Recently, since the publisher Taylor&Francis excessively intervened in management, decision-making power of editors, publication charge, open access policy, etc., 44 editors of Critical Public Health decided to resign en bloc in July, 2023, and create a new independent journal. This decision is a response to the excessive intervention of the publisher.

A similar event also happened in April, 2023. All editors of NeuroImage, a top-ranked journal in the field of neuroimaging, as well as its companion journal NeuroImage: Reports, resigned over high page charges set by Elsevier, and created a new non-profit open access journal, Imaging Neuroscience.

Critical Public Health is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal that, along with its predecessor Radical Community Medicine, concentrates on critical analysis in the field of public health.

Editors of Critical Public Health quote an editorial published in 2021 to elaborate the history of the journal which affiliates to Taylor&Francis as a result of the integration of academic publish industry. These editors opposeTaylor&Francis’s mode of transformation from a subscription/open access hybrid model to a full open access model with charges to authors.

Co-editors-in-chief Judith Green and Lindsay McLaren wrote in the resignation that

• The rights amended by the publisher have significantly eroded editorial team’s ability to set strategic direction.

• The publisher forcing up the volume of articles that will be published may reduce the academic quality of the journal.

• The editorial team’s decision-making power has also been undermined by publisher’s arbitrarily alteration of information about the journal and requirements for manuscripts as well as outsourcing key functions.

• The publisher strives to transform the subscription/open access hybrid model of CPH to full open access model.

According to the new policy, authors need to pay as high as £2700 for article processing charge, equivalent to nearly 25,000 yuan, which will exacerbate the inequity embedded within scientific research.

Taylor&Francis has made it clear that they hold the choice, and the endorsement of editorial board is not the prerequisite for changing the funding ways of CPH.

In addition, the spokesman for Taylor&Francis said that they are ‘disappointed’ to be parting company with the editorial board, but respect the decision of editorial board, and will appoint a new editorial board.

Due to the intractable disagreement with the publisher, editors resigning from Critical Public Health have created a new publication, Journal of Critical Public Health, which is hosted by University of Calgary, and owned by Critical Public Health Network, a UK-based academic organization. This journal will carry on the philosophy and goals of the original journal, and promote the development of critical research in the field of public health.

This event has attracted widespread attention from the academic community. Some scholars supported the resignation of the editorial board, and considered this response as rebellion against the power of publishers. They thought that Critical Public Health journal is an important platform for critical thinking that should not be impacted by commercial interests, and expected that the new journal can inherit and develop the journal’s fine traditions.

Taylor&Francis seems to be arrogant as Elsevier, both of which expect to appoint a new editor-in-chief and editorial board. Fortunately, authors have a choice, and more and more people will stop supporting these journals because they must make good use of their funding.

However, some scholars have reservations about this event, and thought that the disagreement between Critical Public Health and the publisher is not irreconcilable. They also concerned that the creation of new journals may result in fragmentation and confusion of the field, thus affecting the academic impact and social contribution.