Every industry has certain problems universally acknowledged as broken: insurance in health care, licensing in music, standardized testing in education, tipping in the restaurant business. In academia, it’s publishing. Academic publishing is dominated by for-profit giants like Elsevier and Springer. Calling their practice a form of thuggery isn’t so much an insult as an economic observation. Imagine if a book publisher demanded that authors write books for free and, instead of employing in-house editors, relied on other authors to edit those books, also for free. And not only that: The final product was then sold at prohibitively expensive prices to ordinary readers, and institutions were forced to pay exorbitant fees for access.
Springer and Elsevier's dominance in academic publishing is rooted in several factors, including aggressive acquisition of smaller publishers, a focus on high-impact journals, and the lucrative nature of the academic publishing market. These companies also leverage the prestige of their publications to attract top researchers and, in turn, increase their profits.
Key Factors in their Dominance:
Acquisitions:
Both companies have actively acquired smaller, specialized publishers, expanding their journal portfolios and market reach.
High-Impact Journals:
They prioritize publishing in "prestigious" journals that are highly cited, as these journals are often crucial for career advancement and funding.
Business Model:
Their business model involves charging high subscription fees to universities and libraries, while also generating revenue from Article Processing Charges (APCs) for open access articles.
Market Influence:
The prestige of their journals, coupled with the dominance of a few large publishers, creates a competitive landscape where researchers are incentivized to publish in their publications.
Open Access:
While increasingly embracing open access, they also maintain a hybrid model that allows for continued subscription revenue, sometimes leading to criticism about "double-dipping".
Examples:
Springer:
Acquired Kluwer Academic Publishers in 2004, significantly expanding their journal portfolio.
Elsevier:
Expanded its reach through acquisitions like North-Holland and Excerpta Medica, introducing technology to their publishing process.
In essence, Springer and Elsevier have become dominant players in academic publishing by strategically acquiring competitors, focusing on high-impact journals, and leveraging a business model that benefits from both subscription fees and APCs, all while influencing the academic world's perceptions of research impact and career success.
chatG
Springer and Elsevier rose to dominate academic publishing through a mix of historical timing, strategic mergers and acquisitions, and by capitalizing on how academic incentives work. Here's a breakdown of the key factors that led to their dominance:
1. Early Entry and Legacy
-
Elsevier (founded in 1880 in the Netherlands) and Springer (founded in 1842 in Germany) were among the earliest players in scientific publishing.
-
They gained a foothold in Europe and expanded globally as science became more international in the 20th century.
2. Massive Journal Portfolios
-
They built large catalogs of journals, especially during the post-WWII boom in science and technology.
-
Owning key journals gave them gatekeeping power over critical fields.
3. Mergers and Acquisitions
-
Elsevier acquired many publishers over the years, including Pergamon Press (1991) and part of Harcourt (2001).
-
Springer merged with Kluwer Academic Publishers (2004) and later became Springer Nature after a merger with Nature Publishing Group (2015).
-
These moves helped consolidate control over thousands of journals.
4. Subscription-Based Revenue Model
-
They pioneered the “Big Deal”: libraries would subscribe to bundles of journals instead of selecting individual titles.
-
This locked in recurring revenue and made it hard for libraries to cancel.
-
Universities were pressured to pay due to faculty and researcher demand.
5. Academia’s Incentives
-
Researchers are rewarded for publishing in prestigious journals — many of which these companies own.
-
These publishers don’t pay authors or peer reviewers, so they get content and quality control for free.
-
This system feeds their power: the more elite journals they own, the more researchers feel they must publish there.
6. Digital Shift and Paywalls
-
As journals went online, they created walled gardens of scientific knowledge.
-
Paywalls became a major source of profit. Elsevier, for example, has had profit margins over 30%, higher than Apple or Google in some years.
7. Slow Institutional Pushback
-
Only recently have movements like Open Access, Plan S, Sci-Hub, and institutional boycotts (e.g., from UC system) started to challenge them.
-
But these changes are slow, because academic publishing norms and tenure systems are deeply entrenched.
No comments:
Post a Comment