Heavily consolidated radiology publishing market may give a few key players unequal power
Radiology journal publishing is highly consolidated, with two organizations controlling a large stake. And this model is likely going to be a central issue between large universities and top publishers moving forward.
That’s according to a new study of traditional and open-access business models spanning radiology-focused journals, shared April 20 in Clinical Imaging. Commercial publishers put out more than 80% of radiology journals, with giants Elsevier and Springer Nature accounting for 40% alone.
“The consolidated nature of the publishing marketplace may place disproportionate power into the hands of a few key commercial entities,” Arvind Vijayasarathi, MD, MBA, MPH, with UCLA School of Medicine’s Department of Radiology, and colleagues explained.
Meanwhile, about one-fourth of imaging journals are open-access, the authors found. And as the popularity of free access continues to grow, it may lead to further conflicts about the future of academic publishing.
Disputes in this realm are already well-documented. Perhaps most notably, the authors explained, is the stalemate between the University of California and Elsevier which saw the former cancel its contract with the publishing behemoth in 2019. Each side has its own rationale for the feud, but it has severely limited UC researchers’ access to Elsevier-published articles after January of that year. The long-term implications of this remain unknown.
The authors based their findings on a search of “radiology, nuclear medicine and imaging” subcategories within medical publications over the course of April 2020.
While most journals are subscription-based, their overall impact isn’t significantly different from open-access publications.
The authors noted that evidence suggests many other university systems have canceled or limited their subscriptions to Elsevier following the UC dispute, including MIT, the University of North Carolina, Virginia Tech, and others.
And such arguments over costs, copyright and publication model are likely far from over, suggesting more research is needed to determine the consequences of these decisions.
“Publication model is likely to be a central issue in future negotiations between large universities and leading commercial publishers,” the authors concluded. “Future work assessing the impact of subscription cancelation on manuscript submission, access, review and citation seems warranted.”
Matt joined Chicago’s TriMed team in 2018 covering all areas of health imaging after two years reporting on the hospital field. He holds a bachelor’s in English from UIC, and enjoys a good cup of coffee and an interesting documentary.