academic and professional publisher

Taylor & Francis

An Informa-owned academic and professional publisher operating journals, books, Routledge, CRC Press, and digital platforms. It has real knowledge value, but commercial academic publishing turns research dependence into institutional pricing power.

Why this matters: Taylor & Francis has substantial knowledge value, but commercial academic publishing, institutional pricing, and access restrictions keep it low.

Letter grade D Extractive Medium confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Parent / owner: Informa Last reviewed May 8, 2026

Taylor & Francis is Informa's academic-markets division, and Informa is now listed separately.

Final Score 16* D - Extractive

DEXTRACTIVE16 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material26

Bonus+0

Cap35Ownership <= 2 and Governance <= 2

After Cap26

Penalties-10

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Owned by Informa

The parent profile is currently rated D (Extractive, 17*). This subsidiary is not mechanically capped at the parent score, but parent control is part of the ownership, governance, policy, accountability opacity, reversibility, and harm analysis.

Evaluation Overview

D - Extractive

The score turns mainly on Product Integrity, with the largest penalty coming from Human Harm.

Strengths

Product Integrity5/5
Scale Integrity4/5
Extraction3/10

Penalties

Human Harm-2
Accountability Opacity-2
Identity Capture-2
Ideological Disavowal-2

Evidence state

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims9
Direct axis claims8
Coverage8/15

