Please help me resolve this dilemma: should I decline review requests from for profit publishers? But please read the thread before answering 1/n

We know that the traditional model scientific publishing is a rip-off. It serves to channel money from tax revenues to private business (with huge profits) by exploiting the work of publicly funded scientists 2/n https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science

@jamesheathers recently proposed that, when invited to review, we should send a contract to publishers and get paid 450 USD. This should be a collective movement 3/n. https://twitter.com/jamesheathers/status/1301724121374642178

Nick Brown ( @sTeamTraen) pretty convingly showed that this would create all kinds of ill effects 4/n https://twitter.com/sTeamTraen/status/1301846682469044224

But I agree that a collective response is the way to go. But which? 5/n

A solution is simply to decline review requests, possibly sending responses like @EikoFried's (requesting money being here a way to decline but also to educate the "requester") 6/n https://twitter.com/EikoFried/status/1278613201266135041

My problem with this: I find it hypocritical to refuse review requests in such journals while continuing to publish in those 7/n

So the solution is easy, right: I can stop publishing in for-profit journals. At a personal level, I have no issue with this 8/n.

But it would be (academically) suicidal for PhD students and early career researchers with whom I collaborate. There are simply not enough good outlets in my field 9/n

For this reason, I have therefore not refused requests from for profit publishers. I am curious about how you would deal with this dilemma. And here is a poll (but only answer if you read the rest of the thread)