With faculty balking at the price of academic journals, can other digital publishing options get traction? University libraries are no strangers to one of the most popular online alternatives, the open-access archive. These archives enable scholars to upload work--including drafts of articles that are published later in subscription journals--so they can be accessed for free by the public. In the current higher education environment, though, no up-and-coming scholar can advance his career by placing articles in an open-access archive alone. In academia, there's no prestige in self-publishing. Fair or not, prestige matters. Publishing in high-profile journals--or failing to do so--can make or break a career in academia, where the American Association of University Professors estimates the ratio of tenure-track openings to new doctorates at around 1:4. Having an article appear in a big-name publication isn't just a win for the scholar. Schools use the prestige of their faculty to bargain for bigger budgets, draw new hires, and recruit students. Prospective students look for programs with high-profile faculty whose reputations will give them a boost in the grad school, post-doctorate, and job markets. The stakes are high, particularly in the hard sciences where there's big money to be won. Which explains why new journals--or new digital modes of scholarship--are slow to take off. It remains to be seen whether there's enough pent-up frustration in academia to overturn systems that are stacked in favor of publishers. There are encouraging signs that new open-access journals--following fair publishing practices--can achieve success online. While much of the anger about journal pricing has been aimed at Elsevier, the truth remains the company is a for-profit business that will charge what the market can bear. The real culprit in all this is the tenure-track culture of higher education that places a market-distorting emphasis on publishing in prestigious journals, often at the expense of academic freedom and efficiency.