Everyone acknowledges that science requires money. From paying salaries and buying equipment, to funding conference travel and of course, publishing manuscripts, the scientific endeavor is capital intensive.
Funding, whether public or private, ultimately derives from tax payers.
The central question we're grappling with here is whether the status quo, characterized by the vitally important peer review process going uncompensated, is optimal. Is society getting the most out of what it spends?
If we grant that the status quo is not optimal, what features might a better system have?
We argue for redirecting a large part of the academic publishing industry's profits (valued in the tens of billions annually) back into the academic community. If done thoughtfully, this can create incentive structures that improve error correction and promote knowledge creation.