Published today in PLoS Medicine:
This essay makes the underlying assumption that scientific information is an economic commodity, and that scientific journals are a medium for its dissemination and exchange. While this exchange system differs from a conventional market in many senses, including the nature of payments, it shares the goal of transferring the commodity (knowledge) from its producers (scientists) to its consumers (other scientists, administrators, physicians, patients, and funding agencies). The function of this system has major consequences. Idealists may be offended that research be compared to widgets, but realists will acknowledge that journals generate revenue; publications are critical in drug development and marketing and to attract venture capital; and publishing defines successful scientific careers. Economic modelling of science may yield important insights.
That should be very interesting. One needs to make certain assumptions for these economic models to work in this context, and one would probably be that the system involves ideal, free actors. Which it does not unless there is open access publishing. Otherwise you have the same fallacies working that ruined the world's economy, etc.