How do you think it could be fixed?

Thank you!

I still miss the + operator too though.

To provide a better experience to your users. 2.0 removes a lot of code that has the sole purpose of supporting legacy IE. Remove that code, and jQuery is a smaller, faster library, making your website smaller and faster. A simple conditional comment to show 2.0 to most browsers and 1.9 to legacy IE provides a happy solution for everyone.

That said, I suspect that it would be library consortia that would band together to get into publishing, which may help override local pushback.

Of course, I did beg the question of what libraries-as-publishers would look like. My guess is that they’d look like arxiv.org with better curation and cat-herding of reviewers, where the reputation markers are associated with the article, not the collection.

I tend to agree that getting into scholarly publishing would make a LOT of sense for libraries… but also that it’s not going to happen. Among other reasons, because some Universities already HAVE publishing arms publishing journals… usually operating under the same ‘legacy’ problematic unsustainable business models, and sometimes attempting to generate a surplus to fund other university programs. But it’s unlikely to make sense to a university to fund it’s own internal (expensive) competition to an existing university program/subsidiary.

But what I think would really make (academic) libraries continue to be relevant would be for librarians to seriously consider getting into scholarly publishing. This would be a different kind of publishing — rather fewer journals, I suspect, and more emphasis on managing individual articles — and it wouldn’t be cheap. But then again, I think the current model is completely unsustainable.