In this occasional series, we will examine some of the inequities within the scholarly publishing system, from the cost barriers of APCs to the dominance of English language and Global North voices.
As participants in this system, we believe it’s important to be aware of these issues and consider the challenges–and opportunities–they present. Through this series, we hope to equip you with information that will help you navigate the sometimes rocky seas of scholarly communication.
In our first post of the series, we explored the scholarly publishing landscape, which has become increasingly corporatized and consolidated in recent decades. Today, we will be looking at one of the concerning impacts of those trends: the tracking and monetization of user data online.
The state of affairs
Privacy concerns are swirling in the air these days.
As DOGE gains access to vast government databases and the IRS reportedly nears a deal to share taxpayer information with ICE, alarms are going off about the security of sensitive personal data, and the ways it might be used–or misused–in the hands of Trump administration officials.
Meanwhile, within the private sector, concern about the exploitation of online user data is nothing new. The common practice of websites tracking, sharing, and selling user data is paradoxically both in our faces (cookie notifications on every site; online ads for goods that haunt us for weeks after a purchase has been made) and obscured (information on what data is being collected and how it is being used is often difficult, if not impossible, to find).
The link to scholarly publishing
The reality that publishers engage in user tracking practices is likely unsurprising. What might be more surprising, however, is the extent of these data collection practices, and what some publishers are doing with that data.
Let’s take the case of Elsevier.
Elsevier’s parent, RELX, is a data analytics company–or, to use Sarah Lamdan’s apt coinage, a data cartel. In other words, RELX is in the business of collecting and selling data.
To this end, over the years RELX has acquired and developed many products that span the research production process, from information gathering to article submission to institutional reporting systems. This has been called the “platformatization” of research infrastructure–as illustrated by this dizzying chart:
At each of these points, RELX is collecting user information–and in some cases, packaging it into databases that it then sells back to institutions.
This raises troubling ethical concerns about the ways that academic research activities are being tracked and monetized, and how companies like RELX are profiting off the data of those who use their academic products.
The link between Elsevier and ICE
Of further concern is that their customers are not limited to academic institutions.
As part of its portfolio, RELX sells “risk products” such as LexisNexis ThreatMetrix to government and law enforcement agencies.
In 2021, news broke that LexisNexis (another RELX company) had signed a contract with ICE. This sparked outrage and activism among students, library groups, and academics who use LexisNexis’ other products, and even a lawsuit (in which LexisNexis prevailed).
Fast forward to today, and–given the mass deportation plans of the current Trump administration–our reliance on publishers like Elsevier feels increasingly fraught.
Where do we go from here?
Privacy is a core value of librarianship, and librarians have long worked to protect the privacy of their users. Yet when it comes to online research, we have significantly less ability to do so.
When you read a colleague’s article on a publisher’s website or type a search into an online database, there’s a good chance your actions are being tracked. The extent and purpose of that tracking varies and can be difficult to know due to the lack of transparency on how personal data submitted in research platforms is used.
So, what are we in the library doing about it? For one thing, we actively negotiate with publishers and other vendors to strengthen the privacy protections in our license agreements. While not always successful, we make sure that publishers know how important this issue is to us. We also support advocacy organizations like SPARC that are harnessing libraries’ collective power to demand more transparency and protection from publishers.
As a researcher, one simple step you can take to protect your own privacy is to think about the information you may be voluntarily sharing online. Many publishers offer personal accounts that allow for increased personalization features, such as saving articles and search histories. Check providers’ online privacy policies and consider whether the convenience these features offer are worth the trade-off of providing publishers with additional personal data. More broadly, if you’re looking for ways to protect yourself online, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is a good resource. And if you’re curious about what data LexisNexis has on you, you can request a Consumer Disclosure Report from them.
Choosing alternatives
When we engage with a commercial publisher like Elsevier, it’s important to consider that we are engaging with a company whose reach may well extend far beyond academic publishing, and whose actions may conflict with our values on any number of fronts.
With that in mind, perhaps the most impactful strategy in our collective toolkit is to try to reduce our dependence on these publishing giants where we can, in favor of publishers who take user privacy seriously. Consider who you choose to publish with and where you go for information. If you have questions about particular publishers, or just want to talk more, let us know–we’re always happy to chat.