In a striking move that has sent ripples through the academic community, a substantial portion of the editorial board of Elsevier’s Journal of Human Evolution (JHE) recently resigned. This development marks a significant moment in the ongoing discourse about the ethical and operational challenges within scientific publishing. Such mass resignations, now totaling twenty since the beginning of 2023, reflect a broader dissatisfaction among researchers and editors alike with the prevailing practices in academic publishing, many of which seem to prioritize corporate profits over scholarly integrity.
The resigning editors issued a heartfelt statement expressing their deep emotional conflict over this decision. They conveyed their commitment to the journal and its mission over nearly four decades, highlighting the immense effort they have invested in not just maintaining, but elevating the status of JHE as a premier platform for paleoanthropological research. The emotional weight of their resignation underscores the gravity of the issues at hand—issues that challenge the ethical foundations of scientific communication.
The primary grievances outlined by the editorial board extend beyond mere administrative inconveniences; they strike at the very heart of editorial independence and academic responsibility. Over the past decade, the board has observed detrimental changes instituted by Elsevier that compromise the scholarly rigor and ethical standards of the journal. Notably alarming is the reduction of editorial resources, which saw the elimination of a dedicated copy editor and a special issues editor, thereby shifting an unreasonable workload onto existing board members. Such changes jeopardize the quality and integrity of published research, as editors are increasingly forced to juggle multiple roles, often outside their expertise.
The planned restructuring intended to cut the number of associate editors by more than fifty percent is particularly concerning. The risks of having a smaller pool of editors handling an increased volume of submissions are manifold—namely, the potential dilution of subject matter expertise and increased chances for errors in manuscript handling. Editors relying on their experience to ensure quality control may find themselves overwhelmed, compromising the integrity that journals strive to uphold.
One of the most controversial developments has been Elsevier’s unilateral decision to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) into the editorial process without prior notification to the editorial board. While technology can significantly enhance efficiency, its implementation must be managed transparently and ethically. The editors reported numerous instances where AI mismanaged formatting and even altered the meaning of submitted manuscripts, requiring extensive oversight to correct. Such errors not only embarrass the journal but also call into question the reliability of the peer review process, which relies heavily on human expertise and judgment.
This issue emphasizes a crucial point: while innovation is necessary, it should not come at the expense of human oversight and scholarly integrity. The board fears that the increasing reliance on AI tools could lead to a mechanical and impersonal approach to publishing, which is fundamentally at odds with the collaborative nature of academic work.
Financial considerations further complicate the landscape. The resigning editors highlighted the stark increase in author page charges for JHE, which now surpasses rates even found in other Elsevier publications. For many authors, especially those from underfunded institutions or developing countries, these fees pose significant barriers, contradicting the journal’s commitment to equity and inclusivity within the academic community. This situation raises profound questions about the accessibility of scholarly communication and the responsibilities of publishers in facilitating or hindering the dissemination of knowledge.
The ultimatum issued by Elsevier, which led to the end of the dual-editor model—an arrangement praised for its collaborative nature—was the breaking point for the editorial board. When co-editors Mark Grabowski and Andrea Taylor resisted the move, they faced the indignity of being offered a pay cut for maintaining a system that had successfully functioned for decades. This not only reflects a lack of respect for the editorial team’s expertise but also underscores the apparent shift towards a profit-driven management style that disregards the foundational principles of academic collaboration.
The resignations from the Journal of Human Evolution represent more than a singular event—they signify a critical juncture in the dialogue surrounding scientific publishing. As pressures mount on editorial boards to conform to corporate mandates, it is imperative that the academic community advocates for more favorable and ethical conditions under which research can be published. The challenges posed by business-driven models must not distract from the intrinsic values of integrity, quality, and accessibility that underpin scholarly communication. Only through concerted efforts can the academic community reclaim the narrative of publishing, transforming it into a space that genuinely respects both the researchers who contribute to it and the broader community that relies on it for knowledge.