Over the holiday weekend, nearly the entire editorial board of Elsevier’s Journal of Human Evolution (JHE) resigned, citing serious issues stemming from the publisher’s practices. The mass resignation was described as a decision made "with heartfelt sadness and great regret." According to reports, the board members were frustrated by the introduction of AI in the production process, the imposition of high author fees, and erosion of editorial independence.
This incident marks the 20th mass resignation from a scientific journal since 2023, as many editors have reacted against controversial changes in the scientific publishing landscape. In their statement, the JHE editorial board expressed deep concern for their journal, which they had devoted significant time and effort to elevate over the past 38 years. They stated, "We find we can no longer work with Elsevier in good conscience."
The editors highlighted multiple transformations within the journal that compromised its core values, notably the removal of copy and special issues editors, which forced the board to take on these responsibilities. Their requests for proper editorial support were dismissed by Elsevier, who insisted that editors should not focus on aspects like grammar and accuracy.
Moreover, the restructuring of the editorial board is set to cut the number of associated editors in half, creating an unsustainable workload where fewer editors would manage a growing number of papers outside of their expertise. To make matters worse, Elsevier also unilaterally took control of the board structure, requiring associate editors to renew contracts annually, further undermining the integrity of the editorial process.
The decision to involve AI in the production process without previous notification has raised grave concerns, as it led to numerous formatting errors and the alteration of accepted papers. This situation persisted for six months and highlighted significant flaws in the journal’s operation, according to the editors’ comments. Furthermore, the exorbitant author fees have become a barrier for many contributors, contradicting promises of inclusivity.
The tipping point for the editorial board came when Elsevier announced it would discontinue the dual-editor model that had been in place since 1986 unless the co-editors accepted a 50 percent reduction in pay.
Critics have long targeted Elsevier for prioritizing profit over quality. Following the resignations, several voices in the academic community, including John Hawks, an anthropologist with publications in JHE, have expressed support for the board’s decision, emphasizing the lack of transparency over AI’s role in editorial practices.
The situation raises complex questions about the future use of AI in scientific publishing, especially after notable incidents of poorly executed AI content. While AI has potential benefits, its misuse in crucial editorial areas can undermine scientific research’s reliability. In light of these challenges, some former editors are working towards establishing independent nonprofit journals that maintain high academic standards.
