Piled up Higher and Deeper-Issues in Academic Publishing
“The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell. ”
The Stranger, by Rudyard Kipling
If you work in academia or know someone in the circle, you probably have heard of the phrase “Publish or perish”. This phrase, once might have been told as a joke, has now become a mantra within the academic industry. However, the heavy emphasis on publication has been causing serious issues. In this post, I will try to address these issues and propose a solution.
Like many of you with an email account, I regularly receive spam emails, a trend that has been consistent since I opened my first account about two decades ago. Over the years, the nature of the unsolicited emails evolved, both in frequency and content. Initially, I would receive one or two phishing emails each day, often claiming to be from a Nigerian prince seeking my bank information for a purported inheritance transfer and share. Nowadays, most such spam emails come from academic conferences and publishers, often inviting me to attend their conferences, contribute to book chapters, serve as an editor, or submit articles to their, I quote, “honorable journals.”
Attached is a screenshot of such an email. It’s an email from an editor at the journal “Frontier in Astronomy.” Yes, you read it correctly- it is not a joke! A journal in astronomy is asking me, a chemist with zero experience in the field, to become an editor! While this email has the hallmark of scam/phishing, it’s noteworthy that the sender is a real editor, with a Ph.D. degree, I might add, of an academic publishing company based in Switzerland.
Regretfully, this phishing email is just one example indicative of the deteriorating quality issues in academic publishing. Surprisingly, or should I say because of them, academic publishing companies are thriving (Reference 1 and 2), just like the fungi did in the TV series The Last of US. The symptoms of this issue are multifaceted, including the diminishing significance of published papers, and an uptick in academic fraud through the manipulation of data and peer-review system. There’s also a growing burden on researchers who are called upon both as reviewers to assess the quality of submitted articles and as readers struggling to identify relevant, high-quality papers amid a sea of ordinary ones (Reference 3).
The issues have profound implications for society and the economy. They contribute to a decline in public trust in science (Reference 4) and adversely impact the work-life balance of academic researchers. The economic ramifications are substantial, with lost opportunities representing one facet where taxpayer money and researchers’ time could be spent on high-quality projects. Most significantly, there’s a discernible increase in the rate and volume of the transfer of taxpayer money to commercial academic publishers like Elsevier in the form of open access charges and subscription fees (Reference 1 and 2).
The root cause of the issues, in my opinion, lies in the ambiguous responsibility and deep conflicts of interest among stakeholders in the academic industry. Here, funding agencies allocate money, public institutions determine hiring and promoting practices, and publishers decide the fate of submitted papers for publication — all relying on some form of peer review, which is at the heart of the problem.
The existing system places high value on academics with more funding and prestigious papers, while neglecting the importance of peer review. Consequently, researchers, driven by the need for career advancement and wealth, have significant incentives to prioritize publishing more and in prestigious journals rather than engaging in the undervalued work of peer reviewing. In the words of physicist J. H. Hirsch (Reference 5),” There is no remuneration for responsible refereeing nor is there a cost for irresponsible anonymous refereeing.” He underscores the conflict of interest in peer reviewing by posing a rhetorical question:” Did you ever have a hunch that referees are far more likely to view your paper favorably if it cites and/or talks favorably about their own papers? And that they are far less likely to give serious consideration to what your paper or grant proposal actually says and does or proposes to do if they get the impression that it undermines or potentially will undermine work that they have done?”
In addition to these implicit rules of “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”, some academics, whom I call “citation beggars”, unabashedly ask for their papers to be cited- some openly, while others via implication. The hint is clear: If you want your paper to receive a favorable review and be recommended for publication, you better cite these ‘suggested’ papers. For instance, during the process of publishing a recent paper, we had the experience. One reviewer commented that the article is good but needs to cite more relevant papers, and suggested 22 papers. However, most of the papers the ‘anonymous’ reviewer suggested are irrelevant to the topic, and not surprisingly, were from just two groups.
