A renowned neuroscientist has filed a groundbreaking antitrust class action lawsuit against the world's six largest for-profit academic publishers, accusing them of colluding to exploit scholars and stifle scientific progress. Dr. Lucina Uddin, a professor at UCLA, filed the complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on September 12, 2024, targeting Elsevier B.V., Wolters Kluwer N.V., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Sage Publications, Inc., Taylor & Francis Group, Ltd., and Springer Nature AG & Co. KGaA.
Dr. Uddin's lawsuit alleges that these publishers have conspired to implement an unlawful scheme that violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act by fixing the price of peer review services at zero, coercing scholars into providing unpaid labor under threat of career jeopardy, and restricting manuscript submissions to one journal at a time. The complaint outlines how this "Unpaid Peer Review Rule" and "Single Submission Rule" substantially reduce competition among publishers and force scholars into unfavorable positions.
"The Publisher Defendants essentially agreed to hold the careers of scholars hostage so that they could force them to provide their valuable labor for free," states the complaint.
Moreover, Dr. Uddin accuses these publishers of enforcing a "Gag Rule," which prohibits scholars from sharing their research findings freely while manuscripts are under review—a process that can take over a year. This rule effectively treats scientific advancements as proprietary information until publication rights are secured by the publishers.
"From the moment scholars submit manuscripts for publication, the Publisher Defendants behave as though the scientific advancements set forth in the manuscripts are their property," reads part of Dr. Uddin's filing.
The complaint details how these practices have led to exorbitant profit margins for the defendants while diverting billions in taxpayer dollars away from scientific research. For instance, Elsevier alone generated $3.8 billion in revenue from its peer-reviewed journals in 2023 with an operating profit margin exceeding those of tech giants like Apple and Google. The lawsuit also highlights public outcry against these practices within the scientific community; over 20 thousand scientists have publicly opposed aspects of this scheme.
Dr. Uddin seeks injunctive relief to end these anticompetitive practices and demands monetary damages for herself and other affected scholars who provided peer review services or submitted manuscripts since September 12, 2020. She argues that compensating peer reviewers would alleviate what she describes as an ongoing "peer review crisis," where delays caused by reviewer fatigue significantly slow down scientific progress.
Represented by attorneys from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Justice Catalyst Law, Dr. Uddin's case is poised to challenge longstanding norms in academic publishing. Case ID 1:24-cv-6409.