Antitrust Class Action to Challenge Collusion among the World’s Six Largest For-profit Publishers of Peer-reviewed Scholarly Journals

Authors

Lucina Uddin, University of California, Los Angeles
Dean M. Harvey, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Jallé H. Dafa, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Benjamin A. Trouvais, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Emily N. Harwell, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Benjamin D. Elga, Justice Catalyst Law
Janet Herold, Justice Catalyst Law

Document Type

Archival Material

Date of this Version

9-12-2024

Citation

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 1:24-cv-6409

Abstract

Scholar and scientist Dr. Lucina Uddin (the “Scholar Plaintiff”) brings this antitrust class action to challenge collusion among the world’s six largest for-profit publishers of peer-reviewed scholarly journals: (1) Elsevier B.V.; (2) Wolters Kluwer N.V.; (3) John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; (4) Sage Publications, Inc.; (5) Taylor and Francis Group, Ltd.; and (6) Springer Nature AG & Co. KGaA (collectively, the “Publisher Defendants”). In violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Publisher Defendants conspired to unlawfully appropriate billions of dollars that would have otherwise funded scientific research (the “Scheme”).

The Publisher Defendants’ Scheme has three primary components. First, the Publisher Defendants agreed to not compensate scholars for their labor, in particular not to pay for their peer review services (the “Unpaid Peer Review Rule”).

Second, the Publisher Defendants agreed not to compete with each other for manuscripts by requiring scholars to submit their manuscripts to only one journal at a time (the “Single Submission Rule”).

Third, the Publisher Defendants agreed to prohibit scholars from freely sharing the scientific advancements described in submitted manuscripts while those manuscripts are under peer review, a process that often takes over a year (the “Gag Rule”).