Academic publishing is a lucrative business - Featured

Academic Publishing is a Lucrative Business. More Lucrative than Running Apple Inc.

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

It might sound like the setup to a particularly dry economic satire, but here’s a bold claim: running an academic publishing house can be more lucrative, at least on paper, than running Apple Inc. That’s right. The folks putting out journal articles about medieval plant taxonomy or nanoparticle simulations may be quietly outpacing the Cupertino kings of sleek devices in terms of profitability.

It feels absurd, doesn’t it? After all, Apple is Apple. They make the stuff everyone from teenagers to CEOs covets. Meanwhile, academic publishers cater to… libraries? Professors? PhD students? Not exactly pop culture royalty.

But the numbers tell a different story.

Academic publishing thrives on a business model most industries would envy: free content, free labor, repeat customers who can’t say no, and price hikes with little resistance. Apple, for all its market dominance, faces regulation, competition, and customers with actual alternatives. Academic publishers? They’re selling essential goods in a monopolized market that needs them more than they need them.

This article isn’t about turning Tim Cook into a cautionary tale—it’s about unpacking how academic publishing built one of the slickest, least-understood business machines in the modern economy. Let’s explore why the quiet world of journal subscriptions, impact factors, and Article Processing Charges (APCs) may actually be the real capitalist utopia, at least if you’re sitting on the revenue side.

The Business Model That Redefines ROI

Apple’s business is complex and high-risk. It involves expensive R&D, global manufacturing operations, retail logistics, supply chains that span the planet, and razor-sharp marketing. Their products are costly to develop and promote, even before they hit the shelves. Yes, they make billions. But they spend billions too.

Now compare that to Elsevier or Springer Nature. These companies don’t pay for the content they publish. Academics write the research as part of their job descriptions. Peer reviews are volunteered by scholars hoping to stay in good standing. Editing? Often handled by academics, too. These publishers have figured out how to extract economic value from something already funded by the public.

There’s an old joke in the academic community:

“We write the articles, we review them, and we pay to read them back.”

It’s not far off from the truth.

In fact, it’s just missing one final punchline:

“…and the publisher charges all three times.”

Unlike Apple, which lives in the harsh world of consumer choice, academic publishers operate in a cloistered ecosystem. Libraries don’t drop Elsevier because students still need Cell and The Lancet. Faculty don’t abandon Springer because tenure committees still care about Nature Communications. You can survive without an iPhone. Try telling a chemistry department they no longer have access to Journal of the American Chemical Society.

Free Labor: The Hidden Workforce That Fuels the Machine

At Apple, every cog in the machine gets paid—engineers, factory workers, designers, retail employees, support staff. Even the guy checking your receipt at the Apple Store gets a paycheck. But in academic publishing, the core contributors—authors and reviewers—don’t just go unpaid. They’re expected to be honored to contribute.

Peer review, a cornerstone of quality assurance, is almost entirely volunteer-based. Tens of thousands of hours are spent globally by scholars reviewing manuscripts they didn’t ask for, offering detailed feedback for zero compensation. In many cases, they’re doing this in their spare time, on top of teaching loads, grant writing, committee meetings, and actual research.

Editors, too, often do the job as a labor of love or out of professional obligation. They manage submissions, coordinate reviewers, and make decisions, frequently with little to no remuneration unless they’re full-time journal staff. In publishing houses, only a fraction of journal editorial work is done in-house. The rest? Academics, unpaid, keeping the quality filter intact.

Imagine Apple outsourcing design, testing, and user experience to volunteers and still charging premium prices for the finished product. Laughable in Cupertino. Business-as-usual in academic publishing.

Prestige, Scarcity, and the Economy of “Must-Haves”

Academic publishers use another trick Apple could only dream of: artificial scarcity and prestige signaling. While Apple creates demand through branding and new feature rollouts, academic publishers wield something far stickier—prestige.

Top journals are status symbols. Publishing in Nature, Science, or The New England Journal of Medicine can make careers, unlock grants, and pave the way to tenure. These titles are deeply entrenched in academia’s reward systems, making them functionally irreplaceable. Even mid-tier journals carry weight because they’re part of promotion metrics and institutional rankings.

This creates a system where supply is tight, demand is non-negotiable, and the gatekeepers (publishers) can set terms. Want to read the research? Pay up. Want to publish in a well-regarded OA journal? Fork over $3,000 or more in APCs. Want to cancel your institutional subscription because costs have skyrocketed? Good luck explaining that to your physics department.

Apple has pricing power. But Elsevier has something better: dependency disguised as academic excellence.

Profit Margins That Make Silicon Valley Jealous

Apple’s margins hover around 25%—impressive, especially for a hardware company. Academic publishers, on the other hand, have profit margins in the 30–40% range. Elsevier has hit 37% in some years. For context, most media companies dream of 10–15%. Netflix, a tech darling, has struggled to maintain margins above 15%. And they have to fund content creation, pay licensing fees, and fight churn.

