The academic publishing milieu is facing a critical moment as tensions between editorial boards and publishing houses intensify. The recent mass resignation of nearly the entire editorial board of Elsevier’s Journal of Human Evolution (JHE) signals not just discontent but points to a significant shift in how scientific journals operate in today’s environment.
In a courageous move, all but one member of JHE’s editorial board resigned, citing profound dissatisfaction with Elsevier’s management and editorial practices. The context surrounding this unprecedented departure reveals systemic issues within the academic publishing industry that have been simmering for quite some time. As reported by Retraction Watch, this marks the 20th instance of mass resignation from a scientific journal in 2023 alone, underscoring a growing chorus of voices against the controversial policies adopted by prominent publishing houses.
The editors’ heartfelt statement articulated their sorrow at having to distance themselves from a journal that they have nurtured for 38 years. Their dedication and loyalty to the journal and its authors are commendable; however, their integrity ultimately compelled them to stand against what they perceive as ethically dubious practices. This glaring resignation is not merely a reactionary response but rather a principled stand that exposes deeper ethical concerns in scientific publishing.
At the core of the editorial board’s resignations are changes implemented by Elsevier that they believe undermine the journal’s editorial integrity. Specific reductions in staffing—most notably the removal of dedicated copy editing and special issues editors—have resulted in an increased burden on the board members themselves. The insistence from Elsevier that editors disregard language quality and accuracy has sparked outrage, highlighting a disconnect between academic rigor and commercial interests.
Additionally, the planned restructuring of the editorial board raises alarm bells. A move to drastically reduce the number of associate editors while also imposing stringent annual contract renewals threatens to dilute editorial expertise and complicate the peer-review process. Such arrangements compromise the very foundation upon which scholarly publishing stands: the rigorous appraisal of research by qualified experts.
Compounding these issues is the unsettling integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the publishing process without adequate transparency or oversight. Editors reported facing an avalanche of formatting errors and miscommunications, exacerbated by the AI’s inconsistent performance. Disturbingly, this centralization of control has led to significant misunderstandings and mistakes, tarnishing the journal’s reputation. The editors’ plight represents a threat to the foundational principles of clarity and accuracy essential in scientific discourse.
Publishing houses’ reliance on technology shouldn’t come at the cost of critical human oversight. Instead of enhancing efficiency, the automation processes have introduced layers of complexity and confusion that have disrupted established workflows. This further fuels skepticism regarding the integrity of scholarly communications in an increasingly profit-driven industry.
The financial ramifications of Elsevier’s recent practices cannot be overlooked. The increased author fees for manuscript publication in JHE starkly contrast with the scholarly values of equality and accessibility. For many researchers, particularly those from underfunded institutions or regions, such costs are prohibitively burdensome, alienating talented voices from participating in the research community and perpetuating existing inequities.
The escalating costs associated with publication also clash with Elsevier’s professed commitment to inclusivity within scientific dialogue. These contradictions raise pressing ethical questions about the priorities of leading publishing entities and their willingness to support an equitable research environment.
The mass resignation at JHE is a clarion call for reflection on the state of academic publishing. As scholars increasingly confront growing disenfranchisement with their publishing houses, a collective re-evaluation of priorities is in order. One crucial takeaway from this event is the pressing need for transparency, ethical accountability, and genuine engagement with the academic community by publishers.
As the landscape evolves, it remains to be seen whether stakeholders in academic publishing will adapt their practices to better align with the values of the scientific community. The JHE resignation speaks volumes about the profound yearning for an academic environment that prioritizes integrity, excellence, and equitable access—a lesson all publishing entities should heed moving forward.