A prestigious scientific journal just lost its editorial board in mass protest against AI

A mass exodus of editors at a prestigious scientific journal highlights growing tensions between publishers and academic communities.

The immediate trigger; Nearly the entire editorial board of Elsevier’s Journal of Human Evolution has resigned, marking the 20th such mass resignation from a scientific journal since 2023.

Core grievances: Elsevier’s proposed operational changes and cost-cutting measures sparked significant concern among the editorial board.

• The publisher planned to eliminate support positions for copy editing and special issues
• A dramatic reduction in associate editors was proposed, cutting the team by more than half
• Elsevier introduced an additional lower-tier editorial board with limited responsibilities
• The implementation of AI in production processes occurred without editorial consultation, resulting in errors
• Authors faced high page charges for publication

Critical breaking point: Elsevier’s ultimatum to either abandon the journal’s dual-editor model or accept a 50% reduction in editor compensation proved to be the final straw.

Broader industry context: The resignation reflects mounting tensions in scientific publishing.

• This incident represents part of a larger trend of editorial boards protesting publisher practices
• Some editors who resigned from other journals have established independent, open-access publications
• The integration of AI in scientific publishing remains controversial, though certain applications show promise when properly implemented
• Critics view Elsevier’s actions as prioritizing financial gains over academic quality and integrity

AI implementation concerns: The unauthorized introduction of artificial intelligence in production processes has raised red flags about quality control.

• Editorial board members discovered AI use only after noticing errors in published content
• The lack of transparency about AI implementation has damaged trust between publishers and editors
• Questions remain about the appropriate balance between technological efficiency and maintaining academic standards

Future implications: This mass resignation signals a potential shift in scientific publishing dynamics.

• The incident may accelerate the movement toward independent, open-access journals
• Publisher-editor relationships across scientific disciplines could face increased scrutiny
• The role of AI in academic publishing will likely require clearer guidelines and oversight
• Traditional publishing models may need to evolve to better balance commercial interests with academic quality

Reading between the lines: While technological advancement and cost efficiency are important considerations in scientific publishing, this resignation suggests that unilateral decisions and lack of transparency in implementing such changes can severely damage publisher-editor relationships and potentially compromise academic quality.