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	2 / 10	Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. That keeps Taylor & Francis low on Ownership: decisive control remains with shareholders, private owners, executives, or state insiders rather than affected people. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Second-layer publishing/news pass; calibrated against major academic publishers, technical publishers, global news brands, magazines, and media conglomerates. Uncertainty Focused second-layer category pass; later review should add more labor, pricing, ownership, editorial, and user-data evidence. Linked evidence Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. [1] context An Informa-owned academic and professional publisher operating journals, books, Routledge, CRC Press, and digital platforms. [2] context Taylor & Francis has substantial knowledge value, but commercial academic publishing, institutional pricing, and access restrictions keep it low. [3]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	2 / 10	Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Second-layer publishing/news pass; calibrated against major academic publishers, technical publishers, global news brands, magazines, and media conglomerates. Uncertainty Focused second-layer category pass; later review should add more labor, pricing, ownership, editorial, and user-data evidence. Linked evidence context Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. [1] context An Informa-owned academic and professional publisher operating journals, books, Routledge, CRC Press, and digital platforms. [2] context Taylor & Francis has substantial knowledge value, but commercial academic publishing, institutional pricing, and access restrictions keep it low. [3]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	3 / 10	Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. That keeps Taylor & Francis low on Extraction: the business model makes extraction from workers, users, suppliers, customers, or the public central rather than incidental. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Second-layer publishing/news pass; calibrated against major academic publishers, technical publishers, global news brands, magazines, and media conglomerates. Uncertainty Focused second-layer category pass; later review should add more labor, pricing, ownership, editorial, and user-data evidence. Linked evidence context Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. [1] context An Informa-owned academic and professional publisher operating journals, books, Routledge, CRC Press, and digital platforms. [2] context Taylor & Francis has substantial knowledge value, but commercial academic publishing, institutional pricing, and access restrictions keep it low. [3]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	3 / 7	Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. That places Taylor & Francis in the middle of Labor Sovereignty: workers or participants have some protection or agency, but not enough binding power to control the relationship. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Second-layer publishing/news pass; calibrated against major academic publishers, technical publishers, global news brands, magazines, and media conglomerates. Uncertainty Focused second-layer category pass; later review should add more labor, pricing, ownership, editorial, and user-data evidence. Linked evidence context Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. [1] context An Informa-owned academic and professional publisher operating journals, books, Routledge, CRC Press, and digital platforms. [2] context Taylor & Francis has substantial knowledge value, but commercial academic publishing, institutional pricing, and access restrictions keep it low. [3]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	2 / 7	Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. That keeps Taylor & Francis low on Solidarity with the Unemployed: the model provides little protection for people who leave, are excluded, or cannot bargain from employment. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Second-layer publishing/news pass; calibrated against major academic publishers, technical publishers, global news brands, magazines, and media conglomerates. Uncertainty Focused second-layer category pass; later review should add more labor, pricing, ownership, editorial, and user-data evidence. Linked evidence context Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. [1] context An Informa-owned academic and professional publisher operating journals, books, Routledge, CRC Press, and digital platforms. [2] context Taylor & Francis has substantial knowledge value, but commercial academic publishing, institutional pricing, and access restrictions keep it low. [3]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	3 / 7	Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. That places Taylor & Francis in the middle of Loss-Bearing Fidelity: there is some willingness to preserve obligations, but the record still leaves meaningful risk-shifting concerns. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Second-layer publishing/news pass; calibrated against major academic publishers, technical publishers, global news brands, magazines, and media conglomerates. Uncertainty Focused second-layer category pass; later review should add more labor, pricing, ownership, editorial, and user-data evidence. Linked evidence context Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. [1] context An Informa-owned academic and professional publisher operating journals, books, Routledge, CRC Press, and digital platforms. [2] context Taylor & Francis has substantial knowledge value, but commercial academic publishing, institutional pricing, and access restrictions keep it low. [3]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	2 / 5	Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. That places Taylor & Francis in the middle of Market Conduct: the product has real value but still uses meaningful lock-in, gatekeeping, market power, or dependency. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Second-layer publishing/news pass; calibrated against major academic publishers, technical publishers, global news brands, magazines, and media conglomerates. Uncertainty Focused second-layer category pass; later review should add more labor, pricing, ownership, editorial, and user-data evidence. Linked evidence context Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. [1] context An Informa-owned academic and professional publisher operating journals, books, Routledge, CRC Press, and digital platforms. [2] context Taylor & Francis has substantial knowledge value, but commercial academic publishing, institutional pricing, and access restrictions keep it low. [3]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	5 / 5	An Informa-owned academic and professional publisher operating journals, books, Routledge, CRC Press, and digital platforms. An Informa-owned academic and professional publisher operating journals, books, Routledge, CRC Press, and digital platforms. That places Taylor & Francis high on Product Integrity: the core offering is genuinely useful and comparatively less dependent on traps, degradation, or harmful dependencies. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Second-layer publishing/news pass; calibrated against major academic publishers, technical publishers, global news brands, magazines, and media conglomerates. Uncertainty Focused second-layer category pass; later review should add more labor, pricing, ownership, editorial, and user-data evidence. Linked evidence context Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. [1] An Informa-owned academic and professional publisher operating journals, books, Routledge, CRC Press, and digital platforms. [2] context Taylor & Francis has substantial knowledge value, but commercial academic publishing, institutional pricing, and access restrictions keep it low. [3]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	4 / 5	Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Second-layer publishing/news pass; calibrated against major academic publishers, technical publishers, global news brands, magazines, and media conglomerates. Uncertainty Focused second-layer category pass; later review should add more labor, pricing, ownership, editorial, and user-data evidence. Linked evidence context Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative. [1] context An Informa-owned academic and professional publisher operating journals, books, Routledge, CRC Press, and digital platforms. [2] context Taylor & Francis has substantial knowledge value, but commercial academic publishing, institutional pricing, and access restrictions keep it low. [3]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Human Harm ? Severity, scale, culpability, vulnerable targets, willful reoffense, reputation laundering, pattern escalation, and time decay. Range: -20 to 0.	-2	Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the human harm penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector. Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the human harm penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector. That warrants a limited Human Harm penalty because ordinary operation, documented misconduct, or institutional power creates serious injury, deprivation, abuse, or foreseeable human damage. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Second-layer publishing/news pass; calibrated against major academic publishers, technical publishers, global news brands, magazines, and media conglomerates. Uncertainty Focused second-layer category pass; later review should add more labor, pricing, ownership, editorial, and user-data evidence. Linked evidence Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the human harm penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector. [4]
Ecological Harm ? Footprint, trajectory, irreversibility, culpability, and scale, including whether ecological harm is central to the model and continued after credible notice. Range: -30 to 0.	-1	Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the ecological harm penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector. Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the ecological harm penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector. That warrants a limited Ecological Harm penalty because the institution causes or defends ecological damage that is more than incidental to the model. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Second-layer publishing/news pass; calibrated against major academic publishers, technical publishers, global news brands, magazines, and media conglomerates. Uncertainty Focused second-layer category pass; later review should add more labor, pricing, ownership, editorial, and user-data evidence. Linked evidence Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the ecological harm penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector. [5]
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the accountability-opacity penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector. Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the accountability-opacity penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector. That warrants a severe Accountability Opacity penalty because material facts, risks, conflicts, ownership, or accountability information are obscured from the public. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Second-layer publishing/news pass; calibrated against major academic publishers, technical publishers, global news brands, magazines, and media conglomerates. Uncertainty Focused second-layer category pass; later review should add more labor, pricing, ownership, editorial, and user-data evidence. Linked evidence Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the accountability-opacity penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector. [6]
Identity Capture ? Customer pressure, employee pressure, and pervasive identity saturation. Range: -3 to 0.	-2	Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the identity capture penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector. Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the identity capture penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector. That warrants a substantial Identity Capture penalty because users, workers, customers, or publics are pressured into identity attachment that protects institutional power. The value is substantial but not at the floor because the linked record shows serious conduct without the strongest aggravating factors on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Second-layer publishing/news pass; calibrated against major academic publishers, technical publishers, global news brands, magazines, and media conglomerates. Uncertainty Focused second-layer category pass; later review should add more labor, pricing, ownership, editorial, and user-data evidence. Linked evidence Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the identity capture penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector. [7]
Surveillance Capture ? Invasive surveillance, unreasonably non-optional tracking, facial recognition, biometric identification, or AI behavior scanning of customers, workers, bystanders, or the public. Range: -5 to 0.	-1	Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the surveillance capture penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector. Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the surveillance capture penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector. That warrants a limited Surveillance Capture penalty because customers, workers, users, bystanders, or the public are exposed to invasive tracking, biometrics, or behavior scanning. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Second-layer publishing/news pass; calibrated against major academic publishers, technical publishers, global news brands, magazines, and media conglomerates. Uncertainty Focused second-layer category pass; later review should add more labor, pricing, ownership, editorial, and user-data evidence. Linked evidence Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the surveillance capture penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector. [8]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-2	Taylor & Francis's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Taylor & Francis exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting… Taylor & Francis's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Taylor & Francis exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as neutral expertise, safety, objectivity, professionalism, administrative necessity, or public service. That warrants a substantial Ideological Disavowal penalty because the institution presents situated, contested choices as neutrality, expertise, inevitability, safety, or common sense. The value is substantial but not at the floor because the linked record shows serious conduct without the strongest aggravating factors on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Ideological Disavowal 0 to -3 recalibration: 0 for explicit standpoint or no penalty-level neutrality theater; -1 for bounded softening of contested choices; -2 for strong neutrality theater by a powerful institution; -3 for major gatekeeping or coercive power presented as neutral, necessary, objective, or non-ideological. Uncertainty This recalibration uses public self-presentation and profile evidence; later review should add direct language-analysis evidence for high-impact institutions. Linked evidence Taylor & Francis's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Taylor & Francis exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as neutral expertise, safety, objectivity, professionalism, administrative necessity, or public service. [9]

