Sure! Here’s an informative article based on the content and ideas you provided:

—

# Non Solus: Rethinking the Relationship Between Researchers and Publishers in 2025

If you’ve ever glanced at the realm of academic publishing, you’ve probably encountered the term _non solus_ subtly placed in author notes or journals — perhaps even without realizing it. This Latin expression translates to “not alone,” and it carries a significant legacy. In 1620, Dutch publisher Isaac Elzevir embraced the term for his family’s publishing business, associating it with the image of a scholar beside an elm tree, entwined with a vine. Elzevir intended this as a strong metaphor: Authors and publishers flourish together, fostering the expansion of knowledge. In contemporary times, his firm’s heir, Elsevier, continues to prominently display this symbol.

However, in 2025, the interpretation of _non solus_ is undergoing scrutiny — and not everyone agrees that the collaboration between researchers and publishers is still so mutually beneficial.

## A Changed Landscape: Digital, AI, and Skyrocketing Costs

The academic publishing model of today is unrecognizable compared to even 30 years ago. Print journals, once prevalent, have mostly been replaced by digital platforms. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies now facilitate peer review, editing, and platform management. Researchers can swiftly develop new journal websites using cost-effective content management systems and databases. In theory, uploading and disseminating findings should be simpler — and less expensive — than ever before.

Yet paradoxically, publishing expenses have skyrocketed. The academic publishing sector is currently valued at approximately $19 billion. For-profit giants like Elsevier report profit margins exceeding 30%, making them often more lucrative than tech behemoths such as Google and Amazon. How? Primarily by exploiting a model where researchers contribute vast amounts of unpaid work.

Each year, U.S. scientists alone provide over $1.5 billion in unpaid peer review services. Researchers also generally submit their findings without receiving compensation — and often must pay article-processing charges (APCs) to share their work. These APCs can be five to ten times greater than the actual costs of publishing an article. The pressure to “publish or perish,” particularly intense among physicians and academics seeking career advancement, drives many into this system, either agreeing to pay or permitting their research to be confined behind paywalls.

In this light, the traditional _non solus_ emblem appears inverted. Instead of mutual assistance, numerous researchers perceive a troubling imbalance: publishers overextending and stifling the genuine tree of knowledge they profess to nurture.

## The Problem With the Current Model

The for-profit publishing landscape has perpetuated a cycle of increasing APCs, research waste, gatekeeping, and, arguably, exploitation of unpaid scientific effort. Publications often funded by taxpayer dollars through grants are then locked behind paywalls, unavailable to the public that supported the research.

Furthermore, the current model generates counterproductive incentives. Journals, motivated by profit, may prioritize marketable or “positive” studies over thorough but less marketable research. This distorts the scientific record, distancing academic publishing from its intended purpose: facilitating open, reliable knowledge dissemination.

## A Movement for Change: Researchers Reclaim Publishing

Acknowledging these realities, many within the scientific community are rallying for transformation. One such initiative is the Researchers’ Journal of Internal Medicine, a nonprofit journal established by over two dozen academics dedicated to reforming the conventional publishing framework.

This new journal embodies a bold yet straightforward concept: Remove profit-driven intermediaries from the process. The journal does not charge APCs and does not obscure scientific knowledge behind paywalls. Peer reviewers and authors receive honoraria or charitable contributions made in their name, recognizing the worth of their work.

Their model resonates with the original essence of _non solus_ — but without corporate greed.

Rather than viewing publishing as a business first and a public service second, the Researchers’ Journal of Internal Medicine and similar initiatives advocate for academic publishing to be regarded as a genuine public good, creating a more sustainable and equitable future for scientific communication.

## The Future of Academic Publishing: A New Non Solus

Currently, academics, physicians, and researchers encounter a choice: Continue supporting a for-profit ecosystem that extracts labor and restricts access to knowledge, or collaborate to forge alternative models that genuinely benefit science and society.

In this regard, _non solus_ remains profoundly pertinent. Scientific advancement requires collaboration. However, the “vine” — the publisher — must once again aid, rather than overshadow, the “tree” — the body of scientific knowledge.

The vision is evident: In 2025 and beyond, researchers can reclaim the true essence of “not alone” — collaborating not for corporations, but for the progress of human understanding itself.

—

> 🎓 _Brian Elliott is a pulmonary and critical care fellow and the author of_ [White Coat Ways: A