The publishers, reaping millions of dollars in annual profits at surprisingly high margins that even rival tech giants like Apple, invest minimal to no effort in ensuring the quality of the articles they publish. The consequence is not only a proliferation of low-quality articles but also a substantial number of problematic ones slipping through the cracks and being published (Reference 6). This has contributed to the staggering increase in the number of articles, reaching three million in 2022.
Concerning the issues in academia, essayist Nassim Nicholas Taleb takes an extreme view, saying that academia is inherently corrupt. According to him, an industry judged by peers is prone to corruption and erosion (Reference 7).
Speaking of the massive profits made by commercial publishers with minimal effort, let me illustrate this crazy business model with an analogy. Imagine a novel concept restaurant in a prime location that attracts celebrities and locals alike. However, there’s a twist — guests must bring their food; the restaurant provides only tables, chairs, and utensils, all of which guests are required to clean after finishing their meals. The owners say, this is done for the convenience of the next guests, ensuring they find a clean table, just as you did. Another catch is that patrons must subscribe and pay annual fees, in addition to the charges incurred each time they ‘dine’ at the restaurant. Would you choose to dine at such a place?
The academic publishers do business in a similar way. In academia, researchers utilize taxpayer-funded resources to conduct research, acquire equipment and materials, and write their findings in standardized formats. They then submit their papers to journals for publication, adhering to specific formatting requirements that often vary significantly between publishers. Editors, often researchers volunteering for the sake of recognition and authority, glance over the submissions to determine whether to push them to the next stage in the assembly line. This involves sending papers to other volunteer researchers who asses the quality and provided review reports to the editors, who then decide whether to publish the papers or not.
Money-making starts once researchers log into the system to submit their work. For example, Elsevier makes some money by selling the information of submitting authors (Reference 8). Big profits roll in after this stage. Once a paper is deemed publishable, authors must pay an Article Publishing Charge (APC) to the publisher, a practice that is becoming increasingly common and expensive. For instance, the APC for the journal Nature is about $4000. The revenue amassed by charging APC is now comparable to the next source of money for these “golden geese” — subscription fees. These fees are typically paid by academic institutions to allow their researchers to access the articles, some of which they likely authored in the first place and for which they have already paid the $4000 APC fee. For example, the University of Oregon estimated that Elsevier collected $500,000 as an APC fee from its researchers in 2022 alone, in addition to the $300, 000 annual subscription fee (Reference 9). It is worth noting that APC is labeled as an open access fee when the publisher charges only once upon article submission, making the article freely accessible to anyone once it is published.
Many academics are aware of the issues within the current system, yet only a few are willing to do something about them. One such person is Hasok Chang, a professor of History and Philosophy of Science at Cambridge University. Professor Chang has openly (Reference 10) declared his stance against commercial publishers like Elsevier, Wiley, and Springer, stating, “We can do much better than continue to serve as the unappreciated cogs in corporate machines that have little regard for academic standards.” Another rare but loadable instance is the mass resignation of over 40 editors of the journal NeuroImage published by Elsevier, as a protest against the greedy high APC fees.
So far, I have outlined the main issues in academic publishing, including the soaring number of publications at the expense of quality and the unfair business model within the system. I hope I’ve convinced you that the root cause lies in the peer-review system. In the following, I propose a solution.
The fundamental objective of academic publishing should be the dissemination of knowledge. This was likely the case until commercial publishers discovered how to increase their profits by hook or by crook (Reference 1). In the age of the internet, we no longer need the profit-driven academic publishers who, more often than not, hinder knowledge dissemination by barricading articles behind a paywall of increasingly high APC and subscription fees.
There are existing platforms that effectively do what academic publishers should do for free. Examples include the blog posts of the mathematician Terrence Tao and the computational chemistry blog of a research group at the University of Copenhagen. Additionally, alternative systems like the preprint repository arXiv already exist. One can submit or read papers on arXiv for free unless one chooses to donate. The platform has been operational for 30 years and has thrived in certain areas like condensed matter physics, astronomy, and computer science. So, instead of enriching the greedy owners of commercial publishers, why not expand and improve upon free services like arXiv?
