[sideshowb]

As long as universities keep evaluating academics based on the journals they publish in, then the top journals are going to keep charging big bucks.

There is a significant movement against this now https://sfdora.org/read/ - and I hope it succeeds, but it's an uphill battle against a lot of systemic pressures.

[MaxBarraclough]

The solution is for funding bodies to insist on open access publication. This isn't just a pipe dream. [0][1] All government funding should have this requirement.

[0] https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/research/digitalresearch/openac...

[1] https://www.openaire.eu/how-to-comply-to-h2020-mandates-for-...

[sideshowb]

Much of it does, but that doesn't solve the problem that the top open access journals charge thousands of pounds/dollars for the privilege.

[MaxBarraclough]

I think it does. If all publicly funded research is published open-access, and none of it is published in traditional paywalled journals, the signalling value of publishing in traditional journals will go away by necessity.

As less and less high quality modern research ends up behind paywalls, the bargaining power of traditional journals diminishes.

[sideshowb]

Why wouldn't the signalling value just be replaced by publishing in top (read: expensive to publish in) open access journals?

[MaxBarraclough]

That would be preferable to the current norm, but I agree it wouldn't be ideal. With further terms attached to government research funding, that could be addressed too. The resulting work shall not be published in an outlet where fees exceed $X. That would also close the door on researchers being tempted to spend their own money on publishing in a more impressive publication.

A similar approach could be taken to prohibit publication in journals with embargo periods, i.e. paywalling for a couple of years before permitting open access. [0] For publicly funded research, that isn't acceptable either.

If such rules are applied consistently from all funding sources, the game would change quickly, by necessity. Collective bargaining where the government holds all the cards, essentially.

That's how I see it, at least. I'm not a researcher, and I'm not an expert on open access.

The current norm strikes me as plainly outrageous. Huge sums of tax money being handed over to publishers who make it their business to withhold tax-funded research from the people who funded it. It also strikes me as fixable. It's a tragedy of the commons, and the government has the power to force the matter and resolve the problem.

On the plus side, it looks like there's a real push to do this kind of thing. [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access#Embargo_periods

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S

[sideshowb]

In my world (I am a researcher btw) I think expensive open access already is the current norm. But you're right, funders could start to impose limits. (Though I'm sure someone would raise an objection if they did, and I'd be interested to see what that was: your move, publishers!)

On a related note, reviewing work is highly skilled and usually unpaid. If (and that's a big if) we wanted to fix that, we'd have to make fees higher again.