> I think you give to much credit to the manufacture of academic sausage.
I don't understand what you mean by that. I merely point out it needs to be done and most discussions about open access publishing neglect to mention it.
I don't understand what you mean by that. I merely point out it needs to be done and most discussions about open access publishing neglect to mention it.
That's why we're able to have a conversation about open access in the first place: the original source of scarcity has mostly evaporated, but Elsevier et al. are still collecting rentier profits from the artificial scarcity of access to a printing press.
The part of academic journals that actually creates value - i.e. the work of writers, reviewers and editors - is mostly unpaid work anyway.
Yes, it's cheaper to produce an archive-ready article and I think it should have moved into the category of solved problems long ago. It just hasn't.
Like you said, the industry is ripe for disruption. It has been for over a decade.
Anyway, I think we are generally on the same side.
If you haven't already read the following you should: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic...
He also makes the "rentier capitalism" analogy.