Well, that is exactly what I propose: expanding arXiv-like services globally and enhancing them. While the existing systems like arXiv have proven valuable, they probably cannot handle large amounts of submissions upon the fated demise of commercial publishers. Moreover, articles published on arXiv do not undergo rigorous peer reviewing. Therefore, in addition to expansion, the new system which I call Bilgikut, could offer an option to publicly share a signed review report, along with the submitted paper and a detailed revision history, in case any has been done. This approach not only broadens access to knowledge but also introduces transparency and accountability through a more robust peer-review process.
My vision for the proposed Bilgikut system closely resembles the structure of Mastodon, the free social networking service. In Bilgikut, there would be several hundred instances, each associated with a specific subject theme. For example, an instance named “Interfaces&Colloids” could accept and host papers related to fundamental research on surfaces, interfaces, and colloids. Then, this single instance could potentially replace existing publications like Langmuir (published by the American Chemical Society), Soft Matter (published by the Royal Society of Chemistry), and the Journal of Colloids and Interfaces (published by Elsevier), offering comprehensive coverage of a specific area.
Another parallel with the proposed system Bilgikut and Mastodon is the global distribution of servers that collectively host each instance, funded by countries that produce and consume significant amounts of research. For example, the instance “Interfaces&Colloids” could be co-hosted by participating countries, with each country responsible for handling submitted papers from their territory, screening for suitability (similar to arXiv), and depositing them on the specific instance as part of a unified system. This collaborative approach ensures representation and sharing of the financial burden.
So the proposed system Bilgikut functions similarly to arXiv and serves as the final destination for articles, and operates in a manner akin to Mastodon. Besides operational ability, the financial aspects are also encouraging. In 2022, arXiv processed 2.2 million articles with annual expenses slightly exceeding 2.2 million USD. By comparison, Elsevier received 2.7 million submissions. If we assume that about 10 times the capacity of arXiv is needed to handle all submissions, then it equals 22 million articles and a budget of 22 million USD.
Assuming that 50 countries can and should share the cost, the annual budget per country would be 440, 000 USD. This amount is comparable to the annual subscription fee and APC fee paid by a single university, such as the University of Oregon. Another example: the University of California system alone paid Elsevier 11 million USD in 2022. Thus, the Bilgikut system seems financially reasonable. This arXiv-style approach maintains the principles of free access to both academic researchers and the broader public, including private companies. This aspect represents a fair approach, especially from a financial standpoint, as it eliminates the enrichment of publishers using taxpayer money.
Moreover, the proposed system has the potential to challenge the existing academic publishers, including predatory publishers like MDPI, Frontiers Media, and Hindawi. By making submission and reading of papers free, Bilgikut disrupts the profit-driven model that has led to an influx of low-quality articles in scientific journals.
Another important issue to address is the aspect of peer-reviewing in the proposed system Bilgikut. As discussed earlier, peer-reviewing is a critical element that needs improvement.
In the new system, the approach to peer-reviewing is to increase transparency and accountability. In Bilgikut, peer-reviewing is optional, with the reviews appearing alongside the articles. This flexibility allows articles to be visible without reviews or with publicly signed reviews. The latter is preferable, as they enhance the transparency and credibility of the system.
In the Bilgikut system, peer-reviewing will be conducted after the article is deposited in the system. It starts with the funding agency of the work soliciting at least one expert, preferably residing in a different continent, to assess the quality of the work. The funding agency pays the reviewer a reasonable service fee, provided that he/she agrees to sign and publicly deposit a review report in the system. This process introduces both financial and reputation incentives for the reviewer, encouraging a careful and objective assessment of the work.
The reasonable fee for a review largely depends on the expert’s place of residence. In the US, it might be a few hundred dollars, while in Turkey, it could be a few thousand Turkish lira. This fee can be offset from the funding allocated for the submitted work. Furthermore, implementing an additional fee may deter ‘prolific’ scientists that spit out an article every 37 hours. Besides, a system that compensates reviewers for their time and effort could further motivate researchers like Dr. Elisabeth Bik who already undertake such activities voluntarily.
