My first thought would be an (3rd party)agent based escrow service for holding a certain percentage of fees for contract enforcement. That way the authors and publishers have a vested interest in keeping their agreements so as to not burn the rest of the earnings.
But I imagine that would fall apart once second and third order events start happening
If peer-review is a fundamental aspect of how science is done then we in academia are required to act as reviewers as part of our jobs. I assume there is no real argument as to if peer-review is needed. Instead one can argue ...
The information racketeers are trying to increase their monopoly. It is just a proposed merger at the moment. Those in the UK(?) & Germany(?) can contact their relevant competition & anti-trust commissions to oppose this move #SpringerNPGmerger
Don't call it the ball thing. Call it 'Pure Being'
I'm a BBSRC-funded researcher at the University of Bath working on extracting phylogeny from the literature using content mining. I started out as a Biology undergrad student at Imperial College, progressed to a Masters degree at the Natural History Museum, London, and submitted my PhD thesis on fossils and phylogeny at the University of Bath in 2013.
As a direct consequence of my research I have become involved with the Open Knowledge Foundation, particularly the Open Science Working Group as I think there is much room for improvement in the way that science is currently done - particularly with regard to providing Open Data & Code in re-usable and frictionless ways.