A federal antitrust lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against six major academic journal publishers: Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, John Wiley & Sons, Sage Publications, Taylor & Francis, and Springer Nature, along with the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM).
The class-action suit, led by UCLA neuroscience professor Lucina Uddin and three other plaintiffs, alleges that these publishers violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act through a conspiracy to maximize profits at the expense of scientific progress and scholars’ labor. An amended complaint was filed on November 15, 2024.
The lawsuit claims the publishers engaged in a three-part anticompetitive scheme:
– – Unpaid Peer Review: The publishers allegedly agreed to fix the price of peer review services at zero, coercing scholars to provide unpaid labor by linking it to their ability to publish in prestigious journals. This practice is said to exploit the “publish or perish” academic culture, where career advancement depends on publishing in high-impact journals.[](https://www.lieffcabraser.com/antitrust/academic-journals/)[]
– – Single-Submission Rule: The defendants are accused of agreeing to prohibit simultaneous manuscript submissions to multiple journals, reducing competition among publishers and delaying publication timelines. This restriction allegedly slows scientific progress by extending the peer review process, which can take over a year.
– – Gag Rules: The publishers are alleged to enforce restrictions that prevent scholars from sharing their research during peer review, limiting the dissemination of scientific findings. The complaint also claims that publishers often require authors to transfer intellectual property rights without compensation, treating manuscripts as their property and charging high fees for access.
The lawsuit argues that these practices have diverted billions of dollars from scientific research to the publishers, who collectively earned over $10 billion in revenue from peer-reviewed journals in 2023, with Elsevier alone generating $3.8 billion at a 38% profit margin and Taylor & Francis earning $739 million at a 35% margin. The plaintiffs claim this system harms the public by delaying advances in fields like cancer research and climate change solutions, as taxpayer-funded research is locked behind paywalls.
The suit seeks treble damages, injunctive relief to dissolve the alleged unlawful agreements, and aims to foster a more equitable publishing system. It highlights the publishers’ reliance on unpaid academic labor and their control over 53% of academic journals, facilitated through STM’s “International Ethical Principles for Scholarly Publication,” which the plaintiffs argue codifies these anticompetitive practices.
The lawsuit reflects growing discontent with the academic publishing industry, which critics argue exploits publicly funded research for profit. Past actions include the University of California’s 2019 boycott of Elsevier over open-access disputes, the Cost of Knowledge protest with over 20,000 signatories refusing to engage with Elsevier, and the 450 Movement advocating for $450 per peer review. Mass editorial resignations, such as 40 editors leaving Elsevier’s NeuroImage in 2023 over high article-processing fees, further underscore tensions.
Experts are divided on the lawsuit’s prospects. Some, like NYU law professor Christopher Jon Sprigman, argue the practices are “intensely anticompetitive,” particularly due to STM’s role in coordinating policies. Others, like librarian Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, question whether the practices constitute a conspiracy, as unpaid peer review is a longstanding norm not explicitly prohibited by STM guidelines. The case could take years to resolve, and while some doubt it will succeed, others believe it may set a precedent for future challenges to publishing practices, even if dismissed.
Regardless of the outcome, the lawsuit has sparked significant discussion about the power dynamics in academic publishing, where scholars’ career incentives are tied to publishing in prestigious journals. Posts on X reflect enthusiasm among some academics, with users like @EikoFried and @McCulloughFund framing it as a push for fairer practices, though these sentiments are not conclusive evidence of widespread support.
The case, *Dr. Lucina Uddin v. Elsevier BV et al.*, No. 1:24-cv-06409, is ongoing, with potential to reshape the $19 billion academic publishing industry if successful, though systemic change may require broader reforms beyond legal action.