Today’s post is by Ashutosh Ghildiyal, the Vice President of Growth & Strategy at Integra. Reviewer credit to Chef Haseeb Irfanullah.

The Crisis We Can’t Ignore

On the same day as my previous article in this series, A Systems Approach to Research Publishing: From Fragmentation to Cohesion, which examined the growing fragmentation of the research publishing ecosystem, The Reformation of Science Publishing: The Stockholm Declaration was published. While it articulated a similarly collaborative ambition, it did so with one striking omission: scholarly publishers were entirely excluded from its conception of the research publishing ecosystem.

A few days later, another stark critique followed in The Drain of Scientific Publishing. Its message was unequivocal: “The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science. We need the most powerful members of the research community, funders, governments, and universities to lead the drive to re-communalize publishing to serve science, not the market.”

Taken together, these interventions are not isolated critiques. They are signals of how fractured the ecosystem has become, and of how the value publishers provide is increasingly questioned, dismissed, or overlooked by key stakeholders.

The Attitude Gap Between Academia and Publishers

At the heart of this crisis lies a deepening attitude gap between academia and publishers. Within academic discourse, publishers, more specifically journals, are often cast as the “villains” of the ecosystem: overly profit-driven, insufficiently flexible, and slow to adapt. Rising article processing charges, opaque editorial practices, and perceived misalignment with scholarly values have made publishers convenient focal points for broader systemic frustrations.

At the same time, there is a growing movement to free science from what are seen as commercial constraints. Researchers want to retain control over their choices, and many accept commercialization as long as that control remains firmly in their hands. Tensions emerge when researchers feel their options are being narrowed, shaped, or constrained in ways that serve systems rather than scholarship.

Publishers do deliver real value, and as an industry, they must remain confident in that contribution while also being willing to evolve. Closing the perception gap requires focusing on areas where academia genuinely needs support, particularly those that individual researchers, institutions, or communities cannot sustain without substantial investment and coordination. These include scalable editorial and integrity infrastructure, dissemination and preservation systems, metadata and discoverability capabilities, and the platforms that enable trusted publishing at global scale.

Yet many in academia continue to view publishers as gatekeepers who benefit disproportionately from academic labor while offering limited recognition or return. At the same time, publishers frequently underestimate how undervalued and overburdened authors and reviewers feel, as demands on their time continue to grow. The result is a reinforcing cycle of mistrust. Scholars criticize, publishers defend, and both sides retreat into increasingly entrenched positions.

The Legitimacy Crisis Takes Shape

Against this backdrop, scholarly publishing now faces an unprecedented legitimacy challenge. Research institutions, funding agencies, and academic communities around the world are demanding clearer justification for publishing costs that continue to rise while core services are perceived as largely unchanged. This scrutiny extends well beyond pricing debates. It reflects deeper concerns around transparency, operational efficiency, and the role publishers play in an increasingly digital and open research environment.

The question confronting the industry is therefore stark: can scholarly publishing clearly demonstrate value that justifies its costs, or will alternative models continue to gain traction and displace traditional publishing roles?

Looking ahead over the next decade, the publishers that endure will not be those that rely on incremental optimization of existing models. They will be those who successfully reposition themselves as genuine knowledge partners, deeply embedded across the research lifecycle. This shift requires a fundamental rethinking of how value is created, measured, and communicated to different stakeholder groups.

Discussions around publisher value are not new. The Scholarly Kitchen has long hosted thoughtful debate, from Kent Anderson’s comprehensive “102 Things Journal Publishers Do” to broader conversations on gatekeeping and editorial responsibility. What the current moment demands, however, is a more systematic and outward-facing articulation of that value, one that resonates beyond the publishing community itself.

Encouragingly, initiatives such as STM Publishing Decoded point in this direction, offering clearer explanations of publishing infrastructure and value to policymakers, journalists, funders, and other external audiences. Without decisive action to rebuild trust and make value visible, scholarly publishing risks becoming increasingly marginalized within the very ecosystem it exists to support.

When Perception Gaps Become Systemic Risks

The Stockholm Declaration and The Drain of Scientific Publishing are part of a broader pattern of commentary highlighting declining trust in publisher value. Ongoing debates around preprints, open science, and publication integrity, while important in their own right, also reflect this underlying tension. When these debates are coupled with rising concerns about research integrity and inconsistent peer review, such as obvious errors passing through editorial processes, they begin to signal systemic risk rather than isolated dissatisfaction.

Academia continues to critique publishers, sometimes with good reason. Yet while calls for publishers to change are loud and persistent, there is often less willingness within academia to confront its own structural incentives. Why not reassess reliance on narrow metrics for evaluation? Why not meaningfully recognize and reward peer review, open science practices, and reproducibility efforts?

At their core, many of these tensions stem from misaligned incentives that reward volume, speed, or metrics rather than credibility, quality, and long-term impact. Meaningful progress therefore requires change on both sides, in ways that serve the broader goals of research rather than reinforcing existing misalignments.

For publishers, this means articulating their value more clearly and deliberately, and adding demonstrable value where it matters most. Long-term sustainability depends not on defending legacy roles, but on continuously enhancing contributions to the curation, verification, and amplification of trusted research. While publishers cannot dictate how academia reforms itself, they can shape their own future by making value visible, relevant, and difficult to dismiss.

Industry bodies such as STM and COPE play an important role in building shared understanding and strengthening collaboration. However, much of the real work lies at the individual publisher level, where strategic choices about priorities, investments, and engagement will ultimately determine whether trust can be rebuilt.

