A recent report from UC on the scholarly publishing landscape. I haven't had a chance to read it yet but a quick read of the executive summary (see below for an excerpt from the press release) seems to say that academics will go forward (or not) at their own pace, thank you very much. One statement suggests that the new "tech-savvy" grad students and post-grads are making no more use of new technologies for scholarly publishing than their older colleagues. Duh. How else are they going to get tenure? This is evidence of nothing but the same problem that vexes universities from all angles, whether online learning, open data or scholarship - the status quo suits those in the system just fine.
The final report brings together the responses of 160 interviewees across 45, mostly elite, research institutions in seven selected academic fields: archaeology, astrophysics, biology, economics, history, music, and political science. Our premise has always been that disciplinary conventions matter and that social realities (and individual personality) will dictate how new practices, including those under the rubric of Web 2.0 or cyberinfrastructure, are adopted by scholars. That is, the academic values embodied in disciplinary cultures, as well as the interests of individual players, have to be considered when envisioning new schemata for the communication of scholarship at its various stages.
P.S. Note the BePress engine for the report.