After decades of free-market ideological dominance on both sides of the Atlantic, nationalisation (or at least anti-monopoly state intervention) is back on the agenda.
“Rail, water, energy, Royal Mail, we’re taking them back,” shadow chancellorJohn McDonnell (above)told a Labour Party on the brink of power last year.Even thehasrun a series of investigations askinghard questions about the wisdom ofpastprivatisations.
Meanwhile in the US,, in industries ranging from health insurance to airlines, has becomearallying cry of Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren.Critics havealsotaken aim attech companies,whichWarren has comparedto theUSoil, sugar and railroad trusts of the 19thcentury, accusing them of exploitingthe scale of their digital networks to create natural monopolies over advertising.Eye-watering profit margins forԻ(24 per cent and 50 per cent respectively)are the result.
As manyresearchersare uncomfortably aware,similarlywhopping margins, which aren’t supposed to exist in a competitive free market, are alive and well in academia. Last week, Elsevier, the world’s biggest academic publisher, announcedprofits of more than £900 million, andunchangedmargins of 36.8 per cent.
̽Ƶ
Its rivals are little different.The academic publishing division of, whichincludespublishers Taylor&Francis and Routledge, made more than £160 million in 2016,with aprofit margin of 38 per cent.managed a margin of 29.6 per cent in 2017, raking in $252 million (£183 million)*.Between these three companies, that’s more than £1.25 billion a yearsiphoned off from the research systemannually: not far off enough to fund anotherUniversity of Oxford.
Some of this isdoubtlessreinvested in new publishing tools.But hundreds of millionsgo to shareholders(Informaand Elsevier’s parent company RELX collectivelypaid outnearly£900 millionin dividends), whilego to executives (the boss ofRELXwas paid more than £10 million in 2016).
̽Ƶ
Complaints about publishers’ profits arefar fromnew.In 1998, ճhoped that, with the rise of electronic journals, “thedays of 40% profit margins may soon be as dead as Robert Maxwell”.
But with a change in the political wind – and a sense that all other measures have failed to bring publishers’ profits to heel – I wonder if we might start to see calls for the likes of McDonnell or Warren to intervene.
Take open access. There was once hope that switching to paying per article published, rather than for bulk subscriptions to closed journals, might reduce costs and perhaps slim margins.
But thereare few signs of thishappening. In the UK, university libraries arepaying more than everfor journalsdespitespeedyprogress towards open access.Average article processing charges (the fees paid to publish a paper open access)areincreasing at more than 5 per cent a year.Nor does the rise of the pirate site Sci-Hub seem to have dented margins.
̽Ƶ
Indeed, it is possible to imagine a world that has switchedentirelyto open access, yet publishers’ profits are as high as ever. The reason,as argued by Alex Holcombe and Björn Brembs,is that publishers control prestigious, legacy journals with high impact factors. Researchers are compelled to publish in these journals for the sake of their careers, even if theyare more expensive than alternatives (they point toScientific Reports, which hasused theٳܰbrand tohelpsqueeze out the cheaper, near-identicalPLOS One).
This points to academic publishers’ rather unusual form of monopoly. It is not a particularly concentrated market: even the biggest player, Elsevier, points out that it publishes only 17 per cent of all articles. Nor do publishers control the means of distribution (ie, the internet), like water companies might control pipes. Authors have plenty of options if they want to publish elsewhere. It’s true that no one is forcing you to pay $5,000 to publish inCellReports.
But academics are trapped insidea giant prisoner’s dilemma: no one wants to be the first to publish in acheaperjournal that won’t look as good on theirCV(especially if you’re not actually spending your own money). The exceptions are instructive:, the Cambridge mathematician,boycottedElsevier in 2012 – but with a Fields Medal, he probably doesn’t worry too much about his impact factor.
Of course, the even deeper problem here is a reliance on impact factors and journal titles as a proxy for academic quality. But until that fiendishly difficult problem is solved, absent of government regulation, the now completely routine annual loss of hundreds of millions of pounds to publishers’ shareholders is here to stay.
̽Ƶ
Some solutions have already been put forward for the likes of Google and Facebook.ճacademicsuggests regulating them like a public utility, potentiallycontrollingprices and forcing them to spend a fixed proportion of profits on freely available research and development.
Still, if frustrated researchers do begin to implore politicians on the left to help them break the power of big bad publishers, I wonder how sympathetic a hearing they will receive. Academics must bear some of the responsibility for publishing’s many dysfunctions. McDonnell or Warren might well ask: how have such clever people ended up in such a mess?
̽Ƶ
david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com
*I originally reported that Wiley's profit margin was 74 per cent; however, having been contacted by another journalist who has been over their accounts before, a much better way of calculating profits gives a margin instead of 29.6 per cent. Still high, but not quite higher-than-Facebook high.
Register to continue
Why register?
- Registration is free and only takes a moment
- Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
- Sign up for our newsletter
Subscribe
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to ձᷡ’s university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber?
