Agreed it's not just Elsivier. Agree that some of it is about "prestige", although I think it's somewhat more complicated than that. But let's just take your mo

Agreed it's not just Elsivier. Agree that some of it is about "prestige", although I think it's somewhat more complicated than that. But let's just take your model, sure. Where does the prestige come from? The editors of the journal, recognizing that they are pretty much solely responsible for the rigor/quality of the content (well, plus the authors of course), believe they can take their prestige with them. Are they wrong? I'm not sure. If so, why? Getting into it -- which I agree requires some knowledge of the actual business and market -- I think will lead you to the conclusion that it's not that nothing will change until "research no longer depends on prestige". The difficulty in changing things with individual walk-outs is real, but it's more about nothing will change until the entire economics of how the publishing system is funded changes. The University of California's battle with Elsevier was more market-shaking than an individual journal editorial board walk-out. The UC did eventually go back to Elsevier. I think they called Elsevier's bluff though. They went two years without an Elsevier contract, and my guess is that Elsevier was worried that the longer they went without it, the more negotiating power they'd have, rather than the more desperation. They wound up with a contract that provided much more open access than ever before, at similar prices to what they had previously been paying for much less open access. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/ucs-deal-elsevier-what-it-took-what-it-means-why-it-matters https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/ucs-deal-elsevie... The basic mismatch is that much (true, not all) of the value is provided by government and university funding (for the salaries of the faculty who do the research, write the articles, serve on the editorial board or referee articles (unpaid by the journals)) -- but the massive profits are all captured by the publisher (who, yes, provide some of the value). While paywalling the product from the citizens of the government who pay for much of it, or residents of the world that the authors who do the research would be happy to share it with. This is a weird situation, and it's not to me obvious that "relying on prestige" requires it to continue like this. But it's an economic/market problem, that will require major changes to the economic arrangements to change, and which the publishers of course won't cooperate with changing, they'll fight it tooth and nail. The UC Elsevier deal may be one model. From the UC press release: > We refer to these agreements as transformative open access agreements because they convert subscription payments into payments for open access publishing (with reading provided for free). It is a new approach we helped develop with other leading institutions a few years ago, in large part through the OA2020 initiative. Elsevier trying to raise prices for publishing (at least for those not covered by blanket contracts from institutions with more negotiating power, like UC) is their attempt to preserve their super-profits against this attempt at changing the market. It's an economic battle, I don't think it's outcome is certain just based on the nature of "prestige" in academic careers. I gather you do work in publishing? But don't want to reveal how? At a major academic publisher? I don't work in publishing, but do work in librarianship, although I don't work in acquisitions at a university, the vicinity gives me some view of the market and industry. Of course, the interests of librarians and those of commercial academic publishers currently seem to be opposed, or perceived as opposed.