On 7 March, Wiley received a letter of resignation signed by no fewer than 345 researchers with a connection to the journal Gender, Work and Organization, which is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year and is one of the leading journals in the field of feminist research. Since then, another 200 researchers have joined the protest and will no longer submit articles to the journal or peer review other contributions.

In their letter of resignation, the researchers criticise the journal for hiring three new editors from fields such as marketing and entrepreneurship, two of whom have no previous connection to the journal – as editors, reviews or contributors. They therefore claim that these editors do not reflect the journal’s academic profile.

One of the initiators of the mass resignation is Mie Plotnikof, who is an associate professor of education studies at the Danish School of Education and who, before leaving, worked as an associate editor on the journal. She explains that she resigned for several reasons.

“For a long time, we’ve seen that fewer resources have been allocated to the journal – even though the journal has become increasingly successful over the years – and a greater pressure to publish more, which generates higher revenues for the publisher. This financial pressure challenges the impartial and independent relationship between the publisher and the academic and editorial management of the journal,” says Mie Plotnikof.

She also points out that the pressure to publish more articles has not been backed up by more financial resources, which is putting the journal’s quality assurance processes under strain.

THREE NEW EDITORS-IN-CHIEF RECRUITED EXTERNALLY

But the final tipping point was the recruitment process that led to three new editors-in-chief being appointed, explains Mie Plotnikof. The positions had been announced, and there were several internal applicants.

“But the recruitment process lacked transparency from Wiley’s side, and we were unable to monitor the proceedings or to influence the choice of applicants. We knew it was time to make a stand when the publishers selected two new editors-in-chief with absolutely no connection to the journal, and a third editor-in-chief who had only worked for the journal in a non-central role. Wiley chose to reject the internal, highly qualified applicants, and we take this as a sign that the publishers are keen to define the direction and management of the journal.”

AN ALIENATING EXPERIENCE

It became clear to Mie Plotnikof that the new editors-in-chief lacked knowledge of the journal and the academic field when she and the other associate editors were asked to send them key words to describe their research and the journal’s central topics – so that the new editors-in-chief could send them relevant articles to coordinate peer review.

“It was alienating and gave the impression that they didn’t know their own editors or the research field,” she says.

Mie Plotnikof explains that the former editors tried to discuss their concerns with Wiley but were not taken seriously. They therefore saw no other option than to leave the journal to ensure that their field of research was not diluted by commercial interests.  

MAINSTREAMING

In their letter, the former editors of the journal state that they interpret Wiley’s decision to recruit externally as an unspoken strategy to mainstream the journal’s academic profile.

“It gives us no choice but to step back from the journal to preserve the quality and impact of gender research,” they write in the letter, in which they emphasise that their criticism is not directed at the new editors-in-chief personally.

But what is wrong with widening the research field covered by the journal?

“Our panel of editors has been criticised for lacking expertise in the areas of masculinity, technology and sustainability, but this is a straw man argument that shows how little the publishers know about our editorial research expertise. All of these areas are represented, but from a feminist research perspective. But Wiley seems to want to mainstream our profile, perhaps because doing so will make it easier to sell more copies of the journal,” says Mie Plotnikof.  

But isn’t it a good thing to bring in new researchers and other perspectives, also to avoid the field becoming too self-confirming?

“All academic fields operate between reproduction and new production – after all it’s a part of academic debate and critique to ensure a respect for established knowledge and a focus on progress and breakthroughs. New voices and talents regularly enter this field, and we have rigorous quality assurance systems to maintain our academic standards. But this is all beside the point – if I were suddenly made the editor-in-chief of a financial, medical or legal journal, they wouldn’t accept it either,” says Mie Plotnikof.

NOT EASY TO TURN YOUR BACK ON A JOURNAL

Mie Plotnikof explains that she was positively surprised by the level of support shown for the mass resignation. Because it’s not an easy decision to turn your back on a journal. Especially not for researchers who haven’t yet made it to associate professor or professor level and need to consider what makes sense in relation to a possible promotion.

“Academia is a meritocracy; having editorial responsibility for a journal engenders a power that some people might need. And early career researchers need to be given the responsibility to review articles and the opportunity to publish. So it’s not without cost for them to walk away. And it makes me proud that so many people have chosen integrity, support and solidarity over self-interest in this situation.”

The former editors of Gender, Work and Organization are now discussing ways to create a new platform for the research field and not least for the research community that underlies it.

It’s not the first time that researchers have resigned from a Wiley journal en masse. According to an article in Times Higher Education, back in 2020, 20 researchers left European Law Journal. In this case, it was also a dispute over academic freedom and commercial interests that caused them to stop their collaboration.

WILEY: WE HAVE NOT CHANGED THE JOURNAL’S AIMS OR QUALITY

Wiley’s vice president of publishing development, Allyn Molina, claims in a written statement that Wiley is “disappointed that departing members of the editorial team resigned” rather than choosing to “work with us.” 

“This journal has been owned and managed by Wiley for many years and our objective is to deliver scholarship that represents the interests and advances the needs of the community it serves. In part, this means responding to emerging and diverse areas of research, which reflects the increasing variety of submissions to the journal. We have not implemented any changes to the aims, scope, quality or quantity of articles published in the journal. We are disappointed that departing members of the editorial team resigned rather than work with us to ensure the continued success of the of this critically important journal. However, we remain confident in the future of the journal, and the vision of the new editorial team, which seeks to build upon the journal’s strong foundation,” writes Allyn Molina. 

She rejects the former editors’ claim that the recruitment process for the new editorial team lacked transparency.

“GWO's new editorial leadership was selected following a rigorous and inclusive process, with an open call for applications and multiple rounds of interviews involving an outgoing editor-in-chief, representatives of the editorial board, and an associate editor team. Based on the combined feedback from this process, we selected the team of editors best positioned to lead the journal forward,” writes Allyn Molina. 

WILEY: WE RECRUITED WIDELY TO AVOID INSULAR TEAMS

Why did you only recruit editors from outside the current editorial team? This has been interpreted by the former editors as a strategy to change the journal’s profile and make it more mainstream.

“When appointing new editors for Wiley owned and managed journals, we carefully review the applicants' academic credentials and include members of the current editorial team in the process. In this instance, we sought candidates from the former editorial team and from outside of the current team. We strongly considered several candidates from the associate editor team and were disappointed when they resigned,” writes Allyn Molina and continues:

“By considering a wide range of applicants, we aim to avoid creating insular teams and limiting opportunities for a broader range of scholars. We did not have an objective to mainstream the journal and, as previously stated, made no changes to the aims and scope,” she writes. 

Translated by Sarah Louise Jennings.