Misaligned incentives in science publishing

The economics of contemporary scientific publishing are increasingly misaligned with the interests of the research community. Many journals are owned by large commercial publishers that charge subscription fees and article processing charges (APCs) far above real publication costs, diverting public funds into private profit rather than research and teaching. At the same time, publication has become a key currency in academic careers, with “publish or perish” incentives and evaluation systems that privilege journal brands and impact factors over the intrinsic quality or societal value of research.

These dynamics create a prestige‑driven hierarchy in which a small number of high‑impact, often for‑profit journals concentrate submissions, attention and money, while equally rigorous, community‑run journals compete for visibility despite offering more affordable or free options. Commercial control over large journal portfolios can also lead to bundling practices, opaque pricing and restricted access in low‑ and middle‑income institutions, exacerbating global inequalities in who can read and publish scientific work. In this context, choices about where to submit papers or invest reviewing and editorial time directly influence how scarce research budgets are allocated and whether they support public or private interests.

Introducing DAFNEE

In a recent article (Galtier et al. 2025), the authors emphasise that journals with similar scientific impact can differ markedly in ethical and financial terms. They note that scientists, acting as authors, reviewers and editors, often lack clear, comparable information about journal business models and therefore unintentionally channel public funds into commercial profits rather than reinvesting them in the academic ecosystem.

DAFNEE (Database of Academia Friendly jourNals in Ecology and Evolution) was created to address this information gap by mapping academia‑friendly journals in ecology, evolutionary biology and archaeology that are (co)run by non‑profit institutions, universities, learned societies, museums or similar organisations. For each journal, DAFNEE summarises ownership, business model, APCs where relevant and basic citation indicators, helping researchers identify outlets that combine scientific quality with governance models that keep publishing funds within the academic community. Analyses in Galtier et al. (2025) show that DAFNEE journals generally have more favourable editorial and financial policies than comparable non‑DAFNEE journals, while offering similar citation performance.

Pathways forward

Moving towards more responsible publishing is a shared responsibility for authors, reviewers, editors, institutions and funders. Authors can systematically consider journal ownership, APC levels and profit reinvestment when deciding where to submit, and favour journals that are transparent about costs, avoid excessive APCs and are run by academic or non‑profit organisations. Reviewers and editors can choose to direct their volunteer labour towards such journals and decline roles that primarily serve highly extractive business models.

Evaluation committees and funding agencies can help realign incentives by recognising and rewarding publications in academia‑friendly journals, rather than focusing narrowly on a small set of for‑profit “prestige” titles. This may involve reforming assessment criteria, explicitly acknowledging community‑run journals in promotion and hiring processes, and integrating resources like DAFNEE into guidance and training on responsible publishing.

In this perspective, DAFNEE is both a practical resource and a symbolic initiative, highlighting an existing ecosystem of community‑oriented journals and inviting researchers to align their publishing practices with fairer, more sustainable and more accountable models of scientific communication.

Sonia Kéfi
Institute of Evolutionary Science of Montpellier, France