My disapproval isn't based on making the papers harder to read. When properly done, equations are much easier to read than a textual version of the same content, for the same reasons that graphs and figures are. Nor is my disapproval based on applying math to everything under the sun. I do loves me my math afterall (though I do despise approach the logical positivists took when overapplying math). No, my disapproval is based on the anti-intellectualism that comes along with the fear/awe of mathematics. The knee-jerk "oh math people are soo smart" reaction. The need to puff oneself up, trying to show off with half-baked nonsense. etc. It does a disservice to mathematics, it does a disservice to the intellectual community at large, and it does a disservice to people who benefit from the intellectual community.

As far as publications go, I do get the feeling that something has to break pretty soon. There's too much worthwhile content to get published as is. Reviewing is a huge cost for the community--- a necessary cost for the maintenance of quality, but a cost unduly paid by the researching community itself rather than by publishers. Not to mention the various other problems with most academic publishers these days. I really like the arXiv model of open access, but it has a tendency to foist the reviewing process onto the readers (who are less capable of the job than the researchers, albeit there are more of them...). I wonder how we can get it (or another open model) to scale past the bottlenecks of traditional publishing, while still obtaining the benefits of the review process.