Ethics of academic publishing

[Augustus]

Academic publishing is maybe a $25 billion per year industry.

One thing of note is that the profit margins are obscene and the market never seems to fluctuate like almost all other industries do. Books often cost 4 or 5 times the amount of similar non-academic texts. This is a hallmark of a racket.

Take academic journals for example, the writers are unpaid and the peer reviewers are unpaid, so the content is provided free of charge. Not only, free of charge but the research is often subsidised by the taxpayer. The publishers and database providers however keep extracting more and more money from organisations wishing to use such resources. This bumps up tuition fees, costs to healthcare organisations, etc. as access is necessary.

The no payment for contributions model arose when journals were traditionally independent, now most are owned by major publishing companies. Profit making companies basically rely on slave labour

Because publication in respected journals is important for ones academic career, you really have to earn the right to self publish material, even if you want to. So people get locked into the system.

Companies like Elsevier are also pretty litigious as regards people posting journals online without permission. A gifted internet activist, Aaron Schwartz, even took his own life after being threatened with jail for illegal mass downloading of articles from the JSTOR database.

Recognising how immoral the system is, where companies make billions off free labour and public subsidy, while at the same time limiting access to knowledge and thus actively harming society many people have started to react.

Open access publishing is on the rise, and some organisations who subsidise research are inserting clauses that such material must be made available free of charge to the public.

Other people have gone even further, websites such as sci-hub, now enable people to illegally bypass the paywalls without charge by linking their search engine to university accounts. By entering the URL into their search engine, the article will be magically unlocked, and downloaded to both the users computer and a centralised database where it can be accessed by others. Due to the illegality of such a process, they are currently facing legal action.

What are your views on this industry? How would you like to see it changed? Would you like to see your government intervene? Do you believe it is morally unjustifiable to limit access to publicly subsidised research? What are your attitudes towards sites like sci-hub that enable the illegal sharing of academic material? Is this just plain theft, or is it a valuable public service?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

There is much validity to your critique, but it's not the whole picture. To begin with, academic publishing has never been free; it's been underwritten by universities, and sometimes faculty independent of their employing universities. Very early on, journals were often published and distributed freely; later, a journal became part of the benefits of membership in a professional/research organization--join the organization (for a fee) and you get among other benefits Our Journal. Some have even charged a separate subscription fee. Why? Because it cost money to edit and review the papers, put them in printable form, publish, and distribute them. And it's gotten quite expensive to publish a journal that has a circulation of perhaps a few hundred to a few thousand.

The Open Access journals--which are also being backed in some ways by the big publishers--still cost money to produce, because it still requires "slave labor" to write the articles (not really, almost all of the authors are employed in higher education or in fields related to the subject matter they write about, some but by no means all have grants, contracts and allowances--and sometimes use their own money--to underwrite their research, and have support in terms of graduate assistants, and so on) and to edit and review them (being editor or reviewer is seen as part of the "service to the field" component of your academic job when it comes time for promotion and tenure--so it's not really slave labor...just not compensated in the normal manner).

The open access movement has led to a proliferation in pay-to-publish journals (they existed before, but there are now millions of them--It is now estimated [because oddly enough, it's impossible to find and track them all] tens of millions of published journal titles, with only at most a few million of them being legitimate). Some of these are good journals, and the amount paid truly goes to paying for the publishing process; however, there are a lot of journals that are just scams.

Why are there so many journals? Academics face the "publish or perish" criterion when going up for tenure and promotion. Research grants and contracts often require the production of academic articles and other reports. The tradition in academics is that research should be published and distributed to at the very minimum the other members of an academic field, so that the others will know and be able to test and advance the knowledge gained. While generally the idea was for such knowledge to be available to all and at no cost, the reality is that SOMEONE has always paid the cost: a journal might circulate to the members of an organization as part of their membership fee, but the 2,000 or so libraries around the world that would also buy copies did the larger part of the funding for publishing. With the internet, that system is dying.

As the world's population has grown, there are more universities and research programs and more people employed in ways that require academic publishing as part of their job. Competition for space in the older and more traditional journals has increased, creating a demand for new journals, along with the creation of new more specialized fields of study that require their own journals for more limited audiences.

 

[Augustus]

Because it cost money to edit and review the papers, put them in printable form, publish, and distribute them. And it's gotten quite expensive to publish a journal that has a circulation of perhaps a few hundred to a few thousand.

