that authors must address before their work gets published. Notably, the domain is now dominated by massive, profit-driven corporations. Some of the major publishers boast profit margins exceeding 40%, surpassing those of corporate giants like Apple and Coca-Cola.
In their lawsuit, the four researchers contend that these profit margins stem from policies that contravene the Sherman Act, a federal statute that prohibits monopolistic business practices. Their legal plea seeks an injunction from Judge Hector Gonzalez to dissolve existing agreements tied to these practices. Additionally, they are pursuing triple damages on behalf of themselves and individuals in the U.S. who have reviewed papers for the defendants’ journals since September 12, 2020. The plaintiffs estimate that hundreds of thousands of individuals have engaged in peer review or manuscript submissions to these publishers during this period. They have petitioned Gonzalez to certify the case as a class-action lawsuit.
The publishers, however, have dismissed these allegations, asserting that the contentious practices have been standard in scholarly publishing for decades. They contend that the practices align with conventional, rational conduct and serve legitimate business interests. Consequently, they advocate for the dismissal of the amended complaint in its entirety.
The Unfolding Legal Dynamics
The original complaint was initiated by Lucina Uddin, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was subsequently joined by Elvisha Dhamala from the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Shelley Facente from UC Berkeley, and Robert Mahon from the University of New Orleans. The plaintiffs’ attorney, Dean Harvey, has declined to make the researchers available for interviews. The lawsuit alleges that the publishers orchestrated an anticompetitive agreement through the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM), a defendant in the case. The plaintiffs argue that STM’s publication of the International Ethical Principles for Scholarly Publication in 2013 constitutes evidence of this agreement.
The STM document outlines that peer review is considered voluntary, and researchers seeking publication in journals are obligated to contribute to the reviewing process. The plaintiffs interpret this as an attempt by publishers to coerce scholars into providing unpaid labor, while reaping escalating revenues from journal subscriptions and article-processing fees funded by taxpayer dollars. They argue that this scheme has impeded scientific progress across various research domains, potentially delaying breakthroughs in critical areas such as cancer treatment.
The researchers also highlight a provision in the STM document that deems submitting articles to multiple journals simultaneously unethical. This single-submission rule, they claim, curtails authors’ negotiation leverage and diminishes publishers’ incentives to promptly review and publish manuscripts. Moreover, the plaintiffs allege that publishers enforce a gag rule, prohibiting authors from openly discussing or sharing submitted manuscripts, further exacerbating the power dynamics in the academic publishing realm.
As the legal battle unfolds, the publishers have maintained a stance of denial, refusing to comment on the ongoing case or offering substantial rebuttals. The legal wrangling underscores the contentious nature of the academic publishing domain and the simmering tensions between researchers and publishers.
