[marcosdumay]

There's not much credential setting. I was getting proposals for reviewing papers shortly after my first one published, and honestly, it wasn't an incredibly nice one that could make me a name.

Publishers just coast on their current name, and are in a winner takes all market where the best authors will try to publish at the most famous journals. They are purely rent seekers, and won't go out without some external intervention.

[thr0waway1239]

I believe we both agree. However, when evaluating the costs of the mediating entities such as Elsevier the assumption is that you will be starting from scratch if those entities were to disappear tomorrow, and you will not simply be usurping their brand names/prestige/authority etc. The publishers may be coasting today on their current names - but note the comment in an adjacent thread [1] which talks about new publications and their general challenges - there was a real effort at some point to build up a name they can coast on, and that cost was probably not trivial.

In fact, even though I started the Elsevier bashing in this thread :-) - until we find out what the replacement system looks like I think we may not even completely see all the costs involved. I don't think the existence of the internet is suddenly going to turn the research publication process into a very resource efficient system.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12436924

[marcosdumay]

The rent they are coasting on is dictated by government and NGO bureaucracy. Until universities and grant distributors stop judging researchers mainly by the amount they publish on Elsevier journals, no newer publication will become prestigious. In fact, a few years ago I was doubting newer publication would ever get as far as they did.

Besides, research publication does have hight costs. But nearly all of that cost is not beared by publishers.