Academic publishing's billion-dollar industry - Featured image

Who Benefits from Academic Publishing’s Billion-Dollar Industry?

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

Academic publishing is not a sleepy, dusty corner of the knowledge economy. It is a billion-dollar business—a goldmine carved out of university budgets, taxpayer money, and the unpaid labor of scholars. In 2024, the global academic publishing market was valued at nearly $30 billion, showing no sign of slowing down. So here’s the question that should keep university administrators, researchers, and policymakers up at night: Who benefits from academic publishing’s billion-dollar industry?

If you think the answer is “the scholars,” you’re in for a plot twist. The world of academic publishing is a tale of profit margins that would make oil barons blush, institutional dependency bordering on addiction, and a system so entrenched that most academics can’t imagine life without it. It’s time to dissect this leviathan and ask who wins, who loses, and why the whole thing feels a little like a rigged game.

The Giants at the Top: Publishing Corporations

Let’s start with the obvious beneficiaries: Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE. These five dominate the scholarly publishing landscape, controlling a staggering proportion of journal content across disciplines. A little search will reveal that more than 70% of the world’s peer-reviewed journal articles are owned or controlled by these companies.

Elsevier alone reported over $3.1 billion in revenue in 2024, with an operating profit margin in excess of 30%. For context, that’s a more lucrative business than Apple. And this isn’t an anomaly; these kinds of profit margins have been consistent for years. The kicker? These profits are generated from content that publishers neither pay for nor create. Researchers write the papers. Peers review them for free. Universities pay to access the final product. And the publishers cash the checks.

This isn’t publishing in the traditional sense—this is rent-seeking at an industrial scale. These corporations act less like content curators and more like tollbooth operators on the highway of knowledge. They maintain expensive paywalls, invest heavily in lobbying efforts, and develop increasingly complex bundles that ensure institutions stay hooked. This isn’t innovation; it’s enshrinement of dominance through sheer financial might.

Universities: Paying for Their Own Output

One might assume that universities, home to the majority of the world’s research output, would wield considerable power in this equation. But that assumption is charmingly naive. Most universities are trapped in subscription deals that consume millions of dollars annually. Harvard, for instance, has publicly complained that it can no longer afford many journal subscriptions—and if Harvard can’t afford them, what hope is there for anyone else?

The irony here is cosmic. Universities fund research through salaries and grants. Their faculty produces the research. Then, the universities have to buy back access to that research from the publishers. It’s as if Apple had to purchase iPhones at full retail after manufacturing them in-house.

Some universities are pushing back. Library-led initiatives like Project DEAL in Germany and the University of California’s revolt against Elsevier hint at a brewing rebellion. But let’s be honest—most institutions remain locked into long-term, high-cost contracts. The academic publishing oligopoly is not easily rattled. When push comes to shove, many institutions fold under the pressure of research continuity, worried more about short-term access gaps than systemic overhaul.

Researchers: Prestige Over Paycheck

And what about the authors of all this content? Surely, they must be raking in the cash, right? Not even close. Most researchers publish for free. They submit to journals without any expectation of royalties, revenue sharing, or even a thank-you card. In return, they get something arguably more valuable in academia: prestige.

Publishing in a high-impact journal can mean tenure, grants, or promotion. It is currency in the prestige economy of academia. But prestige doesn’t pay the bills, nor does it help when your institution can’t afford to access the journal you just published in. Many researchers even pay to publish in open access journals—often thousands of dollars in Article Processing Charges (APCs).

In essence, academics are unpaid laborers in a system that profits immensely from their work. They write, review, and edit, all for free. Then they pay to read their own content. It’s the academic equivalent of being charged rent to sleep in your own bed. And worse, their intellectual contributions are often hidden behind paywalls, limiting the broader societal impact their work could have.

Libraries: Budgetary Punching Bags

Academic libraries are the frontline casualties in this system. They are tasked with acquiring access to the ever-growing volume of scholarly material, yet their budgets rarely grow at the same pace. Many libraries are forced to make brutal decisions: cancel subscriptions, cut monograph acquisitions, or eliminate staff positions.

Some libraries have turned to open access mandates and institutional repositories to mitigate these costs, but those are mere life rafts in a swelling tide. Subscription bundles (often referred to as “Big Deals”) lock libraries into all-or-nothing packages. Canceling one journal often means losing access to dozens, even hundreds, of others.

This model incentivizes overspending and punishes selectivity. Libraries are not just buyers of knowledge; they are the unwitting subsidizers of an industry that profits from scarcity while preaching abundance. The result? A slow erosion of the library’s role as a hub of open inquiry and a retreat from its mission to democratize access to knowledge.

Governments and Funding Agencies: Bankrollers in the Dark

Public funding bodies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the European Research Council (ERC) invest billions into academic research. Their goal? To foster innovation, solve real-world problems, and advance human knowledge. The result? Research ends up behind paywalls.

Taxpayers fund the research, but then have to pay again (via institutional subscriptions or individual article fees) to read it. This duplicative cost structure is rarely questioned outside niche policy circles, and the lack of public outrage is either a testament to the system’s opacity or the world’s collective indifference.

