# Key Points from #hplusroadmap IRC Discussion

• The academic publishing industry faces significant criticism for its business model where researchers pay $1500-3000 per page to publish while universities pay approximately $20,000 monthly for electronic access, creating a profitable but inefficient system that persists despite Nobel laureates advocating for open access.

• Participants discussed the Elsevier controversy where editors were offered $60 per processed article, viewed by some as inappropriate incentivization or bribery, leading to editorial board resignations and highlighting ethical concerns in academic publishing.

• The conversation revealed problems with Impact Factor as a proprietary metric owned by ISI rather than an open calculation, with emerging "altmetrics" being developed as alternatives, though companies like Mendeley (referred to as "mendelsevier") are commercializing these new metrics.

• Predatory open access journals were identified as an emerging problem, exploiting the "publish or perish" academic environment by charging $500-2000 per page while providing minimal quality control, essentially functioning as an "academic phishing" scheme.

• Alternative publishing models were debated, including decentralized peer endorsement systems and reputation-based validation ("Whuffie"), with links shared to innovative platforms like PeerJ and Academia.edu.

• A significant concern raised was that even if all publishing moved to open access immediately, content from 1920-2013 would remain inaccessible, with publishers claiming copyright on scanned versions of even older public domain works.

• DIY biology initiatives were discussed, including a Portland biohacking group and the concept of "black market antibodies" as alternatives to regulated medical treatments, reflecting the channel's interest in grassroots scientific innovation.