I think we're all too aware of how the other major content distributors have decided to handle the transition to the new business models brought about by the web. Music and movie distributors were the first to show everyone how not to do it. Newspapers are doing better, but it's taken a long time, and there are still those (Mr. "shut-up-and-charge-already" Murdoch) who don't get it. Academic publishers are learning from the mistakes of those who've gone before and certainly the people we see participating here seem to not be nearly so hostile as the music industry was, but the academic publishers are also owned by huge conglomerates so there's certainly reason to be worried that the whole organization is not nearly so savvy as the web-facing people we see around these parts. - Mr. Gunn

Great thoughts! Yesterday, I posted some thoughts on the Commonwealth Panel that appears to have motivated this blog post. (See it at http://hatchethead.posterous.com/panel-d... .) What I was struck by in the panel discussion was Dr. Friend's reference to 'the guild' that is protecting the status quo in science. (This is the 'even more guilty party of bad guys'.) Publishers meet the need created by the scientific method for vetting Good Science and disseminating that to the community. If the scientific community shifts its paradigm for how we communicate and how we credential the work of other scientists (e.g., in a way that doesn't rely the on low-bandwidth of prestigious journals), then the Publishers will adapt or die. The point I took away from the panel is that senior scientists (i.e., those who have made it through the tenure & promotion gauntlet or who otherwise have strong credentials) need to clear the way for and champion a new, more open and faster way to vet and disseminate Good Science. This means providing cover for and defending younger scientists who will innovate and employ these new tools. - Jason Miller

"They decide what is and isn’t fit for publishing. They decide when and where you can self-archive manuscripts and supplementary data. They mesmerize and trap us with the lure of journal impact factors like a baby unable to wean itself. Whether we are conscious of it or not, much of the direction taken in labs isn’t based on pure science, but based on what the editors of a high impact journal will publish." - Björn Brembs