> The reason is that the big publishers have rounded up the journals with the highest academic impact factors, in which publication is essential for researchers trying to secure grants and advance their careers(16). You can start reading open-access journals, but you can’t stop reading the closed ones.
This is the only problem standing in the way of open access publishing. While the arXiv doesn't offer peer review and so doesn't negate the need for journals, the ecosystem would quickly adapt to open peer review. Unfortunately the implied reputation of being published in certain journals is still something that's too ingrained in academia. It's getting better slowly but it's going to take at least a generation to go away at the current rate.
Unfortunately the implied reputation of being published in certain journals is still something that's too ingrained in academia.
It's worse than that: this isn't just a matter of old fogies (who will eventually retire) clinging to out-moded ways.
The problem is, academic career progression is dependent on publication. And these days, it's also contingent on citations. Your work is more likely to be cited if it's in a prominent journal. So by gaining a lock on the high academic impact publications, the big publishers have got a stranglehold on the career ladder.
... the ecosystem would quickly adapt to open peer review
A reviewer's comments and critiques of a scientific manuscript often say as much, or more, about the reviewer than they do about the work.
The current system should definitely be made more transparent and papers should be more freely available, especially those funded by public money, but there are currently plenty of avenues to openly comment on a piece of work (letters to the editor, blogs, journal website forums, opinion pieces, review articles, conference talks, positive or negative references in future publications, etc.)
Experiments are easy to propose, which makes finding faults and requesting more work from authors quite easy to do for reviewers. That's why, if a paper passes muster with 2-3 qualified reviewers, it should be allowed to be published, and additional criticisms can go through the existing channels I mentioned above. An open peer-review system, if I am imagining it correctly from the above poster's description, could turn into a three-ring circus, and scientists would waste unimaginable amounts of time defending every comment levied against their work instead of working on new projects.
I don't think that the methods of scientific review or discourse are broken. What needs to be fixed are issues of accessibility and transparency.
I didn't have a specific system in mind for 'open peer review'. I just meant that while peer review only happens through journals at the moment it doesn't depend on them in any fundamental way. The reputation attached to them does.
This is the only problem standing in the way of open access publishing. While the arXiv doesn't offer peer review and so doesn't negate the need for journals, the ecosystem would quickly adapt to open peer review. Unfortunately the implied reputation of being published in certain journals is still something that's too ingrained in academia. It's getting better slowly but it's going to take at least a generation to go away at the current rate.