Bonus Credits

No bonus credits applied in this version.

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

Medium 67/100

9 verified linked claims 8 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 8/15 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 13/20

9 verified linked claims

Source quality 10/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 9/18

8 direct claims across 15 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 5/10

8/15 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1Taylor & Francis is structured as public-company subsidiary, not as a worker-, reader-, author-, or public cooperative.

Ownership Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 8, 2026

AI scaffold

Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%
Informa Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%

2An Informa-owned academic and professional publisher operating journals, books, Routledge, CRC Press, and digital platforms.

Product Integrity Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 8, 2026

AI scaffold

Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%
Informa Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%

3Taylor & Francis has substantial knowledge value, but commercial academic publishing, institutional pricing, and access restrictions keep it low.

Calculation Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 8, 2026

AI scaffold

Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%
Informa Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%

4Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the human harm penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector.

Human Harm Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 8, 2026

AI scaffold

Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%
Informa Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%

5Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the ecological harm penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector.

Ecological Harm Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 8, 2026

AI scaffold

Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%
Informa Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%

6Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the accountability-opacity penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector.

Accountability Opacity Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 8, 2026

AI scaffold

Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%
Informa Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%

7Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the identity capture penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector.

Identity Capture Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 8, 2026

AI scaffold

Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%
Informa Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%

8Taylor & Francis retains conduct relevant to the surveillance capture penalty: the record shows a concrete concern on that axis in this sector.

Surveillance Capture Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 8, 2026

AI scaffold

Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%
Informa Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%

9Taylor & Francis's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Taylor & Francis exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as neutral expertise, safety, objectivity, professionalism, administrative necessity, or public service.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 9, 2026

AI scaffold

Taylor & Francis official siteGeneral web source · 58%
Informa Taylor & FrancisGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

Competitors

AGOOD56 AK Press worker-owned independent book publisher and distributor · same market AGOOD56 Ghost Foundation nonprofit open-source publishing platform · same market BQUALIFIED49 Alliance of Independent Authors nonprofit independent-author association and watchdog · same market BQUALIFIED48 Autonomous Press worker-owned independent book publisher · same market BQUALIFIED47 Island Press nonprofit environmental book publisher · same market BQUALIFIED47 The New Press nonprofit public-interest book publisher · same market BQUALIFIED46 Haymarket Books nonprofit independent publisher · same market BQUALIFIED43 Bookshop.org independent-bookstore ecommerce platform · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Taylor & Francis Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

No company-specific audit entries have been published yet.

View Full Audit Log