If you’ve ever published or read scientific research, you’ve likely encountered the phrase non solus — subtly attached to over 720,000 research articles in 2024 alone. It’s Latin for “not alone.” In 1620, a Dutchman named Isaac Elzevir believed this phrase reflected the symbiotic relationship between authors and publishers — neither could succeed without the other. He incorporated non solus into his family’s publishing logo, alongside an image of a vine entwining a large elm tree, with a scholar standing nearby. According to Elsevier’s website (the descendent of Elzevir’s family company), the tree symbolizes publishers providing the scaffolding, the vine represents research bearing fruit, and non solus reflects the interdependence between them. But is that relationship still true in 2025?
The reality is that academic publishing in 2025 looks nothing like it did 30 years ago — let alone 400 years ago. Digital access has transformed the landscape, eclipsing traditional print journals. Even within digital platforms, artificial intelligence and automated editing tools have made reviewing and publishing manuscripts faster and more efficient than ever. Research-hosting websites can now be partially coded with AI and run on widely available, affordable content management systems and databases. But if publishing research is easier than ever, why is it more expensive than ever?
The bottom line is that most physicians need to publish to advance their careers, and when for-profit publishers control over 60 percent of scientific publications today, the result is a massive money-making machine. The academic publishing industry is now worth $19 billion. For-profit publishers like Elsevier have capitalized on this goldmine, boasting profit margins exceeding 30 percent — higher than Google, Amazon, and Target. It’s easy to hit those margins when researchers provide much of the labor for free. U.S.-based scientists alone contribute over $1.5 billion annually in unpaid peer review. They also submit research for free — or even pay to publish through article-processing charges (APCs), which at some journals are estimated to be 5–10 times higher than the true cost of publication. This forces researchers to choose between pay-walling their work from the public or feeding the for-profit publishing giants in a pay-to-publish ecosystem.
The problem with Elsevier’s logo is that it’s backward. A more accurate metaphor would be a tree of knowledge — the research — with a vine (the publisher) overgrowing it. Vines are invasive, and like any invasive species, their unchecked growth and selfish demand for resources are choking the native ability of research to thrive. The for-profit academic publishing system, in its relentless drive to maximize profits, has fueled a pay-to-publish model, contributed to research waste, and exploited researchers’ unpaid labor.
Researchers must start working together to make scientific publications a public good that’s actually open to the public. Over two dozen researchers and I founded a nonprofit organization with this purpose in mind. We created the Researchers’ Journal of Internal Medicine as not just a new research journal, but as a new way to publish research. We don’t charge APCs. We don’t hide science behind paywalls. And we don’t use free labor for profits. Instead, we recognize our reviewers and authors with honoraria or charitable donations in their name. Our goal is simple but radical: To remove the profiting middle-man in research and make science truly open.
At its core, academic publishing should be a communal effort to produce and share scientific knowledge. In that sense, non solus holds true — research can’t be done alone. But we can do it without for-profit publishers.
Brian Elliott is a pulmonary and critical care fellow and author of White Coat Ways: A History of Medical Traditions and Their Battle With Progress.
