Thank you Jaime for raising these important questions on this platform!

I have been raising similar questions for years now. Below I clarify  how I come to see things from a publisher/institution/author perspective with regards to the blind love for corporate for profit-publishers you have alluded to above:

1. There is no questions that most metrics are the creation of commercial entities, and thus a conflict of interest should be considered and would explain why universities are being pressured to use those metrics

2. Academics need to question the marriage between rankings, IF and other upcoming metrics. Needless to mention that the future use of the sold IF as a measure of quality is still vague.

3. We all know that institutions pressure academics to run after any metric that is likely to improve their ranking.

4. Academics need promotion and tenure to keep their jobs, so, their blind love for the IF, Elsevier ....can be explained

5. I totally agree with the suggestions by the authors of reference [9] above, which I copy here: "We suggest five measures to fight this malady: (i) diversify journal club selections, (ii) do not judge science on the publication venue, (iii) reduce the reliance on journal citation metrics for employment and advancement, (iv) discuss the misuse of the IF in ethics courses, and (v) cite the most appropriate sources. If IF mania is indeed a medical condition, the most appropriate course of action may be disimpaction".

Regarding the sustainability issue you are raising; the answer is NO. Simply put: why would academics continue to put up with the shortcomings and flaws of the current model when they have other publication venues at their fingertips? not to mention that a complete transition to OA is not going to be feasible or sustainable.

An interesting case at Elsevier's Cognition:

https://www.cogsci.nl/blog/some-thoughts-on-cognitions-refusal-to-go-open-access

A good research paper can make a journal with low or no IF factor most cited in its area of research. Example: Tomato X potato somatic hybrid published by G. Melchers group in Carlsberg Symp. in 1979.

I believe that the days of traditional print publishing are numbered. We are in a count-down to a state of publishing where we will have close to 100% open access, maybe with a few historically important publications maintaining print versions. But the rest, expect 1000 sharks in the sea to expand to 10,000 sharks, all vying for the same pool of fish (i.e., us the academics). Take, for example, the latest move by Elsevier to try and dominate African OA:

http://poynder.blogspot.jp/2016/12/promoting-open-access-in-africa.html

There is an almost uncanny parallel with Jim Rickards' Currency Wars, but in this case, look out for the OA Wars that have just started.

German researchers Elsevier-free in 2017: "Elsevier’s initial offer did not meet its requirements for open access and that the company was asking too much money"

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/thousands-german-researchers-set-lose-access-elsevier-journals

Finland continues to support Elsevier OA for one more year:

http://blogs.helsinki.fi/librarynews/tag/lisenssisopimukset-en/?lang=en

Elsevier is a financial sponsor of DOAJ. Is this not a direct conflict of interest?

https://doaj.org/

Extremely dishonest termination of a negatives open access journal published by Elsevier, New Negatives in Plant Science, removing all traces of the editor board and no explanation for termination:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/23520264

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352026416300083

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/new-negatives-in-plant-science/news/important-announcement-new-negatives-in-plant-science-to-be

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352026416000027

http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.journals.elsevier.com/new-negatives-in-plant-science/

Elsevier purchases Plum Altmetrics, the largest altmetrics company, fortifying the gamed culture of impact and metrics, including CiteScore. The journal impact factor is just about to get ejected big time:

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/the-most-comprehensive-source-of-altmetrics-joins-elsevier-plum-analytics

At what point can Elsevier just buy anything and everything? What regulations exist? Should anti-trust laws be implemented? At some point, we tend towards a monopoly... or a very exclusive, and powerful, oligopoly.

The marketing brilliance of Elsevier strikes again, adjusting its colors to expand its market and suit the research flavor trend of the day. Here, despite its deeply flawed literature, it claims to embrace "reproducibility".

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/how-elsevier-is-breaking-down-barriers-to-reproducibility

It sounds like it's breaking down the same barriers it created. The question is, how much will researchers have to pay for these new barrier-breaking initiatives?

Elsevier tries to patent an open peer review system, unsuccessfully. Reason: unoriginal. "The patent examiner rejected Elsevier’s application three times."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/stupid-patent-month-elsevier-patents-online-peer-review

Another blatant attempt to concentrate power, intellect and thus profits.

Maybe their ultimate objective is to patent scientists?!

Mihail L. Grecea is an Expert in Publishing Ethics, Elsevier.

