I know in some disciplines, journals routinely pass along the the costs of publishing to the authors themselves, so where does that fit into the analogy?

Also, it seems worth bringing up Nick Montfort (and others) who have sworn off publishing in or supporting “closed-access” journals, on the grounds that these publish in bad faith. My response at the time was the economics of publishing (i.e. CV lines) make that a harder choice for grad students and junior faculty, but the ethical angle is pretty interesting. It’s been argued (I forget by whom) that employees of the state have an obligation to make the work they produce publicly available to the tax payers who support us.

I don’t know about that, but I can certainly attest to the frustration of being at a smaller institution that can’t afford some of the (really expensive) journal subscriptions I’d like and that I got used to having at a bigger institution.

Anyway, I think this is really interesting stuff, and I think the parallel implications for an economic model go broader than the efficacy or impetus for peer review.