Paying for reviewing is not only fair but also economically viable. For example, assuming that only 10% of deposited articles undergo public review and each review is compensated with an average fee of $100, the total for the year 2022 would be $220 million. Considering that researchers globally paid a total of $1.06 billion in APC to the five largest commercial publishers during the three years of 2015–2018 (Reference 2), spending $220 million globally to compensate individual scientists for their crucial work of peer-reviewing is both cost-effective and fair. In addition to public funding for peer-reviewing, charities, and businesses can contribute to covering the costs of reviewing articles that align with their interest.
Last but not least, we should modernize the format of academic publishing. The practice of citing articles using published volume and issue numbers is outdated, reminiscent of print-based systems from the 1900s. In the Bilgikut system, citations would only require author names, the instance where the papers appeared, the publication time, and the digital object identifier (DOI). Additionally, the initial screening of submitted articles will be streamlined using AI.
Moreover, all submitted papers should mandatorily include original data. Encouraging and, in some cases, mandating the use of videos and audio, especially in experimental physical science and engineering articles, would be beneficial. Figures and tables could be made interactive using tools like Tableau, allowing for a more engaging and informative presentation. The use of multimedia in articles not only aids in illustrating complex experiments involving multiple steps but also saves space by reducing word counts.
In the proposed Bilgikut system, every detail of an experiment or test would be required. The system would be equipped with an AI assistant capable of automatically extracting experimental details, such as the devices used, the details of materials used, including their sources and purity, experimental procedures, and comparing these details to established protocols. It would raise warnings if any details are lacking or do not match the protocol, asking for the reason and further work, if necessary. This is crucial for addressing the reproducibility crisis in academic publishing, where a significant amount of research cannot be independently repeated with the same results.
The Bilgikut system I propose represents a step towards reshaping academic publishing in the digital age. The goal is to replace the profit-driven model with a system that prioritizes the interests of researchers, funding agencies, and humanity as a whole. While this proposal may have its shortcomings, I hope it offers researchers, institutions, and funding agencies to consider and collaborate on improving the quality of academic publishing.
Disclaimer:
- ChatGPT is used for grammar and readability checks.
- I have been submitting to and reviewing for several commercial publishers. As a researcher who has recently published, it seems reasonable to continue reviewing for them for the time being, in fairness to other researchers who have reviewed my work.
References:
Reference 1: Stephen Buranyi, Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian, published on 27 June 2017; accessed on 23rd December 2023.
Reference 2: Leigh-Ann Butler, et al., The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges, Quantitative Science Studies 1–22; accessed on 23rd December 2023.
Reference 3: Mark A. Hansen, et al., The strain on scientific publishing, arXiv:2309.15884; accessed on 23rd December 2023.
Reference 4: Paul Sutter, How can we restore public trust in science? (op-ed), published in space.com, on 9th December 2023. ; accessed on 23rd December 2023.
Reference 5: J. E. Hirsch, Superconductivity, what the H? The emperor has no clothes, arXiv:2001.09496v1; accessed on 23rd December 2023.
Reference 6: Richard Van Noorden, More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record, published in Nature.com on 12th December 2023; accessed on 23rd December 2023.
Reference 7 time stemp 9:22 : #BLOCKCON— Day 2 (Oct 11) — Fireside Chat: Nassim Nicholas Taleb & Naval Ravikant, published on YouTube on 14th October 2018; accessed on 23rd December 2023.
Reference 8: Eiko Fried, Welcome to Hotel Elsevier: you can check-out any time you like … not, https://eiko-fried.com/welcome-to-hotel-elsevier-you-can-check-out-any-time-you-like-not/. ;accessed on 23rd March 2024. Also a personal experience. I received an email a few months ago from a surface-enhanced Raman scattering substrate maker based in Poland. In the email, they inquired about my interest in purchasing their products. Notably, at the end of the email, there was a section that clarified they had purchased my contact information from Elsevier.
Reference 9: UO Libraries, UO Libraries’ Elsevier Contract Negotiations, 27th November 2023; accessed on 23rd December 2023.
Reference 10: Hasok Chang, A Personal Statement on the Current State of Academic Publishing, 8th January 2018; accessed on 23rd December 2023.
