Update. Here's another piece that made it through peer review (at Oxford UP) falsely assuming that all #OpenAccess journals charge #APCs.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaf092

The author concludes that there is *not* too much OA, but only because APC discounts and waivers exist. Imagine how much she could have strengthened her argument by bringing in #DiamondOA and #GreenOA.

Update. Here's another unrefereed letter to the editor (this time at Physics Today) falsely asserting that all #OpenAccess journals charge #APCs, effectively denying the existence and prevalence of no-APC OA (#DiamondOA) journals , and failing to acknowledge the existence of OA repositories (#GreenOA).
https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/78/3/8/3337073/Open-access-for-reading-or-closed-access-for

Update. Here's an unrefereed letter to the editor leaving the false impression that the UK #REF requires researchers to publish in #APC-based #OpenAccess journals. (It doesn't require publishing in OA journals; authors may choose #GreenOA instead; and when they do choose to publish in OA journals, they are free to choose no-APC or #DiamondOA journals.)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41415-025-8398-8

@petersuber Excellent! Love the #GreenOA model!

Now let's see greater investment in infrastructures to support this policy and more detailed consideration of research outputs that aren't journal articles

@neuralreckoning @internetarchive
Sorry if you already know this. The #NelsonMemo described #GreenOA policies. It required deposit in OA #repositories, not submission to OA #journals. Some publishers told authors that they'd have to pay #APCs to comply with the policy. But that was deception and spin. Compliance with the policy was always free of charge. When journals charge APCs to publish fed-funded research, it was to publish in those journals, not to comply with federal policy.

Update with a comment.

Don't throw in the towel. First, reform research #assessment to move away from journal impact factors (#JIFs) and to pay more attention to the quality of research than the number of publications or where they published. Second, move away from #APCs. To make research #OpenAccess, favor no-APC #GreenOA and #DiamondOA over APC-based varieties.

BTW, the Budapest Open Access Initiative 20th anniversary statement makes both these recommendations. (Disclosure: I was a co-author.)
https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai20/

Under the 2022 #OSTP #NelsonMemo, US federal funding agencies must make agency-funded research #OpenAccess in "agency-designated" #repositories. The same was true under the 2013 #HoldrenMemo. This is the first time that any federal agency has designated a repository neither built nor hosted by government agencies — an important milestone for #GreenOA. Kudos to #KnowledgeCommons (@hello).

Update. Here's another piece that made it through peer review (#Cureus / #SpringerNature) documenting the real problems of #APCs without mentioning the existence or prevalence of non-APC OA (#DiamondOA) journals.
https://www.cureus.com/articles/276986-increasing-importance-and-costs-associated-with-publishing-for-dermatology-residency-applicants#!/

The editors and peer reviewers also allowed this howler to stand: "The #GreenOA option does not charge an APC and is free for authors to publish but requires a subscription to the journal to read the article."

Update. Here's a letter to the editor trying to answer objections to #APCs. It points out the benefits of #OpenAccess that APCs pay for. But it never mentions #DiamondOA or #GreenOA. The author seems unaware, and certainly leaves the naïve reader unaware, that that we can get the benefits of OA without APCs.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1572100024003788

Update. Here's a letter to the editor of #Nature asking how to make an article #OpenAccess when one can't afford an #APC. Nature responds with ways to raise money or request waivers. It never mentions #DiamondOA or #GreenOA.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02849-w