Stefanie Haustein
LightNews LightNews
banner
stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca
Stefanie Haustein
@stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca
530 followers 570 following 310 posts
Associate prof, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa @uottawa.ca
Co-director, Scholarly Communications Lab #ScholCommLab #FirstGen

open science | bibliometrics | open access | research assessment | metascience
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca
Stefanie Haustein @stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca · 2d
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk 🎤

If you’ve read this far and still need convincing, please check out our preprint arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820 and this infographic: doi.org/10.5281/zeno...
10/10
The four-fold drain of scientific publishing: Money, Time, Trust, and Control.
stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca
Talking about our recent work on The Drain of Scientific Publishing at the Royal Society of Canada #CoEE2025 on a panel with @chadgaffield.bsky.social and @abizadeh.bsky.social. 10am in Viger, 8th floor @erudit.org #AcademicSky #RoyalSociety
November 15, 2025 at 2:37 PM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
dgbassani.bsky.social
A timely thread… as I recover from this shocker. What level of insanity is this? This is the publication fee for one paper in a journal that publishes a few hundred papers each year. 10,400 USD, but *only* 8,360 USD after the discounts…
Screen shot of the invoice for the article processing charges of one scientific manuscript. The total price is 10,400 USD. After the university discount and subvention the invoice balance is still 8,360 USD
November 14, 2025 at 3:05 AM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
madhupai.bsky.social
The Drain of Scientific Publishing

arxiv.org/pdf/2511.04820
November 14, 2025 at 3:17 AM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
wall-e2.bsky.social
~$2.5bn in profits, ~35% profit margin
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 5d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 14, 2025 at 5:46 PM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
dannykay68.bsky.social
EXCELLENT graphic on the drain of scientific publishing! zenodo.org/records/1759...
November 15, 2025 at 4:04 AM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
drbeth.bsky.social
Love this, I'm going to think about how we could promote it.
November 11, 2025 at 12:12 PM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
ibi-hu.bsky.social
Interesse an Bibliometrie?

Kennt ihr schon die "Loseblattsammlung" aka. bibliometrische Quick Notes von unserm Kollegen @optykali.bsky.social?
Ein Blick lohnt sich.
Ihr findet das CC BY 4.0 lizenzierte Material hier:
bibliometrics-quick-notes.github.io

#bibliometrie #bibliometry #quicknotes #LIS
Gezeigt wird ein (bibliometrisches) Netzwerk mit vielen Verbindungen zwischen Knoten, einige wenige sind hervorgehoben.
November 14, 2025 at 12:41 PM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
scurry.bsky.social
Regretfully (for the sake of the authors and journal staff), I have this morning declined an invitation to review for a @royalsociety.org journal because of the Society’s continued refusal to stand up for its values in dealing with Elon Musk FRS.
Text of letter reads: “With apologies to the authors and to the staff at Royal Society Open Science who are blameless in all this, but I am not willing to devote time to review a Royal Society that continues to honour Elon Musk with its fellowship. Mr Musk stands in clear breach of the code of conduct which applies to all Fellows. He runs one of the most voluminous sources of misinformation on the planet (his social media platform X), to which he personally contributes without any regard for the Society's values of truth and evidence. Moreover, as head of DOGE he presided gleefully over the dismantling of USAID, an action hat has already lead to the deaths of an estimated 600,000 people, two-thirds of them children. In the coming years millions more will die because of his actions. I am truly sickened by the Royal Society's failure to sand up for its values or indeed for umanity. Until I see a clear demonstration that it is prepared to enforce its code of conduct, I cannot see myself devoting time to reviewing for the Society's journals. Yours faithfully, Stephen Curry” P.S. Please feel free to forward this communication to the President of the Royal Society
November 14, 2025 at 8:02 AM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
albertarias.bsky.social
Must-read thread 🧵on the insane power given to for-profit publishers in the academia

As a member of the editorial board of an open access non-profit journal @scriptanova.bsky.social I couldn't agree more.
stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca Stefanie Haustein @stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca · 2d
Over the past months (and at least 11 versions!), I was lucky to work with 11 amazing colleagues on a call to action to reform academic publishing.

Not another declaration, but an appeal to our powerful friends, research funders & institutions, to Stop the Drain of Scientific Publishing. 1/n
November 14, 2025 at 6:37 AM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
riacheyne.bsky.social
THIS from a good thread on the need to reform academic publishing #AcademicSky
stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca Stefanie Haustein @stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca · 2d
Many call on researchers to behave differently. But researchers are dispersed across disciplines, institutions & countries. Let's face it, we are hard to coordinate.

