Open access publishing (OA) remains an option, a demand, a politically correct thing that is in some aspects a heavy burden to the scientists. A subject I keep coming back to, maybe because I am from Småland (a part of Sweden that is said to foster extra economic, or greedy if you want, people). It is expensive, it is often shamelessly expensive. It is not rare to get an invoice demanding thousands of extra € for OA. And of course, it gets extra complicated when the university or the funding organisation demands OA without providing any extra fundings. Say that you are in the beginning of your career, and you get a small grant, €10.000. Indirect costs can strip €4.000 off, and then as your university may demand OA, the researcher has to pay another €5.000 for publishing. Not much left to do research on.
However, if one can afford it, there are advantages with OA. The idea behind it is tempting, everybody should be able to enjoy your research, no matter how well funded they are or what university they are on. Another one is that I am fairly certain that the attention, and eventually the use of once research increases with OA. Scientific Reports is not a big journal. Even so, our paper on Scythian mitochondrias got a fair share of media attention when it was published a year ago. And the prime example is our Warrior-lady, who we published OA in AJPA. AJPA is a descent journal, but this paper was ranked the 43d most read out of all (ALL!) scientific papers published in 2017, and it has already been cited a number of times according to Google Scholars even though it has only been accessible maybe for half a year. This is not what you would expect from an AJPA-paper. Would this have happened without OA? I think not.
Scythian samples we published OA