Towards a more sustainable academic publishing system

Communicating new scientific discoveries is key to human progress. Yet, this endeavor is hindered by monetary restrictions for publishing one's findings and accessing other scientists' reports. This process is further exacerbated by a large portion of publishing media owned by private, for-profit companies that do not reinject academic publishing benefits into the scientific community, in contrast with journals from scientific societies. As the academic world is not exempt from economic crises, new alternatives are necessary to support a fair publishing system for society. After summarizing the general issues of academic publishing today, we present several solutions at the levels of the individual scientist, the scientific community, and the publisher towards more sustainable scientific publishing. By providing a voice to the many scientists who are fundamental protagonists, yet often powerless witnesses, of the academic publishing system, and a roadmap for implementing solutions, this initiative can spark increased awareness and promote shifts towards impactful practices.


Figure 1
The academic publishing process (black arrow path) and solutions for improvements at the individual scientist (green), scientific community (blue), and publisher (purple) levels.

Today's academic publishing system
Academic publishing is the predominant medium scientists use to describe and communicate their findings. It is also the main metric by which scientists are evaluated throughout their career, with frequency of publications and prestige of publishing media as a gauge of scientific achievements. In today's process of academic publishing, scientists provide, often even giving away author copyrights, valuable 1 scientific findings for free to journals, which then sell this knowledge to the public and other scientists (Liedes 1997, Odlyzko 1997, Bachrach 1998, Walker 1998, Smith 2006, Van Noorden 2013, Buranyi 2017. Indeed, most journals charge fees to both the authors for publication of, and to the readers for access to, scientific content, with some allowing higher publication fees to offset the access fee (a.k.a. open access; Smith 2006, Minet 2017, Zhang 2019) and vice versa. Academic publishers also rely heavily on the scientific community for the fastidious tasks 2 of manuscript selection and evaluation (i.e. editorship and peer review), tasks for which solicited scientists also receive no compensation 3 (Odlyzko 1997, Smith 2006, Aarssen and Lortie 2010, Van Noorden 2013, Schmitt 2014, Buranyi 2017, Zhang 2019. As such, any scientist (so-called "peer") can be solicited by a journal for evaluating articles submitted for publication by other scientists in the same field, with scientists contributing massively to editing and reviewing activities on a volunteer basis (Warne 2015, Riley and Jones 2016, Copiello 2018. This volunteer-based system of scientific publishing is not new, and was historically initiated by non-for-profit scientific societies with very small monetary power as a way to strengthen scientific endeavors. However, the academic 1 Scientific findings rely on replicated and technical work which often necessitate time and costly resources. 2 Scientific publications undergo meticulous evaluations by peer scientists acting as journal reviewers and editors, in charge of evaluating the adequacy of the design, execution, and interpretation of the study. 3 The only benefits for such free-of-charge contributions happens when a scientist integrates into the editorial board of a high-profile journal, which can facilitate publishing in that journal and bring some notoriety among peers in the field (Walker 1998, Copiello 2018). 5 publishing industry was quickly overtaken by for-profit companies which prospered on this highly profitable business model, thanks to both the decades of growing public investments in science and globalization of scientific literature (Odlyzko 1997, Walker 1998, Smith 2006, Van Noorden 2013, Schmitt 2014, Larivière et al. 2015, Buranyi 2017, Copiello 2018. This ongoing success-story of the publishing business contrasts profoundly with the dramatic decrease in funding and job opportunities experienced by the scientific community in the current era of austerity, precipitating many scientists into precariousness while being increasingly solicited for free contributions to an ever-expanding publishing industry (Aarssen and Lortie 2010, Schmitt 2014, McDonnell 2016, Herschberg et al. 2018, Ålund et al. 2020. Ironically, the rising competition among scientists resulting from funding scarcity has only exacerbated reliance on existing metrics of research excellency, predominantly based on the number of publications in, and editorship for, a handful of high-profile and often privately-owned, costly journals (Smith 2006, Aarssen and Lortie 2010, Heyman et al. 2016, Magistretti 2016, Buranyi 2017, Minet 2017), further draining scarce scientific resources into the cycle of publication and access fees.
Here we provide a voice to the many scientists who are the fundamental protagonists yet often powerless witnesses of the academic publishing system, and identify several initiatives for stepping away from the current unethical model toward more sustainable academic publishing practices.
Scientific activities rely heavily on funding allocated to individual scientists, research programs, and official institutions, in big part in response to publicly-funded calls for scientific investigation. Yet, paradoxically, dissemination of scientific findings predominantly lay in the hands of few for-profit publishing groups that largely benefit from the commercial exploitation of the knowledge produced by these publicly-funded endeavours (Smith 2006 Neither ethical nor sustainable (Smith 2006), the conflictual scientific publishing system has generated intense debates within many academic institutions and scientific circles, with some recent strong initiatives withdrawing subscriptions to major publishing groups (Smith 2006, Larivière et al. 2015, Buranyi 2017, Minet 2017, Else 2018, Zhang 2019, The Cost of Knowledge), however with no result in a significant shift to a sustainable alternative.

Towards a better publishing model
When the system is drifting astray, individual and community choices can be a driving force towards a better pathway. Most scientists are already aware of the above-mentioned aberrations in the scientific publishing system. However, pushed by the inertia of the ongoing model and without a clear vision for alternatives, it is the path of least resistance to keep fueling conventional publishing practices as authors, reviewers and editors (Whitfield 2012, Heyman et al. 2016, despite this being a clear deviation from the fundamental commitments of the scientific communities for a better society (Odlyzko 1997, Bachrach et al. 1998, Walker 1998). Below we provide cues for an emancipation of the scientific community from the all-for-profit publishing system, and toward a circular and virtuous publishing model.  (Bachrach et al. 1998, Walker 1998. Generalizing the use of non-exclusive and royalty-free publisher licences, an already viable and ongoing system since 2003 (Public Library of Science), will allow authors to reproduce and distribute their findings independently, and encourage the publishers that actually provide additional contributions to the work performed by authors, such as improved content, complementary media design, or outreach support (Odlyzko 1997, Bachrach et al. 1998 From universities and laboratories to manufacturers and providers of scientific equipment, many academic institutions and research societies already use broad advertising, a portion of which can be displayed in specialized scientific publishing media. Advertisement-funded journals could constitute a win-win for profitable businesses that want to advertise products to potential and/or targeted clientele, while reducing burden on scientists in need of publishing at lower costs.
Revolutionizing the academic publishing system inevitably involves several challenges in preserving publishing sustainability and scientific rigor. Many such barriers can be alleviated by changing incentives through steps taken at the individual, community, and publisher levels ( Figure 1). In the present era of transition where old and new academic publishing models coexist, positive initiatives and institutionalized support can promote shifting to a new publishing system that is in line with the scientific commitments for accessible knowledge for the society as a whole. At the end of the road, academic publishers, scientific institutions, and individual scientists all need a durably operating publication system. Engaging collaborative initiatives among these protagonists is key to achieving sustainable publishing practices. Global responses to recent pandemics have shown that open science is possible and necessary (Wellcome 2016(Wellcome , 2020, International Coalition of Library Consortia 2020). Facing the social and environmental challenges of the 21st century (Ripple et al. 2017, Kayal et al. 2019, time has come to make such values a standard, rather than an exception, in the academic system.