In a striking parallel to the decline of social media and online marketplaces, academic publishing is undergoing what researchers describe as 'enshittification,' a process that prioritizes profit over scholarly integrity. The term, coined by writer Cory Doctorow in 2023, originally highlighted how digital platforms like Facebook and Amazon shifted from user-focused services to profit-driven machines, often at the expense of quality. Now, a new study published in the journal Organization applies this concept to the world of academia, outlining five distinct stages of degradation in how research is produced, reviewed, and disseminated.
The research, led by academics who analyzed trends in scholarly communication, warns that the $19 billion academic publishing industry—rivaling the music and film sectors in revenue—has ballooned to the point where commercial interests overshadow the pursuit of knowledge. Between 2016 and 2022, the number of papers indexed in major databases surged from 1.92 million to 2.82 million annually, according to data from the study. Publishers like Wiley, Elsevier, and Springer Nature boast profit margins comparable to tech giants such as Microsoft and Google, fueling concerns about the commodification of science.
Cory Doctorow, in his original framing, described enshittification as a 'death spiral' where platforms first offer value to users, then extract it for business partners, and finally abuse end users once competition wanes. 'The social media platforms, e-commerce sites and search engines they were using had noticeably deteriorated in quality,' the researchers note, echoing Doctorow's observations. This pattern, they argue, is now evident in academia, where the rise of open-access journals and predatory outlets has flooded the system with low-quality content.
The study's authors trace the roots of this shift back to the 1980s, when academic publishing began to embrace market-based practices. Universities increasingly rely on performance metrics to evaluate staff, turning research into a commodity shaped by corporate funding and managerial logic. This phenomenon, termed 'academic capitalism' by scholars, influences everything from what topics get funded to how careers advance. 'Science is bought and sold, and is increasingly shaped by corporate funding and managerial logic,' the researchers write in their paper.
One pivotal development has been the open-access movement, initially launched to democratize knowledge but co-opted by publishers for profit. Major firms introduced article processing charges (APCs), shifting costs from subscriptions to authors while expanding their portfolios. When the prestigious journal Nature rolled out its open-access option in 2021, it set fees as high as €9,500—about $10,200 USD or A$17,000—for authors to publish. This model, the study contends, has eroded quality controls, as pressure to publish mounts under the 'publish or perish' culture pervasive in universities worldwide.
At the fringes, predatory journals have proliferated, mimicking legitimate outlets but charging fees without rigorous peer review. An estimated 15,000 such journals now operate, publishing everything from hoax papers to pirated content, according to the research. These exploitative platforms often disguise low-quality work as contributions to 'special issues,' contributing to a surge in dubious publications. The study's authors highlight how this mirrors online enshittification, where user value is sacrificed for financial gain.
The five-stage model outlined in the paper provides a roadmap of this decline. First comes the commodification of research, where intellectual merit gives way to marketability. Metrics like journal impact factors dictate success more than substantive contributions. 'The commodification of research shifts value from intellectual merit to marketability,' the researchers explain.
Stage two involves the proliferation of pay-to-publish journals, expanding both elite and predatory tiers. This flood of outlets intensifies competition, pushing academics to prioritize quantity over quality. The third stage sees a decline in integrity, as profit motives compromise peer review and editorial oversight. Corners are cut, and standards slip, much like how algorithms on social media now favor sensationalism over accuracy.
By the fourth stage, the sheer volume of publications overwhelms the system, making it hard to discern authoritative work amid the noise. Fraudulent journals exacerbate this, spreading misinformation and diluting trust. Finally, full enshittification sets in: 'The scholarly system is overwhelmed by quantity, distorted by profit motives, and is stripped of its purpose of advancing knowledge,' the study concludes.
Experts in the field have long raised alarms about these trends. While the primary research comes from the Organization paper, cross-verification from The Conversation, where the study's findings were detailed, underscores the consistency of these observations. No major conflicting reports emerged, though some publishers defend APCs as necessary for sustainability. Elsevier, for instance, has stated in past communications that open access expands access without compromising quality, though critics dispute this.
The implications extend beyond ivory towers to public policy and innovation. With research increasingly guided by metrics rather than merit, 'research quality is judged more by where it is published than by its intrinsic worth,' the authors note. This could stifle groundbreaking work that doesn't fit commercial molds, affecting fields from climate science to medicine. In the U.S., where federal funding drives much research, agencies like the National Institutes of Health have pushed for open access, but implementation remains uneven.
Academics aren't abandoning the system easily, much like users stuck with declining social media. 'Why are users (and academics) not simply leaving their “enshittified” experience behind? The answer is the same across various online platforms: a lack of credible alternatives makes it hard to leave, even as quality declines,' the study observes. Tenure and promotion still hinge on publication records, trapping scholars in the cycle.
Efforts to counter this are gaining traction. The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), launched in 2022, advocates for broader evaluations of scholarly impact, moving beyond journal prestige. Cooperative publishing models and institutional repositories offer not-for-profit paths, emphasizing quality and accessibility. In Europe, initiatives like Plan S, started in 2018, mandate open access for publicly funded research, aiming to reclaim publishing as a public good.
Globally, inequities compound the problem. Researchers in developing countries often face higher barriers to legitimate publication, pushing them toward predatory journals. The study's call for 'greater global equity in research' highlights this disparity, noting how Western-dominated metrics disadvantage diverse voices. As one example, African scholars have reported paying inflated APCs to Western publishers, only to see their work undervalued.
Looking ahead, reclaiming academic publishing will require systemic change. 'Change is needed to help protect the core purpose of academic research: to advance knowledge in the public interest,' the researchers urge. With profit margins soaring and output exploding, the stakes are high. If unaddressed, enshittification risks turning the engine of human progress into just another extractive industry, leaving society poorer for it.