The article discusses the nature of scientific publication and the rise of open access. It argues that scientific communication is not merely an exchange of information but a market where information is exchanged for attention. Historically, scientists protected their discoveries through secrecy, but the emergence of academies and learned societies changed this by facilitating information sharing. These societies initially served as entertainment for noblemen but eventually contributed to the development of intellectual property. Publication, in this context, is akin to a "wage of fame," where scientists seek attention through citations. Citations serve as a measure of a paper's pragmatic value and influence. The article suggests that scientists, like entrepreneurs, aim to maximize their "income of expertise attention." 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, a new business model emerged, where information is offered for free to attract attention. This model, exemplified by Google Scholar, has led to concerns about publishers exploiting library budgets. Open access, which allows free access to information while authors bear the cost of marketing and pre-selection, is seen as a solution. However, the article warns that open access may not be revolutionary but rather a redistribution of costs. It also notes that open access may not address the Matthew effect, where prominent scientists receive more citations due to their reputation, not just their productivity. The article concludes that open access is not a panacea for monopolistic practices in scientific publishing and that addressing the Matthew effect would require significant changes to the culture of scientific recognition.The article discusses the nature of scientific publication and the rise of open access. It argues that scientific communication is not merely an exchange of information but a market where information is exchanged for attention. Historically, scientists protected their discoveries through secrecy, but the emergence of academies and learned societies changed this by facilitating information sharing. These societies initially served as entertainment for noblemen but eventually contributed to the development of intellectual property. Publication, in this context, is akin to a "wage of fame," where scientists seek attention through citations. Citations serve as a measure of a paper's pragmatic value and influence. The article suggests that scientists, like entrepreneurs, aim to maximize their "income of expertise attention." 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, a new business model emerged, where information is offered for free to attract attention. This model, exemplified by Google Scholar, has led to concerns about publishers exploiting library budgets. Open access, which allows free access to information while authors bear the cost of marketing and pre-selection, is seen as a solution. However, the article warns that open access may not be revolutionary but rather a redistribution of costs. It also notes that open access may not address the Matthew effect, where prominent scientists receive more citations due to their reputation, not just their productivity. The article concludes that open access is not a panacea for monopolistic practices in scientific publishing and that addressing the Matthew effect would require significant changes to the culture of scientific recognition.