More than forty leading international scientists resigned from the editorial board of the scientific journal Neuroimage, which is published by Elsevier. They protest against the publisher’s ‘greed’, which makes scientists pay for the publication of their own studies. This ‘open access’ policy has been in play for several years in the world of scientific publications. The only question is whether scientists are victims of their own desire for more transparency.
Huge profits are being made within academic publishing. This used to happen because scientists paid hefty sums for subscriptions to scientific journals in order to gain access to important articles within their specialism. The desire for more access and transparency of publications about scientific research has been going on for years. There is a strong social ambition to make scientific knowledge ‘open access’. And so scientific publishers started looking for a new revenue model.
It is unethical to charge scientists for publication
Neuroimage is the world’s leading publication for brain research. The magazine, from the Dutch publisher Elsevier, is now ‘open access’. Instead of a paywall or subscription, the costs for publication are recovered from the scientists themselves. Authors are now paying more than £2,700 for a research paper in Neuroimage, the Guardian. According to the resigned editors, this is unethical and the amount is not in proportion to the costs for the production of the magazines themselves. Professor Chris Chambers, from Cardiff University and editor of Neuroimage, tells the Gaurdian: “Elsevier preys on the academic community, claiming huge profits while adding little value to science.”
Sharing knowledge
Stephan de Valk is director of the Dutch trade association MEVW (Media for Education, Trade and Science). The MRS represents scientific and educational publishers such as Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wolters Kluwer, Noordhoff, ThiemeMeulenhoff and 70 other companies. “As a trade association, we have the vision that sharing knowledge is the source of progress. That is why, as an industry, we also support open access within the world of scientific publications,” says De Valk.
The MEVW website contains a good definition: ‘Open Access is a broad international movement that strives for free and open online access to scientific publications and data. A publication is defined as ‘open access’ when there are no financial, legal or technical barriers to access.
Scientific publishers also have costs
De Valk emphasizes that the trend of open access is not new. For years, society has wanted scientific information to be as easily and widely accessible as possible. “We support that, but publishing scientific information naturally entails costs.” He explains that scientific publishers now work with ‘Author Processing Cost’ (APC). Authors are asked to help pay for publication. And those amounts can therefore amount to almost 3000 euros. “In practice, it is mainly the institutions to which scientists are affiliated, such as universities, who take the bill,” explains De Valk.
Neuroimage’s APC is lower than that of the directly competing journals,” said an Elsevier spokesperson. “And that while the quality is higher. The amount of the APC is determined based on the following criteria: the quality of the journal, the editorial and technical processes (some journal workflows are more complicated than others), the competitive position, the market conditions and other revenue streams for the journal (for example, advertising income).” Elsevier is below the market average with the prices they charge the authors of scientific articles, said the spokesperson.
Not every scientific article is published
When asked whether high APCs are justified, De Valk says: “Publishing scientific journals is a profession in its own right. Many of these magazines have enormous added value.”
De Valk explains that of all the articles that are submitted to scientific journals, only a fraction is actually published. “A detailed peer review is then required. And studies are also placed in context with broader data, which is available from the publisher. An APC is only requested if an article leads to publication.”
Elsevier offers 2.5 million articles on an annual basis. “However, all 2.5 million submissions are reviewed by editors and reviewers. Elsevier works with 30,000 editors worldwide who also have to be paid for their work,” a spokesperson said when asked.
The Netherlands is at the forefront of the open access movement
More than 80% of scientific publications in the Netherlands are freely accessible. According to De Valk, the larger publishers in the Netherlands are taking the lead in the transition of business models, where the paywall is being replaced by APCs. Scientific journals make contractual agreements with the universities for the publication of research. However, this is not possible in all scientific circles. “We draw attention to the specialized scientific publishers, which are not going to make it with the APC model alone. Some small publishers really are the glue within a scientific community. Those titles should be given a little more time to adapt their plans to the open access model. And sometimes exceptions have to be discussed, because otherwise magazines will disappear,” says De Valk.
Do scientists still need a publisher?
And then the question arises: why do universities still need a scientific journal? Since the disappearance of the monopoly of publishers, about 25 years ago, you see many organizations publishing (online) magazines, podcasts and newsletters themselves. There is nothing to prevent organisations, such as universities or scientific networks, from producing their own content and sharing it with their supporters.
The same goes for neuroscientists. The entire editorial team of Neuroimage has decided to start a new, non-profit and open access journal. They urge fellow scientists to turn their backs on Elsevier.
Elsevier, part of RELX, publishes about 18% of the world’s scientific articles. The company makes billions. It reported a 9% increase in sales and a 15% increase in profits in 2022. A spokesperson for Elsevier concludes: “Then the question arises whether scientists should not be able to fully focus on what they do best: pioneering research that helps us move the world forward.”