Let’s agree not all funds used to buy journals as “wasted”: The question is just how to drive up value. The key, to me, is bringing university-as-consumer (which drives library subscription costs) with university-as-producer incentives. Let’s perhaps agree too that this has so-far proven non-trivial. For instance, looking at University of Edinburgh journal subscription costs, they would not pay even for all Uof E researchers publishing in PLoS/PeerJ, let alone still buying access to everyone else’s papers — by a long way.
We’re both very much in favour of lower-costs and faster science. I’m very keen to push publish-while-reviewing, to link failures to replicate directly and obviously to the false-science originals, and to making knowledge findable, as g-scholar does). I’m also in favour of publishers who won’t cravenly capitulate when asked to not handle controversial subjects, and to building trusted sources. The task is maximising all those equations.
Phrases like “broadening article evaluation process” are too vague for me to agree with. But I do think we can do better with a mix of pre- and post- publication peer review, and bidding for ultimate homes of articles. It’s exciting times and the outcome I think will be better all around. I think Elsevier is effective enough to thrive in that world too. Not that I much care — not a shareholder, no family members… I just don’t get off on cat-fishing the fetish targets of the politically active left (and I don’t place you in that group). Anyhow, must go now to (happily) review another Elsevier article for nothing :-)