Reformation of Science Publishing

The Stockholm Declaration

Academic publishing is in crisis — paywalls, predatory journals, and paper mills undermine trust in science. The Stockholm Declaration calls for reform to protect academic freedom and integrity.

Sign the Declaration

October 2025, Reformation of Science Publishing

Science Is Under Threat

Academic publishing, once the foundation of progress, is in crisis:

Paywalls block access to publicly funded knowledge.
Predatory journals flood the literature with unverified work.
Paper mills mass-produce fake studies that distort the scientific record.

This crisis wastes public funds, misleads policy, undermines medicine and technology — and erodes trust in science itself.

Our Call to Action

The Stockholm Declaration unites scientists, institutions, funders, and policymakers around the world.
Together, we demand reform to ensure that publishing serves science — not profit.

“Trust in science is essential for informed, balanced, and reliable decisions — and for the future of our global knowledge base.”

Four Principles for Change

1. Academia Resumes Control

Return ownership of journals to the academic community.
→ Promote non-profit, scholar-led publishing.
→ Authors retain their copyright.
→ Open, transparent, sustainable access for all.

2. Reward Quality, Not Quantity

End the “publish or perish” culture.
→ Evaluate research on merit, not metrics.
→ Focus on substance, not citation counts.
→ Recognize peer review as valuable academic work.

3. Independent Fraud Detection

Expose and prevent fake publications.
→ Validate quality/integrity markers to detect fake articles.
→ Flag and register fraudulent papers and journals.
→ Support independent integrity watchdogs

4. Legislation and Policy

Science deserves legal protection by regulation.
→ Define and sanction publishing fraud and corruption.
→ Advise/educate and fund institutional review boards
→ Enforce transparency and accountability.

Download the Full Stockholm Declaration

Read the complete statement outlining the urgent need to reform academic publishing and protect the integrity of science.

Download now
Or download the Spanish version

For further reading visit the official Article: The Royal Society

Press and Media responses

English

1. A tide of fabricated research risks scientific integrity
Financial Times
→ Read article
2025 | Language: English

2. Proposed actions against fake science presented after meeting
Kungl Vetenskapsakademien
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: English

3. Fake publishing – the greatest scientific fraud
Royal Society (London) Blog
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: English

4. Embrace non-profit publishing to tackle largest science crisis
Research professional news
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: English

German

1. Das Papier nicht wert
Die Zeit
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: German

2. Die größte wissenschaftliche Krise aller Zeiten
Wiarda Blog
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: German

3. Bringt KI die Wissenschaft in Gefahr?
Nano
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: German

4. Vorgehen gegen Wissenschaftsbetrug
Tagesschau
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: German

5. „Niemand weiß, was noch selbst erdacht ist“: Wie KI-generierte Fake-Forschung das Vertrauen in die Wissenschaft untergräbt
Tagesspiegel
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: German

6. Wissenschaftler sagen Fake Science den Kampf an
Biermann-Medizin
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: German

7. Für mehr Integrität in der Forschung
CBBS – University of Magdeburg
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: German

8. Die Stockholm-Deklaration: Ein Aufruf zur Reform der Wissenschaftspublikationen
TU Chemnitz
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: German

9. Kontrollen im Fälschungskreislauf
FAZ – Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: German

China

1. 《科学出版改革：斯德哥尔摩宣言》发布
ScienceNet.cn
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: Chinese

2. 清华大学图书馆举办“AI时代下的学术出版与科研诚信”专家座谈会
Tsinghua University news center
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: Chinese

Sweden

1. Forskare: ”Den största vetenskapliga krisen någonsin”
Dagens Nyheter (Swedish news)
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: Swedish

2. Åtgärdsförslag mot falsk vetenskap presenteras efter möte
Kungl Vetenskapsakademien
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: Swedish

3. REFORMERING AV VETENSKAPLIG PUBLICERING
KVA sekreterarensblogg
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: Swedish

4. Artikelfabriker hotar forskningen – så kan vi reformera publiceringssystemet
Curie – Swedish Research Council
→ Read article
November 2025 | Language: Swedish

Join the Call to Action – Co-Sign the Stockholm Declaration

Following the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration, the undersigned expresses support for the following principles of good publishing practice, aimed at fostering academic freedom and trustworthiness through community control, and commits to making their best effort to implement the corresponding measures.

