A lawsuit filed against six major academic publishers alleges that restrictive practices that maximize profits at the expense of scholars and the public violate U.S. antirust laws (see Reuters). The publishers named as defendants in the suit include Elsevier, John Wiley & Sons, Sage Publications, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wolters Kluwer.
The suit, filed by UCLA neuroscience professor Lucina Uddin, alleges that policies like the “Single Submission Rule,” which prevents researchers from submitting work to multiple journals simultaneously, the “Unpaid Peer Review rule”, under which reviewers are not compensated by their work, and a “Gag Rule” that delays the sharing of research findings until official publication, are the products of industry collusion that disadvantage consumers and the effectiveness of scholarly publishing to inform the public (see the complaint here). Uddin seeks class-action status, monetary damages, and industry reforms to stop these practices.
Expert analysis is conflicted on whether the lawsuit raises sufficient claims to survive in U.S. Courts. Even if it does, it may not be enough to fully shift the dynamics concerning researchers’ evaluation within universities. Dave Hansen, executive director of the Authors Alliance, argues “that change has to come from within the universities,” which need “to get serious about article-level metrics and evaluating the scholarship divorced from the idea that it’s in any particular journal” (see Inside Higher Ed).
Regarding the Single Submission Rule, Dorothy Bishop contends that without this requirement, editors and peer reviewers could face an unmanageable workload due to a surge in submissions. She also disputes the plaintiffs’ claim that unpaid peer review labor is directly tied to the chance of publication in a given journal, noting that there is no “express link between peer review and publishing papers in the pre-eminent journals” and that “many journal editors complain that some of the most prolific authors never do any peer review”. Finally, she also addresses some arguments that may be connected to the “Gag Rule”, stating that peer review “is a matter of weeks or months, not ‘over a year’” and “most journals these days allow authors to post their articles as preprints”.
Members of the Scholarly Kitchen, a known industry-friendly portal, have also pointed out potential weaknesses that could undermine the plaintiffs’ claims. Lisa Hinchliffe questions the arguments concerning the “Unpaid Peer Review Rule” by mentioning the relationship of Springer Nature and Taylor & Francis with Research Quality Evaluation, a service that would pay reviewers. David Crotty argument suggests that publishers are service providers allowing researchers to advance their careers and meet the demands of employers and funders, aligning with the argument of Alison Mudditt that there is a broader issue in how researchers are evaluated. A.J. Boston questions the “Gag Rule”, asserting that “because prior to submission all of these publishers allow preprinting in most cases” (see Scholarly Kitchen).
There are conflicting views on the lawsuit against these major academic publishers, which raises complex legal questions regarding industry practices in scholarly publishing. While the outcome of the case remains uncertain, what can be said is that this lawsuit has important implications for the current academic publishing model and its impact on researchers, institutions, and public access to knowledge.