Recent moves like Plan S and the OSTP public access mandate in the U.S. aim to change this dynamic by requiring publicly funded research to be openly accessible. But such policies are slow-moving and often face pushback from publishers and academic stakeholders alike. The gears of change grind slowly in academia. Until access is mandated and enforced, the status quo continues unchecked, with public money feeding private empires.

Students: Collateral Damage in the Knowledge Economy

Students, especially those at institutions with limited library resources, are collateral damage in the current publishing regime. They either go without access or turn to alternatives like Sci-Hub, the infamous pirate database of academic papers.

Students are not rebellious by nature. They simply want access to the materials they need to learn, study, and thrive. The fact that many students consider piracy a necessary academic tool is a damning indictment of a system supposedly built to share knowledge.

Meanwhile, the companies profiting from this access disparity cry foul over copyright infringement, as though locking up research funded by public money is a morally superior position. And while publishers call Sci-Hub illegal, thousands of students quietly call it indispensable.

Editors and Peer Reviewers: Overworked and Undervalued

Academic publishing runs on peer review. Every article is, in theory, evaluated by experts in the field to ensure its validity, originality, and importance. Yet peer reviewers are rarely paid, even as the journals they serve generate enormous revenue. This creates a labor imbalance that would spark outrage in any other industry.

Journal editors, many of them academics, juggle these responsibilities on top of their teaching, research, and service obligations. While some receive stipends or course relief, many do it purely for prestige or professional obligation. The system thrives on a kind of moral coercion: contribute or be considered irrelevant.

It’s no wonder the peer review system is creaking under pressure. Reviewer fatigue, delays, and inconsistent quality are becoming systemic issues. But the publishing giants have little incentive to fix a broken system that costs them nothing. Meanwhile, journals trumpet rigorous peer review as their value proposition, without compensating the people who provide it.

The Open Access Mirage

Open access was supposed to be the antidote to traditional publishing’s greed. Making research freely available to all promise to democratize knowledge. And to an extent, it has. Today, more than 50% of new journal articles are published as open access. But there’s a catch.

Many publishers have simply shifted paywalls instead of removing them. Instead of charging readers, they charge authors. APCs can range from a few hundred dollars to over $10,000 for prestigious journals. This model is another barrier for researchers in the Global South or underfunded institutions.

Who benefits from this new system? You guessed it—the same publishers, now profiting from a different direction. Some even double-dip by charging both APCs and subscription fees in what’s known as “hybrid open access.” It’s less a revolution than a business model rebrand.

Moreover, the cost burden of open access often falls on researchers themselves or their already stretched institutional funds. This limits the inclusivity and diversity of published voices and further skews the knowledge economy in favor of the already-advantaged.

Startups and Tech Platforms: The New Middlemen

New players have entered the scene in the wake of open access and digital transformation. Platforms like ResearchGate, Academia.edu, and Semantic Scholar offer alternative avenues for sharing and discovering research. They promise openness, connection, and even analytics.

But these platforms are not charities. Many are venture-backed companies with unclear monetization strategies. Some harvest user data. Others flirt with advertising. They may be shaking up the system, but they are also angling to become the next generation of intermediaries—taking their own cut of the scholarly pie.

Innovation is welcome. But the question remains: are these startups dismantling the power structures of academic publishing, or simply inserting themselves into it? And if researchers are the product once again, is it really progress or just platform capitalism with a shinier interface?

Indexing Databases: Gatekeepers of Legitimacy

Scopus, Web of Science, and other indexing giants are often overlooked in discussions of academic publishing’s economics. But they play a crucial role in deciding what counts. Inclusion in these databases is a mark of legitimacy, and exclusion often spells obscurity.

Getting indexed can mean increased visibility, citations, and prestige. It can also mean journal survival. These databases charge substantial fees for inclusion, usage, and access. Libraries and universities pay again and again for access to metadata and metrics that should arguably be public goods.

So, who benefits here? The indexers do. They’re the invisible scaffolding of the prestige economy, cashing in without ever having to publish a single article themselves. Their influence extends to hiring decisions, grant approvals, and even government policies—and yet few question their opacity or accountability.

The Academic Prestige Machine

At its core, academic publishing is not just an industry; it’s an economy of prestige. Promotion, tenure, grants, and recognition often depend on where, not just what, you publish. This incentivizes scholars to chase prestige journals, regardless of cost or accessibility.

This prestige chase props up the entire publishing ecosystem. It encourages scholars to write for elite journals instead of public audiences. It discourages collaboration across institutions with unequal resources. And it cements the role of publishers as gatekeepers of academic success.

As long as prestige remains the coin of the realm, the system will continue to reward publishers, not producers. And the moment prestige begins to shift elsewhere—to preprint servers, public engagement, or open review—we might finally see the first cracks in the publishing empire’s stone facade.

Conclusion

Academic publishing is a textbook example of a system that generates immense wealth without fairly distributing it. The winners are few: corporate publishers, platform providers, and sometimes the editors who manage to climb the prestige ladder. The losers are many: researchers, libraries, students, and the public.

The most bitter irony? This system exists to disseminate knowledge. And yet, it hoards, monetizes, and restricts access to that knowledge at every turn. Calls for reform—open access, Plan S, institutional repositories—are gaining volume. But real change requires systemic rewiring, not just better window dressing.

Until then, the billion-dollar industry will keep churning, built on the backs of those who do the work, for the profit of those who don’t.

Leave a comment