The landscape of scientific publishing has been increasingly tumultuous, with entrenched frustrations driving mass resignations from editorial boards across various academic journals. A prominent example came over the recent holiday weekend when the editors of Elsevier’s Journal of Human Evolution (JHE) announced their resignation—a significant and alarming signal of discontent within the academic community. This article delves into the motivations behind this unprecedented move and the implications for both the journal and the wider field of scientific publishing.
Understanding the Resignation of the Editorial Board
The resignation of nearly the entire editorial board of JHE, described as occurring with “heartfelt sadness and great regret,” exemplifies a growing trend where editorial teams withdraw their support due to operational and ethical conflicts with publishing corporations. As highlighted by Retraction Watch, this incident marks the 20th resignation from a scientific journal since the beginning of 2023. These resignations often stem from dissatisfaction with the evolving business models of scientific publishing, which some feel prioritize profit over the integrity of academic research.
In their resignation statement, the JHE editors indicated that their decision was not made lightly. They emphasized the time and passion dedicated to the journal over its 38-year history, reflecting a deep commitment to maintaining high-quality platforms for paleoanthropological research. However, they contend that the operational changes imposed by Elsevier have made it impossible to align their ethical standards with the publisher’s current direction.
The editorial board outlined several contentious changes instituted by Elsevier in the past decade that contradicted the journal’s established editorial principles. One major concern was the elimination of dedicated editorial roles, such as that of a copy editor and a special issues editor. This shift has burdened the existing editors with additional responsibilities that they are ill-equipped to handle without specialized support, leading to a deterioration in the quality of submissions.
In addition, Elsevier’s rejection of the need for editors to focus on editorial qualities such as language, grammar, and consistency reflects a worrying trend where corporate interests may diminish the standards of academic rigor. The board also noted cuts to the number of associate editors, projecting an increase in workload that would stretch their expertise and capacity too thinly across an expanding volume of submissions.
Moreover, the centralization of control by Elsevier, particularly the unilateral decision-making regarding editorial structures, raises serious concerns over editorial independence. Assurances about maintaining integrity and independence seem increasingly hollow in light of reports about plans to introduce a third-tier editorial board, which could significantly undermine decision-making processes.
Following these operational changes, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the production process has emerged as a critical point of contention. The immediate and unannounced implementation of AI for tasks such as manuscript formatting has led to numerous errors, complicating the editorial process and, at times, altering the meaning of submissions inadvertently. Consequently, this reliance on AI without proper oversight led to a six-month long resolution process for errors that garnered embarrassment for the journal.
Furthermore, the introduction of higher author page charges has alienated many would-be contributors. The JHE editorial board pointed out that these prohibitive fees contradict Elsevier’s claims of promoting inclusivity in research accessibility. The rising financial burden placed on authors reflects a potentially damaging shift towards a model that may deepen inequalities within the academic community.
The editors’ resignation appears to have been precipitated by Elsevier’s abrupt termination of a dual-editor model that has been successfully operational since 1986, fundamentally altering the governance structure of the journal. This decision encapsulated the broader frustrations felt by the board, who viewed such a move as an encroachment on their professional autonomy.
The resignation from the Journal of Human Evolution serves as a microcosm of the growing disenchantment within the scientific publishing industry. As scholars increasingly challenge the corporate practices of major publishing houses like Elsevier, questions surrounding editorial integrity and the accessibility of scientific knowledge loom large. The ramifications of these developments will likely resonate throughout the academic landscape, prompting urgent discussions about the future of academic publishing and the values that should underlie it.