Not academic publishers. Their customers don’t churn. Their product development costs are kept minimal. And they charge thousands of dollars per institution per journal per year. Multiply that across thousands of universities worldwide, and you’re not just looking at healthy revenue—you’re looking at an economic marvel.

These companies aren’t just successful. They’re anomaly-level profitable. The kind of profit that makes you wonder why Wall Street analysts don’t talk about them more often. But maybe that’s the secret—by operating under the radar, academic publishers get to quietly mint money while avoiding the scrutiny facing Big Tech.

The Rise (and Co-Option) of Open Access

Open Access was supposed to be the slingshot that brought down Goliath. Research, freely available to the world, unshackled from the paywalls of corporate giants. And to some extent, it’s worked. The number of OA journals and repositories has exploded. Plan S, institutional mandates, and funder requirements have pushed the movement forward.

But publishers did what any good capitalist entity does when threatened: they adapted and monetized the movement. Enter the APC model—authors pay to make their work open. Suddenly, access wasn’t restricted by libraries but by author-side budgets. The walls moved—but didn’t fall.

Big publishers now dominate OA too. They’ve acquired OA platforms, launched their own, and charge APCs that often exceed what smaller outfits charge in annual budgets. The result? A market where openness is commodified. The illusion of democratization serves the same old players.

And for researchers from low-income countries or underfunded institutions, the OA revolution has become a velvet rope. You can see inside, but you’re not invited to the party unless you can pay to get your paper on the guest list.

Universities: Customers and Enablers

Here’s the paradox: the institutions paying the most into the system are the same ones enabling it. Universities reward publication in high-impact journals. They hire based on h-indexes, allocate funding by citation metrics, and measure performance via publication counts.

The academic prestige economy has been built to serve the very publishers exploiting it. Journals gain influence because institutions treat them as gatekeepers. And institutions support that status by channeling funds to those journals. It’s a recursive loop that’s proved almost impossible to break.

Libraries have tried to resist. There have been boycotts, subscription cancellations, and open letters. But change is slow. And in many cases, it’s hard to justify a boycott when students and faculty lose access to key research. It’s like canceling internet service in protest of high fees—noble, but unlivable.

Apple gets protests over environmental impact, labor practices, and monopolistic behavior. Academic publishers get to quietly raise prices, restrict access, and lean on a system of prestige and performance metrics that ensures continued demand.

The Cost to Society

Let’s not lose sight of the real cost here. This isn’t just about university budgets or margin envy. It’s about global access to knowledge. Scientific research—the kind that could inform public policy, drive innovation, or cure disease—is locked behind paywalls. And those paywalls aren’t just annoying. They’re exclusionary.

Startups, non-profits, journalists, independent researchers, even practitioners in developing nations—many can’t afford the $30+ per article fee or the subscription models. That’s a tragedy. Research paid for by taxpayers, often addressing urgent public problems, is being fenced off in the name of publisher profit.

It’s like building a public park and then charging admission to walk on the grass. Worse—charging twice, since the public already paid for it once through research grants.

Disruption on the Horizon?

It’s not all doom and gloom. There are glimmers of change. Scholar-led journals, preprint servers like arXiv and bioRxiv, institutional repositories, and diamond OA initiatives are gaining traction. Consortia like the Public Knowledge Project (PKP) offer open-source publishing infrastructure. Some funders are now tying grants to open publishing requirements.

Efforts like Plan S and national projects like SciELO in Latin America are trying to rebalance the ecosystem. Some universities are exploring partnerships that bypass traditional publishers altogether.

Still, these efforts are swimming upstream. Prestige is sticky. Habits are hard to break. And publishers have a head start of decades. But the ground is shifting. Slowly. Maybe not fast enough—but it’s not static.

Apple Envy or Structural Irony?

To be clear, this isn’t an article about how Elsevier is better than Apple. It’s a reflection on how a system designed for the advancement of knowledge got reshaped into a hyper-efficient profit-making engine, while hiding behind the language of academia and public service.

Apple sells consumer dreams. Academic publishers sell intellectual necessity. But in terms of ROI? Publishers take the trophy. They’ve industrialized prestige, monetized trust, and turned public goods into private empires. That’s not just a profitable business model—it’s a masterclass in economic asymmetry.

Conclusion

So here we are: living in a world where academic publishing is, in many respects, more lucrative than running Apple Inc. Not because it’s bigger, flashier, or more popular—but because it figured out how to extract profit from every step of a publicly funded process.

It’s a system that pays nothing for inputs, adds limited value, and charges the maximum price for access. It’s a system protected by institutional inertia and intellectual vanity. And it will only change when those who fund, use, and depend on academic research finally say enough.

Until then, Apple will keep making the gadgets we crave. Academic publishers? They’ll keep making margins that Silicon Valley can only dream of.

Leave a comment