The current scientific publication model is only benefits the gatekeepers in publishing industry. It directly goes to the packet of publishing industry by ripping off the tax-payers twice with a steep price. Nowadays research institution pay high fees both for paywall and open-access. No matter you access or publish you some how give tax-payers money to these publishing industries. It has been shown the steep price is also un-justified as peer-review are done freely (for credit, not money) by science worker themselves and there are plenty of open-review and open-science projects which prove the price is not justified.<p>It might worth it to repeat part of my comment in [1]:<p>> The current business model as a whole is a legacy institution based on earlier monopoly by a charlatan named Maxwell [2]. He basically lured scientist by shiny hotels+extra packages to build the initial reputation and then monopolize the entire industry for decades. You can find a good review of this scheme from below YouTube video[3].<p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29218202" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29218202</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell</a><p>[3] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PriwCi6SzLo" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PriwCi6SzLo</a>
Why can't we have a wiki style libgen "alternative" if the only "copyright" arises from "editing" and miscellaneous efforts they put into it. Would libgen be "low quality" if it somehow had access to all research irrespective of quality?
You would expect that at least during the covid remote-work thing they would not go after sci-hub, the remote work tool that makes science faster and more productive (TM) .