Editor’s Note: Today’s post is by Rob Johnson and Sarah Greaves. Rob is Founder and Managing Director of Research Consulting. Sarah is an independent consultant working across STEM publishing. 

Society publishers are facing an existential moment regarding their impact, their future and their financial security. Our recent survey of 66 learned societies (primarily in the UK) revealed a revenue crisis which threatens the very existence of community-driven publishing, and by extension learned societies themselves. We reflect here on the picture emerging from our white paper (Safeguarding the future of society publishing) and a 2024 analysis of UK societies (You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone), which together indicate that there are huge challenges ahead in terms of revenue, longevity of publishing operations, and the impact of AI; many of which are amplified by a self-publishing exodus and the subject focus of the learned society. Society publishers themselves consistently identified greater collaboration as the key to addressing these challenges — whether working together on shared problems, partnering with larger publishers, or collectively developing responses to AI implementation and data integration challenges. Without learned societies the whole publishing ecosystem would lose valuable publishing partners, and the research communities would lose champions for research fields. The time to act is now.

The Revenue Reality Check: A Global Crisis with Local Evidence

When looking at the reality of publishing revenue for societies, the data is sobering. Since 2019, 56% of society publishers in our global survey have seen their journal revenues decline in absolute terms. When we account for inflation — 26% in the UK and 23% in the US over this period — the picture becomes even bleaker. Even societies that reported “stable” revenues actually experienced significant real-terms losses when the rate of inflation is taken into account. These decreases in publishing revenue — which often provide the vast majority of learned societies’ funding — are easily overlooked from year-to-year, particularly given the disruptive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, but when viewed over a long timeframe have profound implications.

These findings, based on self-reported data in our survey, might be dismissed as the result of selection bias, were they not reinforced by our longitudinal study of UK societies, which found that 15 out of 21 large societies that disclosed publishing revenues suffered real-terms declines over the past decade. The consistency between the two sets of data indicates that this is a systemic crisis affecting society publishing in the UK, US and, we suspect, across the Western world.

Furthermore, while it is certainly true that UK societies are over-represented in our survey sample, the patterns are strikingly similar in the US, as Figure 1 illustrates. For example, the proportion of societies that failed to achieve any revenue growth over the last five years is near-identical for the UK, at 63% (34/48 societies), and US, 60% (6/10 societies).

The impact of scale and discipline

However, there are things the aggregate statistics miss: the decline isn’t uniform. Our analysis reveals a tale of two sectors emerging within society publishing. Societies with larger journal portfolios (11+ titles) are not just surviving—some are thriving, with all four societies in our >20 journals category reporting revenue growth. Meanwhile, smaller societies, particularly those publishing just 1-5 journals, are struggling in a dramatic fashion (so much so that if these were for-profit organizations, it is highly likely they would be closing).

In addition the revenue crisis isn’t hitting all fields equally. Both our UK longitudinal data and the global survey show that societies in medicine and life sciences have been disproportionately affected, with the steepest revenue declines concentrated in these areas. This aligns with the intense pressure for open access publishing in health-related fields, driven by funder mandates and public interest.

Meanwhile, societies in physical sciences and multidisciplinary fields have shown greater resilience in both datasets.  This disciplinary divide has profound implications. If current trends continue, we risk losing precisely those society publishers that serve critical biomedical research communities — the very fields where society expertise and community connections are most valuable for maintaining research integrity and quality standards.

Many of these dramatic declines could be simply about economies of scale in an open access world. The cascade model — where rejected manuscripts flow from prestigious journals to more targeted journals within the same publisher’s portfolio — have become essential for maximizing revenues at many large commercial publishers. Societies with limited portfolios simply cannot compete. As one survey respondent put it: “The future of society publishing would be vastly improved if societies grouped together and published themselves in a large group. Publishing is most cost-efficient at scale, so it would take a large consortium of publishing societies to make it work.”

The Self-Publishing Exodus

Returning to our UK longitudinal data, it reveals an alarming trend that should be a word of warning to the global society publishing industry: the rapid decline of self-published societies. Between 2015 and 2023, the number of wholly self-published UK societies dropped from 68 to just 44 — a 35% decline in eight years. The bulk of this decline (17 societies) moved to outsourced models with single publishing partners, while five ceased publication entirely.

