I am still undecided if boycotting Elsevir is makes that much sense. In my opinion the essential interest in the whole peer-review process is mainly based on a Journal's Ranking. Academia will not move any time soon away from rating and ranking journals (and neither should they).
Therefore the only option I see is either pushing up the rankings of open-publishing journals or convincing a reputed journal to move into open publishing. Most researchers will care very little about by whom a journal is published - as long as it is ranked well. And the money factors won't appeal that much either since these factors are usually all handled by the library/service department.
Several Journals (such as PNAS) now provide the option for authors to make their papers "open access". Usually by paying an extra fee (around $1,500 for PNAS). Some authors do this since it can increase their visibility.
In other cases, it is a condition of funding that that the paper eventually be freely available (sometimes with an embargo of about a year).
In all, I think the open access model will become more widely accepted, with the exception, maybe, of papers published in the top journals, such as Nature or Science.
I am still undecided if boycotting Elsevir is makes that much sense. In my opinion the essential interest in the whole peer-review process is mainly based on a Journal's Ranking. Academia will not move any time soon away from rating and ranking journals (and neither should they).
Therefore the only option I see is either pushing up the rankings of open-publishing journals or convincing a reputed journal to move into open publishing. Most researchers will care very little about by whom a journal is published - as long as it is ranked well. And the money factors won't appeal that much either since these factors are usually all handled by the library/service department.