Forty-one editors, associate editors and advisory board members resigned from their roles at the Review of Social Economy after the Association for Social Economics, which owns the journal, renewed its contract with publisher Taylor & Francis.
The resigning members, who cited concerns the publisher would eventually transition the journal to a model based wholly on author publishing fees as a reason for their departure, say they plan to launch their own publication. ASE, however, denies the journal plans to fully rely on author publishing charges.
The four coeditors of the journal resigned on July 4, according to an email to the ASE we have seen. Former editor Roberto Veneziani, economics professor at Queen Mary University of London, said that happened two days after the association decided to renew its contract with Taylor & Francis. On July 10, 37 associate editors and advisory board members also resigned, noting they shared the values of the coeditors.
The exodus will join our Mass Resignation List at number 56, the seventh we’ve covered this year. Earlier this month, editors of a statistics journal also resigned over article processing charges.
Review of Social Economy is a hybrid open access journal, giving authors the option to publish open access for a fee or having their work accessible to subscribers only. Veneziani told Retraction Watch he believed the journal would remain hybrid for at least the next three years. However, he claimed Taylor & Francis “have clarified that it is only a matter of time” before it becomes fully open access and relies on article processing fees paid by authors. Veneziani did not respond to our question asking for more information on how or when Taylor & Francis stated this.
When we asked the publisher if Veneziani’s claims were true, a spokesperson told us the journal would remain hybrid “for the immediate future.”
“The structure of ASE, with its financial dependence on the journal income, has created an unhealthy financial dependence on royalties from the journals,” the former editors wrote in their resignation letter.
In an announcement posted last night, ASE said the former editors’ request to move to a fully open access model “would have major implications for ASE’s revenues and operations.”
“While the editors of RoSE insist that the journal is moving towards a model with author publishing fees (APFs), not subscriptions, this is not the case. The journal will continue to publish on a hybrid model,” the announcement says.
In their resignation letter, the former editors said they have been in discussions about the possibility of moving to an open-access model for years. “We have used a considerable part of the editorial budget for ‘buying out’ articles from behind the pay wall, especially those of young scholars or scholars from non-OECD countries,” they wrote.
Veneziani said “the only time we’ve asked for a discount and/or waiver for authors coming from Africa (for the special issue on African Politics Philosophy and Economics published earlier this year) T&F have declined the request.”
Taylor & Francis offers waivers for article processing charges for authors in low-income countries, but only for those publishing in fully open-access journals, the publisher told us.
Four associate editors remain at the journal, including economist Léonce Ndikumana of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who told us he was “waiting to hear about the editorial strategy going forward before I decide whether I stay on or move on.” The other remaining editors didn’t respond to our email asking whether they plan on staying.
A representative from Taylor & Francis told us the journal “took the decision to maintain the existing hybrid model for the immediate future, ensuring Review of Social Economy remains a publishing option for all researchers, whether or not they have OA funding available.”
“We respect that the editorial team had a different vision which informed their decision to move on,” the spokesperson said. “The Association for Social Economics and Taylor & Francis thank the outgoing editors and board of the Review of Social Economy for their contributions to the journal.”
Veneziani said the editors are planning to launch a diamond Open Access journal, the Journal of Social Economy and Philosophy, under Stanford University Press. The journal would be more affordable for authors and readers, he said. Alan Harvey, director of Stanford University Press, confirmed the press is in discussions with the editors about a new proposed journal under the publisher’s Subscribe 2 Open program, which was “specifically established to address the growing concerns around commercial scholarly publishing practices.”
In its announcement, ASE said the editors of Review of Social Economy wanted to move to “another press” for complete open access. Veneziani told us the other publisher was Stanford University Press.
Prior to ASE publishing the statement on its website, Rojhat Avsar, association director for the organization, declined our request for comment. “This information was not supposed to be public and is strictly the internal affairs of the Association,” he told us. “Whoever has leaked it is no longer part of the Association (if it is the ex-editor of the journal) and does not have any right to share information that was meant to be circulated only within the ASE board.”
