Billion-dollar academic publishing game threatens global knowledge access: Warns CSR India director Dr. Mohammad Rizwan

By Anwarulhaq Baig

NEW DELHI: In a striking analysis, Dr. Mohammad Rizwan, Director of CSR India, revealed how a handful of dominant academic publishers, led by giants like Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley-Blackwell, and Cambridge University Press are raking in billions of dollars annually. According to him, this lucrative “money game” threatens global knowledge access and creates economic disparities and unfairness in research.

At the Centre for Study and Research (CSR) India’s inaugural Intellectual Deliberation series, Dr. Rizwan, who is also a guest faculty member at Nagpur University’s Department of Molecular Biology and Genetic Engineering, delivered an in-depth lecture titled “How Knowledge Ecosystems Work.” He examined the epistemology, methodology, and dissemination of knowledge, emphasizing the roles of politics, hierarchy, hegemony, and funding in shaping the production and circulation of academic discourse.

Presenting a comparative analysis of Western secular humanist and Islamic epistemological approaches, Dr. Rizwan emphasized the politics of knowledge ecosystems. He highlighted how disparities in knowledge production are fuelled by funding and resources, and warned about the rise of predatory journals that exploit researchers, further exacerbating the problem. He called for urgent reforms in this skewed landscape, which marginalizes voices from less affluent regions.

The Academic Publishing Industry: A ‘Money Game’ as Major Players Earn Billions Annually

In a revealing analysis of the economics of knowledge ecosystems, particularly within the academic publishing industry, Dr. Rizwan highlighted data showing that a small group of major publishers dominates the market, generating billions in annual revenue. This “money game” in scholarly publishing raises significant concerns about access to knowledge and the overall economics of academic research.

Leading the industry is Elsevier, synonymous with academic publishing, with an annual revenue of approximately $3.7 billion. Specializing in economics, psychology, and social sciences, Elsevier oversees more than 2,600 journals and publishes over 33,000 book titles. Its net income is a substantial $2.6 billion, reflecting the industry’s lucrative nature.

Springer Nature follows with annual revenue of about $1.72 billion. Known for contributions in philosophy, education, and social theory, Springer Nature manages around 3,000 journals across various disciplines.

Wiley-Blackwell ranks third, generating approximately $1.8 billion annually. It focuses on anthropology, cultural studies, and history, publishing over 1,600 peer-reviewed journals.

Taylor & Francis and SAGE Publishing also hold prominent positions. Taylor & Francis, specializing in sociology, education, and political science, reports about $1 billion in revenue, managing more than 2,700 journals and publishing around 5,000 books yearly. SAGE Publishing, with a focus on social sciences, humanities, and education, generates approximately $400 million annually, publishing over 1,000 journals and 800 books each year.

Cambridge University Press, one of the oldest university presses, matches SAGE’s $400 million revenue. It specializes in history, law, and politics, managing over 400 journals and maintaining a catalog of 50,000 academic titles.

The concentration of wealth and control among these few publishers has sparked debates within academia regarding research accessibility, subscription costs, and the sustainability of the current publishing model. Dr. Rizwan argues that this system creates significant barriers to knowledge dissemination, particularly for researchers and institutions in less affluent regions.

The Politics of Knowledge: Power Dynamics and Global Inequalities

Dr. Rizwan addressed critical issues of epistemic injustice and global inequalities in knowledge production, introducing the term “the politics of the knowledge ecosystem.” He explained how factors like funding, academic environments, and human resources create “knowledge hierarchies,” allowing certain regions or institutions to dominate the global knowledge landscape. This dominance can marginalize valuable insights from less-resourced areas.

“Who knows what, how much will be known, and when to know or not to know—these are not just academic questions but reflect real power dynamics in the global knowledge economy,” Dr. Rizwan said, emphasizing the need for awareness of these dynamics to create a more equitable global knowledge ecosystem.

The Dark Side: Predatory Practices in Academic Publishing

In his discussion of what he called “The World of Predation,” Dr. Rizwan warned about the rise of exploitative practices in academic publishing. He explained the concept of predatory journals—those that charge fees without providing proper peer review or editorial services. He cited examples of predatory publishers and conferences that exploit researchers’ need to publish and present their work.

“These predatory practices not only drain resources from genuine research but also pollute the academic landscape with substandard or fraudulent work,” Dr. Rizwan cautioned. He urged researchers to remain vigilant and called on institutions to guide scholars in avoiding these pitfalls.

The Economics of Knowledge: Publishing Models and Access Issues

Dr. Rizwan discussed various open-access publishing models and their implications for researchers and readers:

1.            Traditional Model: Readers pay for access.

2.            Gold Open Access: Authors pay Article Processing Charges (APCs), making the articles free for readers.

3.            Green Open Access: Authors pay upfront but can self-archive their work after an embargo period.

4.            Libre Open Access: Articles are freely accessible with additional reuse rights.

5.            Bronze Open Access: Articles are free to read but lack an open license for redistribution.

6.            Diamond/Platinum Open Access: Free for both authors and readers, funded by institutions or philanthropists.

