Forcing open access is still the same as just paying for the subscription, as far as it goes, since if public funds are used for this, it's all the same thing.
Maybe just bill them as an extra tax if they want to publish behind closed doors. Gradually increase the tax until they see the light. Or call it a fine if you like.
In France it is more or less like that. You have to upload your publications to http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr you want them to "count" (from the point of view of public research).
Some journals like to issue a “surcharge” for this so some of the cost is passed on to the authors.
Eg: https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/agreements/elsevier-nih...
One group selects research to fund in the social good. This is the INPUT to the scientific process.
The publishers filter the OUTPUT: they select what is noteworthy and (ostensibly) good science produced with those funds.
If I got a pile of cash to pursue an interesting cancer treatment, you’d want some filter on the output to know whether, indeed, I did anything noteworthy with the cash.
You may want to check this assumption. The publishers do not filter the output. It is done for free by the scientific community.
Source : I have been a reviewer for many of these publications over the years.
- Before: institutions paying the rent might be lame and want to hoard the benefits to themselves.
- Now: everyone gets the same benefits so there is no competitive advantage of being the institution able to pay.
Of course, this opens up regulatory capture where few notice the rent seeking on the government, but I hope that there is enough buzz around this issue that that phenomenon can be avoid.