Exploitative publishing is not a technical problem. Publishing a journal isn't very hard and in particular in the academic world where writing stuff and organizing committees is something that people do all the time. Tons of artifacts are already available on various software and data repositories, either public or institutional.
The problem is that through some hoops of history a couple companies hold quite firmly the political control of important (and less important) journals and publications. To attack this there is no other way than to organize and move the journals to either an alternative administrative "host" entity (university, association, ...) or setup a new one. Which takes time, lots of emails, solid reputation and some luck in convincing people that have a say. And it's not like the academic world is particularly well currently, with everybody having tons of time to bootstrap such things.
Just calling for change and starting your "github for research" won't do anything (semantic scholar exists, tons of startup exist in this space). Anyone a bit serious studying what's happening for 1h can come up with tons of deficiencies. The question to ask is why it stays in this obviously deficient state: corporate political control, time, support from employers, ..
In fields where there aren't too many adversarial players (i'm talking about big industrial companies) like math or compsci things are kind of ok already. Its in biology and medicine where it's the worst. It's obviously because their fields are much more penetrated by the industry and more generally by economical goals. At some point you gotta be blind not to see that the ones dragging us behind (or more generally holding levers) are the guys with the big bucks.
The problem is that through some hoops of history a couple companies hold quite firmly the political control of important (and less important) journals and publications. To attack this there is no other way than to organize and move the journals to either an alternative administrative "host" entity (university, association, ...) or setup a new one. Which takes time, lots of emails, solid reputation and some luck in convincing people that have a say. And it's not like the academic world is particularly well currently, with everybody having tons of time to bootstrap such things.
Just calling for change and starting your "github for research" won't do anything (semantic scholar exists, tons of startup exist in this space). Anyone a bit serious studying what's happening for 1h can come up with tons of deficiencies. The question to ask is why it stays in this obviously deficient state: corporate political control, time, support from employers, ..