Clearly there must be some payment for access, but Elsevier makes over $1 billion profit per annum and has a higher profit margin than Apple, close to 40%. Individual universities often have to pay millions per year to access their titles. By consolidating their hold by buying up more and more titles, they are better able to leverage this to force universities to pay higher and higher subscription fees. They are not making money because of their ability to add value, but because they have what basically constitutes a monopoly. Try to access an article without a database and they will quote you $40-50 for a pdf.

Many libraries simply can't afford access to all of the material they would like.

being editor or reviewer is seen as part of the "service to the field" component of your academic job when it comes time for promotion and tenure--so it's not really slave labor...just not compensated in the normal manner

This argument worked when journals were non-profit and interested in publishing material to enhance the spread of knowledge. It doesn't work when it is a major corporation paying massive salaries to executives and dividends to shareholders.

They are not interested in spreading knowledge, but maximising profits.

 

[Quintessence]

They are not interested in spreading knowledge, but maximising profits.

Those are accusations that I'm going to require some rather convincing evidence of.

I'll admit that while I've published in the academic literature, I don't know as much about all levels of its process as I'd like to. I never got any indication that what you're claiming here and in the OP is true, and a grad course I took on biological sciences publishing spent a fair amount of course time discussing ethical issues in publishing, thus I figure that would have been brought up if it was an actual thing considering this course was co-taught by three professors who didn't always agree with each other's perspectives.

 

[Augustus]

Those are accusations that I'm going to require some rather convincing evidence of.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...publishing-can-t-remain-such-a-great-business

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/93138f3e-87d6-11e5-90de-f44762bf9896.html#axzz45uCZiE5N

https://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly...culty-open-access-policy/elsevier-fact-sheet/

http://www.economist.com/node/21545974

 

[Quintessence]

That's still not evidence that they're not interested in spreading knowledge and only maximizing profits, but it does suggest that some academic publishers might be taking advantage of the system. I'd like to see some things directly from the horse's mouth, though, as well as something from university librarians and academics themselves with direct knowledge of the processes. I've got plenty folks around I can ask about this... get different perspectives. I've never published anything that would be under Elsevier's domain rights.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Makes sense that they'd just be after money.

Elsevier is owned by the RELX Group, a publicly owned company.

No business is going to risk shareholder confidence to go after some idealistic lofty goal of providing easy-to-access knowledge to people etc.

The objective of such a business is simple - Maximise shareholder wealth.

Elsevier will be brought in line under this objective no doubt. You can't have competing objectives.

Here's a link to the RELX group's strategy: http://www.relx.com/aboutus/strategy

Typical stuff that's really all about working towards one thing: maximising shareholder wealth!

The final paragraph really hits it:

"By focusing on evolving the fundamentals of our business we believe that, over time, we are improving our business profile and the quality of our earnings. This is leading to more predictable revenues through a better asset mix and geographic balance; a higher growth profile by expanding in higher growth segments, exiting from structurally challenged businesses and gradually reducing the drag from print format declines; and improved returns by focusing on organic development with strong cash generation."

That's them selling they are a stable, reliable investment but with good growth, which is great advertising to prospective investors and reassuring stuff for existing shareholders. This is what it's all about, and thereby what publishing companies like Elsevier are all about too as a subsidiary.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

That's still not evidence that they're not interested in spreading knowledge and only maximizing profits, but it does suggest that some academic publishers might be taking advantage of the system. I'd like to see some things directly from the horse's mouth, though, as well as something from university librarians and academics themselves with direct knowledge of the processes. I've got plenty folks around I can ask about this... get different perspectives. I've never published anything that would be under Elsevier's domain rights.

Since they're owned by a public company it is extremely unlikely they'd have a secondary objective like 'spreading knowledge'. That compromises effective corporate governance and shareholders don't like it.

EDIT: Of course, 'spreading knowledge' can be justified as a means to maximise shareholder wealth, but it's not going to be a separate objective, only a means to that end.

 

[First Baseman]

Is the piracy of academic journals ethical?

What kind of a rhetorical question is that? Of course it isn't ethical. Unless one believes pirating can be justified. It can't, by the way.

 

[Augustus]

That's still not evidence that they're not interested in spreading knowledge and only maximizing profits, but it does suggest that some academic publishers might be taking advantage of the system.

If you charge $50 for access to a pdf of a 30 year old 15 page article, I fail to see how someone can do this and also be interested in spreading knowledge.

