| I agree and both these two projects are remarkable contributions. 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. |