They have 25% of the market. Just split them in five, mandate that no entity can have more than five percent of the market and watch their margins shrink.
Maybe there is a less brutal way to do it, e.g., raise corporate tax in proportion to market share.
The point is that the market system we currently have does not prevent oligopoly power and that is creating all sorts of problems.
The product they are selling isn't science/articles, it's exclusivity. Despite the rhetoric, most people don't want inclusivity. They want their stuff to be in the best/exclusive/fancy group, and only want to consume the best, most exclusive stuff.
Obviously, my statement is not universal so providing some counter-examples is irrelevant.
That behavior definitely applicable here, but 25% of the market doesn't sound too exclusive even if they managed to pick in each and every domain the top journals. I mean, the sector is definitely very peculiar with a lot of baggage. The publish-or-perish environment was not inflicted by publishers, its something that emerged in the science communities. The obsessive impact ranking, citations etc reflects ultimately the difficulty of judging academic worth (on which careers and funding rely) at such industrial scales.
But when you see fat margins (and if it bothers you, as it seems to be the case with those walkouts) always look for the reasons nobody can undercut them. Most of the time the "moat" (as they like to say here on HN) is some cozy arrangement.
Maybe there is a less brutal way to do it, e.g., raise corporate tax in proportion to market share.
The point is that the market system we currently have does not prevent oligopoly power and that is creating all sorts of problems.