Working at one, I have to say I don't think this is true for all publishers.

Prices are a different thing, but I'm definitely spending my day here adding value.

Some think anything can be open sourced but that does not work in the current world where we live. For an obvious example SpaceX could not have been an open source project.

I suppose the general notion is that the only problem publishers solve is the distribution which is kinda non-value-adding nowadays, but don't think about the editorial process, which needs actual work.

Sure, I think you guys add value. My critique was towards the cost of old papers and the ownership which journals take for published work. You guys need to get paid but the world also needs it's open access to the scientific corpus.

The papers which have very little value adding editorial input do have a harder time legitimizing their slice of the pie, though.

Maybe not open source, but an open hardware project. The particular problem for SpaceX is that a lot of the IP is covered by ITAR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_... See this FAQ entry: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/faq/company#wiki_what_p...

But in theory it's possible, e.g. Facebook's Open Compute Project, it just needs the right kind of funding model.

To be honest, there's a lot of things that could be done differently.

It's just a matter of finding a way to do it that doesn't jeopardize the entire business.

Honest question: what is it you do that adds value?

I personally work on the Nature Index

Ok, fair enough - I can see how that's useful.

You could still add value without publisher. Many papers are funded by grants, and large chunk of grant goes to publisher. Remove publisher and here you have it - free access, peer review, editing.

Wonderfully said.