Dr. Rizwan emphasized the ethical necessity of open access, stating, “Restrictive access to knowledge is a sin in today’s information age.” He argued that the current system, dominated by large publishing houses, creates significant barriers to knowledge dissemination, particularly for researchers and institutions in developing countries.

From Data to Wisdom: The Knowledge Hierarchy

Dr. Rizwan began his presentation by outlining the progression from raw data to wisdom, a framework essential for understanding knowledge ecosystems. He defined data as “raw, unprocessed facts and figures,” which, when organized, becomes information. Knowledge, he explained, is “a cognitive construct that allows individuals to connect and interpret information, identify patterns, make judgments, and generate insights.”

At the top of this hierarchy, Dr. Rizwan described ‘wisdom’ as knowing “how and when to apply knowledge.”

This introduction set the stage for a deeper exploration of knowledge ecosystems, which Dr. Rizwan categorized into three key components: epistemology, methodology, and dissemination.

Knowledge Ecosystems: Western Secular Humanism vs. Islamic Epistemological Approaches

One of the most thought-provoking aspects of Dr. Rizwan’s presentation was his comparative analysis of Western secular humanist and Islamic epistemological approaches, highlighting how different cultural and philosophical frameworks shape knowledge acquisition and validation.

Dr. Rizwan explained that Western secular humanism relies primarily on human reason and empirical evidence, often dismissing transcendental sources like divine revelation. In contrast, the Islamic epistemological approach integrates divine revelation (Wahy) as a central source, with the Qur’an and Hadith regarded as infallible guides.

Regarding reason, Dr. Rizwan noted that the Western approach elevates reason as the primary source of knowledge, independent of religious or supernatural claims. The Islamic approach, on the other hand, views reason as a crucial tool for interpreting divine revelation and conducting empirical inquiry.

On empirical observation (Mushahada), Dr. Rizwan pointed out that the Western approach sees it as foundational, often considering it the most reliable method for understanding the natural world. While, the Islamic approach encourages empirical observation to explore Allah’s creation and validate truths found in revelation.

He further elaborated on how these differing frameworks influence text interpretation, the scientific method, and the balance between rationalism and empiricism in their respective approaches.

Methodological Differences

Dr. Rizwan highlighted key methodological differences between Western secular humanism and Islamic epistemology. In the secular approach, textual interpretation focuses on critical analysis, using historical, linguistic, and cultural methods without religious presuppositions. In contrast, the Islamic approach integrates classical exegesis (Tafsir) with rational analysis, operating within a framework of religious principles.

The scientific method, central to secular humanism, emphasizes objectivity, repeatability, and falsifiability, often without consideration of religious or ethical frameworks. Whereas, the Islamic approach embraces the scientific method but interprets it through an Islamic lens to ensure alignment with ethical and spiritual values.

Rationalism vs. Empiricism

Dr. Rizwan explained that the secular approach leans heavily on empiricism, with rationalism playing a supporting role in interpreting and applying empirical findings. The Islamic approach, however, balances rationalism and empiricism with divine guidance, combining reason, observation, and revelation.

Views on Truth and Ethics

Discussing views on truth, Dr. Rizwan noted that the secular approach sees truth as provisional, evolving with new evidence and reasoning. In contrast, the Islamic perspective views truth (Haq) as objective and eternal, originating from Allah, with scientific truths accepted as long as they do not contradict divine revelation.

Dr. Rizwan also noted that the secular view often perceives ethical and moral truths as relative, evolving with social changes while the Islamic approach derives ethical and moral truths from divine commands, viewing them as absolute and unchanging.

Towards a More Equitable Knowledge Ecosystem

The session concluded with Dr. Rizwan’s vision for a more equitable and accessible knowledge ecosystem. He advocated for balancing academic rigor with widespread access to information, emphasizing that this equilibrium is essential for advancing global knowledge and understanding.

Following the presentation, a lively Q&A session allowed attendees to engage deeply with the concepts discussed. Many participants expressed concerns about the current state of academic publishing and the significant challenges faced by researchers in developing countries. The event attracted a diverse audience of over three dozen academicians, scholars, researchers, students from various institutions including Jamia Millia Islamia, Aligarh Muslim University, Jawaharlal Nehru University, and Delhi University.

Jabir K, a research assistant at the CSR, noted that the Intellectual Deliberation series aims to unite bright minds from academia and research for meaningful discussions on topics vital to knowledge and societal advancement.

In his welcome speech, Khushhal Ahmed, a research associate at CSR, provided an overview of the session. CSR officials announced that more Intellectual Deliberation sessions would be organized in the coming months, focusing on crucial topics related to knowledge and academia.