"publishers across America make significant investments, at no cost to taxpayers" is an interesting claim. As I understand it, the majority of journal subscript

"publishers across America make significant investments, at no cost to taxpayers" is an interesting claim. As I understand it, the majority of journal subscription revenue is from libraries and universities. Are they not taxpayer-funded? I'd also be interested to know the reasoning behind "this cost shift would place billions of dollars of new and additional burden on taxpayers". Is that because universities will have to organise their own peer review instead of paying for journals to do it for them? Surely, if organising peer review is so valuable, the universities will happily pay for it, and the almighty market (hallowed be its name) will return those billions of dollars to their rightful owners. Broadly, I think this argument is worth reading with an eye to what it doesn't say, rather than what it does. It's big on lofty appeals to "government intervention in the private market", and fastidious about mentioning the "billions of dollars" that flow through journal publishers, yet mysteriously waffles on the actual value they provide in exchange.