Unless I misunderstood the blog post, when the author contacted Elsevier, the company's Director of Universal Access wrote back on an email that 'open access' articles can be distinguished by (quoting from the email) "an open access symbol and link in the top right of the article. For an example see here (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168900207...)."
As I write this, that article costs $35.95 -- that's pretty convincing evidence, no?
Edit: as some comments below posit, it's also possible that the Elsevier executive provided the wrong link.
I don't see any evidence the linked article is actually Open Access.
It seems possible that the response just had the wrong link, and they article they are charging for isn't open access. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168900210... is clearly Open Access, has a clear mark of that, and has full text available for free.
Unless I misunderstood the blog post, when the author contacted Elsevier, the company's Director of Universal Access wrote back on an email that 'open access' articles can be distinguished by (quoting from the email) "an open access symbol and link in the top right of the article. For an example see here (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168900207...)."
As I write this, that article costs $35.95 -- that's pretty convincing evidence, no?
Edit: as some comments below posit, it's also possible that the Elsevier executive provided the wrong link.