Have commercial academic publishers become greedy - Featured

Have the Commercial Academic Publishers Become Too Greedy?

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

The world of academic publishing, long seen as a noble facilitator of knowledge exchange, is under fire. For many researchers, librarians, and policymakers, commercial publishers have come to represent not just a necessary partner but a deeply problematic one—an entity profiting immensely from a system built on unpaid labor and public funding. The core of the frustration revolves around escalating costs: sky-high subscription fees, exorbitant Article Processing Charges (APCs), and rigid licensing practices that gatekeep knowledge and perpetuate inequality.

Despite the digital age ushering in opportunities for cost-effective and wide-reaching dissemination, the academic publishing model has resisted transformation. Instead of leveraging technology to lower costs and improve access, many commercial publishers have adopted hybrid models that amplify profits while entrenching existing inequities. This article explores how APCs, subscription fees, and bundled contracts have collectively undermined the accessibility and integrity of scholarly communication and asks plainly: Have the commercial academic publishers become too greedy?

The Evolution of Academic Publishing

Academic publishing originated as a system built on scholarly cooperation. Journals like the Philosophical Transactions, established in the 17th century, were established to facilitate transparent communication of research findings among peers. For a long time, scholarly societies and non-profit institutions largely managed the publication process, focused more on knowledge sharing than profit margins.

The turning point came during the post-war academic boom. With exponential growth in research output, commercial publishers began entering the scene, offering technical expertise and infrastructure to manage editorial and distribution workflows. This professionalization of publishing was initially welcomed. But over the years, it led to industry consolidation and the rise of a few powerful entities—Elsevier, Wiley, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE now dominate the field.

As these companies scaled up, so did their ability to control journal pricing, access conditions, and business models. What began as a service to researchers increasingly became a revenue machine, operating on models that thrive on restricted access and institutional dependency.

The Dual Toll: Subscription Fees and Article Processing Charges

The outrage over commercial academic publishing centers on two pillars: inflated subscription fees and soaring APCs. Together, they have created a dual-pay model that exacts a heavy toll on both the readers and the authors of scholarly content.

Subscription costs have been increasing at an unsustainable rate, often outpacing inflation by wide margins. University libraries, particularly in North America and Europe, routinely pay millions annually for access to journal bundles. The cost is not always transparent—publishers often sign confidential deals that obscure pricing and prevent libraries from comparing notes or negotiating collectively. This lack of transparency makes it almost impossible for institutions to gauge the fairness of their deals.

At the same time, APCs have emerged as the cost of entry into the open access (OA) arena. These charges, levied on authors to publish in OA journals or make their articles OA in hybrid journals, are often exorbitant. In prestigious journals, fees can reach USD 3,000–5,000 per article. Far from being an egalitarian model, APCs replicate and even magnify the inequalities of subscription systems, shifting the burden from readers to authors while keeping profits firmly in the hands of publishers.

For institutions, the result is a lose-lose scenario: they pay subscription fees to access journals, and then pay again through APCs when their faculty want to publish open access. This has been derisively labeled “double-dipping,” and it exemplifies the extent to which publishers have optimized every angle of the scholarly value chain for profit.

Access Inequity and the New Class Divide

This dual-cost model—subscriptions and APCs—has reshaped who can participate in knowledge creation and consumption. In the past, access was limited by paywalls; now it is also limited by publication fees. This means that while more research is technically accessible to the public, fewer researchers can afford to contribute to it.

Researchers in well-funded institutions often have access to APC funding from grants or library support. However, those in under-resourced universities or developing countries find themselves excluded. They face barriers to both publishing and reading, effectively sidelining their voices in global scholarly discourse. This is not a minor issue. It reflects a systemic problem where wealth determines who can contribute to scientific and academic conversations.

Moreover, many universities are now forced to make trade-offs between subscriptions and APC budgets, often leading to journal cancellations or cuts in research support. Even wealthier institutions are hitting budget ceilings despite spending more than ever on publishing. Meanwhile, smaller institutions are locked out altogether, creating a multi-tiered knowledge economy that undermines the collaborative spirit of academia.

Bundling and the “Big Deal” Dilemma

Another layer of complexity comes from the way journals are packaged and sold. Publishers often sell subscriptions through “Big Deals”—bundled journal packages that include hundreds or thousands of titles. While this might seem like a way to provide broad access, it actually handcuffs libraries into paying for vast quantities of content they may never use, simply to access a handful of critical journals.

These bundled deals usually come with multi-year contracts and stiff penalties for withdrawal. They reduce flexibility and make it difficult for libraries to allocate budgets in ways that align with actual usage. Worse still, they often include non-disclosure clauses, which prevent transparency and collective bargaining across institutions.

