In a striking turn of events over the recent holiday weekend, the editorial board of Elsevier’s Journal of Human Evolution (JHE) announced the resignation of all but one of its members, citing profound sadness and regret over their decision. This incident marks the 20th mass resignation from various scientific journals in 2023, underscoring a growing discontent within the academic publishing community. Retraction Watch reported on this mass exit, providing access to a PDF of the editors’ complete statement, which illuminates the complex issues at play.
At the core of the editorial board’s resignation lies a series of contentious changes within the journal, many of which clash with the ethical and editorial principles that have traditionally governed scientific publishing. The board expressed its disillusionment with Elsevier’s decision-making process and the restructuring of key editorial roles over the past decade. Specifically, the removal of critical support roles such as a copy editor and a special issues editor has placed increased burdens on the existing editorial team, forcing them to take on roles traditionally handled by specialized staff.
In a particularly troubling response from Elsevier, the board was told that the editors should not focus on language or grammar—a stance that challenges the very essence of academic rigor which relies on clarity and precision in communication. This dismissal not only undermines the editors’ capabilities but raises serious questions about the overall quality and integrity of the journal’s output.
The editorial board’s concerns extend beyond logistical challenges. The current restructuring efforts by Elsevier appear directed toward diminishing the editorial independence that is crucial for maintaining academic integrity. Plans to slash the number of associate editors by more than half threaten the board’s ability to cover a broad array of topics effectively. Such a strategy could lead to a dilution of expertise and deteriorate the quality of articles published in the journal.
Furthermore, the establishment of a third-tier editorial board, perceived as more of a figurehead than an active participant in editorial decision-making, is seen as an erosion of traditional editorial autonomy. The imposition of annual contract renewals for associate editors has been interpreted as a move to cement Elsevier’s control over the board structure, leaving editors feeling increasingly marginalized in a space they once energetically stewarded.
Another significant factor contributing to the board’s resignation is the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) within the journal’s production processes. While the application of AI can offer efficiency, Elsevier’s implementation has reportedly led to numerous style and formatting errors, culminating in the embarrassing task of rectifying versions of papers that had already been accepted. This scenario underscores the pitfalls of prioritizing technological efficiency over the nuanced understanding and deliberation required in academic publishing.
Authors are also impacted negatively by the elevated author page charges that JHE now demands, which are positioned significantly higher compared to other journals, including Elsevier’s own offerings. This financial burden contradicts the asserted commitments to equality and inclusivity within the academic realm, generating barriers for many prospective authors from various socio-economic backgrounds.
A Fractured Relationship: The Breaking Point
Issues escalated sharply in November 2023 when Elsevier announced the termination of the dual-editor model that had been successfully employed since 1986. This decision was met with resistance from coeditors Mark Grabowski and Andrea Taylor, who argued for the benefits of the existing structure. However, Elsevier’s insistence that the model would only continue with a drastic reduction in editorial compensation drove the final wedge between the editorial board and the publisher.
The resignation of the editorial board from the Journal of Human Evolution serves as a crucial point of reflection for the academic publishing industry. As more editors take a stand against practices perceived to compromise academic integrity and editorial independence, the puzzle of how to balance profit motives with ethical academic publishing becomes more apparent. This trend raises fundamental questions about the future viability and credibility of scholarly journals in an ever-evolving landscape. As the division grows wider between publishers and their editorial boards, a reevaluation of priorities and practices may be necessary to preserve the integrity of academic discourse.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.