@cfiesler I think this is the wrong approach really - academics should just publish gold/diamond open access in the first place. Increasingly funders mandate it, and it's better for everyone. Personal websites go down and can be hard to find, preprint servers generally have terrible metadata. making papers available long term is the actual job of the publishers (sometimes their only job!). If they're not fulfilling that basic job, why not publish elsewhere?

@yaxu @cfiesler Tons of researchers can't afford the fees many journals charge for those levels of open access. I'm probably considered a member of the Global South despite being geographically in North America –the answer to this ridddle is Mexico– and I'm not allowed to use departamental funding to pay for journals fees (this differs by department at my university: I'm in math where if you don't want open access you can always publish for free; I know that's harder to do in other fields, and I know for example that biologists at my university can pay for journals fees using university money). I might possibly use grant money for this, but I don't have a lot of that either and feel it's *much* better spent on my postdocs and graduate students. In my subfield of math (and adjacent ones) most papers of the last 10 years are on arXiv.org anyway. The only time I've ever been a coauthor of a paper we had to pay to get published it was with a European coauthor with a fancy EU grant that demanded open access but also allowed to use the grant's funds to pay for it. Even then, I think my coauthor only had enough money left over because the pandemic forced him to cancel many travel plans. 🙂