Excellent post. I'd add two things (quoting TFA, not you): > copyediting In my experience, that's a bad joke. The last paper I had edited by professional Spri

Excellent post. I'd add two things (quoting TFA, not you): > copyediting In my experience, that's a bad joke. The last paper I had edited by professional Springer editors came out with more errors that I had put in. The process achieved the exact opposite of what it was meant to achieve. > when allowed, just 13% of authors posted green versions on their institutional repository, and allowed or not, just over half posted full-text versions on ResearchGate Besides the factor mentioned in the article, that universities are bad at communicating their services to their own employees, there is also the fact that these institutional repositories simply suck. They suck because they are a large heap of "not-invented-here", they suck because they are bureaucratic and usability nightmares. But even without all that, and even 20 years into the age of Google, one centralized repository is easier to search and explore than 1000 little ones. Authors know this, which is why they prefer putting their work literally anywhere else. This is not about aversion to change, it's about aversion to bad systems.