This information became known in this story at Retraction Watch:

http://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/09/elsevier-retract-six-papers-computer-scientist-citing-duplication-fake-reviews/

Googling Dr. Grecea reveals the following:

a) Of Romanian descent and with many years in Elsevier (2011 onwards);

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mihail-michael-grecea-269b596

b) 4 research papers with no international collaborators and a limited research team in the Netherlands:

https://www.symptoma.com/en/research/profile/ml_grecea

c) Authors are treated as the enemy and defense is only offered to the editors:

https://www.elsevier.com/editors-update/story/publishing-ethics/working-together-a-precis-of-roles-and-resources

d) PhD in 2006:

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/4322

e) On CrossRef similarity check group:

https://www.crossref.org/working-groups/similarity-check/

f) Was Managing Editor of Physics Letters A (dates unclear), promoting the Article Transfer Service.

http://muchong.com/html/201206/4643716.html

Questions:

a) What qualifications does it take to become an "Expert in Publishing Ethics" for Elsevier, or elsewhere?

b) What makes Dr. Gracea more "ethical" than other researchers whose "ethics" he is examining?

c) Is the Elsevier Article Transfer Service ethical?

d) Where can the public find a list of the team members that make up the Publishing Ethics Experts at Elsevier?

e) Mark Seeley is frequently mentioned as senior legal counsel. Does Elsevier consider legal and ethical to be equivalent parameters in publishing?

Note the aggressive attempt to globalize researcher identification:

http://www.ismte.org/?page=2017AsiaSpeakers

And also note how two mega-publishers, Springer Nature (Nature Publishing Group) and Elsevier (Reed Elsevier) are distinctly absent from this obligatory ORCID implementation:

https://orcid.org/content/requiring-orcid-publication-workflows-open-letter

A power show-down to grab the Asian market while the shrimps (scientists) get traded for peanuts.

40 days later, Elsevier concedes to German scientists (i.e., restored access while negotiating):

http://www.nature.com/news/german-scientists-regain-access-to-elsevier-journals-1.21482?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

Another scandal Elsevier open access journal:

Perspectives in Science.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22130209

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/perspectives-in-science/

Tried to submit, couldn't get past the manuscript type, contacted the journal, and got a pathetic opaque excuse from Punitha Rajamohan, Journal Manager, Global Journals Production (Ascendas International Tech Park (Crest, 12th Floor), Taramani road, Taramani, Chennai 600 113).

Got this response: "Dear Author, Thank you for your email. The journal is currently closed for new submissions. We will open it again as soon as we receive a confirmation from the Publisher.  Thanks again for your interest with [sic] the journal."

No public explanation. No respect for academia or the public. Have contacted several OA players and invited them to respond and interact to assess whether Elsevier's OA business model is in fact predatory (dishonest, expensive, etc.).

There are too many journals and "journals" in the gray zone between having some serious science but still going mainly for the money and those that shamelessly are trying to trick authors. The whole thing of scientific publishing has a growing tendency for fakeness. What is the way out of this mess?

One step closer to academia's Big Brother, close coordination between Elsevier's PURE, a "research intelligence solution", and ORCID. The police state has reached science:

https://www.elsevier.com/promo/pure/nyc-seminar/agenda

https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure

Never underestimate the Streisand Effect. Elsevier tried to bury SciHub, it backfired and instead, it promoted SciHub.

http://blog.dshr.org/2016/03/elsevier-and-streisand-effect.html

The only way out of this mess for Elsevier is to exploit scientists  and their institutes as much as possible by turning their journal fleets to open access.

Elsevier sensing lost profits? And perhaps the move of German academics to other publishers?

"Elsevier regrets HRK unwillingness to progress German national agreement talks, urges return to negotiations"

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-regrets-hrk-unwillingness-to-progress-german-national-agreement-talks-urges-return-to-negotiations?sf65917565=1

Elsevier, a closed mind to open data and open citations?

"But Dutch publishing giant Elsevier, which contributes an estimated 30% of citation data on Crossref, is not yet on board."

"“We are aware of the initiative but want to learn more before making a decision on whether to participate,” says Tom Reller, vice-president of corporate relations with Elsevier in New York."

http://www.nature.com/news/initiative-aims-to-break-science-s-citation-paywall-1.21800?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

Very closely related to the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC), note this criticism that just surfaced this past weekend:

https://sbseminar.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/and-elsevier-taketh-away/

It is also curious to note that Elsevier is not an OASPA member:

http://oaspa.org/membership/members/

That is astonishing!

Elsevier vies for a place in the preprints market, and launches, in early May, its own preprint server, Biology Research Network, or BioRN:

https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/ssrn/biorn

However, it is unclear how exactly BioRN already had 2000+ preprints if it was just launched, and it appears as if some papers were "reclassified" to give the impression of a sizable amount of preprints, as opposed to a "virgin" preprint server.

