Hi! Just curious, why did you decide to not publish your work as open access?
I'd like to better understand why researchers are not taking more of a stand against Elsevier et al.
I'd like to better understand why researchers are not taking more of a stand against Elsevier et al.
Not every journal is a viable option, not every journal has the same rating. In theory everyone would prefer to publish in an open access journal but sometimes there's an extra fee for that or there's no good (reputable, good impact factor and appropriate for that topic) open access journal for your project...
While more established researchers can turn down the chance to publish in one of the big, closed journals, it's an opportunity that many cannot turn down.
That means that an amazing paper published in PLoS ONE is generally worse for your career than an unreplicable pile of drek in Nature. The quality of the paper, barring notable impact outliers, is secondary to the journal it's published in.
I agree. And stronger than that, recently some funding agencies (e.g. the Dutch NWO) favor/require open access for works that come out of projects they fund, and they have budget set aside for that. The trend is hopefully changing, but it takes time.