Who are you supporting, though? The scientists won't see a single euro of that. To me, the problem is that the balance is heavily skewed towards the publishers

Who are you supporting, though? The scientists won't see a single euro of that. To me, the problem is that the balance is heavily skewed towards the publishers. Scientists provide the articles at no cost (or even have to pay to be published!), reviewers do their work for free, and then you have to pay hundreds of euros for a single copy of a single paper? While I understand that a paper has some overhead costs, the current fees are inexcusable. Scientists are forced to publish in "high-impact" papers so they can't choose another one, and you can't properly do science without reading papers. This gives the publishers a virtual monopoly - and they seem to be quite happy to squeeze every single euro out of it. It's just rent-seeking, and I believe it goes against the very nature of science itself.