michael_nielsen

But it had many negative consequences. It meant that journals became a commodity bought in bulk, typically distinguished only by a very imperfect brand / quality marker like impact factor.

This was happening at a time when experimental new ideas should have been flourishing. At such a time you don't want things bought in bulk, you want them bought bespoke, based on highly idiosyncratic and individual criteria.

And so instead of competing on the basis of amazing new product types, increased product quality, & increased access, publishers instead compete by achieving economies of scale, driving down operating costs while maintaining revenue, improved sales, & maximizing brand lock-in.

This is reflected in many ways: most obviously, the many mergers and acquisitions of publishers, giving increased economies of scale. This has the very unfortunate by-product of reducing competition.

It also means that many (not all) of the people running scientific publishing are business people who specialize in managing operations (driving down operating costs while maintaining revenue), and in sales and marketing

An example: IIRC Derk Haank, the CEO of Elsevier from 1998-2004 and of Springer, later Springer-Nature, from 2004 to 2017, did his PhD on economies of scale.

Nothing intrinsically wrong with this. But we're at a time in history where the socially beneficial act isn't driving down operating costs while maintaining revenue. It's producing marvellous new tools, increasing access, etc. Current market structure isn't supporting this well

Brokenness 3: The lack of growth models for the best new ideas. An example is the arXiv preprint server. It's one of humanity's great achievements of the past 30 years. Just in economic terms, over the long run it will generate trillions of dollars in social utility for humanity