Read the recap below or watch the recording here.
The Growing Financial Burden of Open Access
Open access publishing presents significant financial challenges for researchers, particularly those early in their careers. Persaud described navigating a $700 article processing charge for a recent publication - a modest fee by industry standards, yet still prohibitive for a graduate student without independent funding. The timing proved critical as he entered the job market and needed maximum visibility for his work.The financial concerns extend beyond individual cases to broader questions about research sustainability. Newton pointed to article processing charges reaching $14,000 at some journals, costs that fundamentally alter research priorities. When publication fees rival the cost of supporting a postdoctoral scholar or funding a summer fellowship, researchers face impossible choices between disseminating their work and supporting their research programs.
These economic pressures inform journal selection in meaningful ways. Society publishers often receive preference because their mission-driven models create transparency about how revenue supports the broader research community. "Societies are the core of science," Newton noted, explaining her preference for publishers where fees visibly support trainees, mentoring programs, networking opportunities, and conferences rather than generating profit.
Preprints Reshape Publication Strategy
Preprint servers have become integral to many researchers' publication strategies. Newton's research group routinely deposits manuscripts on bioRxiv simultaneously with journal submission, allowing work to accumulate citations and visibility during the often-lengthy peer review process. This parallel approach maximizes impact while navigating traditional publishing timelines.The academic community's evolving stance on preprints reflects broader economic pressures. Some departments now seriously consider preprints as legitimate scholarly products for promotion decisions—a significant philosophical shift driven by funding uncertainties and the need to demonstrate research productivity. However, disciplinary differences persist, with preprint adoption remaining less common in social sciences than in life sciences.
Artificial Intelligence in Research Workflows
Both researchers emphasized measured approaches to artificial intelligence tools, viewing them primarily as pedagogical resources rather than writing assistants. The consensus centered on a fundamental principle: the process of writing clarifies thinking and develops ideas, making it essential for researchers to maintain direct engagement with their work.From an editorial perspective, AI's influence appears most visible in manuscripts from non-native English speakers, where language quality has noticeably improved. This development offers potential benefits for accessibility and communication, provided authors verify that AI-assisted text accurately represents their intended meaning. The technology shows promise for generating topic summaries or identifying research gaps but concerns about hallucinated citations and contextual misunderstandings temper enthusiasm for more extensive applications.
The Peer Review System Under Strain
The peer review system faces mounting pressures that affect all stakeholders. From an editorial perspective, recruiting reviewers proves increasingly difficult, with many invitations going unanswered or requiring extensive follow-up. Those who do volunteer their time encounter friction in the form of mandatory profile updates and lengthy surveys - barriers that discourage participation in what is fundamentally uncompensated service to the scholarly community.Publication timelines reflect these systemic challenges. Newton's observation that "it takes less time to gestate a child than to publish" captures widespread frustration with processes stretching beyond nine months. These delays stem partly from volunteer editors managing review workflows alongside their primary research responsibilities, without compensation or dedicated time allocation.
The situation creates a paradox: researchers recognize peer review's essential value while struggling to participate meaningfully in a system that demands more than many can sustainably provide. Early-career researchers face particular pressure, needing to establish publication records while lacking the institutional standing to decline review requests selectively.
Persistent Formatting Frustrations
Despite widespread rhetoric about format-neutral submission, researchers continue investing significant time in journal-specific formatting requirements. Each submission often requires reformatting references, adjusting figure specifications, and completing platform-specific metadata fields. When manuscripts move between journals - a common occurrence - this work repeats entirely.The ideal solution resembles the Common Application model used in college admissions: a single standardized submission format that transfers seamlessly across journals. While some publisher families offer limited review and formatting portability, the industry lacks true interoperability. This fragmentation imposes cumulative time costs on researchers already managing teaching, mentorship, grant writing, and laboratory management responsibilities.
Defining Fair Value in Publishing
Questions about appropriate article processing charges elicited direct responses grounded in research economics. The fundamental question researchers pose: what services justify costs that compete with other essential research expenses? When fees approach or exceed the cost of supporting trainees or conducting experiments, publication decisions necessarily factor in opportunity costs rather than optimal dissemination strategies.The issue extends beyond absolute dollar amounts to questions of equity and access. Early-career researchers, particularly those in fields without robust grant funding or at institutions with limited publication support, face disproportionate barriers. As open access publications increasingly influence hiring decisions, financial barriers to publication become barriers to career advancement.
Moving Forward
The discussion underscored that while publication achievements remain professionally rewarding, the path to publication contains unnecessary friction. Researchers contribute their time, expertise, and increasingly their financial resources at multiple points in the scholarly communication process. Publishers who reduce barriers - through streamlined submission workflows, transparent pricing models, efficient peer review systems, and portable review processes - position themselves as genuine partners in research dissemination.The scholarly publishing ecosystem depends fundamentally on researcher participation. Understanding their perspectives, constraints, and frustrations represents the first step toward systems that better serve knowledge creation and dissemination. As financial pressures intensify and career timelines compress, the imperative for publishers to prioritize researcher experience only grows stronger.
View all of the Platform Strategies 2025 session recordings here.