Why Editors At Scientific Journals Are Resigning En Masse

Key takeaways

The scientific publishing industry has experienced a troubling trend of mass resignations among editors, primarily due to ethical concerns.
There's a significant financial model behind scientific journals, moving towards article processing charges, which may compromise the quality of published research.
Concerns exist over the declining quality of scientific literature as editors and the academic community grapple with pressures to expedite publication.
The ongoing issues in publishing could contribute to a broader erosion of trust in science among the public.
Future changes in the industry may arise through alternative publishing models and nonprofit initiatives aimed at enhancing transparency and quality.

Summary

Mass Resignation of Editorial Boards

The episode discusses a concerning trend of mass resignations among scientific journal editors, with at least 20 instances reported in 2023 alone. This surge in resignations is attributed to ethical concerns regarding publishing practices. Many editorial members, including those from the Journal of Human Evolution, left due to pressures to increase the volume of publications while compromising quality and integrity. This phenomenon raises questions about the future of scientific publishing.

The Business Model Behind Scientific Publishing

Ira and his guests delve into the financial mechanisms of the scientific publishing industry, which is valued at approximately $19 billion with a profit margin of 40%. As traditional subscription models wane, the podcast discusses the rise of article processing charges (APCs) where authors pay fees for their work to be published. This shift has created an incentive to prioritize quantity over quality, prompting concerns about the robustness of peer review processes.

Concerns Over Quality and Use of AI

The guests express their deep concern over the declining quality of scientific literature, exacerbated by changes in editorial practices and the potential use of AI in the publishing process. The discussion highlights the implications of cutting corners, such as the elimination of copy editors and the need for more oversight in the production process. Editors worry that without rigorous checks, the scientific community's trust in published research may wane.

Impact on Science and Public Perception

The mass resignations and declining standards in scientific publishing may fuel skepticism about science itself. Ivan notes how critics may weaponize these issues to undermine trust in scientific credibility, further complicating public discourse around important scientific topics. This highlights an urgent need for introspection and reform within the scientific publishing landscape to ensure integrity and public confidence.

Future Prospects and Alternatives

Looking forward, the podcast discusses whether these mass resignations have compelled publishers like Elsevier to reconsider their policies. Although there are signs that big publishers are attentive to these trends, there is skepticism about whether meaningful change will occur. The emergence of nonprofit publishers is pointed out as a potential alternative model, with ongoing experiments that may restore the credibility and quality of scientific publishing.

Show notes

Editors at scientific journals are quitting in droves. According to Retraction Watch, a watchdog publication, there have been at least 20 mass resignations since 2023.

So, what’s going on? If you look closely, you’ll notice a common pattern—publishers are cutting back on the number of editors, increasing the number of papers, and charging hefty fees for authors to publish their work.

The most recent mass resignation happened at the Journal of Human Evolution at the end of 2024. Both co-editors in chief and the entire editorial board quit, except for one person.

What does this mean for the future of scientific publishing? Have these resignations made the big publishers change their ways? Is the strict academic publishing system we know in danger?

To answer those questions and more, Ira talks with Dr. Andrea Taylor, former co-editor in chief of the Journal of Human Evolution; and Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch and editor in chief of The Transmitter.

Transcripts for each segment will be available after the show airs on sciencefriday.com.

Subscribe to this podcast. Follow us on socials @ scifri on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and Bluesky and sign up for our newsletters. Got a science question that’s keeping you up at night? Call us: 877-472-4374

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.