1. looks like duplication. why not arxiv? could lead to multiple submission pipelines

2. as I understand researchers still pay to publish, no?

3. initiative could lead to centralization of publishing power(biased?, politics?, bureaucrats)

4. the problem is not just in access to papers (what about connection to business and real applications)

5. the article is published by CERN and is promotion (vague on details, buzzword-heavy)

> looks like duplication. why not arxiv? could lead to multiple submission pipelines

Arxiv is for preprints, this is full peer-reviewed publishing. It replaces academic journals, not preprint repositories like arxiv.

> as I understand researchers still pay to publish, no?

They mention Diamond Open Access, so probably not

> initiative could lead to centralization of publishing power

Publishing power is already incredibly centralized in hands of a few oligopolistic publishers

> the problem is not just in access to papers (what about connection to business and real applications)

Not sure what this point means and how it's relevant to this initiative

> the article is published by CERN and is promotion (vague on details, buzzword-heavy)

Idk, seems pretty specific to me

	▲	ktokarev an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Arxiv is for preprints, this is full peer-reviewed publishing. It replaces academic journals, not preprint repositories like arxiv. not exactly, they publish first, reviews happen afterwards, often not approved > They mention Diamond Open Access, so probably not not exactly, Diamond Open Access - is still an action plan, access is free only for EU-funded researchers (EU commission actually pays) > few oligopolistic publishers sounds interesting, who do you mean? > Not sure what this point means and how it's relevant to this initiative the initiative is about "sharing knowledge". wonder what is the real purpose > Idk, seems pretty specific to me "open science", "equitable access", "flagship initiative" etc.