In my academic career, I’ve always advocated for not-for-profit academic journals. These platforms support academic freedom and align with the principle that research should benefit society, not merely serve the interests of profit-driven corporations. Unfortunately, the academic publishing landscape, dominated by five major commercial players—Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Springer Nature, and SAGE—has become a bastion of profit, with universities and researchers paying steep costs for access to their own work.

The roots of this issue stretch back decades. Commercial publishers initially positioned themselves as facilitators of scholarly communication, offering the infrastructure to publish and distribute research globally. However, over time, these companies consolidated their influence and increasingly exploited their role as gatekeepers of knowledge. Today, the academic publishing landscape is so heavily controlled by these firms that universities must pay millions annually to access research produced by their own faculty members.

The Profits Behind the Paywall

The financial model behind commercial publishers is staggering. Elsevier, one of the largest academic publishers, has historically reported profit margins between 30% and 40%—outperforming even many tech giants like Google. This remarkable profitability is driven by a system where researchers, who receive little to no compensation for writing, reviewing, and editing, must rely on their institutions to pay high subscription fees to access the same content they’ve produced.

While some of these costs are tied to maintaining a peer-review process and publishing infrastructure, the scale of profit points to deeper systemic issues. This paywall not only limits the flow of knowledge but also exacerbates global inequalities in education and research. For scholars and institutions in developing countries, many of whom cannot afford the high subscription fees, access to critical research is often out of reach. The global knowledge divide deepens, reinforcing inequities between wealthier and lower-income regions.

Meanwhile, independent researchers and the general public, who stand to benefit greatly from access to cutting-edge scholarship, are often excluded entirely. This restricted access is particularly troubling at a time when misinformation spreads freely online while verified, peer-reviewed research remains behind paywalls.

Commercial Publishers’ Shifting Approach to Open Access

The increasing calls for open access (OA) have not gone unnoticed by commercial publishers. While they initially resisted the idea of free access to research, many have since adapted by offering OA options—but at a cost. These models, known as “gold open access,” require authors or their institutions to pay article processing charges (APCs) that can be prohibitively expensive. As a result, while OA is becoming more common, commercial publishers still manage to profit from researchers, either through subscription fees or APCs. This nuance complicates the narrative that publishers are entirely resistant to change; instead, they are reshaping their models to maintain profitability.

Despite these developments, the argument that high fees are necessary to cover the cost of peer review and production is increasingly challenged. Not-for-profit journals, especially those following the diamond open access model, have shown that scholarly publishing can be done ethically and affordably.

The Rise of Not-for-Profit Alternatives

Not-for-profit publishing models offer a promising alternative. Unlike commercial publishers, not-for-profit journals, such as those operating under the diamond open access model, charge no fees to authors or readers. These journals are typically funded through academic institutions, libraries, or government grants, ensuring that knowledge remains freely accessible to all.

Prominent examples of this include the Public Library of Science (PLOS) and arXiv. PLOS has revolutionized access to scientific research by offering freely available, peer-reviewed articles across various disciplines. However, it is important to note that PLOS operates on a “gold OA” model, meaning authors or their institutions pay APCs to make their articles accessible. This is different from the truly cost-free “diamond OA” model, which has yet to be widely scaled but holds potential for democratizing access without financial burdens on authors.

In contrast, arXiv, which offers a platform for preprints in fields like physics and mathematics, allows researchers to share their work almost immediately, before formal peer review. By offering a free alternative for early-stage research dissemination, arXiv helps bridge the gap between researchers and the broader public. However, it still relies on external funding and institutional support, highlighting the need for sustainable financial models for all not-for-profit journals.

The Challenge of Prestige in Academia

One of the greatest challenges not-for-profit and open-access journals face is their lack of prestige in comparison to long-established, high-impact commercial journals. In many fields, publishing in prestigious commercial journals remains the most reliable path to securing tenure, promotion, and grants. This reliance on commercial publications creates a cycle where early-career researchers, in particular, feel pressured to publish in these journals to establish their careers.

Institutions, too, are complicit in this system, rewarding publications in top-tier commercial journals while failing to provide similar recognition for work published in not-for-profit journals. As a result, even researchers who support open access often find themselves caught in a system that prioritizes impact factor over accessibility and public good.

Breaking this cycle will require a fundamental shift in how academic merit is measured. Universities must begin rewarding faculty for contributing to not-for-profit platforms and open access journals. Tenure and promotion criteria need to evolve to place greater value on the societal impact of research, not just the prestige of the journal in which it is published.

Emerging Technologies and Decentralized Platforms

The digital revolution offers new opportunities to disrupt the dominance of commercial publishers. Decentralized platforms, such as blockchain-based systems, could transform academic publishing by offering transparent, tamper-proof records of research submissions, peer review, and editorial decisions. Blockchain’s potential lies in reducing the need for centralized gatekeepers, giving researchers greater control over the dissemination of their work.

However, the application of blockchain to academic publishing is still experimental. While it holds promise for greater transparency and decentralization, it has not yet been widely adopted. Similarly, artificial intelligence (AI) tools are beginning to assist in the academic peer review process by helping to identify potential issues with research integrity or bias, streamlining workflows, and matching manuscripts with appropriate reviewers. While AI can enhance efficiency, its current role remains supplementary, not a replacement for human judgment in peer review.

For these technological innovations to gain traction, they will need institutional backing and investment. Universities and governments must commit to funding these platforms, ensuring they are integrated into mainstream academic publishing.

Institutional Support and Global Impact

Institutions and governments have a key role to play in supporting the open access movement. Some universities have already taken proactive steps in this direction. For example, Harvard University’s Office for Scholarly Communication advocates for open access policies across its faculties, and the European Commission’s Open Research Europe platform offers researchers a free, government-funded venue to publish their work.

These initiatives are critical in demonstrating the feasibility of open-access publishing, but much more is needed, particularly in developing regions. Scholars in the Global South, where research funding is scarce and access to high-cost journals is limited, stand to benefit most from open access. The democratization of knowledge can empower these researchers to contribute to the global scientific conversation on equal footing, helping to close the knowledge gap between wealthier and poorer nations.

However, for open access to become the norm, there must be a concerted effort from all stakeholders—governments, universities, funding agencies, and researchers themselves. Governments should mandate that publicly funded research be made available in open-access repositories, while universities should reexamine their tenure and promotion criteria to ensure that researchers are not penalized for publishing in not-for-profit, open-access journals.

A Call to Action for Equity in Knowledge Dissemination

Academic publishing should no longer be an elite, profit-driven enterprise. The solution is not just technological but ideological—rooted in a commitment to ensuring that research serves society, not corporations. By investing in not-for-profit models and supporting open-access platforms, we can ensure that the benefits of research are shared widely, beyond the academic bubble.

The time for systemic change is now. By supporting open access, institutions and governments can reclaim the dissemination of knowledge from profit-driven entities and restore the integrity of academic research.