Hey everyone! I’ve been following since last year an interesting lawsuit between a group of scholars and the big publishing giants (Elsevier, Wiley, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, Wolters Kluwer, and more broadly the STM Association). The judge has just delivered the final ruling, which serves as a reality check on how the law views the world of academic publishing.
If you don’t want to dig through the 43-page PDF, here’s the “too long; didn’t read” version of why the case was dismissed.
What was the fight about?
The plaintiffs, a group of professors and scientists, alleged that the big publishers conspired to suppress competition by capitalizing on the “publish or perish” maxim, claiming they formed a “cartel.” They argued that the STM’ “International Ethical Principles for Scholarly Publication” were actually a set of binding anticompetitive rules:
- Unpaid peer review : The claim was that publishers agreed to not compensate scholars for their services.
- Single submission : A rule that “require[s] scholars to submit their articles to only one journal at a time,” which allegedly suppresses competition.
- The gag rule : An agreement to “prevent scholars from freely sharing their scientific findings” while a manuscript is under review.
The Court’s findings:
Judge Hector Gonzalez dismissed the case entirely on January 30, 2026. The core of the ruling is that the judge didn’t see these “Principles” as a smoking gun. He called the researchers’ interpretation a “tortured reading” of the documents.
-
Guidelines vs. Mandates : The court found that these principles are “guidelines concerning best practice[s]” and*“do not require any publisher to adopt any specific practice”.
-
Peer Review as volunteer work : The scholars argued that publishers conspired to never pay for peer review. The judge disagreed, pointing out that the STM documents describe peer review as “often unsung volunteer work” and an “obligation” for scholars. He ruled that these texts “do not plainly and explicitly dictate how members will conduct their separate businesses” regarding payment.
-
The single submission context : The plaintiffs called this an illegal restriction, however, the court described this as a “straightforward reminder of a type of you-should-know-better maxim” rather than an illegal ban. The judge noted that the publishers’ own text says concurrent submission is “sometimes justifiable,” so it’s not a strict, illegal ban.
-
Confidentiality vs. “Gagging” : Regarding the sharing of findings, the scholars claimed they were being “gagged” from sharing research during review. The judge shot this down, saying the policy does not address what authors can do with the research integral to their own work. “Its aim is not to “gag” authors from sharing important research, but to protect authors by establishing a norm that ensures an author’s work is held in confidence prior to publication.”
The Conclusion
The judge concluded that the plaintiffs’ entire argument required a “significant inferential leap.” He essentially stated that these industry principles are not a binding contract to disadvantage academics, but rather “guidelines concerning best practice”.
He dismissed the case “with prejudice,” saying the plaintiffs had “already had two bites at the apple and they have proven fruitless.” He won’t let them try a third time.
In summary, the court effectively ruled that the current academic system is simply “standard practice” and is legally viewed as a series of ethical guidelines rather than an illegal conspiracy.
Read the case:
gov.uscourts.nyed.520652.127.0.pdf (364.1 KB)