fundamentals of eDNA

In a perfect world, I think that everything should be open access. I do not see any advantage to subscription journals except for it being cheaper to publish, and maybe the work being seen by people more interested in it. Other than the cost, open access is pretty great. As a younger researcher early in my scientific career I do not currently have any subscriptions because what recent graduate has money for that? During undergrad and so far in graduate school open access articles have been my lifeline for term papers. Of course, both institutions I have studied at have subscriptions that I have access to, but what happens when I graduate and no longer have access to the wonderful library, or what if an article I find is not part of one of the schools subscriptions. In my opinion, if someone is adamant on publishing in a subscription journal when they have the funds and option to publish open access, I think they are doing it for the reputation and not for the good of the scientific community, but I could very well be wrong. Whether you are someone looking for articles, or the one publishing them, open access offers many advantages such as increased citations, the reproducibility of the experiments, and collaboration. I think that the coolest aspect of open access is the ability to work with hundreds of other scientists. In Mckiernan et al. 2016, the authors talk about a psychology project where 350 researchers replicated a study to contribute to this project and 270 were authors on a publication from that. The ability to do this kind of research would not be possible without open access. There can be time and place for subscription journals, but where I am at right now, open access seems like the way to go.