The article discusses the nature of scientific publication and the role of open access in the scientific communication landscape. It argues that scientific publication is not merely a forum for information exchange but a market where information is exchanged for attention. Historically, scientists were not concerned with publishing their findings, as knowledge was seen as a form of power. The emergence of academies and learned societies in the early modern period changed this, as they provided new means of information sharing, initially as a form of entertainment for noblemen. Over time, these institutions became central to scientific communication. Publication allows intellectual property to be shared with the public, but citation is a key mechanism for measuring the pragmatic value of scientific information. Scientists, as entrepreneurs, aim to maximize the attention their work receives, which is measured by citations. This process is akin to how businessmen maximize profits. Publishers, as commercial entities, offer services such as pre-selection and marketing, which are not free but sold to authors or libraries. With the advent of digital media and the internet, a new business model has emerged where information is offered for free, relying on download figures and advertising. While this model has been successful for companies like Google, it does not fully compete with traditional publishers like Elsevier. Open access, which offers free access to information while bearing the costs of marketing and pre-selection, is seen as a solution that benefits both authors and the public. However, it may not be revolutionary, as it merely redistributes costs between publishers and authors. Open access is not a solution to the Matthew effect, which refers to the uneven distribution of citations based on reputation. This effect is driven by the desire for recognition and fame in science. The article suggests that fighting the Matthew effect would require significant changes, such as abolishing prestigious awards and suppressing citation indices. Open access, therefore, is not a revolutionary innovation but a means of cost redistribution in the scientific economy of attention.The article discusses the nature of scientific publication and the role of open access in the scientific communication landscape. It argues that scientific publication is not merely a forum for information exchange but a market where information is exchanged for attention. Historically, scientists were not concerned with publishing their findings, as knowledge was seen as a form of power. The emergence of academies and learned societies in the early modern period changed this, as they provided new means of information sharing, initially as a form of entertainment for noblemen. Over time, these institutions became central to scientific communication. Publication allows intellectual property to be shared with the public, but citation is a key mechanism for measuring the pragmatic value of scientific information. Scientists, as entrepreneurs, aim to maximize the attention their work receives, which is measured by citations. This process is akin to how businessmen maximize profits. Publishers, as commercial entities, offer services such as pre-selection and marketing, which are not free but sold to authors or libraries. With the advent of digital media and the internet, a new business model has emerged where information is offered for free, relying on download figures and advertising. While this model has been successful for companies like Google, it does not fully compete with traditional publishers like Elsevier. Open access, which offers free access to information while bearing the costs of marketing and pre-selection, is seen as a solution that benefits both authors and the public. However, it may not be revolutionary, as it merely redistributes costs between publishers and authors. Open access is not a solution to the Matthew effect, which refers to the uneven distribution of citations based on reputation. This effect is driven by the desire for recognition and fame in science. The article suggests that fighting the Matthew effect would require significant changes, such as abolishing prestigious awards and suppressing citation indices. Open access, therefore, is not a revolutionary innovation but a means of cost redistribution in the scientific economy of attention.