True this. What about league tables? The real issue is perhaps that research assessment has no 100% unbiased mechanism for measuring research quality at scale for league table and other reporting and employment purposes. It is not possible to read the work that 200 job applicants have written in order make a fair assessment on who to employ for that single postdoc position. So, metrics and some peer review it is. The established journals, whether OA or not have the dubious advantage of being a 'known' entity and 'brand' and in the minds of many experienced researchers these 'brands' are still (erroneously in some cases) equated with 'quality by default'. A culture shift is needed, and 'yes' absolutely, funders and policy makers must be part of the drive or else change will be too slow, but senior researchers will always be at an advantage there unless league tables, algorithmic transparency and assessment processes change too. Presently the advantage established colleagues have is not just in terms of being able to 'make the rules' of assessment. They are also able to comfortably accept these rules as a necessary evil, doing nothing to challenge them (although of course many do, for which I am grateful). Another advantage is monetary: experienced researchers are more likely to have access to institutional/ funder support for open access fees. Plan S, if implemented as is, should at least remedy the financial challenges ECRs face in paying for open access fees, but other obstacles will remain if there is no dramatic shift in the ways league tables and research assessment are configured. This in spite of the very logical OA rhetoric and even if, in their heart of hearts researchers support OA, ECRs are left to gamble with their futures, senior colleagues with secure posts much less so, relatively speaking, and not withstanding the irresponsible uses of metrics in performance assessment of experienced colleagues. By default established researchers with tenured posts have less to lose relatively speaking, and many can afford to be skeptical of open access, especially if the journals are new. The 'citations and non-OA worked for me' argument I've also heard more than once. It is therefore quite right to include ECRs in the development of an OA approach for the EU and beyond, as the 'it worked for me' argument can be balanced out. Could there perhaps instead, be a mandate for more senior researchers to publish in open access where possible and as appropriate to their field (i.e. monographs are not quite there yet) and some lea way for more junior colleagues? That might bring the message home to the more conservative 'elements' in our midst and may inspire some recalcitrant established/ experienced colleagues to engage with open access more fruitfully and positively, thereby leading the way for junior colleagues to follow. At the very least it might require established colleagues to research the possibility of open access more thoroughly, as I find that the level of understanding of what open access is actually 'about' does tend to vary somewhat between individuals. The links between research assessment, quality, citations, open access, equity and career development are badly understood by many who don't have a vested or altruistic interested in publishing in open access outlets. Where the 'cut-off' mark for ECR/MCR/ experienced colleagues should lie will be a matter of debate I imagine, but it might be worth a go.