Major scientific publishers charge exorbitant fees for access to research articles. Open access models provide an alternative, but this shifts the burden to the researchers, who pay the fees to publish open access. This disadvantages researchers from underfunded institutions or developing countries, perpetuating global inequities in knowledge production. Sometimes a scientist will be asked to contribute a piece of artwork to feature as the cover of the journal. In this case, *the scientist pays a fee to have their cover featured on the journal*. This is exploitative! The peer review process is slow, opaque and inconsistent. This delays the dissemination of important scientific findings and reduces quality of research. But of course, reviewers are not being paid or compensated in any way for their time, so why would they hurry? This is also exploitative, when profit is being made elsewhere in the system. The current academic publishing system prioritises profit and prestige over accessibility, transparency and equity. The alternative: Community-Owned, Open-Access Publishing: -> Diamond open-access. (Free for researchers and readers, funded by universities, research funders, institutions etc) -> Preprint servers: Use of repositories in which researchers can share their work freely and rapidly, while still pursuing the peer-review process. -> Decentralised peer-review: reviews are open and transparent, published after publication, improving accountability and speed.