1. cheap it is, considering the size of the institutions that produce and benefit from them.
2. absurdly broken the private publishing industry has become.
Hum... What?
Universities at worst don't care. Most really want they work circulating and will do a lot of things to get it (many useless things that miss the point, but well, that's how people are).
Universities could push it harder. But they are surely pushing on the correct direction.
I wonder how aaronsw would feel about this statement.
"Very early in this post-arrest period, MIT decided to “remain neutral,” as between the government and Aaron Swartz, in the investigation and eventual prosecution. Initially this meant simply that MIT would not take a public position on the prosecution.Throughout the following (almost) two years, MIT’s decisions were mostly guided by this posture of neutrality."
"With regard to substance, MIT would make no statements, whether in support or in opposition, about the government’s decision to prosecute Aaron Swartz, the government’s decisions about charges in an indictment, or any possible plea bargain stances of the prosecution or the defense. [15]"
"[15]: This position of neutrality would not have necessarily extended to the sentencing phase of the prosecution, where MIT might have been prepared to advocate on behalf of Aaron Swartz had he been convicted."
My point was admittedly an aspirational one that requires major changes to the current IP ownership model of (often publicly funded) scholarly work. For example: see how publishers have used the legal system to throw the book at projects like sci-hub or individuals like aaronsw.
I do disagree that the main issue is universities not being keen on having their work circulated openly.
My take is this:
1. Publishers used to have a reasonable value prop, but are now basically robbing the public blind.
2. University admin roles, even at public universities, are more and more occupied by metric-obsessed, run-it-like-a-business types leading to:
3. Academics are stuck on the publish-or-perish hamster wheel that is fueled by a vague amorphous notion of journal prestige, set up and profited by said publishers.
I can't see how we can fundamentally change this situation without either of:
- top-down structural change in academic admin system allowing people to pursue academic careers without h-index and citation obsessions. Major tenure reform?
- bottom-up mobilization of academics or public interest groups, forcing publishers' hands into a more sane (and less profitable) business model. They will fight it tooth and nail of course, hence the need for mass coordinated action (boycotts, public shaming, etc.)
Both these avenues need playing politics on one level or another.
EDIT: formatting and clearer wording.
This second points is important for having a coherent discussion of the literature and avoiding fraud to some degree, and to their credit, the major journals do provide this (but not the first point). In this sense, I think Pubmed Central is an example of a good way towards a public utility model:
Take arXiv and expand its scope and upload everything there. Boom, problem effectively solved using mostly existing tools.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/intro/
Most NIH funded work is required to be deposited there, but at present, some journals place an embargo on new papers, giving them a year before they are available on PMC.
AFAIK the problem that the OP points out would not have been fixed by Pubmed. It would keep the abstracts, but the full contents would become dead links because the publishers _own_ the full article at the end of the day (which is absurd IMO).
And for archival: https://www.lockss.org/