A Critical Structural Threat to Scholarly Publishing: The Commoditization Trap

The commoditization of research poses a subtle but serious threat to the core mission of scholarly publishing. In today’s “article economy,” where revenue is often linked to publication volume, quantity can begin to outweigh quality, producing outcomes that are immediately rewarding but damaging over time.

Commoditization treats research articles not as distinct intellectual contributions, but as standardized, interchangeable units that are produced, processed, and distributed at scale. As in traditional commodity markets, competition shifts toward volume and cost rather than uniqueness or rigor. When scholarly outputs are reduced to throughput metrics, their intellectual and societal value is diminished.

This model creates incentives that favor efficiency over rigor, speed over selectivity, and volume over value. Over time, these pressures erode trust, increase vulnerability to low-quality submissions and predatory practices, and exacerbate reviewer fatigue.

When the focus shifts from advancing knowledge to maximizing output, the foundations of scholarly credibility are weakened, not because publishers abandon quality intentionally, but because misaligned incentives make quality harder to sustain at scale.

Sustainable growth in scholarly publishing cannot be driven by volume alone. It must be grounded in the value each publication contributes to researchers, to society, and to the broader advancement of knowledge.

From Gatekeepers to Knowledge Partners: Rebuilding Trust Through Transparency

Rebuilding trust requires publishers to confront a persistent perception that they are primarily profit-driven entities benefiting from the unpaid labor of researchers, editors, and reviewers. Addressing this perception demands more than adjustments to access models. It requires visible and sustained reinvestment in the scholarly ecosystem itself.

This shift requires publishers to create value not only at the point of publication, but across the research lifecycle, from integrity and validation to dissemination, discovery, and impact. Such reinvestment can take many forms, including support for training programs, editorial tools, researcher services, fellowships, and shared infrastructure. These efforts are most effective when they deliver tangible benefits to the academic community and when their impact is visible, measurable, and credible.

Examples of this approach can already be seen in publisher-led training initiatives, shared integrity infrastructure, and community investment programs supported by scholarly societies and industry alliances.

At the center of this effort lies transparency. Open and honest communication about where value is created, how it is distributed, and who benefits is essential. When paired with humility and a genuine willingness to engage researchers as collaborators rather than customers, transparency can help shift perceptions of publishers from gatekeepers to trusted partners.

The Need for Collective Dialogue

Equally important is sustained and inclusive dialogue among all stakeholders in the research ecosystem, including publishers, researchers, funders, institutions, and scholarly societies. The challenges facing scholarly publishing are systemic and cannot be addressed through isolated or unilateral action.

There is a growing need for global and representative forums that bring these voices together, not merely to debate pricing or access policies, but to engage in shared problem-solving around the future of research communication. When designed well, such platforms can align interests, rebuild trust, and support solutions that serve the long-term health of the ecosystem.

Recognizing and Rewarding Academic Labor

Peer reviewers and editors contribute the expertise, time, and intellectual labor that make scholarly publishing possible, yet this work remains largely invisible in career progression, unrewarded in institutional evaluation, and undervalued in academic culture. While introducing formal recognition and compensation mechanisms presents real cultural and financial challenges, continuing to overlook these contributions is no longer sustainable.

Publishers should pilot recognition systems linked to ORCID and CRediT that formally acknowledge academic labor in ways that carry professional weight. Non-monetary rewards such as certificates, badges, and public acknowledgment can provide meaningful signals of value at relatively low cost, while more sustainable compensation approaches can be tested where appropriate.

Importantly, there is now emerging evidence that modest reviewer honoraria, when implemented thoughtfully, can improve responsiveness, turnaround times, reviewer loyalty, and even review quality. Experiences from smaller Gold Open Access publishers suggest that paying reviewers can be financially viable when supported by strong editorial triage, manageable post-peer review rejection rates, and a healthy margin between APCs and honoraria. In such cases, compensation becomes not merely an expense but a strategic investment in efficiency, quality, and sustainability.

Strengthening how peer review is supported, recognized, and sustained is therefore an essential component of rebuilding legitimacy, but it is part of a broader effort to realign value, incentives, and trust across the scholarly publishing ecosystem.

A Future Built on Trust and Shared Value

Even amid rapid transformation, certain expectations remain constant. Trust is non-negotiable. Visibility remains central to researchers’ value. Speed must be balanced with quality. Academic labor must be respected. Value must align with cost through transparency, and global inclusivity is no longer aspirational but an essential condition of a legitimate system.

Addressing the value challenge, therefore, requires a deliberate shift in how publishers understand and articulate their role within the research ecosystem. At a time of heightened scrutiny, publishers cannot rely on legacy assumptions about their relevance. They must demonstrate value in ways that are visible, measurable, and aligned with the priorities of researchers, institutions, and funders.

This moment is not simply a test of business models, but of purpose. Publishing exists to serve science, and science exists to serve society. Trust, once lost, cannot be restored through declarations alone, but only through consistent action grounded in transparency, collaboration, and reinvestment in the foundations of scholarly communication. The future of scholarly communication will be shaped less by what is published and more by how effectively publishers contribute to the pursuit, validation, and communication of knowledge itself.

What matters most is optimism, including the belief that disruption, while uncomfortable, can also be constructive. Only an open-minded willingness to accept disruption and adapt with purpose will enable the industry to move beyond defensiveness, explore new pathways, and develop credible, innovative ways of creating and demonstrating value for the research ecosystem.