Academic publishing is a multi-billion dollar industry - Featured

Let’s Face It: Academic Publishing is a Multi-Billion Dollar Industry

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

Academic publishing has always worn a veneer of nobility. It presents itself as the beating heart of global research, the engine behind scientific discovery, and the bridge connecting ivory tower ideas to real-world impact. But strip away the Latin mottos, the peer-reviewed gloss, and the library branding, and you’re left with something that looks suspiciously like a cash machine with a PhD.

Let’s stop pretending. Academic publishing isn’t just an ecosystem of knowledge-sharing—it’s an industry. A high-margin, hyper-consolidated, multi-billion-dollar business. And like any other industry that generates that kind of cash, it’s shaped more by economics than idealism.

Researchers donate their time, governments pour in public funds, institutions pay to access research they helped produce—and a small handful of publishers sit back and collect the dividends. And we let them. Not because we don’t know, but because the academic world is tangled in its own dependencies, prestige metrics, and publishing rituals.

In this deep dive, we’re going to unpack the uncomfortable truth: academic publishing didn’t become a billion-dollar industry by accident. It became one because we made it that way.

From Scrolls to ScienceDirect: A Brief Origin Story

Let’s rewind the clock a bit. Academic publishing didn’t begin as a goldmine. It was all about scholarly communication in the early days—think 17th-century Royal Society of London or the Académie des Sciences. Journals like Philosophical Transactions were born out of a need to exchange discoveries, not build empires. The motivations were collaborative, even altruistic.

For centuries, most scholarly work was published by universities, scientific societies, or passionate nerds with printing presses. These weren’t profit centers. They were passion projects—academic equivalents of indie zines with more Latin.

Then came the 20th century, with its cocktail of post-war science booms, research funding avalanches, and institutional expansion. Enter commercial publishers. They saw what academia didn’t: a repeatable, scalable, and ridiculously profitable business model. So they got to work.

By the 1970s, commercial entities like Elsevier, Wiley, and Springer were swallowing up journals like Pac-Man in a lab coat. The journals still looked scholarly on the outside, but inside, they were being monetized with ruthless efficiency.

The Big Five: Who’s Really Running the Show?

Let’s talk oligopoly. In today’s academic publishing landscape, five firms dominate: Elsevier (under RELX Group), Wiley, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE. These companies publish the lion’s share of the world’s scholarly journals—tens of thousands of them—and have positioned themselves as gatekeepers of global research.

Elsevier alone published more than half a million articles in 2024. Its parent company, RELX, posted revenues over $11 billion, with operating profits consistently above 30%. That’s not just healthy—it’s pharmaceutical-grade capitalism.

How? Because the business model is genius, in the most frustrating way possible. Publishers don’t pay authors. They don’t pay peer reviewers. They sometimes barely pay editors. Instead, they charge universities, libraries, and governments to read the research, often research funded by public grants and produced by public institutions.

Imagine if Spotify made musicians pay to upload songs, recruited unpaid fans to review them, and then charged everyone to listen. That’s the business logic here. And it works. Spectacularly.

Bundles, Bloat, and the Library Meltdown

In the early 2000s, publishers got creative. They started offering “Big Deal” subscription bundles—massive packages of journals tied together in one lucrative licensing contract. Libraries, eager to provide access and terrified of losing critical titles, signed on.

It was like cable TV: you wanted ESPN and HBO, but to get them, you had to pay for a bunch of channels you’d never watch. Over time, these deals became unsustainable. Prices ballooned. Library budgets didn’t. And soon, even the wealthiest institutions were crying foul.

Harvard—a place with a $50 billion endowment—publicly admitted it couldn’t afford the rising costs of journal subscriptions. If Harvard can’t keep up, what chance do regional colleges or universities in the Global South have?

Libraries started fighting back. Some canceled Big Deal contracts altogether. Others embraced open access or sought alternative platforms. But make no mistake—this wasn’t just budgeting. It was triage.

Open Access: Disruptive Savior or Trojan Horse?

Open access came in like a white knight. Make all research freely available! Let anyone read anything! No more paywalls!

At first, it worked. PLOS and arXiv led the charge. Governments and funders backed the idea. Plan S threw down the gauntlet in Europe. And for a moment, it felt like we might finally fix the access problem.

Then the publishers pivoted. Instead of charging readers, they charged authors. Enter the APC (Article Processing Charge) model. Want your paper to be open access? Great—just wire us $3,000 to $10,000 and we’ll take care of that for you.

