This is not directed at the op, but I feel like voicing my frustration. I detest Elsevier like many scientists. I also would like to be evaluated based on my m

This is not directed at the op, but I feel like voicing my frustration. I detest Elsevier like many scientists. I also would like to be evaluated based on my merit, and not on an intricate game of status (where I, being relatively junior, share the smallest endowments). It must be clear that the burden lies with tenured scientists. Junior scholars in many fields need publications in certain journals, as their career and positions are at constant risk. Instead, it is the universities and the senior scholars who propagate the reputational signals that these journals provide. Some calls from tenured scholars towards nontenured scientists to choose open access journals just grind my gears. Science nowadays has next to zero job security and a switch to industry is often difficult. As a junior researcher, your first and only goal is to survive. Furthermore, too few tenured scholars actually forgo these journals. The reason is simple: These publications, if only in the long run, are worth a lot of money - and once you have them, you'd like their reputational effect to persist. Anyone who has a secure job has some moral obligation to publish open access. Furthermore, politics must act. Each mandate towards open access is a good step. Change must come from the top, or from outside. You can not expect those with the least power to change the system for you.