Jeffrey Beall has convincingly shown through his discussion of predatory open access journals that open access is not the one-size-fits-all solution to free scholarly communication (Beall 2018). In doing so, he has aptly pointed to the corruption triggered by the establishment of indexing-based evaluation of scholarly work as the cause of the problem. More generally, the problem is the implementation of the competitive principle in science. The intention here is to institutionalize the science system as a market. Interestingly, Hayek (2005) already argued that this does not work.

Now, it is quite possible that the bellum omnium contra omnes (Hobbes 1936) is a state of nature; but it could also be created by institutionalizing the principle of competition. In any case, it is obvious that a central challenge for Open Access structures in the context of Open Science is the avoidance of abuse. It is clear that a solution based on the principle of competition does not provide a sustainable answer to this challenge. Nevertheless, an argument from Hayek can be used here: Hayek argues for an institutionalization of science that is as heterogeneous as possible.

Completely independent of market dogmatisms, this always makes sense from an epistemological point of view if the field is not to be left to a monistic theory alone, but if the limitedness of science (Gödel 1931) is to be systematically taken into account. For then scientific work cannot be controlled systematically. Therefore, it is also not predictable when and where relevant findings will be produced and communicated - or how relevance can be determined in this context. That ratios such as the impact factor are at best a ridiculous and at worst a dangerous answer to the problem is obvious.

A second aspect of the problem is that access to scientific communication and access to scientific positions are not independent of each other. This structure cannot be controlled systematically either. Therefore, it is necessary that people who do not have scientific positions can participate in scientific communication (this is also prevented by a communication system based on competition). That this is also in the interest of the freedom of science is obvious. This raises the question of which communication structure is best suited to the openness and freedom of the scientific debate.

To investigate this question, a discourse analysis (Babreri 2021) of the debate on Open Science and Open Access is first conducted. The result of the analysis is used to develop a structure for scientific communication using a systematic method (Meder 1986).

It stands to reason that the institutions that organize retrieval also organize the infrastructure for scientific communication. Unfortunately, the discourse analyses reveals one central problem: Researchers do not always act in the interest of research, but occasionally also pursue private, political or economic interests without clearly separating these interests from scientific interests. The resulting misappropriation of public property for private purposes is not legitimate and must be prevented (privat infrastructure must and can be used for private interests). Because researchers who are active in the science system also do this, the filter of affiliation is necessary, but not sufficient. A second filter is the economic filter: there must be no profit motives connected with the use of public infrastructure. This is easy to check. Political interests are more difficult, and this is mainly because university presidents are not judges. Therefore, a legal basis is required. Examples of such laws include laws prohibiting the dissemination of child pornography, insult, or defamation that apply to scientifc communication anyway. It can initially be assumed that these regulations are sufficient. However, it is interesting to note the obligation that state organs must maintain party-political neutrality (Dişçi 2019). This obligation should be extended to libraries. Within such a framework, it makes sense to offer additional services for proofreading, layout, and plagiarism checks. It is problematic to provide funds to researchers for response assistance, because it can be assumed that such funds are often misused for other purposes. However, this can be easily avoided if such positions are located in the libraries and thus removed from the direct access of researchers. This describes an appropriate structure for scholarly communication. It goes without saying that the same arguments can be made for libraries to provide a conference infrastructure and (if needed) pre-print servers.

Babreri, Alessandro. 2021. Von der Performanz – Zur Methodologie der Diskursanalyse nach Michel Foucault und Pierre Bourdieu. Köln: Janus Presse. Beall, Jeffrey. 2018. „Predatory journals exploit structural weaknesses in scholarly publishing“. 4open 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.1051/fopen/2018001. Dişçi, Duygu. 2019. Der Grundsatz politischer Neutralität: Grenzen der Äußerungsbefugnis politischer Amtsträger. 1. Aufl. Duncker & Humblot. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-55636-6. Gödel, Kurt. 1931. „Über formal unentscheidbare Satze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I“. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38: 173–98. Hayek, Friedrich August von. 2005. Die Verfassung der Freiheit. 4. Aufl (1. Aufl 1971, engl. 1960). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Hobbes, Thomas. 1936. Leviathan oder von Materie, Form und Gewalt des kirchlichen und bürgerlichen Staates. Zürich und Leipzig: Rascher Verlag. Meder, Norbert. 1986. „Der Sprachspieler - oder Kreativität als Selbstkonzept im Zeitalter der Information“. In Kreativität und Leistung. Wege und Irrwege der Selbstverwirklichung, herausgegeben von Konrad Adam, 140–49. Köln: Bachem.