A new report from Cambridge University Press, Publishing Futures: Working Together to Deliver Radical Change in Academic Publishing, paints a stark picture of an industry under strain. Based on a global survey of 3,101 researchers, librarians, funders, and publishers, it highlights how annual publication growth of 5.6%—adding nearly 900,000 articles from 2016 to 2022—has overwhelmed systems designed for a bygone era. For laboratory scientists and academic researchers, this surge means longer waits for peer review and diluted focus on groundbreaking work amid a flood of incremental outputs.
Equity gaps emerge as a core concern, with 65% of respondents agreeing that the shift to open access (OA) has exacerbated inequalities, leaving unfunded authors—often from Global South labs—with fewer viable options. Only 45% believe the current landscape offers fair publishing opportunities, despite 93% consensus that high-quality research deserves a platform regardless of resources. One researcher noted, "It is having a silencing effect on researchers from less well-funded institutions/countries".
Peer review, the bedrock of scientific integrity, bears the brunt: 81% attribute system pressures to rising volumes, while 47% link OA models to heightened strain, including burnout and fraud risks. Reward structures fare worse, with just 33% deeming them effective; 64% criticize their bias toward quantity over quality, sidelining contributions like data sharing or community leadership in lab settings.
Yet, the report charts a path forward through collective action: adopting holistic metrics via initiatives like the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment and Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment, bolstering peer review credits, and expanding equitable OA like Diamond models. As labs and publishers collaborate on these reforms, academic publishing could evolve into a truly sustainable engine for discovery, rewarding depth and diversity in equal measure.
Click here for the Japanese version.