So it's not that perfect after all?
I've read some history about this publishing dependency problem with Elsevier. The scientists are part of the problem too. They are not completely innocent nerds who got bullied into this system. Most of them embraced it for convenience and fame, because, see, they haven't got time and money to do that on their own, because they are so busy 'sciencing' (honestly, most of it isn't 'research' anymore).
I admire the German scientists who finally realized that mistake and now are trying to reverse it, if it is even possible.
Because the issue is not hosting/prodiding publishing venue.
The issue is that submitted original papers that are produced are garbage and neither EICs nor their reviewers give two cents about quality. Had not been the case this would not have happened:
Most of these companies have XML First type programs. What those who are so passionate about this topic should do is do is pay XML First fees for a sample of random 100 papers in 10 random publications and write a scraper to pull the papers in different production stages - from manuscripts to the end result. The beginning state would horrify you.
