The recent mass resignation of nearly the entire editorial board of the Journal of Human Evolution (JHE) presents a stark illustration of the fissures emerging within the scientific publishing landscape. Such significant turnover isn’t merely an isolated incident; it marks the 20th such mass resignation reported by Retraction Watch in 2023, highlighting a growing discontent among academics regarding the evolving practices of academic publishing. As more editorial teams sever ties with established publishing giants like Elsevier, underlying issues regarding editorial independence, ethical responsivity, and accessibility in scientific communication are drawn into sharper focus.
The affected board members expressed their emotions candidly, describing the resignation as a painful decision driven not by personal grievances but by a deep-seated concern for the integrity of their journal and the broader implications for the discipline of paleoanthropology. With nearly four decades of combined editorial stewardship, these editors have dedicated their careers to elevating JHE into a premier venue for paleoanthropological scholarship. Their profound disappointment stems from recent transformative changes imposed by Elsevier that they believe compromise the very principles of academic rigor and editorial integrity.
Key among these contentious developments is the removal of dedicated roles such as a copy editor and a special issues editor. The board articulated a desperate need for such roles to maintain high standards of academic writing, yet their appeals were met with a dismissive stance from Elsevier, suggesting that editors should disregard aspects of language and grammar. This response starkly contrasts with the editors’ commitment to ensuring the quality and coherence of the work published in the journal, raising questions about the balancing act between corporate interests and scholarly integrity.
The restructuring of the editorial board itself amplifies these concerns. Plans to halve the number of associate editors imply that fewer editors will be tasked with an increased workload, potentially leading to the publication of subpar research outcomes and further diminishing the journal’s quality—an outcome that academic publishing should fundamentally seek to prevent. Moreover, this shift not only jeopardizes the quality of the research being disseminated but also risks placing articles in the hands of editors whose expertise may not align with the subject matter being reviewed.
Another pivotal element contributing to the board’s concerns is the abrupt introduction of AI-driven processes without prior consultation. The integration of artificial intelligence into editorial processing might ostensibly streamline production but has instead resulted in rampant errors and inconsistencies. Such a lack of transparency undermines the scholarly process, leading to a publication ethos marked by inaccuracy and confusion. The involvement of AI raises ethical questions about the extent to which technology can and should be wielded within academic publishing, especially without sufficient oversight.
Financial concerns also permeate this issue. The escalated author page charges for JHE stand in stark contrast to Elsevier’s professed commitment to equity and inclusivity in academia. Authors, particularly from underfunded institutions or fields, may find these fees prohibitively expensive, inadvertently creating barriers that further entrench inequalities within scientific discourse. This raises important questions about the future of open-access publishing. Journals that prioritize profit over accessibility risk alienating potential contributors, ultimately stifling the diversity of voices and perspectives that are essential for a healthy academic ecosystem.
The collective resignation seems to point to a climactic event in November when the existing editorial model was abruptly altered. The decision to dismantle the dual-editorial structure, a framework that has facilitated collaborative leadership since 1986, marked a decisive break. Such a shift, particularly when coupled with a proposed 50% compensation cut for continuing the model, illustrates not just a tactical move by Elsevier but potentially a strategic attempt to consolidate power over content and editorial direction.
The resignation of JHE’s editorial board encapsulates a significant moment in the ongoing struggle between academic integrity and corporate publishing interests. It signals a growing unrest that may catalyze more extensive reforms within the scientific publishing industry. The implications of this incident stretch far beyond the personnel changes at one journal. It forces a reckoning with longstanding practices and compels the academic community to reassess its engagement with powerful publishing entities. Ultimately, the future of academic publishing may hinge upon this moment; remaining vigilant, responsive, and adaptable will be critical for both journals and scholars alike.