I think one aspect that is currently under investigated is the connection between Robert Maxwell and the scientific community.
TL;DR: A Guardian longread about how academic publishing became more profitable than Google, built on the back of scientists working for free — and why Robert Maxwell is the villain nobody talks about.
Most people know Robert Maxwell as a tabloid mogul, pension thief, and probable spy who fell off his yacht in 1991. What almost nobody talks about is that he may have done more lasting damage to the progress of human knowledge than any figure of the 20th century.
Scientific publishing today is a remarkably big business. Total global revenues exceed £19bn — somewhere between the film and music industries in size, but far more profitable. In 2010, Elsevier’s scientific publishing arm reported profits of £724m on £2bn in revenue — a 36% margin, higher than Apple, Google, or Amazon that year. 
But how did this happen? The business model is almost satirically exploitative. Scientists create work under their own direction, funded largely by governments, and give it to publishers for free. The bulk of editorial work — peer review — is done by working scientists on a volunteer basis. Publishers then sell the product back to government-funded university libraries, to be read by the same scientists who created it in the first place. 
A Deutsche Bank report called it a “bizarre” “triple-pay” system — the state funds most research, pays the salaries of most of those checking the quality of research, and then buys most of the published product. 
Enter Maxwell.
In the post-war boom, Maxwell spotted that science was about to become flush with government money. He bought up a fledgling British-German publishing venture in 1951 for £13,000 and turned it into Pergamon Press.  His key insight was brutal in its elegance: scientific articles are about unique discoveries — one article cannot substitute for another. If he could establish the “standard journal” in each specialisation, he owned a monopoly. And if he created three times as many journals as his competition, he would make three times more money. 
He called it a “perpetual financing machine.” Libraries were locked into a series of thousands of tiny monopolies.  “It’s no use trying to compete with me,”  he said in 1988 — and he was right.
Between 1975 and 1985, the average price of a journal doubled. By 1988, Harvard Library had overrun its research journal budget by half a million dollars. 
Why did Maxwell want the scientific community castrated and controlled?
Before Maxwell scientists gave ideas freely, shared them through learned societies, and the community governed what mattered. The journals were, as Maxwell’s own scientific editor Paul Rosbaud called them, his beloved little “ewe lambs” and Maxwell was the biblical King David, who would butcher and sell them for profit. 
In the Old Testament story (2 Samuel 12), a rich man with vast flocks takes a poor man’s single beloved lamb rather than slaughtering one of his own. It’s a parable about the strong exploiting what the weak cherish most. Maxwell did exactly this to the scientific community’s most precious asset: its independent ability to reproduce and share knowledge.
The deeper damage was behavioural. Scientists began shaping their work to impress journal editors rather than pursue what mattered most. Half of all clinical trials in the US are never published. The long, slow, nearly directionless work pursued by some of the most influential scientists of the 20th century is no longer a viable career option Fred Sanger, who published very little in the two decades between his 1958 and 1980 Nobel prizes, might not survive today’s system. 
Neutered not just economically, but intellectually.
Maxwell sold Pergamon to Elsevier in 1991 for £440m. The new owners immediately raised prices by 50% and eventually created “The Big Deal” — locking universities into multi-million pound subscription bundles.