In this new occasional series called Questions of Equity in Scholarly Publishing, 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.
We’re excited to explore this topic with you all, and as a first step, this post will orient us a bit in the landscape in which corporate interests loom large. Having a clear picture of this will give us helpful context when we start to unpack some of the issues present in the industry today. Let’s dive in!
Size Matters: The Big Business of Academic Publishing
The current reality is a market dominated by large commercial publishers. Their names–Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley–are no doubt familiar, and for good reason: these publishers lead the pack in terms of scholarly article output, and they have done so now for decades.
These commercial publishers aren’t only dominating in terms of the number of articles they publish; they also are the leaders in terms of profits–and it turns out that scholarly journal publishing can be a very lucrative business.
Elsevier’s parent company, RELX, reported a 33.1% adjusted operating margin in 2023. This aligns with a recent analysis of the costs of journal publishing activities, which estimated that, on average, 15% of a journal’s subscription fee goes towards actual publication costs, 55% goes towards non-publication costs, and a tidy 30% is kept as profit. Such high profit margins are notable not just within the larger publishing industry (successful magazines typically see margins of 12-15%, by comparison), but across any industry.
How Did We Get Here? Evolving Toward Consolidation
It can sometimes seem like it has been this way forever, but of course that is not the case. Up until the middle of the 20th century, academic publishing was primarily the work of university presses and scholarly societies.
Commercial publishing began to take off in earnest in the 1960s and 70s, and over time, some of these publishers grew significantly in size and scope through takeovers of existing journals, starting new journals, and consolidation in the market. Multinational publishers’ hold on the market has solidified over the past few decades, and while a few scholarly societies (like the American Chemical Society) and university presses (like Oxford) continue to contribute a sizable share of overall publications each year, they are the exception rather than the rule.
Naturally, the industry continues to evolve, as it always has. New players-–particularly in the realm of for-profit, open access publishing–have entered the scene in recent years. And each year, publishers rise and fall, and the rankings are reshuffled.
But the general trend of big, for-profit companies producing a large and ever-increasing percentage of articles each year doesn’t show signs of stopping–even as the total number of articles being published annually is also rising steadily.
The Bottom Line: It’s All About the Bottom Line
To boil it down to the simplest of terms, the scholarly publishing industry is dominated by big publishers who make big profits.
This is an incomplete summary of a large and complex landscape, and plenty of other narratives are playing out concurrently (for example, there are many small and non-profit publishers rolling out innovative new models for open access publishing, such as JSTOR’s Path to Open and the new Subscribe to Open journal program from Project MUSE).
Yet the overarching context of corporate dominance has impacted the industry in some concerning ways. The commercialization of scholarly communication leads to conflicting values between profit-driven publishers and the researchers and libraries with whom they do business, who tend to view knowledge as a public good. Increasing consolidation compounds the issue, skewing the balance of power more and more towards these publishing giants.
In future posts, we’ll explore some of the ways this conflict is playing out–and what we might do in light of it.
Stay tuned!
Katherine Fish is the Serials and Electronic Resources Librarian at Macalester College. In this role, she works behind the scenes to manage the library’s online resources–which involves negotiating contracts with publishers, configuring access, and troubleshooting technical issues. Outside of work you are likely to find her chasing after her toddler and/or dog.