The big issue is that the individuals who lead these institutions are those who are successful with the status quo; perhaps some recognize the importance of changing it but I perceive that most would be unwilling to dismantle a system that worked well for them.

In part it’s prestige, which for some might matter for promotion purposes, and at least personally I’m more like to cite journals for which I know I trust their judgement in peer review and submission acceptance. There are predatory publishers which abuse the open access concept to make money, and if I’m reviewing literature I don’t want to have to also research if a journal can be trusted (unless of course the publication I want to include is novel or especially worthwhile).

Also, in many contexts open access requires payment by the authors; this may be fine if an author is in a large grant-funded lab or at an institution willing to fund the open access fee but for many of us non-research-track folks it’s kind of a deal breaker.

I’m not very interested in cryptocurrency generally but I’m interested in how the tech works–in addition to the aforementioned issues with security if one party controls a significant amount of the lightning network, wouldn’t lightning also be inefficient if a large percentage of transactions are one-offs? It would generate a transaction on the blockchain to open the payment channel between two accounts and a second transaction to close the account, correct? So if the actual number of transactions is two or less it doesn’t offer any actual advantage?