Scientific publishing lies at the core of academic life. It is the main mechanism through which knowledge is shared, careers are built, and progress is evaluated. However, this system has evolved in ways that are not always beneficial. Across disciplines, researchers now face increasing pressure to publish more frequently, in faster cycles, and in higher-impact journals. This push for visibility often compromises quality, depth, and even researchers’ mental well-being. As the emphasis shifts toward metrics and quantity, the fundamental goal of science — to produce meaningful, rigorous work — is at risk. We must ask ourselves: who truly benefits from this system?

Today’s publishing landscape is dominated by a small number of for-profit giants. Just five major publishers control over half of all published scientific articles. These companies operate with staggering profit margins, often between 20–30%, rivaling industries like pharmaceuticals, tobacco, and tech. Yet, this lucrative model depends on unpaid academic labor. Researchers write, peer-review, and edit articles — typically without any form of compensation — while publishers collect billions in revenue. This system exploits the academic community under the guise of prestige and necessity.

Many researchers are aware of the problems inherent in this system, yet few feel empowered to challenge it. A major reason is how academics are evaluated: based on metrics such as journal impact factors and publication counts. These metrics affect funding, job security, and recognition, creating a pressure to conform. As a result, even those who recognize the system’s flaws feel trapped within it. This raises a difficult question: how can we change a system that defines our success, yet no longer aligns with our values?

Science teaches us to rely on evidence, so when approaching the challenge of change, it’s natural to turn to behavioral science. Surprisingly, many assumptions about change don’t hold up. Simply providing people with facts — no matter how compelling — rarely leads to action. For example, knowing that climate change is worsening doesn’t necessarily change behavior. Awareness is important, but it isn’t sufficient.

Likewise, we often expect change to come from the top: influential leaders or institutions. But those in power are frequently the most constrained by the system. Reaching a larger audience is also not enough — scale without engagement lacks impact. Instead, meaningful change often starts from the ground up, with small groups committed to new, value-driven practices. When these communities connect and collaborate, cultural transformation becomes possible.

There is reason for hope. Scientific publishing was originally built by researchers, for researchers. We can reclaim that spirit by supporting ethical, fair, and community-driven journals. Senior researchers, in particular, have a responsibility to lead by example — submitting their best work to alternative outlets, citing them, and helping elevate their reputation. Their influence can encourage early-career scientists to follow suit.

Systemic change takes time, but it doesn’t require waiting for top-down reform. It starts with intentional, collective action. By supporting practices that reflect our values, we can help reshape scientific publishing into a system that prioritizes integrity, inclusion, and sustainability — a system that truly serves science and society.

Mar Sobral
University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Ignasi Bartomeus
Doñana Biological Station, Spain

---

This reflection summarizes the blog post by the Asociación Española de Ecología Terrestre (AEET) about the need for a more equal and fair publishing ecosystem.