[uxp]

> It seems that the only thing keeping Elsevier and their ilk alive is the built-up reputation of the scientific journals that they have control over.

Isn't the reputation of those journals somewhat derived from the work that Elsevier puts into editing the papers that are submitted to them? I don't have enough knowledge to claim that it's a lot of work, nor that it costs them a lot to edit and review the submissions, but it's starting to sound like most of the arguments against Elsevier are completely ignoring the actual work they do.

"If we could find some way to do the work that makes the Science and Nature Journals desirable we could really change the world here. We already have the distribution portion figured out, so it shouldn't be hard!" I've got some really great ideas for an app, I just need a developer to implement it... etc.

Edit: I feel weird arguing for Elsevier. I personally would love to see all the paywalls and weird academic gateways that hide these fascinating nuggets of knowledge go away, but I have to play devil's advocate on this. Elsevier does do work, and that work is represented in the prestige that journals like Science exhibit.

[detaro]

Most of the review and editing isn't done by employees of the publisher, but by other scientists in the field. Sure, the main editors do important work coordinating the process and providing a point of contact, but they get a lot of value from unpaid work in the community. Which they then charge for access.

+ the status of a journal or conference is somewhat self-sustaining, since people want their papers in the best venues they'll submit more/better papers to the venues known as the good ones, which means those venues have a large pool of high-quality submissions to select from, which means they a) can boast high rejection rates and b) have great content, which means they are seen as high-quality, which ...