[trapperkeeper74]

There are three activities:

- critical feedback on papers

- hypermonetization (and deleterious siloing) of works often produced with government grants, leading to primarily academics only having ready access to papers, whom don’t see the subscription costs as a burden to them.

- disseminating only papers meeting a threshold to maintain quality of the journal

Maybe scientists and academics should seek to create and use equivalent quality peer / committee adversalism but publish in open forum that operates based on donations.

Academia seems currently over-commercialised: industry getting cheap labor, undergrads going into debt and journals, law libraries and textbook companies making a killing by locking up knowledge behind a paywall. Research papers and case law should be available to the most people as possible for little or no cost.

[dnautics]

Why the emphasis on money? The structural organization of science as a hierarchical enterpise with gatekeepers to advancement will result in these problems regardless of funding or commercialization.

[AstralStorm]

Tying funding to it makes them much more acute though. Essentially forcing you to play by these rules in order to live.

Without being forced like this, many deadbeat fake journals would die and places like arxiv would flourish.

[marcosdumay]

That organization itself is a consequence of the funding policy. There's nothing else pushing scientists into a hierarchy, or at least nothing nearly as strong.