I guess I just don’t want to believe that your experience (from how many departments and how many countries?) generalises enough to give people impression that they should publish in Nature branded journals. I have some (very limited) but opposite experience.

I am yet to see a scientific evidence that it actually helps to have a Nature branded journal on your CV to get a job… till then i will see these statements as speculations that are just causing panic

I don’t see how is that “of course”, how many individual old paper accesses people buy a year? Also, do you really need 22$ to recoup costs for providing a 58 year of paper online?

What is the point of societies if they are not holding higher standards than profits? Of course you should do better!

Does this practice help? How much money you get out of access to individual papers that are 10+ year old? I know I did not purchase an access to old paper… well, ever.

Thanks for the response, do you think it’s a reasonable threshold? MS from 1919 will possibly have lapsed copyright anyway. What I don’t know, 5 or 10 years?

I mean, it's a society journal and a univeristy press... If those behave like this, what do we expect from commercial subjects? Is there a way we could push societies to make responsible publishing decisions?

Maybe there is a way that does not compromise bioRxiv ways of not sharing email addresses to email parties through API - why if they notified authors themselves about the peer review comments?