This follows the purchase of SSRN by Elsevier in about May of 2016:

http://www.nature.com/news/social-sciences-preprint-server-snapped-up-by-publishing-giant-elsevier-1.19932

At least one blog is highly critical of Elsevier for this new preprint launch:

https://svpow.com/2017/05/10/but-elsevier-bought-mendeley-and-ssrn-but-theyre-ok-arent-they/

Elsevier sues Sci-Hub and LibGen for $15 million in damages:

https://torrentfreak.com/elsevier-wants-15-million-piracy-damages-from-sci-hub-and-libgen-170518/

http://www.stephenmclaughlin.net/Elsevier_v_Sci-Hub/2017-05-16/

Referring to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub

Elsevier (and Springer Nature) forced to disclose the contents of their OA contracts with Dutch Universities following a court case to prevent a FOIA request:

http://www.scienceguide.nl/201706/dutch-open-access-contracts-have-to-be-disclosed.aspx

Baden-Württemberg universities canceling all Elsevier subscriptions (July 7, 2017):

http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/newsfullview-landingpage/article/baden-wuerttembergische-universitaeten-kuendigen-vertrag-mit-grossverlag-elsevier.html

More trouble for Elsevier from German universities:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49906/title/Major-German-Universities-Cancel-Elsevier-Contracts/

Elsevier acquires bepress:

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/08/02/elsevier-acquires-bepress/

Is Elsevier buying out the researcher-based initiatives that were established in many cases to counter the power of mainstream publishers like Elsevier? Concept of buy and assimilate?

These German institutes have announced that they will not extend their contracts with Elsevier:

https://www.projekt-deal.de/vertragskundigungen-elsevier-2017/

So where will their researchers obtain Elsevier/Scopus-based papers? Sci-Hub?

Might OUP and Elsevier be merging? This is suggested by the appointment of an Elsevier executive to the Oxford University Press Academic Division:

http://www.thebookseller.com/news/elseviers-clark-be-new-oup-academic-md-611091

Elsevier’s new VP of global library relations

https://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/articles/good-one-meet-elsevier-s-new-vp-global-library-relations

According to Tom Reller, this is how Elsevier defines quality, and thus the reason for increasing subscription costs (e.g., from 7 million EUR in 2011 to 10 million EUR in 2016 for Finland):

https://www.elsevier.com/authors/journal-authors/measuring-a-journals-impact

https://www.kiwi.fi/display/finelib/2017/08/22/Negotiations+with+Elsevier%3A+The+crucial+issues+for+the+FinELib+consortium

Helmholtz to terminate its contract with Elsevier at the end of 2017:

https://www.helmholtz.de/aktuell/presseinformationen/artikel/artikeldetail/helmholtz_zentren_kuendigen_die_vertraege_mit_elsevier/

Elsevier becomes a signatory to the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines, by COS, includes 5000 journals:

https://cos.io/about/news/centre-open-science-announces-elsevier-new-signatory-top-guidelines/

Elsevier's Vice President, Policy and Communications, Gemma Hersh outlines Elsevier's vision of OA (geo-blocked open access, as Richard Poynder Tweets):

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/working-towards-a-transition-to-open-access

Two key statements, of concern:

"one possible first step for Europe to explore would be to enable European articles to be available gold open access within Europe and green open access outside of Europe"

"there is enough money in the system to support a full cost-neutral transition to gold open access"

Clearly trying to tap into the H2020 OA funding...

Read more about the exploitative pay-to-publish transition to author-pay-to-publish model in full swing:

Al-Khatib, A., Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2017) Threats to the survival of the author-pays-journal to publish model. Publishing Research Quarterly 33(1): 64-70.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12109-016-9486-z

DOI: 10.1007/s12109-016-9486-z

Elsevier is in essence trying to take over the entire scholarly publishing process and one day academics will all be "owned" by Elsevier if this continued buy-out of companies continues:

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/academic-publishers-must-work-together-to-enable-hassle-free-legal-and-trustworthy-sharing-for-researchers

Elsevier scores a grant from the US NIH, expanding its power deeper, and wider:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/elsevier-and-seven-bridges-receive-nih-data-commons-grant-for-biomedical-data-analysis-655805553.html

Elsevier and ACS suing ResearchGate in Munich:

https://www.buchreport.de/2017/11/14/elsevier-klagt-gegen-forschernetzwerk-researchgate/

Via Hans Zauner:

https://twitter.com/HansZauner/status/930815165532123136

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/elsevier-declines-to-cut-off-german-universities-that-cancelled-journal-subs/3008505.article

" Efforts to reach a deal between the publishing giant and 200 institutions protesting prices continue after January deadline passes"

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/01/09/50692/

"Why Elsevier is a Library’s Best Friend"

https://publishingperspectives.com/2018/01/ipa-chief-slams-scihub-argues-for-unity-against-scihub-piracy/

