Scientists Sue Academic Publishers: Antitrust Lawsuit Challenges Unpaid Peer Review System

Introduction

In a landmark legal move that underscores the mounting dissatisfaction among researchers with the academic publishing industry, four scientists have launched an antitrust lawsuit against six of the world’s largest academic publishers. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, accuses Elsevier, John Wiley & Sons, Sage Publications, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wolters Kluwer of engaging in exploitative practices that allegedly violate federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs argue that these publishers have colluded to maintain a system that denies compensation to peer reviewers, restricts researchers’ rights to disseminate their own work, and enforces submission policies that limit competition.

The Allegations: A System Rigged Against Researchers

The lawsuit claims that the publishing giants operate an unfair and monopolistic system that leverages the labor of researchers while generating billions in revenue. Peer review, a cornerstone of scientific publishing, is conducted by researchers who assess and critique submitted manuscripts to ensure quality and validity. Despite the critical role peer reviewers play, they are not compensated for their labor, even though publishers charge institutions and individuals exorbitant fees for journal subscriptions and article processing.

The scientists further contend that academic publishers have collectively agreed to

• Deny payment to researchers for peer-review services.
• Prohibit authors from submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously, which reduces their bargaining power and delays the dissemination of research.
• Impose confidentiality clauses that prevent researchers from discussing their submitted work openly.

These practices, they argue, amount to an anticompetitive agreement that restricts academic freedom and exploits publicly funded research.

A Legal Battle With Wide-Ranging Implications

At the heart of the lawsuit is an accusation that these publishers, through their membership in the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM), have conspired to maintain these restrictive policies. The STM’s 2013 document, International Ethical Principles for Scholarly Publication, is cited as direct evidence of this collusion, as it defines peer review as “voluntary work” and insists that researchers should participate as a form of scholarly obligation.

The plaintiffs argue that this arrangement effectively forces academics into providing unpaid labor, while journal publishers reap extraordinary profit margins—some as high as 40%, exceeding those of corporate giants like Apple and Coca-Cola. They assert that such practices are harmful to the scientific community, delaying advancements in medicine, technology, and other fields by discouraging participation in the review process.

The lawsuit demands that the court issue an injunction dismantling these publishing agreements and seeks financial damages for researchers who have conducted unpaid peer reviews since September 12, 2020. If the court certifies the case as a class-action lawsuit, the potential pool of claimants could include hundreds of thousands of researchers in the United States.

Publishers Push Back

The defendants have dismissed the claims as unfounded, arguing that the traditional structure of academic publishing is a long-standing and rational model that benefits the scientific community. In their legal filings, they contend that the STM’s guidelines are not evidence of collusion but rather a reflection of industry norms. Additionally, they argue that prohibiting simultaneous submissions is necessary to prevent journals from wasting editorial resources on manuscripts that could be accepted elsewhere.

David Crotty, a former STM board member, dismissed the collusion claims, noting that he was unaware of the 2013 guidelines until they were cited in the lawsuit. In a blog post, he suggested that the accusations rely on speculative interpretations of standard industry practices rather than on demonstrable evidence of conspiracy.

A Broader Crisis in Academic Publishing

This lawsuit emerges amid growing dissatisfaction with the state of academic publishing. Over the past decade, researchers have voiced concerns about exorbitant journal fees, lack of access to publicly funded research, and the unsustainable burden placed on peer reviewers. Recent developments highlight the severity of these frustrations:

• Since 2020, at least 28 editorial boards have resigned en masse in protest of publisher policies.
• In 2019, the University of California system temporarily severed ties with Elsevier over open-access disputes, though a resolution was later reached in 2021.
• More than 20,000 researchers have joined The Cost of Knowledge boycott, refusing to review or submit to Elsevier journals.
• The 450 Movement, which demands $450 per peer review, has drawn attention but little support from publishers.

Some scholars argue that the current publishing model stifles innovation and slows scientific progress. While journals are essential for verifying research quality, critics say that alternative models—such as open-access journals, preprint servers, and decentralized peer review platforms—could provide more equitable and transparent solutions.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Peer Review

Regardless of the lawsuit’s outcome, the debate over how peer reviewers should be compensated is likely to intensify. Some experts suggest alternative compensation models, such as:

• Offering financial incentives for peer reviewers.
• Providing academic credits or institutional recognition for peer review work.
• Implementing systems that grant reviewers free journal access or discounted publication fees.

Lisa Rasmussen, a bioethicist and editor-in-chief of Accountability in Research, warns that the current system is becoming unsustainable, as journals increasingly struggle to recruit reviewers. Some journals now contact as many as 40 experts to secure just two willing reviewers. If peer review remains an unpaid service, researchers may become less willing to participate, further straining the integrity of academic publishing.

Conclusion

The lawsuit against academic publishers highlights deeper structural problems within scientific publishing. Whether or not the plaintiffs prevail in court, the case has already ignited discussions on the fairness and sustainability of the current model. As the scientific community wrestles with these issues, new publishing paradigms may emerge that prioritize both research accessibility and fair compensation for scholarly labor.

AR Managing Editor (2025). Scientists Sue Academic Publishers: Antitrust Lawsuit Challenges Unpaid Peer Review System. Retrieved from https://www.africanresearchers.org/scientists-sue-academic-publishers-antitrust-lawsuit-challenges-unpaid-peer-review-system/