Why the Current Business of Academic Publishing Is Ethically Flawed—and What We Can Do to Change It

This preprint will be submitted to the Research Ethics journal.

Abstract: The paper presents a reasoned call for urgent reform of the current academic journal article publishing system. It argues that the prevailing commercial model is unfair to taxpayers who largely fund academia, yet must pay again to access research results—either directly through paywalls or indirectly via publicly funded open access fees. Academic institutions have contributed to this situation by creating a systemic set of incentives that channel public funds toward the profit margins of commercial publishers.

Meanwhile, the pursuit of easy profit by publishers—combined with a publish-or-perish culture— fuels the growth of predatory journals, ultimately undermining public trust in science. Metric-driven feedback loops perpetuate structural inequalities and obstruct meaningful reform, as illustrated by recent cases of editorial teams leaving commercial publishers to establish non-profit journals.

At the same time, the present moment—including ongoing debates around intellectual property rights in the context of large language models—offers a unique opportunity for radical change. The paper concludes with eleven proposals for action, intended to stimulate further discussion within and beyond academia. It also highlights the important role that research ethics educators can play in this process.

Keywords: research integrity, academic publishing ethics, for-profit academic publishing, diamond open access, academic journals, intellectual property rights in science, artificial intelligence and fair use

Excerpt from the introduction:

"Here's what a typical conversation with someone outside academia about academic journal publishing looks like:
-    How much do they pay you for publishing an academic paper?
-    Nothing. Authors publish research papers for free; it's part of our job.
-    Oh, then the people reviewing your paper must earn a lot?
-    No, we review the work of our peers for free.
-    Then perhaps the publisher bears high costs for language proofreading?
-    Not really. Authors are required to submit texts already proofread, preferably by a native speaker.
-    Then why does your 15-page article behind a paywall cost nearly 40 euros?
-    Because I couldn't get funding for the open-access fee this time. Look, anyone can read this other paper of mine for free, but my university had to pay over 3,000 euros for that.
-    Wait a second—let me see if I've got this right. You're doing publicly funded research, you publish it for free, other scientists review it for free, you cover the cost of foreign language editing, and then your university pays thousands of euros to some private company so they can make money off it?
-    Basically, yes.
-    What kind of loser would agree to a system like that?

The problem is that we all accept this system by participating in it. "