Yes. They should. It is in the best interests of humanity to make the knowledge obtained through research available to anyone looking for that knowledge. The

Yes. They should. It is in the best interests of humanity to make the knowledge obtained through research available to anyone looking for that knowledge. There is a clear consensus among scientists that the current publishing model is at best inexpedient and at worst hostile to that end. Most people are asking what good the current publishing model provides, but I think to answer that question we need to ask: "compared to what?" It seems clear to me that the current model is better than having no publishing mechanism at all, but I doubt that anyone seriously thinks that the "none" model is the only alternative. I think that if we sat down today and thought up a new publishing model from scratch, we would be able to outdo the status quo on just about every "good" people have mentioned here, as well as provide features that the current model is incapable of. I think it is highly likely that we could make a system that ran on donated resources alone. Some things we might want/have in a "from scratch" model: 1. Direct access to data-as-in-a-database instead of data-as-a-graph-in-a-PDF 2. Blockchain-based reputation system for scientists 3. P2P storage and sharing of scientific data 4. Tiers of scientific information, e.g. an informal forum-of-science, semi-formal wiki-of-science, and formal publications 5. Automated peer review process 6. A better and more consistent authoring tool for scientists