Paolo Crosetto
LightNews LightNews
banner
paolocrosetto.bsky.social
Paolo Crosetto
@paolocrosetto.bsky.social
2.8K followers 1.3K following 530 posts

Experimental & Behavioural economist INRAE Grenoble • President of the French Association of Experimental Economists • Scientific publishing measurement & reform • Experiments on food labeling - risk - choices • Rstats • Italian Food Police honorary member .. more

Videos
Business 25%
Economics 25%
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
paolocrosetto.bsky.social
Paolo Crosetto @paolocrosetto.bsky.social · 1d
What is the most profitable industry in the world, this side of the law? Not oil, not IT, not pharma.

It's *scientific publishing*.

We call this the Drain of Scientific Publishing.

Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Background: doi.org/10.1162/qss_...

Thread @markhanson.fediscience.org.ap.brid.gy 👇

paolocrosetto.bsky.social
Paolo Crosetto @paolocrosetto.bsky.social · 1h
It is also very likely that the "Library discount" is paid for by a library subscription or deal with the publisher (ie the library pre-allocates money to pre-pay for N discounts over the fiscal year) and the other "discount" is paid for by other sources (ie the uni).

Reposted by Paolo Crosetto

dgbassani.bsky.social
DGBassani @dgbassani.bsky.social · 7h
A timely thread… as I recover from this shocker. What level of insanity is this? This is the publication fee for one paper in a journal that publishes a few hundred papers each year. 10,400 USD, but *only* 8,360 USD after the discounts…
Screen shot of the invoice for the article processing charges of one scientific manuscript. The total price is 10,400 USD. After the university discount and subvention the invoice balance is still 8,360 USD

Reposted by Dan Brockington, Paolo Crosetto

stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca
Stefanie Haustein @stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca · 13h
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk 🎤

If you’ve read this far and still need convincing, please check out our preprint arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820 and this infographic: doi.org/10.5281/zeno...
10/10
The four-fold drain of scientific publishing: Money, Time, Trust, and Control.

Reposted by Dan Brockington, Paolo Crosetto

stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca
Stefanie Haustein @stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca · 13h
Over the past months (and at least 11 versions!), I was lucky to work with 11 amazing colleagues on a call to action to reform academic publishing.

Not another declaration, but an appeal to our powerful friends, research funders & institutions, to Stop the Drain of Scientific Publishing. 1/n

Reposted by Alistair Munro, Paolo Crosetto

xphijournal.bsky.social
Experimental Philosophy Journal @xphijournal.bsky.social · 15h
The journal's homepage is now live: journals.ub.uni-koeln.de/index.php/xphi

We will soon also be found under xphi.eu.

Accepting submissions in about 2 weeks.
Experimental Philosophy
journals.ub.uni-koeln.de

paolocrosetto.bsky.social
Paolo Crosetto @paolocrosetto.bsky.social · 16h
I don't know what you are talking about but it's always good to share risotto stories.

It's also radicchio season, so here we go with this banger

ricette.giallozafferano.it/Risotto-al-r...
Risotto al radicchio
Il risotto al radicchio è un primo piatto cremoso perfetto per i menu autunnali. Scopri qui dosi e procedimento per preparare questa ricetta sfiziosa!
ricette.giallozafferano.it

paolocrosetto.bsky.social
Paolo Crosetto @paolocrosetto.bsky.social · 16h
Proud dad on e-bike here -- and indeed, it's happiness for the dad & for the kids. Join us!
dlknowles.bsky.social Daniel Knowles @dlknowles.bsky.social · 19h
This week I wrote about the rise of the e-bike dad - this piece was originally going to run alongside the story I did in September about the bike boom in general, and we didn't have space in print, but here it is:
www.economist.com/united-state...
Parents on e-bikes are transforming the school run
They’re smug, snug and often faster than drivers
www.economist.com

Reposted by Paolo Crosetto

unjournal.bsky.social
The Unjournal (Unjournal.org) @unjournal.bsky.social · 16h
@paolocrosetto.bsky.social has been a part of the conversation since the early days of the Unjournal. We appreciate his work exposing predatory journals and exploitive publishing practices.

arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
paolocrosetto.wordpress.com/2021/04/12/i...
The Drain of Scientific Publishing
The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science. We need the most powerful members of the research community, funders, governments and ...
arxiv.org

Reposted by Paolo Crosetto

unjournal.bsky.social
The Unjournal (Unjournal.org) @unjournal.bsky.social · 17h
We are delighted to welcome Paolo Crosetto to our advisory board at The Unjournal. Paolo is a full-time senior researcher (Directeur de Recherche, DR) at INRAE. He works in Grenoble, France, within the Research Unit GAEL – Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory.

