I wrote an answer to another question that also answers this question I suggest.
Hebb wrote, not all issues are psychological, but most are. In the case of researchers with tenure the question seems more difficult to answer than for individuals without tenure.
Many tenured individuals falsely think: open, therefore free, therefore worthless. Too many imagine they lose face in front of colleagues who publish in journals that are not open ... (For the apparently valid reason that because if somebody pays to read an article it means they value it more and it has more value ...) Yes I've heard this argument quite a few times where I least expect it.
The problem is that the argument isn't applicable here. Most paywalled journals are read because a university subscribes to them. The target readers don't usually pay for them. Furthermore in science value is not judged by willingness to pay anyway.
Indeed, tenured colleagues really have no reason to prefer publications with more prestige. Some would even reply they don't know what that even means. For at that point, articles are looked up and read, as they become aware of their possible utility, not journals. A few, after reaching a certain stable point in their careers, write much more radically in favor of open science (publication and review and other parts of the academic process).
So the reason is often irrational when a tenured writer today (not twenty years ago) sends to a nonopen publication without having a preprint floating around. One can suggest this since the behavior is often contrary the explicit introspective account.
For illustration, my university library subscribes to virtually all journals in any field. But that means they spent the money, not any scientific peers of the authors publishing there. The administrators who allocated the funds don't read the journal, although they did a great favor for us researchers. At another university, this one in Europe, there were very few journals accessible so people cited mostly books or cited a paper citing another paper if they couldn't find the other online for ... Anyway I have not seen anybody paying for anything yet many feel there is something disreputable about open publications. (It's rightly disreputable only if they are thinking about paying to publish with a predatory publisher because useful work is more widely read if arXiv preprinted rather than published obscurely with a publisher that usually outputs rubbish.)
This post has been migrated from the Open Science private beta at StackExchange (A51.SE)