In a move emblematic of growing dissatisfaction within the academic publishing ecosystem, all but one member of the editorial board of Elsevier’s Journal of Human Evolution (JHE) resigned over the recent holiday weekend. According to Retraction Watch, this dramatic exit highlights the deep-seated frustrations that have emerged in the scientific community, particularly in relation to the evolving practices and business models adopted by major publishing houses. The JHE editorial board’s resignation marks the 20th instance of a mass departure from a journal since 2023, a stark reflection of disillusionment among the ranks of editorial teams who feel increasingly sidelined by profit-driven imperatives.
The extraordinary decision taken by these scholars was not made lightly. In their resignation statement, the editorial board articulated a profound sense of loss alongside a deep commitment to the discipline of paleoanthropological research. The members lamented that their decision stemmed from an inability to work with Elsevier “in good conscience,” underscoring the emotional toll this departure bears on individuals who have dedicated decades to enhancing the reputation and quality of the journal. The experience and dedication of the outgoing editors, who have devoted considerable time to the journal over its 38-year history, exemplify the precarious balance between editorial autonomy and corporate constraints. As they reflected on their collective efforts, it became evident that their contributions were diluted by the unyielding shifts in Elsevier’s operational ethos.
The board’s resignation highlights a series of concerning changes implemented by Elsevier over the past decade. Notably, the journal has seen a reduction in essential editorial support roles, such as copy editors and special issues editors, leaving current members struggling under an increased workload that extends well beyond their original responsibilities. The editorial board’s accounts indicate that when they raised concerns about these staffing reductions, Elsevier’s response was dismissive, suggesting the editors should not focus on the crucial aspects of language and formatting. Such admonitions raise critical questions about the publisher’s commitment to maintaining high editorial standards.
Further compounding these issues, the journal is undergoing a significant restructuring process that threatens to halve the number of associate editors. This alarming trend risks relegating many papers to be overseen by editors who lack specific expertise in the requisite fields, eroding the quality of academic scrutiny and contributing to a potentially perilous decline in the journal’s scholarly rigor. The creation of a new third-tier editorial board, functioning largely in a ceremonial capacity, also casts doubt on the integrity of editorial independence, particularly since these changes were made unilaterally by Elsevier.
The integration of artificial intelligence into the publication process, particularly without the awareness of the editorial board, further complicates JHE’s relationship with Elsevier. Reports of AI causing issues in style adherence and data mismanagement have raised serious concerns about the reliability and accuracy of published research. The six-month ordeal to rectify these issues, primarily due to the steadfast dedication of the editors to uphold standards, speaks to the larger implications of outsourcing production and adopting untested technologies. The potential pitfalls of AI intervention raise pressing questions not only about quality control but also about authors’ and editors’ authority over their work.
Compounding the editorial discontent are escalating author page charges that exceed even those of Elsevier’s other for-profit journals. This financial pressure is not just about profitability; it risks limiting access to academic dissemination for many researchers. The editors expressed concern that these fees contradict both JHE’s and Elsevier’s commitment to equity and inclusiveness within the scientific community. Authors from underfunded institutions or developing regions often find themselves at a disadvantage, further entrenching the inequalities that plague academic publishing.
The tipping point for the JHE board arrived in November 2023 when Elsevier announced the termination of a dual-editor model established in 1986, paired with demands for a 50% cut in editor salaries. This impractical ultimatum exemplifies the tension between corporate interests and academic integrity, ultimately leading to a crisis in leadership and trust. Such moments reveal the urgent need for scholarly communities to support alternative publishing models that prioritize accessibility, fairness, and editorial independence.
The resignation of the JHE editorial board serves as a clarion call for introspection within the realm of academic publishing, urging a reassessment of values that can support genuine scholarly communication while resisting the encroaching influences of commercialism. As the conversation unfolds, it will be critical for academic stakeholders to advocate for change, instead of leaving these pivotal discussions to the confines of board rooms and corporate agendas.
Leave a Reply