Online Open Access Journals are becoming very popular but the real value of their content is also matter of controversy and discrimination. As researchers we have the tools to evaluate and judge articles published in high impact journals or "stablished official journals" as we called.
We should do the same with these articles and decide if their information is useful or not . Instead of going against OAJ we should find the way to improve them. Who knows if they could become the official way of scientific communication in the near future. I think we can save time, collaborate more with each other and even improve our projects in a faster and easy way.
We as researchers should be the responsible to evaluate the real value of their contents without discrimination of their origin.
We should look them as a new tool that can be used in a very effective way and is in our hands the option to use it in a correct manner.
Knowledge is the most powerful tool and the history has shown that can not be stopped.
That's true! Even articles published into high impact journals are not always worth it. It all depends on the reviewer to whom the article is assigned. If open access journal could manage high quality reviewers then the quality of articles would be at par with high impact journals.
As a matter of fact, i think there are many aspects to consider. If you think about the interest for the research community I agree with the previous comment. But having said that the main issue is likely ego of authors and necessity to improve their CV for their career. it is especially true in university context. Moreover, the labs need finance to continue their activity.Therefore, by publishing in a review which has an impact factor, even if there are a lot of difficulties to manage, it leads to better highlight your work. Anyway, to summarize it's a viscious circle.
Maybe i will be too aggressive with my opinion, but... I tend to see more and more articles (in so-called top journals), that are not properly designed. Some of the data we know is based on the experiments that were funded by big companies. It is natural, but my main concern is the value of these. For example resilon - almost perfect ;-) Lots of research and no agreement. Why? I think that Open Source will be future, but we need to work in order to improve it. I'm affraid that it can turn into wikipedia or youtube ;-)
The quality of a paper depends on the quality of the design, on how the paper is written, and on the quality of the reviewers (and also - ultimately - on the quality of readers that cite them int heir own paper thus implementing their sharing and circulation). If OAJ use high quality reviewers a part of the job is done
There is one problem with the new way....the funding required for the publication....
This, if it comes from the wrong sources may end up with biased research! In my eyes a great danger!
A useful MOOC course regarding publishing in High-impact journals. Discounted course link pasted below:
https://www.udemy.com/publishing-in-impact-factor-journals-tips-and-tricks/?couponCode=ABC100