The coeditors maintained in their resignation letter that a complete open access model “would, with high likelihood, have allowed generating a stable income, while preserving the quality and integrity of the journal. But ASE’s leadership – with its short-term cycles, which make longer-term planning maybe more difficult than it would otherwise be – has decided that it does not want to take this step.”
Veneziani told us the short-term cycle referenced the ASE president one-year term: “we’ve now had to deal with a string of Presidents whose only objective was to finish their mandate without much hassle.”
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
Facts Only
*Review of Social Economy* experienced resignations from forty-one editors, associate editors, and advisory board members after the Association for Social Economics renewed its contract with Taylor & Francis.
Former members cited concerns about a potential transition to a model based wholly on author publishing fees as a reason for departure.
The resigning members plan to launch their own publications.
Four coeditors resigned on July 4.
Thirty-seven associate editors and advisory board members resigned on July 10.
Roberto Veneziani claimed Taylor & Francis indicated it was only a matter of time before the journal would become fully open access based on author publishing fees.
The publisher stated it would maintain the existing hybrid model for the immediate future.
Former editors wrote that financial dependence on royalties created unhealthy financial dependence.
The Association for Social Economics announced that moving to a fully open access model "would have major implications for ASE’s revenues and operations."
Former editors stated they had used the editorial budget for "buying out" articles from behind the paywall.
Taylor & Francis offers APC waivers only for authors in fully open-access journals in low-income countries.
Four associate editors remained, including Léonce Ndikumana.
Executive Summary
Forty-one editors, associate editors, and advisory board members resigned from the *Review of Social Economy* following the Association for Social Economics' renewal of its contract with publisher Taylor & Francis. Resignations were prompted by concerns that the publisher would transition the journal to a model based on author publishing fees. The resigning members stated their intention to launch their own publications. The Association for Social Economics denied plans for the journal to rely fully on author publishing charges, maintaining that the journal will continue under a hybrid model in the immediate future.
Former editor Roberto Veneziani claimed that Taylor & Francis indicated it was only a matter of time before the journal would transition to a fully open access model relying on article processing fees. The former editors cited financial dependence on royalties and noted that they had spent editorial budget "buying out" articles from behind the paywall. While some authors received waivers for Article Processing Charges (APCs) in low-income countries, T&F offered these only for journals already in a fully open-access model.
The publisher confirmed it would maintain the hybrid structure for the immediate future, stating this ensures the journal remains an option for all researchers regardless of Open Access funding availability. The departing editors expressed their desire to move to another press, specifically naming Stanford University Press for launching a diamond Open Access journal.
Full Take
The narrative presents a tension between institutional control and intellectual autonomy within academic publishing structures. The exodus highlights a friction point: the desire for a sustainable, author-centric financial model versus the established contractual and operational realities of large publishing houses. The core conflict is framed around the transition from subscription/royalty-based models to author publishing fee (APF) models, which fundamentally alters the relationship between scholars, journals, and funders.
The pattern observed is the use of existential threat—the potential loss of income or structure—to generate immediate behavioral change (resignations). The fact that the publisher explicitly states it will maintain the hybrid model for the immediate future acts as a temporary salve, managing the immediate fallout while acknowledging the underlying demand has shifted. This suggests that institutional inertia and commercial agreements resist rapid structural changes, even when internal stakeholders articulate a clear alternative vision.
The implication lies in the power dynamics embedded in journal governance. The previous editors' desire to move to a "diamond Open Access journal" with Stanford University Press suggests a successful parallel negotiation stream, demonstrating that an alternative path exists outside the established publisher-negotiated framework. The resistance stems from the short-term cycles within organizations, which prioritize mandate completion over long-term structural shifts, illustrating how temporal pressures can stifle necessary evolution in academic infrastructure. What costs are borne by the scholars when organizational timelines override systemic needs?
Sentinel — Human
The analysis presents a balanced, fact-based report synthesizing conflicting viewpoints surrounding a journal's transition to open access, showing characteristics typical of investigative journalism dealing with institutional conflict.