I think refusing to transfer copyright is a better option in fields that have no open access journals, like my field. While I haven't published in a journal yet, the discussions I had with a few representatives of publishers at a conference suggested that some publishers will accept only a license to print if you ask. One publisher even showed me an example of an article where they did not own the copyright.
Pre-prints are also a good option, but you won't own the changes made in review if you transfer copyright (for a journal that is not open access).
Preprints are an excellent option, and every field should make distributing preprints at the standard servers (Arxiv, Biorxiv, etc.) the norm. The broad visibility from open preprint servers seems to be evolving into a different kind of peer review, to the extent that if, in my field, I see a published article with no arXiv preprint I wonder if the authors are trying to hide something.
I made a github repo of my last paper published in an Elsevier journal. This was cool because I could put the latex and simulation code for others to copy. https://github.com/lewis500/distribution-of-trip-lengths
The final version differs a little bit because they had a copy-editor go through and make some good improvements, even after the referees made their comments. Interestingly, the journal was fine with my linking to the repo within the text of the paper, as a way to share the code.
There is nothing like real open access though. This journal has wonderful typesetting and such and is totally free: https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/835/860
It's funny what tricks they use to justify their existence. Always emailing me about bizarre author features no one will use. Makes me sad to think of the engineers sitting in a big room year-on-year polishing features no one will use.
No paywall, no delay, straight to the web. Open data, open code, interactive/animated figures. Transparent, rolling peer review, version control, CC-BY license, citable DOIs. I was worried no one would read it, but it turns out science twitter is awesome. Very positive experience, so far.
My experience with publishing is that discoverability is a stronger function of advertising and (especially) getting cited than the publication venue. I do agree that bioarxiv and arxiv are nice advertising venues, but there are lots of ways to skin that cat.
The arXiv has overlay sites, such as http://www.arxiv-sanity.com/ or https://scirate.com/ , that improve discoverability over the basic arXiv interface; for example, you can browse all the papers in a given area posted in the last two months, sorted by some proxy for "interest." Of course there is also Google Scholar, and perhaps there are better ways.
I did some more digging. Turns out they have some leeway for submission fees under some conditions: https://www.plos.org/fee-assistance
They own infrastructure and cell towers and such but these publishers own mindshare and they have people’s attention and that’s the whole point. You’re not going to risk your career and publish in some unknown journal (for most people). Sad but true.
If this is true it reflects poorly on academia and science (insofar as science is an organized activity). Shouldn’t research be judged by its own merits, and the results it produces against verifiable goals and not the popularity contest of competing journals? IMHO to the extent that what you are saying is true, it’s honestly understandable and a little justified that the public is skeptical of academic science. You’re saying it’s in large part a popularity contest.
No, you want some sort of structure where you have people you trust do some sorting. That's what the publishing system does. (Plus the editing process).
Elsevier is earning money because they have created a structure of evaluation that's not entirely garbage, and that is self-reinforcing. It might be good to replace them with a non-profit approach, but isn't easy.
Elsevier doesn't read or evaluate them either. They use academic peer reviewers who don't have any equity or salary from Elsevier.
> No, you want some sort of structure where you have people you trust do some sorting.
None of those people are paid by Elsevier.
> That's what the publishing system does. (Plus the editing process).
No, the publishing system provides brands. If Elsevier actually curated, hired and paid a fair salary to the peer reviewers and researchers who actually performed and evaluate the research I think you would be right. But it still seems to me they're purely a marketing middleman that takes public funding and public laborers and turns a private profit.
It's difficult to change this situation because the journal subscription fees are paid from university budgets and are invisible to academics. Authors and editors benefit from affiliation with prestigious journals' brands. The university library system and the taxpayer pays the cost. Academics also pay a cost in wasted time wrestling with journal paywalls, but that will go away only decades after a complete switch to open access. Open Access is definitely the right thing to do, but the economic incentives are aligned against it. Since there are ~ 300 applicants per open faculty position these days every bit of self-promotion is perceived to be life-or-death for one's career.