The result? Open access is now often a luxury product. Rich institutions can afford it. Elite researchers can afford it. Everyone else? Stuck in the middle—either locked out of reading or locked out of publishing.

Sure, more papers are free to read now. But the control and profits still flow to the same handful of corporations. It’s like gentrification, but with PDFs.

Metrics, Impact Factors, and the Tyranny of the “Top Journal”

Let’s not pretend publishers do this alone. Academia feeds the beast. Researchers chase prestige, and prestige lives in impact factors. Tenure committees still whisper “Nature” and “Science” like sacred incantations. Grant reviewers scan CVs for journal names like scouts checking stats.

Publish in the “wrong” journal, and your work may be ignored. Publish in the “right” one, and doors open—even if the actual research is mediocre. This pressure keeps submissions flowing to elite journals. It reinforces exclusivity. It fuels absurd rejection rates that make journals seem more prestigious. And publishers? They rake it in, charging more for journals with bigger impact.

It’s like an arms race of citation chasing, with researchers caught in the middle—writing papers, submitting, revising, resubmitting, reviewing for others, and doing it all again without a dime in return.

Wait—Isn’t This the Internet Age?

Yes. And that’s part of the problem. Digitization didn’t democratize academic publishing. It just made it more efficient—and more profitable. Platforms like ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and Wiley Online Library aren’t digital libraries. They’re fortified citadels behind paywalls. Access is metered, usage tracked, and content licensed instead of owned. Libraries don’t “buy” journals anymore. They rent access.

And publishers? They’ve embraced data mining, algorithmic editorial strategies, and digital rights management. They’re not just curating research—they’re controlling the knowledge infrastructure. And they’re doing it with your research.

The Free Labor Crisis Nobody Talks About

Imagine a global industry that runs on volunteer labor. Now imagine that industry making billions while publicly funded universities provide the workers.

Welcome to academic publishing.

Researchers write manuscripts for free. They review each other’s work for free. They often serve as editors or editorial board members with no pay. And then they have to buy access to the very work they created.

In any other industry, this would be called exploitation. In academia, it’s called tradition.

Sure, scholars do it for the love of knowledge. But love shouldn’t be an excuse for systemic imbalance, especially when the executives at these publishing houses are collecting bonuses bigger than your research grant.

Inequity by Design: The Global Divide

Academic publishing isn’t just a financial powerhouse. It’s also a gatekeeping mechanism that consistently disadvantages scholars outside elite institutions, wealthy countries, and mainstream research languages. Researchers in low—and middle-income countries often can’t afford to publish open access or subscribe to major journals. Even when they do produce high-quality work, getting noticed in Euro-American-dominated journals can be an uphill climb.

Let’s be blunt: publishing systems reward access to capital, networks, and fluency in English. That’s not meritocracy—it’s market bias. Meanwhile, community-based knowledge, indigenous scholarship, and alternative epistemologies struggle for legitimacy. Diversity and inclusion panels are great PR. But real inclusivity means restructuring editorial boards, redefining impact, and rewriting the rules of prestige.

The Resistance: Cracks in the Citadel

There’s hope. Not a revolution—but a slow, strategic insurgency.

Coalitions like Plan S are forcing the issue of access. Scholar-led journals are challenging the status quo. Libraries are building open repositories. Platforms like DOAJ, SciELO, and AfricArXiv are growing.

And Sci-Hub? Controversial, yes. Illegal, certainly. But also a symbol of collective frustration. The fact that millions rely on it tells you everything you need to know about the current system’s accessibility.

Academic publishing is a multi-billion dollar industry - The resistance

What’s next? Maybe a complete shift to diamond open access. Maybe funders start tying grants to non-profit publishing. Maybe researchers decide they’ve had enough exploitation and begin pulling their labor from the Big Five.

Or maybe we keep doing what we’ve always done. Because the system may be broken—but it’s familiar.

Conclusion

Academic publishing is a billion-dollar paradox. It’s built on public money, sustained by free labor, and driven by prestige—but controlled by a handful of companies with profit margins that would make Wall Street blush.

And despite everything we know, we keep feeding it. Because it’s what we know. Because it’s how careers are made. Because changing it is hard, slow, and full of uncertainty.

But here’s the truth: knowledge isn’t a commodity. It shouldn’t be a luxury item for those who can pay. It shouldn’t be controlled by companies that don’t produce it. It should be accessible, equitable, and rooted in the public good.

We built this system. And that means we can rebuild it too. If we have the courage to stop pretending and start demanding something better.

Leave a comment