[Re: https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-access-80-gates-foundation-open-ac... ]
Thanks Neil for this perspective. The Gates transition really moved the needle and has led other foundations and funders -- and indeed researchers themselves -- to reconsider their approach to publishing and open access.
My personal opinion is indeed that APCs should be covered by funders, but it is very challenging for us as researchers to plan an accurate line-item in grants for APC fees. We can't accurately predict years ahead of time how much APCs will be (as prices are always going up), whether we will even publish something open access, how many papers will come out of a study, etc. Another challenge is that grant funding has an end-date whereas publications often continue for months to years after the end of the funding so money may not be available.
I think another dimension would be to consider whether Gates and other funders would be willing to reconsider perhaps funding APCs for non-profit publishers such as PLOS or society journals, rather than for-profit publishers.
HIFA profile: Indi Trehan is a physician-scientist and academic researcher based in Seattle, United States. He is a professor of paediatrics at Seattle Children's Hospital; adjunct professor of global health and epidemiology at University of Washington; investigator at UW Global Center for Integrated Health of Women, Adolescents, and Children; and investigator at Seattle Children's Research Institute Center for Clinical and Translational Research. He has published in many different journals, some open, some hybrid, some closed. He has run into the various issues with trying to get funding for open publishing access. He is also an editor at multiple journals and has mentored many junior researchers in both HICs and LMICs on how to navigate open access issues. He is a member of the HIFA Project on Open Access. https://www.hifa.org/support/members/indi indi AT alum.berkeley.edu