> I don't understand what value traditional publishers of scientific journals offer?
The best papers try to get published in the best journals. The academics get more professional credit for better journals. Then, the best journals can charge more money for access to the best papers. If you have a couple of Nobel laureates from the same subfield, they may be able to create a newly prestigious journal, but it's pretty much going to take that and time.
It's similar to MIT/CalTech/Stanford/the Ivy League. Sure, there may be a way to get similar instruction quality elsewhere, but the value they offer is based on they're elite reputation.
The best papers try to get published in the best journals. The academics get more professional credit for better journals. Then, the best journals can charge more money for access to the best papers. If you have a couple of Nobel laureates from the same subfield, they may be able to create a newly prestigious journal, but it's pretty much going to take that and time.
It's similar to MIT/CalTech/Stanford/the Ivy League. Sure, there may be a way to get similar instruction quality elsewhere, but the value they offer is based on they're elite reputation.