The publishing system is an intriguing arena where different approaches and philosophies intersect. Researchers who publish scientific papers naturally have aims and expectations that differ greatly from those of publishing companies, and these two main groups often disagree. Yet, even when we focus solely on the scientists involved in the publication process, expectations and attitudes vary widely between individuals and even within the same individual at different times and under different circumstances.

We scientists participate as authors, reviewers, and editors and at every level we make ethical choices: deciding where to publish, for which journals we volunteer as reviewers (for free), and which journals we support through editorial work. As an editor serving several journals, I see firsthand the rationale behind the choices authors and reviewers make. I currently serve as Editor-in-Chief for three journals with radically different publication models. One is a diamond Open Access (OA) journal with no Article Processing Charges (APCs) run by a scientific society, considered close to ethically ideal. Another is an OA journal with low APCs, managed by a research institute: still ethically acceptable, transparent about costs, and with modest fees. The third is a traditional journal owned by a major publishing company and now offering a hybrid OA option. Unsurprisingly, this journal never appears on lists of ethically acceptable journals such as PEEER (Publishing for an Ethical and Equitable Environment in Research) or DAFNEE (Database of Academia Friendly jourNals in Ecology and Evolution).

From this privileged point, I can observe why authors submit to certain journals and why reviewers decline invitations, and I can compare these reasons across these three very different systems.

• When it comes to authors’ choices, the pattern is clear: the diamond OA journal receives the fewest submissions, the low‑APC journal receives an intermediate number, and the traditional journal receives by far the most. Submission numbers closely follow the journals’ Impact Factors rather than their ethical standing. Authors, it seems, prioritize career advancement over ethical concerns. This is understandable: scientists are people who need stable employment and career progression; publishing in journals perceived as prestigious makes that easier.
• Reviewer behaviour is surely more interesting. For the traditional journal, invited reviewers sometimes decline explicitly on ethical grounds, stating that they refuse to work for free for a journal generating high profits while keeping knowledge behind paywalls. This is a valid and widely shared concern. However, other ethical objections arise for the OA journal with low APCs. Some reviewers argue that charging authors is inherently wrong and that if a journal earns money from science, reviewers should be compensated rather than expected to work for free. This perspective is also legitimate, even if it points in the opposite direction from the objections raised about the traditional journal. What happens with the diamond OA journal, which is arguably the most ethically sound? In this case, most reviewers simply do not respond at all. The most plausible explanation is that the journal’s low perceived prestige makes it appear less worth their time. Editors for this journal must invite an order of magnitude more reviewers than for the other journals to secure just one or two reviewers willing to provide comments.

The rise of Open Access and the explosion of so‑called predatory journals have made scientists more aware of the economics of publishing. Where institutional libraries once invisibly absorbed subscription costs, researchers now see more clearly the financial value of their work. As economic considerations become more visible, scientists’ ethical reflections about publishing strengthen as well, but these reflections may pull in different directions.

We are living in a fluid moment. Journals are changing their OA policies, new OA journals appear daily, and some established journals are raising APCs to astronomical levels. As scientists, we are active participants in this transformation and can shape the future of scholarly publishing.

Ideally, ethical considerations, despite occasional compromises, should become and remain the primary driver of our decisions as authors, reviewers, and editors.

Diego Fontaneto

National Research Council of Italy (CNR), Water Research Institute (IRSA), Verbania, Italy