I wish that publishing became open-access. Unfortunately, it won't any time soon. At least, it won't until renowned scholars switch from publishing in locked-down journals to publishing in open-access journals, because untenured folks have to publish in the places where their most reputable colleagues do, and successful scholars have much to lose by publishing via open-access journals. No longer could they control the editing process as fully as they do now. As plenty of researchers in the sociology of the sciences have observed, the most successful scholars in any discipline form a group who all know each others' work, monopolize editorial board positions, and tend to inflate the value of eachother's work and that of eachother's students such that papers by those outside the group are denied publication much more than consideration of quality warrant. If the current group of gatekeeping scholars advocated open-source publishing they would lose their current publishing advantage and everything that comes with that--an easier time of promoting the careers of their supportive friends and students, an easier time padding out their vitas so that they can get grants, etc. In other words, they would threaten their enjoyment of what famed sociologist Robert Merton called the Matthew effect. Why would they ever do that? --Christian Nelson