Reposted by Gavin A. Schmidt, Paolo Crosetto, Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham

dlknowles.bsky.social
Daniel Knowles @dlknowles.bsky.social · 19h
This week I wrote about the rise of the e-bike dad - this piece was originally going to run alongside the story I did in September about the bike boom in general, and we didn't have space in print, but here it is:
www.economist.com/united-state...
Parents on e-bikes are transforming the school run
They’re smug, snug and often faster than drivers
www.economist.com

paolocrosetto.bsky.social
Paolo Crosetto @paolocrosetto.bsky.social · 1d
Scientists are not Its customers: if you think about it, funders are. They are getting less and less happy as costs increase -- especially for APCs -- with little to show for it. This might be the opportunity to actually make things change.

Reposted by Paolo Crosetto

coreecon.bsky.social
CORE Econ @coreecon.bsky.social · 1d
🎉 Units 9 & 10 are now live!
With their release, CORE's The Economy 2.0: Macroeconomics is now complete. As with all CORE materials, it's freely available on the CORE website.
CORE's macroeconomics textbook is now available in full

paolocrosetto.bsky.social
Paolo Crosetto @paolocrosetto.bsky.social · 1d
Indeed! Even if I'd triple underline accidentally

Reposted by Jacob Montgomery, Juan Cole, Jörg Oechssler , and 3 more

brendannyhan.bsky.social
Brendan Nyhan @brendannyhan.bsky.social · 1d
A staggering statistic: "North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year." What are we doing?
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 2d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Reposted by Paolo Crosetto

weedenkim.bsky.social
Kim Weeden @weedenkim.bsky.social · 1d
💯.

The enormous drain caused by for-profit publishers persists b/c (a) they have a monopoly on the high-prestige journal titles; and (b) researchers and evaluators (e.g., T&P committees, deans, letter writers) use journal prestige as indicator of quality.

We have met the enablers and they are us.
"At the same time, a major challenge is to change the incentives and reward structures that shape researchers’ publishing behaviours. This means reconfiguring the prestige economy, arguably the most difficult but most crucial task. "

Reposted by Paolo Crosetto

ruggeri.bsky.social
Kai Ruggeri @ruggeri.bsky.social · 1d
Results from study of mental health in 92 countries (n>53,000): People are not doing well.

- U-shape for age is gone: Young adults lowest health, highest illness
- Education still matters (a lot)
- 45% of older people live alone
- Hybrid work > 100% remote or in-person

Preprint: osf.io/3jyda_v1

Reposted by Richard S.J. Tol, Garry Peterson, David L. Roberts , and 5 more

danbrockington.bsky.social
Dan Brockington @danbrockington.bsky.social · 1d
Profits from scientific publishing are eye-watering, costing us billions. In ‘The Drain of Scientific Publishing’ (arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820), (building on ‘The Strain of Scientific Publishing’ doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00327) we show how it is harmful – and unnecessary.
The Drain of Scientific Publishing
The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science. We need the most powerful members of the research community, funders, governments and ...
arxiv.org

paolocrosetto.bsky.social
Paolo Crosetto @paolocrosetto.bsky.social · 1d
The model you describe is old times. Now, *on top* of that, they *also* have a second one, where it's free to read but they charge the author. In some journals, they do both -- that's quite some magic!

The answer is: we let the system exist are forced to obtain quality badges -- & they own them.

