Inside Academia’s Broken System: The Lawsuit That Changes Everything

Key Concepts:

1. The Lawsuit and its Allegations

A class action lawsuit has been filed against major academic publishers, including Elsevier, alleging antitrust violations and collusion.
The lawsuit, led by Dr. Lucina Uden, claims that these publishers are violating the Sherman Act by conspiring to unlawfully appropriate billions of dollars that should be funding scientific research.
The lawsuit was brought to the speaker's attention by a viewer named Mary.

2. Unpaid Peer Review

Academic publishers are accused of fixing the price of peer review at zero, meaning researchers are not compensated for their time and expertise in reviewing others' work.
The lawsuit alleges that publishers collude via trade associations to ensure peer reviewers are never compensated, despite their essential role in validating research.
The lawsuit states that publishers hold scholars' careers "hostage" to force them to provide valuable labor for free.

3. Intellectual Property Rights

Scholars are required to sign away all intellectual property rights to their work in exchange for no compensation.
From the moment a manuscript is submitted, the publisher behaves as if it owns the research, even before deciding whether to publish it.
Publishers enforce strict gag rules and acquire copyright relinquishment, with some even enforcing 12 to 36-month embargoes before scholars can share their work.
These embargoes are detrimental to scientific progress and can hurt researchers' careers.

4. Excessive Profit Margins

Academic publishers are earning profit margins higher than major tech companies like Apple and Google.
Elsevier's 2023 profit margin was 38%, higher than Apple's 30% and Google's 25%.
The six publishers generated over $10 billion in revenue in that year alone.
Publishers offload content creation, quality control, and distribution to unpaid or publicly funded academics, then sell the product back to them at institutional subscription fees.

5. Gag Rules and Scientific Progress

Gag rules imposed by publishers prohibit scientists from sharing their discoveries, even with peers during review, resulting in delays in critical research.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, publishers temporarily relaxed these rules, leading to the fastest vaccine development in human history.
This demonstrates the potential for progress when scientists are free to share their work without restrictions.

6. The Triple Pay System

The research is funded by taxpayers, who then pay again for peer review labor via researchers' salaries, and a third time through university subscriptions or open access fees.
Deutsche Bank highlighted this issue, noting that governments are essentially paying three times for the same research.
Open access fees can cost nearly $10,400 per article in some instances.

7. Harm to Scientific Progress

Delays in peer review and restrictions on knowledge sharing have slowed advancements in medicine, material science, and other fields.
Corporate greed is identified as the primary driver of these delays.

8. Aims of the Lawsuit

The lawsuit aims to dismantle the exploitative system and seek justice for scholars who contribute to science without fair compensation or control over their work.
The goal is to enable the dissemination of research without the burden of journals owning information or restricting communication.

9. Conclusion

The lawsuit is a significant step towards addressing the broken academic publishing system.
While the fight will be long and expensive, the potential benefits of reforming the system and promoting open access to research are substantial.
The speaker encourages viewers to spread awareness of the lawsuit and its implications.