So we call on the actors with real power:
Funders and institutions. 💪
They can set the policies and reshape incentives. 8/n
November 14, 2025 at 8:06 AM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
danbrockington.bsky.social
This brilliant graphic from @stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca captures really clearly the challenge of the drain, and the hope of alternatives that can free us from it.
stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca Stefanie Haustein @stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca · 2d
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk 🎤

If you’ve read this far and still need convincing, please check out our preprint arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820 and this infographic: doi.org/10.5281/zeno...
10/10
The four-fold drain of scientific publishing: Money, Time, Trust, and Control.
November 14, 2025 at 8:52 AM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
kunkakom.bsky.social
The billions of research funds channeled into the pockets of Elsevier and other commercial publisher in return for very little actual value is one of academia's big inefficiencies that will eventually be replaced by more attractive Community-run alternatives
November 14, 2025 at 9:55 AM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
erudit.org
👥 Érudit organise le panel « Le futur de l’édition savante » dans le cadre du #COEE2025 - @src-rsc.bsky.social

🇨🇦 Avec @stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca & @chadgaffield.bsky.social

📅 15 novembre, 10h à 11h

📌 S’inscrire : bit.ly/COEE2025
November 11, 2025 at 5:30 PM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
rmounce.mastodon.social.ap.brid.gy
Oxford and Harvard libraries now publishing their own diamond open access journals. Love it. ❤️

Paying hundreds of millions to big commercial publishers isn't the only way of supporting researchers to publish their research.

Oxford: https://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/shox#collapse5381526

Harvard […]
Original post on mastodon.social
mastodon.social
November 10, 2025 at 11:59 AM
stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca
Over the past months (and at least 11 versions!), I was lucky to work with 11 amazing colleagues on a call to action to reform academic publishing.

Not another declaration, but an appeal to our powerful friends, research funders & institutions, to Stop the Drain of Scientific Publishing. 1/n
November 13, 2025 at 8:17 PM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
aileenfyfe.bsky.social
New preprint on the drain that for-profit publishers place on the scientific ecosystem. We also point out that, though it's often presented as a global problem, it's actually a Global North problem: there are parts of the world with strong diamond #OA non-profit alternatives arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
November 11, 2025 at 4:32 PM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
hoooydoopy.bsky.social
Fascinating to consider that one of the most profitable industries is simultaneously the most hated by its own customers
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 5d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 12, 2025 at 8:07 PM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
weedenkim.bsky.social
💯.

The enormous drain caused by for-profit publishers persists b/c (a) they have a monopoly on the high-prestige journal titles; and (b) researchers and evaluators (e.g., T&P committees, deans, letter writers) use journal prestige as indicator of quality.

We have met the enablers and they are us.
"At the same time, a major challenge is to change the incentives and reward structures that shape researchers’ publishing behaviours. This means reconfiguring the prestige economy, arguably the most difficult but most crucial task. "
November 12, 2025 at 1:32 PM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
karinmora.bsky.social
😲 Who knew that you only have to establish your own journal to have higher profit margins than the pharma or the oil industry… 😲
With us scientists loving to work for free…

Put that keyboard away. Your super-yacht is waiting. 🛥️

An insightful analysis on the Drain of Scientific Publishing 📈
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 5d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 12, 2025 at 4:24 PM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
paolocrosetto.bsky.social
What is the most profitable industry in the world, this side of the law? Not oil, not IT, not pharma.

It's *scientific publishing*.

We call this the Drain of Scientific Publishing.

Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Background: doi.org/10.1162/qss_...

Thread @markhanson.fediscience.org.ap.brid.gy 👇
November 12, 2025 at 10:31 AM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
groupharding.bsky.social
There's no question that some degree of regulation is now needed to bring profits into line with other industries, especially as we are mostly publicly funded.
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 5d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 13, 2025 at 12:09 AM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
coalitions-oa.bsky.social
3/ Three priorities for the next 5 years:
✓ Strengthening the foundations for full, immediate, sustainable, equitable #OpenAccess
✓ Supporting digital infrastructure for #OpenAccess
✓ Exploring sustainable, equitable publishing systems & monitoring
www.coalition-s.org/coalitions-s... #ScholarlyComm
November 12, 2025 at 10:40 AM
stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca
I also had something to say about @coalitions-oa.bsky.social’s new strategy but I guess my perspective is more pessimistic than Samuel’s. While I think their direction is the right one (preprints, PRC, diamond), I think they can end 35% profit margins. More about this here: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
November 12, 2025 at 5:33 PM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
danbrockington.bsky.social
And there multiple alternatives. Scientific publishing outside the global north thrives on community-owned and governed platforms like SciELO, Redalyc, Latindex or African Journals Online without commercial publishing. tinyurl.com/577zsekx
OSF
tinyurl.com
November 12, 2025 at 11:41 AM
Reposted by Stefanie Haustein
danbrockington.bsky.social
And how do we get there? First, stop working with commercial publishers to reform the system. We have had decades of failed attempts at reform in which the only constancy is publishers’ profits. We cannot continually try to reform a broken system.
November 12, 2025 at 11:41 AM