[red_admiral]

Some of those governments, in Europe, are also starting to mandate open access though.

In practice, for maths papers I look on arXiv, for crypto papers on iacr and so on - academics generally want their work to be read (and cited) so they're usually happy to make it available for free. There's even tricks you can play like uploading an "author version" or "preprint" if you're forced to use a commercial publisher for a conference.

[goosedragons]

Open access is its own ridiculous racket. It usually costs the author literally thousands to publish as open access.

[red_admiral]

If you're funded by a Horizon/EU grant, you can cost the article publication charges into your grant application in most cases. It ends up being the funder, not the author, who pays.

That also means that if the whole racket is revisited at some point, then Elsevier will get to pick on someone their own size if not bigger - and will hopefully come off worse in that fight.

[goosedragons]

Is that the best use of grant funds though really? Yes, it's not the author directly out of pocket but that money could be used towards new equipment, boosting grad student/post-doc pay, etc.

[red_admiral]

It's not. But it's on the EU government, or possibly the Horizon scheme managers, to fix it.

[DoctorOetker]

One can publish on Zenodo, universities and authors can band together and split the difference: divide the cost of hosting and / or optionally paid peer review.

[Hitton]

>paid peer review

What? Elsevier doesn't pay reviewers either.

[DoctorOetker]

I know, what I'm saying is if universities band together, they can arrange for reviewers to be paid, so that authors at all universities start a discussion when they are assigned to review for Elsevier... for free.