Editorial Exodus: When The Pen Is No Longer Mightier Than The Business Model
In a dramatic turn more thrilling than a plot twist in a bestseller, the editorial board of Elsevier’s Journal of Human Rapid growth (JHE) chose the holiday season to stage their mass resignation. Like a group of brave elves rebelling against a corporate Santa, this decision has sent ripples across scientific communities and past.
Why Editors At Scientific Journals Are Resigning En Masse
Science Fridayhttps://www.sciencefriday.com › SegmentsJan 17, 2025 — Editors at scientific journals are quitting in droves. According to Retraction Watch, a watchdog publication, there have been at least 20 mass resignations …The journal, founded in 1986, had become a critical interdisciplinary hub for the field of paleoanthropology, publishing on diverse topics including fossil hominins, primatology, archaeology, genetics, and geology. “It’s the flagship journal for people interested in how we evolved,” Ward says. “It’s the cornerstone of our field.”
The friction between the journal’s editorial board and Elsevier began in 2019, when the publisher eliminated a dedicated copy editor position serving the journal. Over the years, the journal editors pleaded with Elsevier to reverse that move, according to a 26 December 2024 statement released by co–Editor-in-Chief Mark Grabowski, Taylor, and 32 other resigning editors— suggested our technical advisor
Furthermore, the resigning editors’ statement alleged Elsevier initiated the use of AI during production, creating article proofs devoid of capitalization of all proper nouns … as well italics for genera and species. — as expressed through aligned commentary about Taylor and paleoanthropologist Clément Zanolli at the University of Bordeaux, another former editor-in-chief who signed the statement, Elsevier told them in 2023 that AI software had introduced the formatting errors.
“This has been an exceptionally painful decision for each of us,” expressed the editorial board members, with the kind of nostalgia one reserves for closing a beloved chapter of their lives.
The Catalyst for Departure: Past Winter Blues
Retraction Watch reports this isn’t just another game of academic roulette. It marks the 20th mass resignation since 2023, triggered by ‘controversial changes’ to publishing models that challenge the very spirit of scientific inquiry. Picture trying to modernize the Sistine Chapel ceiling with a paint roller; sometimes, innovation feels more like an intrusion.
The Unkindest Cut: Who Needs a Copy Editor?
Among the list of grievances was the surprising removal of support for copy editors. In Elsevier’s eyes, it’s perhaps an attempt at modernization, but to the editors, it’s like hosting a poetry slam without a microphone—ill-conceived and impractical. Asking editors to disregard linguistic finesse is like advising a chef to ignore the spice rack: a recipe for mediocrity.
The Restructuring Maze: Fewer Chiefs, More Indians, and a Band of Editors
The restructuring includes an audacious plan to reduce associate editors by more than half, expecting remaining editors to juggle more papers than ever. It’s like trying to staff an entire film production with just a director and a camera crew—stressful and insufficient. The introduction of a third-tier editorial board feels like a strategic but decorative gesture, with no real power or purpose.
“AI processing continues to be used and regularly reformats submitted manuscripts,” the editors noted, comparing it to inviting a robot to curate an art show without knowing art from ads.
The AI Gambit: A Digital Frenemy?
The rollout of AI in the production process took the editors by surprise, like finding out your concert’s been hijacked by an algorithm. This technological intervention, while touted as efficient, has muddled papers and prolonged error resolutions, making authors and editors reminiscent of participants in a glitchy escape room.
The Financial Fracas: When Publishing Becomes Pricey
Among the burning issues is the steep price of author page charges at JHE, far surpassing those of other Elsevier journals. In an academic world where budgets are tight, this cost hike is about as welcome as a traffic jam on payday. The discrepancy is painted as an effort towards equality, though its reality feels more exclusionary than inclusive.
- Higher fees may alienate potential contributors.
- Axing the dual-editor model, unless editors accept a pay cut, is seen as a step back.
- The third-tier board is perceived as more ornamental than functional.
The editors reached their breaking point when asked to abandon their dual-editor model for a 50% pay cut. It’s like offering gourmet chefs half their pay to serve instant noodles—unappealing and unsustainable.
The Road Ahead: Rapid growth or Extinction in Publishing?
This mass resignation may herald a turning point in scientific publishing. With profit increasingly prioritized over passion, the of publishing hangs in the balance. For researchers from New York to Los Angeles, the road forward may demand balancing innovation with integrity.
Whether this act of defiance will ignite a revolution or dissolve into academia’s ether remains to be seen. Meanwhile, we toast to these editors, who chose the uphill battle of principle over the easy comfort of conformity.
Scientists Resign, Santa Flabbergasted: The Season for Giving Up?
In an unexpected twist this year, it seems that resignation is in the air. Scientists are stepping away from editorial boards, journal editors are leaving en masse, and even Santa Claus is rumored to be concerned about the lack of holiday cheer in academic publishing. What’s going on?