Ironically, while digital platforms should make accessing and distributing academic content cheaper, bundling has helped publishers lock in profits and increase costs. Libraries are not just buying content—they’re buying access to content they already helped create, since most of the research is publicly funded and peer-reviewed by academics who the publisher doesn’t pay.

APCs and the Illusion of Open Access

On the surface, Article Processing Charges seem like a necessary evil to sustain open access publishing. After all, if readers aren’t paying, someone has to. But APCs have increasingly become a business model in their own right—a model that leverages the moral urgency of open science to extract even more revenue from the academy.

Many of the most profitable OA journals are run by the same commercial academic publishers who dominate traditional publishing. For them, APCs offer a new revenue stream that can rival or exceed subscriptions. Instead of reducing barriers, APCs have simply shifted them. Now, prestige is available to those who can afford to pay, and OA becomes a luxury good rather than a universal right.

Have commercial academic publishers become greedy - Open access

Even worse, hybrid journals (which offer both subscription and APC options) have blurred the ethical lines. Some publishers charge full subscription fees while also collecting APCs from authors—another form of double-dipping that has drawn widespread criticism. Yet these journals continue to thrive, in large part because researchers are still evaluated based on where they publish, not how accessible their work is.

The Role of Metrics and Incentives

A major enabler of this system is the metrics-obsessed culture of academia. Publishing in high-impact journals remains the gold standard for hiring, tenure, and grant funding. Unfortunately, many of these journals are owned by commercial publishers with high APCs and restrictive access terms. Researchers will keep feeding the beast as long as prestige is equated with certain journal brands.

This creates a vicious cycle. Researchers chase high-impact journals, publishers capitalize on that demand, institutions pay to access the content, and APCs continue to rise. Everyone participates in the system, even while decrying its flaws.

There have been efforts to change this dynamic. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) encourages institutions to evaluate scholars based on the quality and impact of their work, not the name of the journal in which it appears. However, adoption has been slow and inconsistent. Until hiring committees, funders, and academic leaders abandon the obsession with impact factors, the power of commercial publishers will remain largely intact.

Reform Efforts: From Plan S to Diamond OA

Not all is bleak. Several initiatives have emerged to challenge the commercial model and promote more equitable alternatives. Plan S, launched by a coalition of European research funders, mandates that publicly funded research be made fully and immediately open. It explicitly discourages hybrid journals and promotes transparent pricing for APCs.

However, Plan S has had a rocky reception. Some researchers see it as limiting their publication choices, while others worry that its implementation favors wealthy institutions that can afford APCs. Commercial publishers have responded by creating new OA journals and adjusting their pricing models—but critics argue these are cosmetic changes that maintain control rather than foster transformation.

An increasingly discussed alternative is “diamond” open access, where journals are free to both authors and readers. Academic institutions, governments, or consortia usually fund these. While not yet widespread, diamond OA represents a values-driven approach that seeks to realign publishing with the public good. Platforms like SciELO, Épisciences, and the Open Library of Humanities prove that publishing high-quality research without commercial gatekeeping is possible.

Disruptive Innovation and the Future of Academic Publishing

The grip of commercial publishers may be loosening, albeit slowly. New technologies and grassroots movements are reshaping the possibilities for scholarly communication. Preprint servers, overlay journals, and decentralized peer review platforms challenge the notion that expensive infrastructure is necessary to maintain quality and legitimacy.

Initiatives like Open Research Europe and MIT’s Knowledge Futures Group are experimenting with entirely new models—integrating publishing with funding, review, and archiving in a seamless, open ecosystem. These efforts aim to return control of scholarly communication to the academic community and foster innovation beyond the commercial template.

Still, these models face steep challenges. Scaling up, ensuring long-term funding, and shifting researcher behavior all require time, advocacy, and institutional support. But the momentum is building. The frustration with the status quo is no longer limited to a few librarians or activists—it’s a mainstream academic concern.

Conclusion

Have commercial academic publishers become too greedy? If greed is defined as profiting excessively from a system built on free labor and public investment, then the evidence is damning. Through high subscription fees, exploitative APCs, and monopolistic bundling practices, they have constructed a publishing ecosystem that serves shareholders more than scholars.

But change is on the horizon. The rise of diamond OA, the pressure from funders for transparency, and the growing awareness among researchers are signals that the system is being challenged. Still, reform will require more than outrage—it will demand coordinated action, institutional courage, and a reimagining of what scholarly publishing should be in the 21st century.

Reclaiming academic publishing as a public good is not just possible—it is imperative. If the academy continues to let commercial logic dictate the terms of knowledge sharing, it risks undermining its own purpose. But with bold leadership, structural reform, and collective resolve, it can build a system that is more open, fair, and sustainable for generations to come.

Leave a comment