When you have the uber-capitalist financial press commenting on how remarkable this industry is then that also tells a story.

When you add this to the fact that Apple is famous for its premium pricing, milking every cent out of its customers and consequent amazing profit margins and still has a lower margin the Elsevier, this really says something. At least Apple has revolutionised several industries and makes terrific products with a lot of value added, Elsevier does nothing that any average publishing company couldn't also do. This does not happen in normal industries.

They are not adding value through differentiation, they are leveraging a monopoly position to extort educational institutions

I'd like to see some things directly from the horse's mouth, though, as well as something from university librarians and academics themselves with direct knowledge of the processes.

The 3rd link was from MIT library and references a campaign by academics to boycott Elsevier http://thecostofknowledge.com/

What kind of a rhetorical question is that? Of course it isn't ethical. Unless one believes pirating can be justified. It can't, by the way.

Do you believe that breaking the law can never be justified? Or that sometimes activism that crosses this boundary can sometimes be justified?

Piracy of films, for example, is very different. Film making is a business that involves risk and ultimately if you don't want to pay for a film, then you don't have to watch it. Due to the competitive nature of the business too, films are relatively reasonably priced, you can own 3 or 4 movies (each of which cost $100m to make) for the price of one journal article that cost them a few hundred dollars.

Academic material serves a social function, it is a necessary part of our educational system. Articles are given free of charge to journals for this very reason. By buying up many titles, the major publishers also buy their back catalogues of work, that was given to non-profit organisations. This information is, in many cases, essential to researchers and having monopoly control over it therefore gives companies a great ability to abuse their power.

Scientific research has the capability to benefit society greatly, and restricting access to it and profit gouging is thus immoral. Overcharging universities also has the effect of driving up tuition fees and making university less accessible to poorer people thus restricting social mobility. Journals are also basically inaccessible to anyone without institutional access as they are often priced at $50 or so per article (not even per journal issue). This could equate to $600+ for pdf copies of a single journal edition. This means that independent researchers, historically a major driver of scientific progress, are severely inhibited in their ability to contribute.

The result is that an industry, that should be operating in the public interest is actually one of the most profitable industries in the world by %. Can you explain why a company that adds minimal value to its product in real terms should be making profit margins higher than Apple and 400% above most industry averages? Not to mention that this is on the back of publicly subsidised research, so you pay for the study and they hide it away and make ridiculous profits.

When you have an organisation that abuses its position to inhibit societal progress, that has typically been something that can prompt people to take direct action.

 

[Quintessence]

If you charge $50 for access to a pdf of a 30 year old 15 page article, I fail to see how someone can do this and also be interested in spreading knowledge.

You don't see how it could be a both/and? Do you apply this same standard for charging money for all other types of goods and services? If I charge $30/hour for counseling sessions, does that mean I'm not interested in helping people because I am making a profit? Making a profit =/= not caring about the goods/services one is providing. I feel you're making an assumption about their motives that can't be evidenced because it involves the person's internal thought processes that neither you nor I can know. It also isn't an important claim to make with respect to what you're presenting here, and I think the case stands better with that tossed out of it. Whether or not the individuals allegedly abusing the system personally care about or value the goods/services they render isn't important for assessing whether or not the system is in fact being abused. I like to see hard data, not speculation upon human motives.

The other issue I have with the OP is that it makes a few too many blanket statements. Big blanket statements require big blanket evidence. If we're talking specifically about Elsevier, fine, but let's not extend that to other groups that may or may not have this issue, yeah?

Oh, and keep in mind it's not like I think you're full of $#@%, I'm practicing what I'd hope is rather healthy skepticism. I'm not going to decide you're right or wrong until I investigate and get other perspectives on the issue, which I may or may not take the time to do.

 

[Augustus]

If we're talking specifically about Elsevier, fine, but let's not extend that to other groups that may or may not have this issue, yeah?

Fair point, I'll limit my charges to the major corporations like Elsevier, Pearson, Springer, Wiley, Sage, etc.

"Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers)." Source

Journal databases are harder to look into as many are private. Proquest is part owned by Goldman Sachs though, and they are not famous for their ethical approach to business.

A is Elsevier, and B is Elsevier Scientific, medical and technical division only. You can note that on science and medicine they have a profit margin of 40% (most industries average single digit profit margins - as Elsevier did 30 years ago), so on the most important articles with the greatest potential to help society they gouge the highest profits and are progressively extorting more and more.

