Pay to Publish: The Academic Scam Costing Taxpayers Billions

Pay to Publish: The Academic Scam
Costing Taxpayers Billions

Imagine you're a scientist who just made an important discovery. You've spent years conducting research using taxpayer dollars through agencies like the NIH. You've carefully analyzed your results and written up your findings. Now comes the tricky part: getting published.

That’s where things get interesting — and frustrating.

To advance their careers and to disseminate their research to advance science, scientists need to publish in reputable journals. Most of these journals are owned by just a handful of for-profit companies. And they've created a system that would make any shareholder proud.

First, they require you to submit your paper to only one journal at a time. No shopping around — you have to wait for their decision, which can take months.

Next, they send your paper to expert reviewers. Now, these reviewers aren't paid employees — they're volunteers like me who donate their time because we believe in advancing science. We do this peer review for free, seeing it as our professional duty.

Here's where it gets even more worrisome. After a publisher gets your taxpayer-funded research reviewed by unpaid experts, these publishers turn around and charge you — the author — anywhere from $2,500 to $10,000 just to publish your work in their journal. Then they sell access to your published research back to universities and libraries.

Many graduate students can’t afford to pay these fees, meaning wealthier students publish while less wealthy students may not.

Think about that for a moment. They're charging scientists to publish work that's given to them for free and reviewed at no cost. And everything's online now; there are no printing or mailing expenses. So, what are they charging for? Profit. The academic journal market was estimated at $11 billion in 2023, and it’s growing.

They can get away with this because scientists are a captive audience. They need those publications to keep their jobs and advance their careers.

At least one UCLA neuroscientist isn't taking this lying down. Dr. Lucina Uddin has filed a federal lawsuit.

"It's an antitrust lawsuit against five of the top publishers claiming that they have been colluding not to pay reviewers and to continue in this monopoly," she says.

Dr. Uddin questions why government research funds should line publishers' pockets. "It doesn't seem to me that the NIH should approve of this because they've given you money to do research, not to pay publishers."

The solution could be simple. Dr. Uddin suggests the NIH — which funds much of this research — could simply change its rules and prohibit researchers from using government funds to pay for research publications. Another option is for our government to publish research with the same high standards but charge only what it costs to produce the manuscript.

The goal isn't to stop scientific publishing — it's to ensure that publicly-funded research benefits the public, not just corporate shareholders. Publicly-funded research should be freely available to everyone.

– Dr. Michael Wilkes with a Second Opinion