Having research papers hidden behind a paywall offends my sense of social justice, particularly in a place as small as Aotearoa New Zealand. It offends me even more because New Zealand academics, appointed to tertiary institutions, do the research, and write the articles within the boundaries of their own teaching work (which is funded by our government). And it might take two years for an idea to go from research being a paper ready for publication. Those want to publish also need to peer review for the journal, for the privilege of being published in that journal... and they do that as well within the boundaries of their own teaching work (which is funded by our government).
Then those who are on the editorial boards of the journals we are submitting to are also other academics, who - guess what? - do what they do within the boundaries of their own teaching work (which is funded by their governments in their nations).
And then the big publishing houses - Reed-Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer and SAGE (MacDonald, 2015) - who incidentally own over half the global journals and teaching text brands (The Economist, 2024), now often own the copyright on the research because they 'published' it. And because they own the copyright, they paywall the articles: they formatted it, after all, they own the processes, and they have the website. They make BILLIONS in profit annually (The Economist, 2024) all due to global 'government funded' research, write-up, and validation... which actually means that taxpayers from around the world provide the publishing houses with utterly ridiculous waterfall of money.
One paper I asked my library to obtain for me was going to cost USD$75 (NZD$125) to rent a copy of the article FOR ONE YEAR for my own research only. I could share it with no one. I wouldn't 'own' a copy - I had to agree to destroy it after a year. These costs are extortionate.
But when we consider that the writer gets nothing (except being published and a few author copies); the peer reviewers get nothing (except being published); the editorial boards get nothing (except to say they are on the board); and the taxpayer gets nothing; this model does not seem fair. Why should the payers get locked out of reading the research they are paying for?
Authors usually get roughly 6 'free' copies for the privilege of having sweated blood for a year or more to write the article which finally passes peer-review and gets accepted. So let's rub some salt into that wound: those big publishers make a song and dance about 'open access' publication, which means that, if the submitting academics pay a fee, the article becomes available freely to all (Butler et al., 2023). And the fee? Usually around $4000 (USD$2600 ≈ NZD$4300), but may be up to USD$10000 (≈NZD$17000; Ayeni & Larivière, 2025, p. 1). There are very few institutions that can afford to cough up that type of open access charges. Trying to get back conference travel costs of $100 is hard enough; there is very little untagged money in the education sector. The Gates Foundation announced last year that they will no longer fund open access fees (The Economist, 2024).
But it is not just journals where the publishing houses have it all their own way. A colleague of mine wrote a textbook on coaching which used to retail for around USD$150 - she got $1 profit on her years of work in putting that text together. So when it came time to do a second edition, she declined the publication house contract, and went to a self-publishing/printing house in Ireland that did print-on-demand. Her students together online batch-ordered their copies for NZD$75 each (which including international shipping). She made about NZD$25 per copy on the second edition, at effectively a quarter the price to students.
So why are we paying publishing houses to 'publish'? Even if institutions no longer have the capacity to self-publish, we need a better way. Perhaps we need the research equivalent of Wikipedia. If we had the platform, and we collectively bought in, it could be run by the same volunteer efforts as the academic writing, peer-review and editorial boards currently are.
I would love to see those vampire publishers kicked into touch.
Sam
References:
Ayeni, P., & Larivière, V. (2025). Inequity, precarity, and disparity: Exploring systemic and institutional barriers in open access publishing. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. Advance online publication, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000625135338
Butler, L.-A., Matthias, L., Simard, M.-A., Mongeon, P., & Haustein, S. (2023). The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(4), 778–799. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272
MacDonald, F. (2015, June 12). These Five Companies Control More Than Half of Academic Publishing. Science Alert. https://www.sciencealert.com/these-five-companies-control-more-than-half-of-academic-publishing
The Economist. (2024, November 20). Scientific publishers are producing more papers than ever. http://openscience.ens.fr/ABOUT_OPEN_ACCESS/ARTICLES/2024_11_20_The_Economist_on_publishing.pdf















