Isn't it? I mean, I know there's no hard data on it since most journal subscriptions are bought in bulk, but the journals are using their impact factor to sell those subscriptions (case in point: [1]). Likewise, if they charge publication fees, authors will be most willing to pay large sums of (their funders') money for journals with high impact factors.
And do you really think Nature would still get sexy results if there are sexy proposals? Or would your proposal (which I do agree with, for the same reason the traditional publishers won't do it:) lead to better research but fewer "sexy" results? After all, journals with a high impact factor are also known to have more retractions.
(The traditional) publishers are going to keep doing what is bringing in the most money - or at least, what they believe what will. At this point, they don't believe that your system would lead to higher income.
What could change that if authors are no longer incentivised to chase high impact factor journals. But that means there will have to be better ways to evaluate them that will actually get adopted (i.e. not require evaluators to comb through every applicant's research [2]).
This is a difficult problem. And yes, I realise I'm not coming up with a solution. The only ideas I have on that front have a really small chance of success, but it's a bit too much to elaborate on that here. (Although in time I will write about them at [3].)
And do you really think Nature would still get sexy results if there are sexy proposals? Or would your proposal (which I do agree with, for the same reason the traditional publishers won't do it:) lead to better research but fewer "sexy" results? After all, journals with a high impact factor are also known to have more retractions.
(The traditional) publishers are going to keep doing what is bringing in the most money - or at least, what they believe what will. At this point, they don't believe that your system would lead to higher income.
What could change that if authors are no longer incentivised to chase high impact factor journals. But that means there will have to be better ways to evaluate them that will actually get adopted (i.e. not require evaluators to comb through every applicant's research [2]).
This is a difficult problem. And yes, I realise I'm not coming up with a solution. The only ideas I have on that front have a really small chance of success, but it's a bit too much to elaborate on that here. (Although in time I will write about them at [3].)
[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/simoxenham/status/235698457124425...
[2] https://theconversation.com/why-i-disagree-with-nobel-laurea...
[3] https://medium.com/flockademic