There are literally tens of thousands of people in academia who could build a transparent, open-source, non-profit publishing system of their own.
Why don’t they?
There is a transitioning happening but progress churns slowly. I like to compare it to getting out of an abusive relationship.
https://sparcopen.org/our-work/big-deal-knowledge-base/unbundling-profiles/mit-libraries/
It’s happening in Germany as well. Universities are banding together to negotiate better deals with publishers - some subscriptions haven’t been renewed when the publishers weren’t forthcoming. It’s not a solution (that would be the wide establishment of independent, self organized/hosted Open Access journals - using Open Journal Systems for example) but it’s a start.
Well I don’t know about “highest” level.
It’s in some ways worse than that. it’s institutional corruption and collusion across all levels of power within institutions. Not having access to pear review, journals, the gravitas, the funding sources:it creates a monopoly of power for all players in the system where they aren’t benefited by opening up access
I don’t know about other fields, but we did do this for AI. It’s all community-run, papers are freely available for everyone to read, and the cost of submission in a peer-reviewed venue is to review other papers. The publishers don’t actually provide anything of value except name recognition and being “reputable”, which they maintain through momentum.
