A very nice summary of the tragic dead end that science has blundered into, and the open science movement that is trying to repair it, is at Nucleus Ambiguous
those not among the twitterati-blogosophers might be surprised to hear that many scientists now consider the main avenues of science communication hopelessly broken.
Here’s why: Scientific publishing is still largely modeled on assumptions and economics of the dead-tree publishing era. In those glory days, publishers provided editing, typesetting, printing, marketing and distribution services that were otherwise impractical for scientists to obtain on their own. These days, not so much. While most journals do continue to produce a few paper copies, the associated costs of producing those have dropped dramatically (of course, there are now other costs, like hosting websites and archiving materials). You would think that competitive forces would then drive publishers to lower their prices, but you would be wrong. The prices that publishers charge (mainly to academic libraries) for their work has instead increased, along with the profits of those publishers.
All this would be somewhat less galling if publishers were still providing a great deal of added value to the scientific process, but as mentioned above, most of the publishing, typesetting and marketing services they provided in days past are now nearly universally available at very low cost. As always, the vast majority of the work of science publishing is actually provided to publishers for free by the scientists themselves, the volunteer editors and peer reviewers who contribute the essential intellectual muscle to the process. To review the accusations against the industry: scientific publishers rely largely on volunteer labor to produce journals based on outdated communication models, for which they charge increasing prices to the institutions that provide that labor (universities) in order to generate high profit margins for themselves.
Find out how they get away with it, and what is being done about it, at the link.
The climate naysayers have an easy time aligning themselves with the open science movement. It’s important to understand that a science with enemies can be filibustered, especially when the critics/harassers outnumber the productive scientists. That in fact is what is happening in climate. But just because the naysayers adopt the protective coloration of the open science movement doesn’t mean that legitimate climate scientists have to support the status quo.
Radical openness will not, actually, repair relations with people who have no interest in being civil. Obviously.
But the current system is nonetheless badly in need of repair, and we should not allow the fact that our enemies find it convenient to say so distract us from the fact that it is true, nor allow it to dissuade us from being part of the solution.