In a startling development over the recent holiday weekend, nearly the entire editorial board of Elsevier’s Journal of Human Evolution (JHE) resigned, declaring their departure with profound sadness and regret. This resignation marks a significant moment in academic publishing, which has witnessed a wave of similar mass resignations—now totaling 20 in 2023—as editors increasingly clash with the shifting business models of scientific journals. According to Retraction Watch, this discontent is not incidental; it represents a broader disillusionment within the academic community regarding the direction of academic publishing.
The editorial board’s announcement, which they shared publicly, articulated a deep sense of loss along with the necessity for their decision. For 38 years, they have nurtured and developed JHE into a leading platform for paleoanthropological research. However, they reached a breaking point when they felt they could no longer align their ethical standards with the operational practices of Elsevier. The board lamented its sacrifices and long-standing loyalty to the journal and its contributors, highlighting their commitment that persisted well beyond their terms. This raises fundamental questions about the nature of loyalty in academic publishing, particularly when profits are prioritized over academic integrity.
A core grievance among the board members was the significant changes implemented by Elsevier over the past decade, which they argued directly contradicted the journal’s original editorial principles. Notably, essential support roles such as copy editors and special issues editors were eliminated. The board remarked that when they requested help for copy editing—crucial for clarity and accuracy—the publisher’s response was disheartening: editors should no longer focus on language or formatting. This dismissal speaks to a troubling trend of undervaluing editorial quality, which can undermine academic rigor.
The restructuring of the editorial board has posed additional challenges. Plans to reduce the number of associate editors by more than fifty percent threaten to strain the resources and expertise of those who remain. Such drastic cuts in editorial capacity could lead to an overload of work for fewer editors, thereby stretching their capabilities in fields that may diverge from their expertise. This reconfiguration suggests a troubling shift away from nuanced and specialized editorial guidance, which is particularly important in a field as complex and evolving as paleoanthropology.
Furthermore, the introduction of a tiered editorial board, coupled with the unilateral control exerted by Elsevier over the editorial structure, has sparked concerns about editorial integrity and independence. These measures, seen as undermining the authority of the editorial board, contribute to a growing sentiment that academic editors are increasingly being treated as figureheads rather than key decision-makers. This perception may drive devoted editors away from journals that once represented their scholarly home.
The increasing reliance on technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), has also raised alarms. The board reported that the implementation of AI in the journal’s production processes, executed without their consent or knowledge, not only compromised the quality of their work but also led to embarrassing errors that took months to rectify. The reliance on AI for tasks traditionally managed by skilled human editors diminishes the quality assurance vital to reputable scholarly publishing.
Compounding these operational issues are the soaring author page charges, which have surged to levels significantly higher than even other Elsevier journals. Such financial barriers contradict the journal’s mission of promoting equality and inclusivity. These charges pose a barrier for many potential authors who are unable to bear the costs, thereby excluding valuable voices from the academic discourse.
The culmination of these difficulties appears to have reached its apex when Elsevier announced the discontinuation of the dual-editor model that has been in place since 1986, effectively threatening the compensation of the co-editors Mark Grabowski and Andrea Taylor. The proposal for a drastic cut in compensation, a move perceived as unjust by the editors, contributed to the already tense atmosphere that precipitated the board’s resignation.
The mass resignation of the JHE editorial board is emblematic of larger systemic issues within the academic publishing landscape. As the relationship between journals and their editorial boards grows increasingly fraught, questions about the future of scholarly publishing emerge. Will this trend lead to a re-evaluation of how academic work is valued, or will the industry continue down a path that prioritizes profit over scholarly integrity? Only time will reveal the consequences of this monumental shakeup.