[turbinerneiter]

Good point, but I think the opposite is true: scientific research is already broken, and blowing up the publishers would force us to rebuild it proper.

I co-authored a peer reviewed paper. Because our English is bad and our context is different, we called a system operating at 100Hz a "high frequency sensor" instead of a "fast sample rate (context) sensor". They gave that paper to an HF (radio) engineer to review it. He said "I think I was given this paper by mistake, this is not HF. Anyway, nice paper, change the color of this graph please."

Pair that with the general replication problem (no one has the money, time or incentive to replicate anything), that publish or perish mentality, the idiotic bias against publishing negative results - jeez, the situation is baaad.