the journals already literally do this to game their own system, so what does it say about the fairness of our systems if my papers with a legitimate research question are removed but theirs aren't?
the biggest worry i have is that is would backfire and instead of reading it as "this indicates the limits & mechanism of the ostensibly open but carefully gatekept system that structures credit by citation" ppl would read it as "this is why we need the gatekeepers"
@jonny the product being sold (not the only way to frame this but a decent one) is actually the prestige, not citations -> bibliometrics - those are just the means by which prestige are currently channeled. before academics started counting citations the way they do now the journals still served a similar function.
from this perspective, anyone who's done the research should know the system is unfair by design (rather than "broken", in decline from an imaginary ideal past) & the relevant question becomes something more like "which parts of the system will intervene to keep things functioning smoothly & how will they do so?"
serious answer re: biggest worry
@jonny any controversial action is going to get backlash as well as support - there isn't going to be unanimity - so maybe it's better to think of different groups of people, what you could do to shape their reactions, how easy it is for someone "uninvolved" to understand what point you were trying to make, etc.
also the historical record created by an intervention like this is important. for example if a lot of people support the action but after a few months only people who oppose it have created easily accessible media giving their perspectives, that will shape how people look back on it (& look at its ripple effects) to an enormous degree.
A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects.