In my academic career, I’ve always advocated for not-for-profit academic journals. These platforms support academic freedom and align with the principle that research should benefit society, not merely serve the interests of profit-driven corporations. Unfortunately, the academic publishing landscape, dominated by five major commercial players—Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Springer Nature, and SAGE—has become a bastion of profit, with universities and researchers paying steep costs for access to their own work.

The roots of this issue stretch back decades. Commercial publishers initially positioned themselves as facilitators of scholarly communication, offering the infrastructure to publish and distribute research globally. However, over time, these companies consolidated their influence and increasingly exploited their role as gatekeepers of knowledge. Today, the academic publishing landscape is so heavily controlled by these firms that universities must pay millions annually to access research produced by their own faculty members.

The profits behind the paywall

The financial model behind commercial publishers is staggering. Elsevier, one of the largest academic publishers, has historically reported profit margins between 30% and 40%—outperforming even many tech giants like Google. This remarkable profitability is driven by a system where researchers, who receive little to no compensation for writing, reviewing, and editing, must rely on their institutions to pay high subscription fees to access the same content they’ve produced.

While some of these costs are tied to maintaining a peer-review process and publishing infrastructure, the scale of profit points to deeper systemic issues. This paywall not only limits the flow of knowledge but also exacerbates global inequalities in education and research. For scholars and institutions in developing countries, many of whom cannot afford the high subscription fees, access to critical research is often out of reach. The global knowledge divide deepens, reinforcing inequities between wealthier and lower-income regions.

Meanwhile, independent researchers and the general public, who stand to benefit greatly from access to cutting-edge scholarship, are often excluded entirely. This restricted access is particularly troubling at a time when misinformation spreads freely online while verified, peer-reviewed research remains behind........

© Pearls and Irritations