> points at the fact that such proxies are needed, and that none better have yet emerged. Yes, I feel that this is the core issue: we keep relying on journal b

> points at the fact that such proxies are needed, and that none better have yet emerged. Yes, I feel that this is the core issue: we keep relying on journal brand names as some sort of proxy for a vague notion of "academic excellence". That is what is driving these prices up disproportionately, and which results in publishers like Elsevier being able to capture so much money merely (or at least primarily) for being the owners of those brand names, rather than for actual value they are adding. This fundamental unfairness is what gets people riled up, and what also feels like an "easy" way to increase funding for research, even if "just" by less than one perfect of US federal spending. (Which still is significant.) Of course, there is also the hope that by lowering the barrier to contribute to the scientific process, we can increase the pace with which we do research.