"Yet We Stand Divided’ ( International Publishers Association president and Elsevier senior vice president Michiel Kolman)

https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/clinical-solutions/elsevier-acquires-via-oncology,-a-leading-provider-of-clinical-decision-support-solutions-for-oncology-professionals

Elsevier’s clinical solutions portfolio will be extended by Via Oncology’s evidence-based cancer treatment pathways, integrating Elsevier’s content, technology and analytics "

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/south-korean-universities-reach-agreement-elsevier-after-long-standoff

"The agreement, which includes price hikes between 3.5% and 3.9%, was concluded shortly before 12 January, the day Elsevier had threatened to cut access to ScienceDirect. The publisher had pushed for a 4.5% increase."

http://finelib.fi/finelib-and-elsevier-agreement-access-to-scholarly-journals-and-50-percent-discount-of-article-processing-charges/

“The FinELib consortium and Elsevier have signed a 3 year agreement regarding the Science Direct Freedom Collection. The agreement ensures access to around 1850 scholarly journals for 35 FinELib members . The total value of the license agreement is slightly under 27 M euros.”

The detailed numbers are simply astonishing, if one considers that this is just one country.

https://www.kansalliskirjasto.fi/extra/finelib_julkinen/Elsevier/FinELib_Elsevier_SD_Freedom_total_fees_2017_2018-2020.pdf

In the filed of academic scholarly communication (i.e., not scholarly publishing), Clarivate Analytics is starting to become a formidable challenger, or competitor, to Elsevier, especially as far as OA goes. Let's see how this evolves. Some useful background discussion in a new purchase development:

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/04/10/clarivate-acquires-kopernio/

Curious to notice the gender pay gap at Elsevier:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04309-8

Florida State University Libraries plan to cancel the Elsevier "big deal" in 2019:

https://www.lib.fsu.edu/elsevier-changes

FSU Big Deal update:

https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/54793/title/North-American-Universities-Increasingly-Cancel-Publisher-Packages/

Sweden cancels agreement with Elsevier:

http://openaccess.blogg.kb.se/2018/05/16/sweden-stands-up-for-open-access-cancels-agreement-with-elsevier/

http://www.freshedpodcast.com/wilhelmwidmark/

Update on Sweden's Bibsam Consortium cancellation with Elsevier:

http://openaccess.blogg.kb.se/2018/06/20/qa-about-the-cancellation-of-the-agreement-with-elsevier-commencing-1-july/

John Tennant's criticism of Elsevier in The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2018/jun/29/elsevier-are-corrupting-open-science-in-europe?CMP=share_btn_tw

And Elsevier's response to Tennant, and defending itself:

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-serves-the-global-research-community-to-deliver-open-science

Elsevier's experiment with open peer review:

https://retractionwatch.com/2018/07/03/what-happened-when-elsevier-tried-open-peer-review-and-which-field-says-no-thanks/

Alliance of Science Organisations in Germany suspends negotiations with Elsevier:

https://www.hrk.de/press/press-releases/press-release/meldung/deal-and-elsevier-negotiations-elsevier-demands-unacceptable-for-the-academic-community-4409/

" The company [RELX], the 19th biggest in the FTSE 100, is paying £580m for ThreatMetrix"

https://news.sky.com/story/relx-strengthens-position-in-fast-growing-digital-risks-sector-11227902

Slightly older news, but an important link between Elsevier and THE, and how power plays at Davos:

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/at-davos-how-can-research-drive-collaboration-in-a-fractured-world

Elsevier cuts access to German and Swedish researchers:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05754-1

Elsevier + Impactstory agreement:

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/elsevier-impactstory-agreement-will-make-open-access-articles-easier-to-find-on-scopus

So what if the paper one is looking for is not open access and the author does not respond to a request for a PDF reprint, or has deceased because the paper is old?

Elsevier purchases Aries Systems, the submission system that competing publishers like Wiley, Taylor & Francis, etc use:

https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/corporate/elsevier-to-acquire-aries-systems-a-best-in-class-publication-workflow-solutions-provider

Deal between Elsevier and Italian Conferenza dei Rettori Universitari Italiani (CRUI)

https://www.crui.it/archivio-notizie/i-ricercatori-italiani-potranno-beneficiare-dell%E2%80%99accesso-continuo-al-database-sciencedirect-di-elsevie.html

University of California will not renew Elsevier subscriptions:

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/uc-terminates-subscriptions-with-elsevier

Norway does not renew contract with Elsevier

https://www.mynewsdesk.com/no/unit/pressreleases/norwegian-research-institutions-have-decided-not-to-renew-their-agreement-with-elsevier-2846284

Elsevier is trying to capture the Arab research market (more journals = more open access APCs):

https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/journals-published-by-arab-research-community-set-to-benefit-from-greater-global-visibility-809890046.html

funny matter!