Spoiler: Graph

Do you apply this same standard for charging money for all other types of goods and services? If I charge $30/hour for counseling sessions, does that mean I'm not interested in helping people because I am making a profit? Making a profit =/= not caring about the goods/services one is providing. I feel you're making an assumption about their motives that can't be evidenced because it involves the person's internal thought processes that neither you nor I can know.

I believe that the evidence is overwhelming, simply looking at the profit margins themselves will tell you this as they are ludicrous, as noted by the FT in a previous article. A deeper investigation simply confirms this, especially the rise in profit margins from a normal 8%ish to close to 40%.

As for your example, I feel you are missing the point. A counsellor spends their time seeing a patient, and their time is finite. A counsellor also can only charge what is seen as reasonable, unless they are truly a unique individual with exceptional abilities (or 'branding'). The price of a product of service should have some link to the cost of providing/producing that product or service. Apple have an almost unique position that allows them to generate very high profit margins, but even these are lower than many academic publishers who add minimal value to a product, they simply leverage their position to artificially inflate prices.

To sell an existing journal article via pdf costs the company a few cents. Once their infrastructure is in place their business is scalable, meaning they can vastly increase supply/sales/etc. for minimal additional investment (a counsellor is non-scalable as they can only be in one place at a time). A fair price for a journal article would be <$1, yet the cost might be $50. The only reason it is $50, is to force people to buy larger subscriptions (often priced in the millions of dollars). I have institutional access to material and was looking for a reference source on a publishers site (a source that contributors were not paid for), my institution didn't have access to it and I was offered permanent access to an online html version of the resource for the bargain price of $31,730. I don't need to be able to see inside someone's mind to know that they care not one jot about spreading access to knowledge. They are publicly listed companies owned by VC firms, hedge funds and the like, and these people know a good thing when they see it.

A more accurate example would be Martin Shkreli who purchased the rights to an essential anti-parasitic medicine then increased its price by 5500%. This is the abuse of a monopoly position.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Clearly there must be some payment for access, but Elsevier makes over $1 billion profit per annum and has a higher profit margin than Apple, close to 40%. Individual universities often have to pay millions per year to access their titles. By consolidating their hold by buying up more and more titles, they are better able to leverage this to force universities to pay higher and higher subscription fees. They are not making money because of their ability to add value, but because they have what basically constitutes a monopoly. Try to access an article without a database and they will quote you $40-50 for a pdf.

Many libraries simply can't afford access to all of the material they would like.



This argument worked when journals were non-profit and interested in publishing material to enhance the spread of knowledge. It doesn't work when it is a major corporation paying massive salaries to executives and dividends to shareholders.

They are not interested in spreading knowledge, but maximising profits.

While I generally agree with your observations, the interests of the publishers is not the same as the interests for researchers/faculty. If you were to tell my fellows on my faculty that their publishing and service is not important, they will laugh you out of the room. That the publishers are ripping off anyone they can, yes, they will agree. But it is not legitimate to pay to have your research published, and it is not okay to publish in just any journal. Faculty is pursuing one game, and publishers another, and the so-called open journals are mostly not very reputable, yet. That's the facts from the academic side.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What are your views on this industry?

I find it abysmal. Prices go up as the quality of the literature goes down. It's true that companies like Wiley will often sell "international" editions of their textbooks to India and similar countries in which students simply can't afford to pay $100 or more for every textbook for significantly less than they charge everybody else, but they should charge such prices across the board. The number of papers published in IEEE journals, Springer journals, and elsewhere in fields like machine learning which were actually generated by algorithms and somehow passed peer-review (not to mention numerous scandals being uncovered all the time; check out retractionwatch.org) should force academic publishers to either hold themselves to a higher standard, make their products available for free or nearly so, or both. However, as their main clients are institutions (particular universities) and individuals like me don't pay for our access to online databases or print media, and universities are already gouging their students for every penny, they can force universities to pay what they want and charge exorbitant amounts for textbooks students have to purchase just to add insult to injury.

How would you like to see it changed?

It is changing, thankfully. Numerous journals are now open access journals online, companies like Springer even make many ebooks open access, papers from journals and conferences are hosted on sites discoverable by google scholar searchers, sites like arXiv are not only freely available, but are increasingly used by researchers in physics outside of the peer-review process.

What are your attitudes towards sites like sci-hub that enable the illegal sharing of academic material?

I have made it a point to make the materials I have access to available to anybody. Open access should be the norm, and I support anybody making academic research available for free.