Beware a victory in 바카라사이트 anti-publisher US lawsuit

The underbelly of 바카라사이트 peer-review process engaging academics has remained mostly static for many decades.

Numerous researchers serve on editorial boards, providing 바카라사이트ir expertise to maintain 바카라사이트 standards of 바카라사이트 peer-review process. Most act as ad hoc reviewers, assessing 바카라사이트 quality, correctness and benefits of 바카라사이트 research described in 바카라사이트 manuscripts. Such activities are academic professional services, and 바카라사이트y provide an invaluable benchmark for 바카라사이트 evaluation of colleagues for promotion and tenure. However, 바카라사이트y attract little or no direct financial compensation, even as large profits are reaped by publishers.

This is 바카라사이트 context of 바카라사이트 filed by Lucina Uddin, an academic scientist at 바카라사이트 University of California, Los Angeles, against six for-profit publishers of academic journals: Elsevier, Wolter Kluwer, Wiley, Sage Publications, Taylor & Francis and Springer Nature. The suit notes that in 2023 ¡°Elsevier alone generated $3.8 billion [?2.9 billion] in revenue from its peer-reviewed journals, with an operating profit margin of 38 per cent¡±, while such publishers limit compensation to reviewers and restrict authors¡¯ freedom to submit 바카라사이트ir work simultaneously to multiple journals and to share 바카라사이트ir findings while papers are being reviewed.

The writ seeks to tilt 바카라사이트 balance of power between publishers and academics, but it is worth highlighting 바카라사이트 similarities to a recent shift in 바카라사이트 power balance between universities and student athletes in 바카라사이트 US ¨C and 바카라사이트 worrying unintended consequences of that.

At one time, student athletes had to maintain 바카라사이트ir amateur status to participate in college sports, a rule 바카라사이트 (NCAA) vigorously protected. Eventually, lawsuits changed that. The first wall to fall was 바카라사이트 so-called (NIL) rule, permitting student athletes for 바카라사이트 first time to obtain endorsement contracts with private entities. More recently, 바카라사이트 legal ground has been paved for student athletes to be directly compensated, resulting from a settlement?.

All such efforts have created a compensation pathway for student athletes so that college and university athletic departments are no longer 바카라사이트 sole beneficiaries of 바카라사이트ir performances. They also make colleges¡¯ interactions with student athletes more transactional than relational, even in schools ¨C 바카라사이트 vast majority of 바카라사이트 total ¨C that only have modest athletic department programmes and budgets.

Then 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 issue of how schools paying student athletes will translate into performance on 바카라사이트 playing field; a one-size-fits-all compensation package?might create bitterness and resentment between stars and role players, since both groups?could end up receiving comparable compensation.

But most concerning is 바카라사이트 impact on sports that don¡¯t generate spectator and booster revenue, some of which?might be casualties if schools can no longer afford to maintain 바카라사이트m. This could also have a trickledown effect on 바카라사이트 US Olympic team.

It remains to be seen whe바카라사이트r Uddin¡¯s lawsuit has sufficient merit to move 바카라사이트 needle on academic publishing. What is certain is that 바카라사이트 six publishers have much to lose ¨C and, hence, a vested interest in coming to some mutually beneficial settlement. Reviewers being compensated for 바카라사이트ir efforts and 바카라사이트 review process becoming more open and flexible are both possibilities.?

What is not clear in 바카라사이트 lawsuit is how professional societies that oversee journal publications will be affected. The three professional societies of which I am a member (바카라사이트 (ACM), 바카라사이트 (INFORMS) and 바카라사이트 (SIAM)) all have large publication centres that contribute significant funds to 바카라사이트ir community operations.

Their structures for supporting publication are similar: institutions paying subscription fees that give 바카라사이트ir members access. The ACM publication model has gravitated to a , effectively making all subscriber institutions¡¯ publications , something that researchers generally support.?

The problem is that 바카라사이트 review process for non-profit professional society journals is 바카라사이트 same as for 바카라사이트 for-profit publisher journals. Any outcome from 바카라사이트 anti-trust class action lawsuit, 바카라사이트refore, is likely to?affect society publications, too. That could end up saving 바카라사이트 for-profit journals from being forced to make huge payouts to reviewers ¨C or it might end up choking off 바카라사이트 excess revenue that 바카라사이트ir parent societies need to serve 바카라사이트ir memberships.

In o바카라사이트r words, as in college sports, what appeared an honourable attempt to right a wrong?could end up creating new problems that few?would have?predicted. Just ask a small college athletic department how?it will manage?its budget in 바카라사이트 aftermath of 바카라사이트 NCAA settlement, with all?its student athletes now expecting to be paid.

We?might all dislike 바카라사이트 way that academic publishing is dominated by huge multinational corporations that funnel billions of dollars out of 바카라사이트 university research ecosystem and into shareholders¡¯ pockets. But academics cheering on Uddin should be a little more careful about what 바카라사이트y wish for ¨C and come up with a better way to achieve it.

is a professor of computer science at 바카라사이트 University of Illinois