A new paper proposes that academic research funders can fix the science publishing system, which researchers argue currently puts profit first and science second.
The paper, ‘The Drain of Scientific Publishing’, says the current relationship between researchers, funders and commercial publishers has created a “drain”, depriving the research system of money, time, trust and control.
The research team, including Professor Stephen Pinfield of the School of Information, Journalism and Communication, used public revenue and income statements to assess the money being spent on publishing articles with the biggest commercial publishers, and placed this in the broader historical context, including recent trends.
Professor Pinfield said: "This study has been produced by an international research team, working together to come to a better understanding of the current problems with academic publishing, and to think through some of the solutions. There are major challenges but also exciting opportunities in the academic community reclaiming research publishing in ways that benefit science and society more generally."
The paper examines the scale of publisher profits, with the four leading publishers (Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis) generating over $7.1 billion in revenue in 2024 alone, with profit margins exceeding 30 per cent.
Much of this money comes from public funds intended for research, and the new paper says bold action by funders is now essential.
Research funding often includes money to pay journal fees to make articles open access. With these fees rising, increasing amounts of research funding - which often comes from taxpayers - becomes publisher profits.
One option discussed in the paper is for “re-communalising” scientific publishing, with funding agencies, universities or governments promoting or even requiring researchers they fund to use non-profit systems that are led by researchers, with any extra revenue reinvested into the research community.