On a good regulation of open access to scientific contributions Currently access to scientific contributions that are published online is a mess. That situation is annoying an increasing number of independently or in small organizations operating scientists. It cannot be denied that some institutions must earn their income via the distribution of information about scientific contributions, but partly they do this by keeping an archive of these contributions and asking a high price for offering a glimpse onto the archived matter. While a full 500 page book usually cost 40 euro or less, the institutions ask that same price for getting access to a five page article. This is absurd. These institutions exploit their privileged position in an irresponsible way. An alternative is to become a member of that institution. However, the membership is also not free. Further a large number of such institutions exist and becoming member of all of these is no option for unbounded scientists. Only universities, scientific institutions or industrial organizations might be able to afford such coverage. On the other hand another trend is settling. More and more scientists publish on free accessible e-print archives or on their own or the institutions website. Those media are not always free for the authors. Some strange and unjustified blocks are generated by some of these media. For example www.arXiv.org requests for endorsement and Wikipedia requires notability of contributions or contributors. Against to that completely free accessible e-archives, such as www.viXra.org exist. They publish not only papers. They also store complete books online as scientific e-books. This trend is quickly growing and a good way to get recognition is to publish new ideas via these open media. Currently it is far more difficult to get access to an old archived paper or book, than to access a recently published paper or e-book. Thus a kind of e-science is emerging. It renders the current science archives into archaic institutions that only inhibit the spread of science. If these institutions do not change their strategy they will soon only serve other outdated institutions.Peer review does not work properly. The reviewer has an impossible task. He can only cover a restricted area properly. So, outside that area he works on the base of intuition rather than on knowledge or fair expert judgment. So many articles pass peer-review in an unjustified way. On the other hand this situation creates the danger of unjustified rejects and stimulates the creation of clique communities. The mechanism inhibits the spread of new fresh ideas. Imagine what notability does to Wikipedia. It does not contain unorthodox or new fresh ideas.Â Â

In thisÂ  light the dependency of scientific carriers on citations becomes a farce. It must be replaced by a more sensible criterion.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â