Letter to the Editorial Board of Structural Change and Economic Dynamics: Opposing Submission Fees

Dear Editors of Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,

As members of the academic community, we are writing to express our strong opposition to the recent decision to introduce a submission fee for manuscripts, effective January 1, 2025. We find this policy not only objectionable but also profoundly damaging to the principles of academic openness and the fight against intellectual hegemony that your journal has long symbolized.

Introducing a submission fee erects a significant barrier for young scholars, especially those working on critical economics. By doing so, you risk entrenching an intellectual hierarchy that privileges those with greater resources, thereby reinforcing hegemonic structures in economic research. This decision directly contradicts the spirit of critical inquiry and independent thought that has been central to the journal’s mission.

Professor Luigi Pasinetti, a founding figure of this journal and a towering intellectual in the field of structural economic analysis, was a steadfast advocate for challenging dominant paradigms and fostering genuine scholarly debate. He repeatedly warned against practices that would marginalize critical voices and consolidate intellectual hegemony. By imposing a submission fee, the editorial board risks betraying the very principles that Pasinetti and many of us have fought to defend.

This move also sets a worrying precedent for other academic journals, further entrenching the commodification of academic publishing. Instead of serving as a forum for the contestation of dominant ideas, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics risks becoming yet another instrument of intellectual conformity, where access is determined by financial means rather than scholarly merit. The academic community has long opposed submission fees because they perpetuate systemic inequities and hinder the free exchange of ideas.

We acknowledge that a concern for many journals in prominent bibliometric rankings is the issue of serial submissions. This is indeed a real problem, but it requires a cultural solution rather than a financial one. For years, young researchers have been taught that the quantity of publications matters more than their quality—a notion that publishers have arguably benefited from. Addressing this distorted practice demands courage and a commitment to fostering genuine research practices, not by imposing financial barriers but by encouraging thoughtful and meaningful scholarship.

We urge the editorial board to reconsider this policy immediately. Failing to do so will not only alienate a significant portion of your readership and contributors but also tarnish the journal's reputation as a bastion of critical economic thought.

We stand ready to engage in a dialogue with the editorial board to seek alternative solutions that preserve the journal’s commitment to resisting intellectual hegemony and promoting genuine scholarly inquiry. However, we must emphasize that this policy, in its current form, is unacceptable to us and to many others within the academic community.