> I mean, it's manageable when there are three, but it'll become a huge burden when there's 20.
There are more than 20 already (more like 2000) when you start counting national/university-level preprint servers. As I said, Google Scholar already indexes all of these sites, with many nice features.
Personally I'm very fonf of exploring the two "citation light cones" emerging from one articles - those cited by the article (past) and those citing the article (future).
> Notice the modern media consumption patterns. The publisher doesn't matter. Only individual articles do. People land at articles through Google queries and links shared on social media. I believe scientific papers show the same pattern to a large degree.
I think you're absolutely correct about this. But what I'm proposing (many repositories, indexed by search engines, together giving complete coverage) is exactly like that. A single archive, Sci-Hub style, is more like what Google is trying to do with AMP.
There are more than 20 already (more like 2000) when you start counting national/university-level preprint servers. As I said, Google Scholar already indexes all of these sites, with many nice features.
Personally I'm very fonf of exploring the two "citation light cones" emerging from one articles - those cited by the article (past) and those citing the article (future).
> Notice the modern media consumption patterns. The publisher doesn't matter. Only individual articles do. People land at articles through Google queries and links shared on social media. I believe scientific papers show the same pattern to a large degree.
I think you're absolutely correct about this. But what I'm proposing (many repositories, indexed by search engines, together giving complete coverage) is exactly like that. A single archive, Sci-Hub style, is more like what Google is trying to do with AMP.