This exodus from self-publication represents more than operational changes — it signals a loss of independence and community control over publishing programs. Even though many societies outsource to save costs, our financial analysis indicates that self-published societies outperform their outsourced counterparts. Of the eight UK societies that remained self-published throughout 2015-2023, all but one grew their revenues, with median growth of 21% — roughly in line with inflation. By contrast, societies that outsourced throughout saw median revenue declines of 30%. Isolating the effect of self-publication is challenging due to confounding variables, most notably the size of journal portfolios, which strongly correlates with both publishing model choice and financial outcomes. However, the risk is that societies may be making strategic decisions based on flawed assumptions about the benefits of outsourcing. The stakes are high because outsourcing typically represents a one-way street — once the capability to self-publish is lost, it becomes extremely difficult and expensive to rebuild, making it crucial for societies to be absolutely clear on the benefits before relinquishing control.

Perhaps most revealing is what our combined data shows about publishing partnerships. While 73% of societies in our global survey work with publishing partners, and our longitudinal data shows increasing complexity in outsourcing arrangements, the relationship between outsourcing and financial performance is more nuanced than commonly assumed. There is a growing tendency for societies to work with multiple publishers rather than single partners, with the number of societies using multiple partners roughly tripling between 2015 and 2023. This fragmentation suggests that the traditional model of comprehensive publishing partnerships may be breaking down, replaced by more targeted service relationships.

The qualitative responses from our global survey paint a similarly complex picture of the partnership experience. Some societies described partnerships as essential lifelines, with a few noting that OA had led to an upturn in royalty income from their partners.

More typically, however, societies expressed frustration over loss of control and declining revenues: “We renewed our publishing contract with our publishing partner in 2022… We took a significant revenue hit with the new contract,” reported one US-based medical society.

The challenge isn’t partnerships per se, but power imbalances within them. As commercial pressures intensify, societies find themselves with diminishing negotiating power, particularly when their content becomes part of large transformative agreements they had little say in designing.

Hidden Strengths and Collaborative Solutions

Despite these challenges, our research revealed significant untapped potential within the society publishing sector. Many societies maintain capabilities that commercial publishers cannot replicate:  deep subject expertise, community trust, and commitment to quality over quantity.

Both our UK and global data show strong appetite for collaboration, with “collaboration between society publishers” ranking as the highest perceived opportunity in our international survey, alongside adoption of AI. The success of initiatives like the Society Publishers’ Coalition demonstrates that collective action can amplify society voices and create shared solutions.

Our UK data shows this collaboration is already happening organically, with existing society publishers entering the market as partners for other societies. Several respondents to our global survey suggested innovative approaches: joint publishing ventures, shared technology platforms, and collaborative licensing arrangements. These models could help smaller societies access the scale benefits that larger commercial publishers enjoy while maintaining community ownership and values.

Conclusion: A Choice the Community Must Make

Society publishers are at a crossroads. The current trajectory — declining revenues, increasing volumes, growing technological complexity, and abandonment of independent publishing — is unsustainable for many organizations. What is more, the majority of our data were gathered before the scale of the Trump administration’s cuts to US science funding became clear, with the outlook likely to have deteriorated even further in the intervening period.

Yet our research also reveals significant resilience, innovation, and collaborative potential within the sector. The convergence of our UK historical analysis and global survey paints a clear picture: the challenges facing society publishers are real, urgent, and accelerating. But it also reveals the strength, expertise, and determination of society publishers to find solutions that preserve their unique contribution to scholarly communication.

Societies working with commercial partners need to ensure their decisions are based on credible revenue expectations and corresponding cost savings — not just assumptions about what outsourcing will deliver. For societies with the means and will to publish independently, the data suggests there may be more opportunity in retaining or even reclaiming that independence than many realize. For others, new models of collaboration with mission-aligned partners offer promising alternatives.

The question isn’t whether society publishing will survive, but what form it will take. Will we see a consolidation that preserves only the largest society publishers, or can collaborative models emerge that safeguard the diversity and community connection that makes society publishing valuable?

The future of society publishing isn’t predetermined. It’s a choice the scholarly community must make together — and the window for making that choice may be narrowing faster than many realize.