is facing mounting pressure from scholars is facing mounting pressure from academics and open access advocates. It has been challenged because of its dubious business model:  many believe that its model is mainly driven by profit-making motive. Problem comes with how is trying to generate revenue. Furthermore,’s business practices lack transparency. Therefore, ‘it is time to account,’ says Sarah Bond.

Last year, came under fire from scholars when it announced new model of revenue generation. Its new business model that includes premium services such as ‘promotion of articles’ and special data analytics. Some researchers accuse for selling researchers’ personal data. Particularly,’s plan to monetize by ‘recommending articles’ took scholars by a total surprise.  They call the new plan ‘pay-to-play’ business model. Recommending articles, for reasons other than relevance, is unethical, according to Dr. Scott F. Johnson. This approach, if aggressively used, can inflate the impact of the paper.  Dr. Johnson says,  ‘paying for promotion of your work is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest’. However, strongly denies all accusations brought to it. It maintains that it took no action to charge authors for article promotion and never sold authors’ personal data for financial gain.

Researchers also criticized’s deceptive use of high-level .edu domain that is exclusively used by the US institutions of higher education. is neither an institution of higher education nor has any affiliation with them.

Some researchers have announced their intention to boycott and initiated the hash tag #DeleteAcademiaEdu. Others are encouraging fellow researchers to use fully open access repositories and a genuine social media networks that put the interest of academicians first.

Most of the proposed plans  by to monetize on its users, its claims it has millions of users, have faced heavy criticism.  Academia’s next plan is not clear yet. Ignoring mounting pressure from scholars and moving forward with its plans may cost Academia, at least in the long run.

Forbes | Dear Scholars, Delete Your Account At Academia.Edu

Chronicle | Scholars Criticize Proposal to Charge Authors for Recommendations

UA-Magazine | Academia’s New Business Plans

Thanks for reading this article. Please comment on it and also do not forget to share it.

Related Post

International OA week 2018: Designing Equitable Foundations for Open Knowledge

Open access has increasingly become the new norm. Countries and research funders are embracing open access. Many set targets to reach 100% open access before 2020. However, issues related to equitable sharing, diversity and inclusion is not fully addressed, according to a statement by SPARC. Open access should serve the need of all scholarly communities […]

Read more
French research institutions and Springer Nature failed to sign a new contract

French research institutions, following the measure taken by their counterparts in Germany, refused to agree on a new deal with Springer, one of the leading academic journals publishers. As a result, there is no new contract between the French research institutions and Springer Nature since the beginning of 2018. According to Times Higher Education report, […]

Read more
Open Access Academic Books are More Downloaded and Cited

A research conducted by Springer Nature reveals that publishing academic books on open access platforms have many benefits. This report, according to Springer Nature, is the first of its kind to make a comparative analysis of open access and non-open access academic books. The study highlights the benefits open access books has provided to authors, […]

Read more

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Please wait...

Subscribe to Open Access Newsletter

Please enter your email address and name below.