> The journal companies essentially have a monopoly on the market. They must and should be broken up for the good of scientific research. The studies were funde

> The journal companies essentially have a monopoly on the market. They must and should be broken up for the good of scientific research. The studies were funded by the public, and should be accessible to the public. The problem is that almost by definition, they have a monopoly on "the market", since each paper is unique and non-fungible, and therefore arguably a separate market. A university can't decide not to subscribe to Cell, for example, and instead get the same research from other journals. This is a good thing (since it means research effort isn't being duplicated), but it means you can't just "break up" a publisher to bring pricing in line with a competitive market.