A UCLA neuroscientist has filed a federal class-action lawsuit against six major academic publishers, alleging that they are engaged in an illegal scheme that hinders scientific advancement and forces scholars to work for free.
Dr. Lucina Uddin’s lawsuit was filed last month in the Eastern District of New York. The defendants in the class action are some of the world’s largest publishers of peer-reviewed scholarly journals: Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Sage Publications Inc., Taylor and Francis Group Ltd. and Springer Nature.
Such research published in their journals not only guides the development of new medicines and consumer products but it can also help judges resolve civil lawsuits filed against pharmaceutical firms and other corporate defendants.
“In violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the publisher defendants conspired to unlawfully appropriate billions of dollars that would have otherwise funded scientific research,” the lawsuit states.
The publishers’ anti-competitive activities are three-pronged, according to the complaint. First, the publishers conspire not to compensate researchers for the labor they put into their articles, creating what the plaintiff alleges is an extreme form of price fixing. Then the defendants agree not to compete with each other for manuscripts, effectively taking away leverage authors have in a normal competitive marketplace, according to the lawsuit..
Third, the publishers bar scholars from sharing the scientific insights contained in the research papers while they undergo peer review, a process referred to in the complaint as a “gag rule.”
“From the moment scholars submit manuscripts for publication, the publisher defendants behave as though the scientific advancements set forth in the manuscripts are their property, to be shared only if the publisher defendants grant permission,” the lawsuit states.
Sources who are experts in scientific ethics agree that problems persist in the evaluation of scientific literature. But they contend the integrity of this research has been going up and not down, according to Medscape.com, which publishes medical news and opinions of scientific experts.
Although several of the defendants declined to comment on the litigation, Wiley disagrees with the allegations made in the lawsuit.
“We are aware of the lawsuit filed against us and other publishers, and while we cannot comment on the specifics of the claims at this time, we believe they are without merit,” a Wiley spokesperson said in an email to the Southern California Record. “We remain dedicated to supporting the scholarly community by delivering excellence in all aspects of scholarly publishing.”
The lawsuit claims that the six publishers are raking in profits that exceed the level of profits being made by the nation’s most successful companies.
“For instance, in 2023, Elsevier alone generated $3.8 billion in revenue from its peer-reviewed journals, with an operating profit margin of 38%,” the complaint says. “This profit margin exceeded Apple’s (30%) and Google’s (25%).”
The current system diverts billions of dollars to private publishers when it is often publicly funded educational institutions – and the scholars they employ – who do the actual work, according to the lawsuit.
“The scheme has held back science, delaying advances across all fields of research,” the complaint alleges. “It will take longer to find effective treatments for cancer. It will take longer to make advancements in material science that will support quantum computing. It will take longer to find technological tools to combat climate change. And on and on.”
The plaintiff is asking the court for a declaration that the defendants’ conduct amounts to a restraint of trade in violation of federal law, as well as an injunction barring the publishers from engaging in unlawful agreements. In addition, Uddin seeks treble damages for members of the class and a reimbursement for the cost of bringing the lawsuit plus attorney fees.