Note: You may indicate your stance by selecting “agree” for all statements at once or by choosing individually for each of the 34 items below.

    Section 1: Academia resumes control of publishing

    1) Stop uncontrolled proliferation of low quality and predatory publishing

    2) Transition from subscriptions and transformative agreements to innovate digital open access models (free submission, free reading).

    3) Shift funding to open access publications.

    4) Encourage, test and support innovative, non-profit publishing models.

    5) Support researcher-led, non-profit academic publishing, especially open-access (OA) journals

    6) Researchers shall retain all rights, including AI licensing rights.

    7) Mandate human control of peer review.

    8) Support open-source information repositories that are interoperable.

    9) Host digital repositories to archive past and future publications independent of publishers.

    10) Open access of all digital publication records for AI-analysis.

    11) Develop and implement guidelines for AI-use in scientific publishing and data analysis.

    12) Reject unreasonable or non-transparent Article Processing Charges (APCs)

    13) Return profits made from publishing back to science

    14) Phase-out public spending on commercial publishing.

    15) Establish transparency of how publishers are funded.

    16) Recognize and prevent commercial bias.

    Section 2: Incentive systems to merit quality, not quantity

    17) Reward scientific achievement based primarily on quality – not quantity (metric system).

    18) Do not rank academicians or organizations (eg. Universities) using achievement metrics such as citation counts or publication number.

    19) Limit the number of publications listed in applications for funding or promotions (e.g. 10) depending on factors such as career-age, academic field, etc.

    20) Support achievement criteria which are adequate for each discipline and publishing traditions.

    21) Discourage "salami-slicing” of results to obtain “least publishable units”.

    22) Reduce the abundance of review articles (meta-analyses) and commentaries.

    23) Incentivize peer-review with appropriate reward systems.

    Section 3: Independent fraud detection and prevention

    24) Raise awareness of fake-paper production by paper mills.

    25) Offer integrity education to students, researchers, editors, publishers, administrators, decision-makers and journalists.

    26) Develop automated fraud detection systems to identify fake publications which are independent, researcher-controlled, and certified and operated by non-profit organizations.

    27) Establish integrity registries with quality markers (white-listing) of institutions, editors, journals and publishers.

    28) Reward sleuthing by those monitoring publishing fraud.

    29) Beware of unfair “whistle-blowers”.

    Section 4: Legislation & policies to protect science quality & integrity

    30) Advise/educate review boards how to ascertain publishing quality.

    31) Draft legal definitions of “fraudulent publishing” (is it breach of contract or a crime?).

    32) Draft national regulations to define, monitor and sanction violations of research integrity and mandate fraud listing by indexing services.

    33) Prohibit/ discourage the use of “reputation economy” score boards.

    34) Sanction institutions that artificially bolster high publication numbers and protect fraudsters.

    If you select "Representative of an organization", you confirm that you are the head (e.g., president) of that organization or are officially authorized to represent it. Typical organizations include universities, research institutions, funders, societies, academies, companies, and government sectors.
    In contrast, departments, institutes, or other subsections do not qualify as organizations and must register their vote as "individual".

    Type of participation* (please select either Representative or Individual)

    I confirm that I am entitled to legally/officially represent my organization.

    Financial interest*

    Your professional background* (select one that fits best)


    Institutional Email*

    Email (institutional email preferred)*





    Allowed formats: SVG or PNG Max: 5 MB per file

    * required fields

    Recommendation of how to come to a decision for co-signing
    It is up to the organization how to authorize the co-signing. Here are some options:

    • President of Chairperson to decide
    • Board of Directors
    • Section heads
    • Membership
    Scroll to Top