In an unprecedented move, nearly the entire editorial board of Elsevier’s Journal of Human Evolution (JHE) has resigned, an event that underscores a troubling trend within the scientific publishing industry. This mass resignation is significant not only for the journal but also for the broader academic community, as it marks the 20th instance of similar resignations in various scientific publications this year, primarily due to contentious changes instituted by publishers. This article will explore the reasons behind this landmark decision, reflect on the implications for the field of paleoanthropology, and assess the larger context of scientific publishing practices.
In their resignation statement, the board expressed profound sadness and a sense of regret. They noted, “This has been an exceptionally painful decision for each of us.” This sentiment reflects the deep investment and passion that the editors have committed to the journal over the past 38 years, wherein they dedicated their time and expertise to elevate JHE to a position of prominence in the field. Their resignation is not merely an isolated incident; it signals distress about the growing pressures and unethical practices within the publishing industry that undermine the integrity of scientific discourse.
The specific grievances articulated by the editorial board are troubling. They cite an alarming trend of diminished editorial support, including the elimination of key positions such as a copy editor, which critically impacts the quality and rigor of academic publications. Editorial boards are essential for maintaining the standards of research outputs; without adequate support, the quality assurance mechanisms that ensure readability and scientific rigour are compromised. The board’s assertion that Elsevier discourages editors from focusing on fundamental aspects such as language and formatting reflects an alarming disregard for the intricacies of scholarly communication.
Additionally, the restructuring of the editorial board itself raises concerns about editorial independence. The planned reduction of associate editors threatens to burden remaining editors, forcing them to oversee a greater number of manuscripts, often in areas outside their expertise. This not only compromises the integrity of the peer-review process but also jeopardizes the quality of articles published. The move to renew contracts annually further diminishes the board’s autonomy, effectively placing the editorial board under the thumb of a corporate entity more interested in profit than in scholarly commitment.
Another critical point of contention involves the introduction of AI-driven processes without prior discussion with the editorial board. The decision to outsource editorial functions and implement machine-driven production without transparency has led to numerous errors and inconsistencies. The board’s frustration is palpable as they recount the embarrassment caused by production errors that took six months to rectify, underscoring the pitfalls of prioritizing cost-cutting measures over well-established academic standards.
When technology begins to undermine the essence of scholarly work, it raises profound ethical questions. AI, while beneficial in certain respects, cannot replace the nuanced understanding and expertise of human editors. Instead, it risks distorting meaning and undermining the scholarly discourse that institutions like JHE strive to uphold.
The financial aspect of this crisis cannot be overlooked. The increased author page charges present a significant barrier to many prospective authors, which contradicts the journal’s stated commitment to inclusivity and accessibility in research dissemination. When fees deter capable scholars from publishing their work, it raises serious questions about who gets to contribute to the academic conversation and who remains silenced.
The resignation of the editorial board of the Journal of Human Evolution is a clarion call for systemic change in the scientific publishing landscape. As evidenced by their grievances, the current model prioritizes profit over integrity, raises questions about the democratisation of knowledge, and threatens to stifle critical discourse within academia. It is imperative for the academic community to rally together and advocate for more ethical practices, greater transparency, and a recommitment to the ideals of scholarly publishing. Only through collective action can we hope to preserve the integrity of scientific research and ensure that it remains accessible to all.
Leave a Reply