It seems obvious to me that academics are being raped by journal publishers.
Academics put in countless hours to write the papers that appear in journals.
They have to jump through hoops to get the papers into journals, via an anonymous peer-review process for whose efficacy no evidence has ever been produced (see link).
In some cases, academics pay to have their work published in journals (this is the opposite of how publishing is supposed to work!)
Academics peer review papers for the journals, without being paid, out of some bizarre sense of obligation to the journal (or perhaps out of a noble sense of obligation to the pursuit of knowledge... but more likely because they're scared they won't get published in the journal again unless they write reviews for it).
Academics then pay to read the journals.
At every stage of the process they're being screwed, while the journal publishers continue to generate profits (for some reason, large-scale pirating of academic journals has yet to take off).
My question is: do academics view the situation in the same way that I do? If so:
(a) Is anything being done to change this (I know about arxiv, which doesn't have a review process, and PLoS, which doesn't seem to be that well respected... any others?)
(b) Why isn't more being done?
(c) What else could be done?