What's interesting here, is that this is not a technology problem. Nor is it a science problem. Nor economics. Its a strictly speaking one of sociology. The thi

What's interesting here, is that this is not a technology problem. Nor is it a science problem. Nor economics. Its a strictly speaking one of sociology. The things ostensibly being bought, sold and traded are not the tru determinants of value. The value of Science to an investor is a function of its monopoly position in the distribution of its content; and on its dervivative value as a "citation" flag to grant-writers and tenure comittees. The demand to "feed" this system is really driven on the supply side. The monopoly side on the backend is just an artificial scarcity model and barrier to entry, that indirectly feeds back into the supply function. That is to say, the "citation" credential needs artificial scarcity to function in its role of extracting derivative rents. It is the grant writers and the tenure comittees that ensure they have this subsidy, as a negative cost (free labour) of production. While none of this is new to anyone reading here, the mechanics are worth thinking through. Because the system is sponsored by public money (on the grants and indirectly, the academics) on the one hand, and on the other through public policy (monopoly rights to the iP that comes out of publicly funded research is <given for free> to monopolist publishers). The sociology of all of this is to avoid "mistakes" in the allocation of funds and tenure. That is to say, the adbication of the experts...to other "experts". But as the article points out...the grant writers and the tenure comittees are abdicating responsibility to....journalists...not scientists or actual experts, per-se in their fields. At least, that is the essence of the critique leveled herein.