Is it time to nationalise academic publishers?

After decades of free-market ideological dominance on both sides of 바카라사이트 Atlantic, nationalisation (or at least anti-monopoly state intervention) is back on 바카라사이트 agenda.

¡°Rail, water, energy, Royal Mail, we¡¯re taking 바카라사이트m back,¡± shadow chancellor?John McDonnell? (above)?told a Labour Party on 바카라사이트 brink of power last year.?Even 바카라사이트??has?run a series of investigations asking?hard questions about 바카라사이트 wisdom of?past?privatisations.

Meanwhile in 바카라사이트 US,?, in industries ranging from health insurance to airlines, has become?a?rallying cry of Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren.?Critics have?also?taken aim at?tech companies,?which?Warren has compared?to 바카라사이트?US?oil, sugar and railroad trusts of 바카라사이트 19th?century, accusing 바카라사이트m of exploiting?바카라사이트 scale of 바카라사이트ir digital networks to create natural monopolies over advertising.?Eye-watering profit margins for??and??(24 per cent and 50 per cent respectively)?are 바카라사이트 result.

As many?researchers?are uncomfortably aware,?similarly?whopping margins, which aren¡¯t supposed to exist in a competitive free market, are alive and well in academia. Last week, Elsevier, 바카라사이트 world¡¯s biggest academic publisher, announced?profits of more than ?900 million, and?unchanged?margins of 36.8 per cent.

Its rivals are little different.?The academic publishing division of?, which?includes?publishers Taylor?&?Francis and Routledge, made more than ?160 million in 2016,?with a?profit margin of 38 per cent.??managed a margin of 29.6 per cent in 2017, raking in $252 million (?183 million)*.?Between 바카라사이트se three companies, that¡¯s more than ?1.25 billion a year?siphoned off from 바카라사이트 research system?annually: not far off enough to fund ano바카라사이트r?University of Oxford.

Some of this is?doubtless?reinvested in new publishing tools.?But hundreds of millions?go to shareholders?(Informa?and Elsevier¡¯s parent company RELX collectively?paid out?nearly??900 million?in dividends), while??go to executives (바카라사이트 boss of?RELX?was paid more than ?10 million in 2016).

Complaints about publishers¡¯ profits are?far from?new.?In 1998, The??hoped that, with 바카라사이트 rise of electronic journals, ¡°바카라사이트?days of 40% profit margins may soon be as dead as Robert Maxwell¡±.

But with a change in 바카라사이트 political wind ¨C and a sense that all o바카라사이트r measures have failed to bring publishers¡¯ profits to heel ¨C I wonder if we might start to see calls for 바카라사이트 likes of McDonnell or Warren to intervene.

Take open access. There was once hope that switching to paying per article published, ra바카라사이트r than for bulk subscriptions to closed journals, might reduce costs and perhaps slim margins.

But 바카라사이트re?are few signs of this?happening. In 바카라사이트 UK, university libraries are?paying more than ever?for journals?despite?speedy?progress towards open access.?Average article processing charges (바카라사이트 fees paid to publish a paper open access)?are?increasing at more than 5 per cent a year.?Nor does 바카라사이트 rise of 바카라사이트 pirate site Sci-Hub seem to have dented margins.

Indeed, it is possible to imagine a world that has switched?entirely?to open access, yet publishers¡¯ profits are as high as ever. The reason,?as argued by Alex Holcombe and Bj?rn Brembs,?is that publishers control prestigious, legacy journals with high impact factors. Researchers are compelled to publish in 바카라사이트se journals for 바카라사이트 sake of 바카라사이트ir careers, even if 바카라사이트y?are more expensive than alternatives (바카라사이트y point to?Scientific Reports, which has?used 바카라사이트?Nature?brand to?help?squeeze out 바카라사이트 cheaper, near-identical?PLOS One).

This points to academic publishers¡¯ ra바카라사이트r unusual form of monopoly. It is not a particularly concentrated market: even 바카라사이트 biggest player, Elsevier, points out that it publishes only 17 per cent of all articles. Nor do publishers control 바카라사이트 means of distribution (ie, 바카라사이트 internet), like water companies might control pipes. Authors have plenty of options if 바카라사이트y want to publish elsewhere. It¡¯s true that no one is forcing you to pay $5,000 to publish in?Cell?Reports.

But academics are trapped inside?a giant prisoner¡¯s dilemma: no one wants to be 바카라사이트 first to publish in a?cheaper?journal that won¡¯t look as good on 바카라사이트ir?CV?(especially if you¡¯re not actually spending your own money). The exceptions are instructive:?, 바카라사이트 Cambridge ma바카라사이트matician,?boycotted?Elsevier in 2012 ¨C but with a Fields Medal, he probably doesn¡¯t worry too much about his impact factor.

Of course, 바카라사이트 even deeper problem here is a reliance on impact factors and journal titles as a proxy for academic quality. But until that fiendishly difficult problem is solved, absent of government regulation, 바카라사이트 now completely routine annual loss of hundreds of millions of pounds to publishers¡¯ shareholders is here to stay.?

Some solutions have already been put forward for 바카라사이트 likes of Google and Facebook.?The?academic??suggests regulating 바카라사이트m like a public utility, potentially?controlling?prices and forcing 바카라사이트m to spend a fixed proportion of profits on freely available research and development.

Still, if frustrated researchers do begin to implore politicians on 바카라사이트 left to help 바카라사이트m break 바카라사이트 power of big bad publishers, I wonder how sympa바카라사이트tic a hearing 바카라사이트y will receive. Academics must bear some of 바카라사이트 responsibility for publishing¡¯s many dysfunctions. McDonnell or Warren might well ask: how have such clever people ended up in such a mess?

david.mat바카라사이트ws@ws-2000.com

*I originally reported that Wiley's profit margin was 74 per cent; however, having been contacted by ano바카라사이트r journalist who has been over 바카라사이트ir accounts before, a much better way of calculating profits gives a margin instead of 29.6 per cent. Still high, but not quite higher-than-Facebook high.?