> While I can empathize both with academics who might either want to monetize their research or those who might want to make it freely available to all—the choice, ideally, should be the authors’
It's unfortunate to see that the author here wrote in such length about a subject that he is obviously pretty clueless about.
The authors of academic publication do not receive royalties for their publications, peer reviewers are— likewise, unpaid peers—, as are many (though not all) journal editors.
None of the people responsible for creating these works are getting paid. Their only choice in this process is the choice to publish with established and prestigious journals. The journals are what put up the paywalls— but in the US they don't have a lawful copyright interest in the works.
It's unfortunate to see that the author here wrote in such length about a subject that he is obviously pretty clueless about.
The authors of academic publication do not receive royalties for their publications, peer reviewers are— likewise, unpaid peers—, as are many (though not all) journal editors.
None of the people responsible for creating these works are getting paid. Their only choice in this process is the choice to publish with established and prestigious journals. The journals are what put up the paywalls— but in the US they don't have a lawful copyright interest in the works.