The recent mass resignation of nearly the entire editorial board of Elsevier’s Journal of Human Evolution (JHE) marks a significant event in the realm of academic publishing. With only one board member remaining, the resignation underscores a growing unrest among scholars regarding the evolving and controversial business practices of scientific publishers. This article delves into the implications of this mass resignation, the concerns raised by the editorial board, and the broader implications for academia and research accessibility.
The Wake-Up Call for Academia
Retraction Watch reported that this exodus of editorial members signifies the 20th such occurrence in scientific journals since the beginning of 2023. The systematic departures signal a possible shift in how scholars view their association with major publishing houses. In their statement, the JHE editorial board expressed their deep regret over the decision, indicating that it was not made lightly. This sentiment hints at the emotional toll the current state of publishing has on committed academics who have dedicated decades to nurturing their respective journals.
The board’s statement revealing their heartfelt conflict brings to light the ethical quandaries surrounding academic publishing, particularly when the profit motive supersedes scholarly integrity. Historically, editorial boards have played a vital role in not only upholding the quality of research published but also ensuring that the focus remains on the advancement of knowledge rather than financial gain.
Among the most pressing issues voiced by the outgoing editors are the changes implemented by Elsevier over the past decade. The removal of dedicated support staff, such as copy editors and special issues editors, has led to increased burdens on the editorial team. The expectation that editors manage the intricacies of language and formatting without adequate support presents an alarming shift in standards.
Furthermore, the planned restructuring of the editorial team, which would see a significant reduction in associate editors, raises major concerns about expertise and equity within the publication process. When fewer editors are tasked with managing an increased volume of submissions, not only does the quality of oversight suffer, but the risk of publication biases can rise because it may lead to topics falling outside an editor’s area of expertise.
The power dynamics at play were further exacerbated by the unilateral decisions made by Elsevier, dominating the editorial independence that has traditionally characterized scholarly journals. The introduction of a third-tier editorial board acting chiefly in a ceremonial role blurs the lines between rigorous research oversight and figurehead governance, leading to doubts about the integrity of the editorial process.
The incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) in the production processes of the journal without prior notice to the editorial board is a particularly alarming development. This move raises issues not just of quality control but also of authorship integrity. AI’s role in modifying manuscripts post-acceptance has already led to significant errors in formatting and meaning, suggesting that the jury is still out on how AI can or should be used in academic publishing.
The reporting of a six-month struggle to rectify these issues when AI systems caused embarrassing errors underscores the instability and unreliability that can result from automation without adequate oversight. As AI continues to shape various sectors, a careful evaluation of its implications for academic publishing becomes paramount.
Moreover, the exorbitant author page charges for JHE present additional barriers to publication, especially for early-career researchers or those affiliated with institutions lacking substantial funding. The stark increase in fees challenges the democratic ethos within academia where equal access to scholarly dissemination should be the norm. This contradiction between Elsevier’s stated commitments to inclusivity and the financial realities imposed on authors further cements the growing discontent among the editorial board and the wider research community.
The culmination of these grievances can be traced back to the pivotal moment in November, when key coeditors were faced with the termination of a longstanding dual-editor model unless they accepted a significant reduction in compensation. As financial and ethical pressures mount, it is increasingly clear that these dynamics cannot persist without significant disruption to the scholarly ecosystem.
The resignation of the JHE editorial board not only symbolizes rising tensions in scholarly publishing but also reflects broader demands for change within academic institutions. As frustrations around commercialized research publishing escalate, it casts a spotlight on the urgent need for a reevaluation of academic publishing practices that privilege profit over the pursuit of knowledge. The future of academic publishing may very well depend on fostering an environment that truly values the contributions of academics, prioritizes accessibility, and upholds the principles of editorial integrity.
Leave a Reply