Reposted by Paolo Crosetto

cfcamerer.bsky.social
Colin Camerer @cfcamerer.bsky.social · 1d
Great work, AFAICT.
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 2d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Reposted by Paolo Crosetto

samuelmoore.org
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 1d
"We’re entering uncertain times; a chaotic transition is coming as universities shift away from commercial models to cheaper, more sustainable, non-profit alternatives. As with any publishing revolution, there will be winners and losers."

@theblochian.bsky.social on community-led publishing.
Chaos is coming for scholarly publishing - Research Professional News
Buckling of commercial models alongside maturing of community-led efforts promises major shifts, says Caroline Edwards
www.researchprofessionalnews.com

Reposted by Paolo Crosetto

venpopov.bsky.social
Ven Popov @venpopov.bsky.social · 2d
Last year a bunch of us wrote about the issue of incentives and possible alternatives. I’m not in love with any of the options we reviewed but I *am* happy we were able to highlight major aspects of the problem in a highly visible space www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for journal reform | PNAS
For most researchers, academic publishing serves two goals that are often misaligned—knowledge dissemination and establishing scientific credential...
www.pnas.org

paolocrosetto.bsky.social
Paolo Crosetto @paolocrosetto.bsky.social · 2d
The other trick they use is to invite dozens of reviewers, and as soon as they have N positive or not-10%-negative reviews (with N ~ 2) they stop the collection and call it an acceptance.

This speeds things up but also clearly biases the process towards the preferred outcome -- publication + APCs.

Reposted by Dorothy Bishop, Stefanie Walter, Jonathan Hopkin , and 3 more

benbraun.bsky.social
Benjamin Braun @benbraun.bsky.social · 2d
The central argument in this excellent paper & thread is that the open-access turn has neglected profit; indeed, it turbo-charged publishers’ margins. As political economists who know a thing or two about profit and power we should speak up a lot more. As it says below: What we’re doing is crazy.
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 2d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Reposted by Paolo Crosetto

aileenfyfe.bsky.social
Aileen Fyfe @aileenfyfe.bsky.social · 2d
... and the reason that for-profit journal publishers are such a feature of the UK/European/NAmerican scientific ecosystem (in particular) is... history! Commercial practices saved struggling non-profit journals in the 1950s/60s (as I've shown doi.org/10.1177/0073...), but what happened next?
Sage Journals: Discover world-class research
Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.
doi.org

Reposted by Dan Brockington, Paolo Crosetto

aileenfyfe.bsky.social
Aileen Fyfe @aileenfyfe.bsky.social · 2d
New preprint on the drain that for-profit publishers place on the scientific ecosystem. We also point out that, though it's often presented as a global problem, it's actually a Global North problem: there are parts of the world with strong diamond #OA non-profit alternatives arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820

paolocrosetto.bsky.social
Paolo Crosetto @paolocrosetto.bsky.social · 2d
This wasn't always the case, even at MDPI; they worked (successfully) at industrializing publishing, removing most of editorial heterogeneity (& independence, I'd say) in the process. This started in ~2019, see for evidence here: paolocrosetto.wordpress.com/2021/04/12/i...

paolocrosetto.bsky.social
Paolo Crosetto @paolocrosetto.bsky.social · 2d
The main message from the plot you shared is not absence of rejection -- it's sheer uniformity in turnaround times. MDPI's time from submission to acceptance, including revisions, is on average 37 days. And there is basically *no* variance. Any paper gets the same time frame, across disciplines.

paolocrosetto.bsky.social
Paolo Crosetto @paolocrosetto.bsky.social · 2d
MDPI has low rejection rates with respect to the competitors, but rejections (at least in their data) exist. We have some metrics in the Strain paper, here: doi.org/10.1162/qss_...

[caveat: rej rates are tricky, mostly secret, easily gameable, and we have to take the publisher's word for it anyway]

Reposted by Paolo Crosetto

hansonmark.bsky.social
Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 2d
The Drain of Scientific Publishing details very clearly how for-profit publishers making >30% profit margins have corrupted any solution the research community has attempted.

Let's cut ourselves free.

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: bit.ly/StrainQSS
Oligopoly: bit.ly/OligSciPub

12/12
The Drain of Scientific Publishing
The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science. We need the most powerful members of the research community, funders, governments and ...
arxiv.org