I don&#x27;t want to defend Elsevier, but this article was just egregiously one-sided.  Surely an article like this should examine whether this model is sustainable, or what it would really mean if these for-profit publishers disappeared.  (Some of them, for instance, employ full-time editors to sift through papers and pick the best ones.  How does this sifting happen in the brave new world of universal free access?)<p>Also they quote &quot;Robin Hood&quot; thus:<p>&quot;Elsevier, in contrast, operates by racket: If you do not send money, you will not read any papers.&quot;<p>Ummm, that&#x27;s how most businesses work.  If you want a sandwich, you have to pay for it first...  Not all businesses are rackets.<p>&quot;Robin Hood&quot; continues...<p>&quot;On my website, any person can read as many papers as they want for free, and sending donations is their free will. Why can Elsevier not work like this, I wonder?&quot;<p>Ummm, because they&#x27;re a for-profit company, and their officers have a obligation to try to maximize profit for their share-holders?<p>Again, I don&#x27;t want to defend Elsevier, but I think a better article would have acknowledged that there&#x27;s more than one side to this issue.