>Scientific publishing is currently a multi-billion dollar industry, forcing scientists to pay huge sums to access or publish publicly-funded research – it's ti

>Scientific publishing is currently a multi-billion dollar industry, forcing scientists to pay huge sums to access or publish publicly-funded research – it's time for a democratic alternative. I'm always amazed at how easily people fall for the extremely naive "those poor academics being manipulated by these horrible publishing companies" narrative. The scientific publishing industry exists specifically because it supplies academics with what they need - a barrier for entry keeping others out. This, of course, is the purpose of peer review; that is, to ensure that the academic asking for the paper to be published has done the required work, read all the literature, and learned all the correct jargon and can therefore enter the prestigious club. The better the journal, the more exclusive the club. The academic must pass many hoops in order to move up in prestige and this protects those who have raised themselves through this imaginary system. (nowhere is the accuracy of the results assessed during peer review by the way, though accordance with current political trends is assessed). The other important trick academics use is esoteric language which the layman has trouble understanding. Together these two devices allow the academic to keep his cushy job, and also helps to ensure the layman doesn't realize 90% of what gets published in academia is absolute nonsense. Of course I could be wrong and tens of thousands of academics around the world are have spent the last 50 years prisoners to the publishing industry for absolutely no reason what so ever. What seems more likely to you guys?