UCLA Professor Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Major Academic Publishers

Antitrust Allegations: Restrictive Practices in Publishing

According to Reuters, the lawsuit, filed as a proposed class action, focuses on several alleged anti-competitive practices that have created barriers for academics and diminished their negotiating power. One of the central claims is that these publishers enforce a “Single Submission Rule,” which prohibits scholars from submitting their research to multiple journals simultaneously. This policy, according to the lawsuit, restricts competition and delays the peer review process, often leaving manuscripts awaiting approval for extended periods. The rule is said to reduce the pressure on publishers to expedite the review and publishing of research, harming both scholars and the scientific community.

Per Reuters, the lawsuit also points to another contentious practice in the industry: the prohibition of scholars freely sharing their work during the lengthy peer review process. Uddin’s complaint labels this a “Gag Rule,” which prevents the dissemination of scientific advancements until they are officially published, often delaying the broader sharing of important research findings. Scholars, the lawsuit argues, are required to relinquish their intellectual property rights during this process, transferring ownership of their work to the publishers.

Peer Review Labor and Exploitation of Academics

We’d love to be your preferred source for news.

Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!

Add as Preferred Source

At the heart of Uddin’s lawsuit is the allegation that the academic publishing industry has been exploiting scholars’ unpaid labor, particularly in the peer review process. Peer review, a critical component of academic publishing, involves experts evaluating the validity and quality of research manuscripts before publication. Uddin asserts that despite the significant work involved in this process, publishers refuse to compensate scholars for their time and effort. This alleged “Unpaid Peer Review Rule” is seen as a form of price-fixing, with publishers effectively setting the value of peer review labor at zero.

As reported by Reuters, Dean Harvey, Uddin’s attorney, described the for-profit academic publishing industry as one that has unfairly capitalized on “the goodwill and hard work of brilliant scholars, and of taxpayers who foot the bill to create their product.” The lawsuit claims that in 2023 alone, the six defendant publishers earned more than $10 billion in revenue from their peer-reviewed journals, while academics receive no direct financial compensation for their contributions.

The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in New York, can be read in its entirety here.

Seeking Class Action Status and Industry Reforms

Uddin’s lawsuit seeks class-action status, representing potentially hundreds of thousands of academics who have been similarly impacted by these practices. According to Reuters, Uddin, who joined UCLA’s psychology department in July 2023 and has published more than 175 academic articles, is not only seeking monetary damages but also significant reforms in the publishing industry. The suit demands an injunction to halt the alleged anti-competitive practices and seeks treble damages—a form of compensation that could potentially triple the financial penalties imposed on the publishers if they are found guilty of violating antitrust laws.

This case, Uddin v. Elsevier BV et al, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, could set a significant precedent for how the academic publishing industry is regulated, especially concerning its impact on scholars and their intellectual labor.

Source: Reuters