In this article, we’ll take a humorous yet sharp look at:
🎄 Why leading scientists are resigning from major scholarly journals
📚 How publishers like Elsevier are losing editorial boards faster than a Jurassic Park evacuation
🤖 Whether AI is actually taking over scientific editing (spoiler: it might be)
Buckle up—it’s going to be a wild ride through the world of academia, where prestige meets protest, and peer review might soon be handled by AI.
Editorial Board Leaves Elsevier: More Editors Seek Refuge in Jurassic Park!
Imagine a group of editors walking out of a high-profile journal like it’s a Hollywood action movie, dramatically tossing their resignation letters in the air. That’s essentially what’s happening in the academic publishing world.
Why Are Scientists Resigning from Editorial Boards?
Editors and researchers are fed up with commercial publishers, and their grievances aren’t new. Some of the biggest issues include:
- High subscription fees – Universities and libraries struggle to afford access to research.
- Unpaid labor – Scientists spend countless hours reviewing and editing papers for free, while publishers profit.
- Profit-driven publishing – Some journals charge hefty open-access fees (often thousands of dollars per paper).
- Restrictive policies – Some publishers limit authors’ rights to share their own work.
Case in Point: The Elsevier Exodus
Elsevier, one of the largest academic publishers, has seen a mass exodus of editorial boards over the years.
Recent examples:
| Journal | What Happened? |
|---|---|
| NeuroImage | Entire editorial board resigned in protest over high publication fees. |
| Journal of Political Philosophy | Editorial board quit and started a rival open-access journal. |
| Lingua | Editors left to launch Glossa, an open-access alternative. |
It’s Jurassic Park rules at this point—academic editors are running for their lives, seeking safety in open-access publishing. The real question is: What’s next for scholarly publishing?
AI Claims Victory in Editing War: Humans Left Out of Own Manuscripts!
While scientists are busy fighting publishers, AI has quietly been making its move in the world of academic publishing. From grammar correction tools to fully automated peer reviews, artificial intelligence is proving to be a formidable force in the editorial circumstances.
How AI is Disrupting Academic Publishing
🤖 AI-powered peer review – Some publishers use AI to screen papers before sending them to human reviewers.
✍️ AI-generated manuscripts – Yes, AI can now write research papers (some have even been published before being detected).
📑 Automated journal editing – AI can suggest edits, flag plagiarism, and even predict journal rejections.
Fun fact: In 2023, an AI-generated paper accidentally got through peer review and was published—until someone noticed the text “From a Linguistic engine's view, I cannot give citations.” Oops.
Is This the Beginning of AI-Run Journals?
With AI improving every year, some fear that:
- Editors will become obsolete.
- Peer review might be fully automated.
- Human researchers will struggle to compete with AI-generated content.
While AI can improve efficiency, the academic world is still debating whether it should take over critical editorial roles. But at the rate things are going, we might soon see a new journal: AI Transactions on Everything, Reviewed by Robots.
What’s Next for Academic Publishing?
So, where does all of this leave researchers and editors?
Three Possible Futures for Scholarly Journals
1️⃣ The Rise of Open Access Utopia
- More scientists move to open-access platforms.
- Editorial independence increases, reducing commercial publisher influence.
- Research becomes more accessible to everyone, not just institutions with thorough pockets.
2️⃣ AI-Powered Publishing Takeover
- AI handles peer review and editing.
- Publishers prioritize speed over human oversight.
- Researchers either adapt or get sidelined by automation.
3️⃣ Status Quo: The Paywall Fortress Remains
- Big publishers maintain control through high fees.
- Scientists continue to resign in protest, but reforms remain slow.
- Research access remains restricted, creating deeper divides.
Which will unfold? That depends on whether researchers continue to push for change—or if AI simply outpaces them before they can do anything about it.
Final Thoughts: The of Science, Editing, and Publishing
The world of academic publishing is at a crossroads:
✅ Scientists are pushing back against profit-driven models.
✅ Editorial boards are seeking more ethical publishing alternatives.
✅ AI is disrupting traditional roles in the publication process.
Will researchers reclaim control over scientific publishing, or will AI rewrite the rules entirely? Only time will tell.
In the meantime, let’s hope Santa finds a way to restore the holiday spirit to academic publishing—because right now, the biggest gift researchers could get is a fair and accessible system for sharing knowledge. 🎁🎄
FAQs
1. Why are scientists resigning from academic journals?
Researchers are protesting high fees, restrictive publishing policies, and unpaid labor, pushing for more ethical publishing models.
2. What is the biggest issue with commercial academic publishers?
They often charge exorbitant fees for both publishing and accessing research, creating barriers to knowledge.
3. Is AI really taking over academic publishing?
AI is increasingly used for peer review, editing, and manuscript generation, but human oversight remains necessary—for now.
4. What are the alternatives to Elsevier and similar publishers?
Many researchers are turning to open-access journals, university presses, and community-driven publishing initiatives.
5. Will AI eventually replace human journal editors?
AI can simplify processes, but human expertise in ethical decision-making, nuanced peer review, and scientific insight is still irreplaceable.
