AI in Academic Publishing: Navigating the Complexities of Innovation and Independence

In a surprising and unprecedented move, the entire editorial board of the Journal of Human Evolution (JHE), managed by Elsevier, resigned over a recent holiday weekend. This mass resignation is emblematic of growing frustrations within the academic publishing community, primarily due to steep fees, threats to editorial independence, and the controversial integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the editorial process. With this incident marking the 20th such resignation since 2023, it is clear that dissatisfaction with corporate publishing practices is becoming a trend.

The Core Issues

Editors of the JHE articulated significant concerns about Elsevier’s recent business model adjustments, which they believe jeopardize the journal’s quality and the independence essential for scholarly work. Among their specific grievances was the removal of opportunities for support staff such as copy editors, pushing editorial board members to assume these responsibilities with minimal help. This reduction doomed the quality and specialization of reviews by overloading few editors with an overwhelming diversity of submissions.

The introduction of AI into the editorial process without prior communication with the board was particularly controversial. Editors highlighted several AI-driven problems, including the unauthorized reformatting and rephrasing of submitted manuscripts, which often distorted their intended meaning and style, placing greater oversight burdens on editors and increasing errors. A recent incident involving another reputable journal, Frontiers, where AI-generated images compromised credibility, further exemplifies the risks of implementing AI without sufficient safeguards.

Another critical point of contention was Elsevier’s steep author fees, significantly higher than comparable peer journals, raising barriers against the journal’s accessibility and inclusivity. The conflict intensified when Elsevier proposed the abolition of the dual-editor model—a practice since 1986—threatening substantial pay cuts for co-editors who chose to remain.

Lessons and the Path Forward

The mass resignation at JHE highlights significant unrest within the scientific writing community and emphasizes the enduring struggle to harmonize technological advancements with the integrity and reliability of traditional peer review. While AI offers substantial promise for improving efficiency, such as detecting image manipulation and reducing administrative workloads, its misuse poses considerable risks to the authenticity of scientific publications.

As academic institutions and scholars navigate these challenges, there is growing advocacy for increased transparency regarding AI’s editorial roles and a critical reevaluation of existing publishing models to ensure fairness, affordability, and quality. Looking ahead, we may see an emerging trend favoring independent, nonprofit journals dedicated to open access and upholding high academic standards as viable alternatives to corporate publishers. This potential paradigm shift could democratize the distribution of scientific knowledge, making breakthroughs more accessible to a global audience.