Related to a point I made about funding and open science, DrugMonkey explains how the real stumbling blocks to open access publishing are funding agencies (boldface mine):
This whole thing is getting ridiculous. I don’t have the unfettered freedom to decide where to publish my stuff and it most certainly is an outcome of the funding agency, in my case the NIH.
Here are the truths that we hold to be self-evident at present time. The more respected the journal in which we publish our work, the better the funding agency “likes” it. This encompasses the whole process from initial peer review of the grant applications, to selection for funding (sometimes via exception pay) to the ongoing review of program officers. It extends not just from the present award, but to any future awards I might be seeking to land.
Where I publish matters to them. They make it emphatically clear in ever-so-many-ways that the more prestigious the journal (which generally means higher IF, but not exclusively this), the better my chances of being continuously funded.
We will have open access only when funding agencies want it. DrugMonkey is correct, and it should be that self-evident. They’re the pressure point, not the publishers.
Related: Ian Holmes has some good thoughts about this too.