In response to this movement, the editors of Nature defend the value they add to the scientific process as follows: "[publishing original research requires us to] undertake careful assessment of scientific significance, and the refereeing stage involves much deliberation, occasional debate and revisions that significantly enhance the robustness and scientific impact of the paper".[1]<p>In other words, the editors of a respected scientific journal are openly admitting they would rather have all critical assessments, deliberations, debates, and revisions take place <i>behind closed doors</i> instead of out in the open, where it would benefit society the most! They don't see that they are <i>reducing</i> societal welfare!<p>I suspect the folks at Elsevier and the like are rationalizing their outdated business models with similarly flawed, self-serving logic. What a shame.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481409a.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481409a...</a>