Update. Here's another paywalled editorial on #openaccess that the authors/editors could have easily made OA.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ijd.16576

But this one is critical, not supportive. Honest Q: Is that a reason to put it behind a paywall? Wouldn't they like their objections to have more impact?

The objections restate the classic misunderstandings that all or most OA journals charge #APCs and all or most APCs are paid by authors.

Because it's an editorial, it did not have to survive peer review.

Update. Here's a #paywalled opinion recommending #opendata.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M22-2973

But it's not an editorial. Hence the authors couldn't decide on their own to make it OA — in this journal. But they could have made it OA elsewhere.

"Data sharing, although a laudable idea, is not rising to its potential…The NIH should consider [our hidden recommendations]."

Update. Here's another #paywalled editorial critical of #openaccess.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijd.16576

The authors/editors could easily have made it OA, but put it behind a paywall and reduced the impact of their objections. Like others in this genre, it rests on the classic misunderstandings that all or most OA journals charge #APCs and all or most APCs are paid by authors.

Update. Here's another piece recommending #OpenAccess that the authors decided to publish behind a paywall.
https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijgo.14976

Here's the only part not paywalled: "Open access publishing remains a challenge in #Africa due to poverty and poor research funding. There is a need for global action."