I believe that the greatest amount of opportunities for results of research projects can be disseminated is always beneficial.

A process of natural selection will eliminate over time those who are not appropriate. These are less popular and will result extinct.

Hopefully, sometime in the future, the field of scientific publishing will self-regulate and it will all be good ;-). However, at the moment, I fear that a lot of scientists are being tricked to publish good papers in worthless OA schemes, as well as tempted to publish very poor data in OA journals which are simply in the business of making money.

Dear Prof Bjorn,

Thanks for your response. Yes you are true. The best thing would be some sort of self regulation. But I think in some sense objectivity in assessing researchers from the number of publications is also responsible for the race of getting papers published. In many cases, new researchers are not very much aware of the nuances of the publishing world. At times, even the seasoned find it an easy way to get their not so good papers get through easily without much scrutiny. But things are changing. The open data policy adopted by some publishers is also a way to regulate the influx. It will be good if the good practices become a norm.

I believe that the existence of too many academic journals is not good for the evolution of sciences. Impact Factor is the best measure for high quality journals.

I am 100% agree with Kamal's observation "The expansion of horizon for publication is generally good especially for young researchers. But these many publishers and journal needs self regulation to keep the scientific merits of these journals."It true multiple journals will compromise scientific credibility as well as quality of publishing, but there is a silver lining. Most times beginners researchers who want to publish in a journal individually without their known supervisors, their research generally is not considered for publication. In a situation where there are more journals they will be able to publish. Even an idea/concept or method presented in a very rudimentary way without addition of some semblance by editors or comments by referees after sometimes may make breakthrough as some senior or a good junior scientist reading it may come face to face the truth presented by original contributor and develop this idea t make a breakthrough. It is why I am always in favour of open access journals which charge for publication but have potential some of ideas published in them may get a keen attention of someone.

Dear Siba

The emergence of many academic journals is bad for evolution of science.

At least six Brazilian scientific journals are suspended in an index maintained by Thomson Reuters, called the "Journal Citation Reports" (JCR), alleging that they had "abnormal" number and "excessive" number of citations received, according to a bulletin released by the company.

These facts have happened more frequently around the world just by the excessive number of publications, which often exceed the limit of truth to continue in the competition world of publications and consequently increasing the financial gains with advertisements in the magazines

I believe that the greatest amount of opportunities for results of research projects can be disseminated is always beneficial.

A process of natural selection will eliminate over time those who are not appropriate. These are less popular and will result extinct.

With all respect to the recognition for quality work, I have a strong preference for the answer by Alexandre Beluco, ... More the opportunity of dissemination, more benefit for the evolution of science and knowledge. Natural selection will take its own course in defining the stability of the outfits.

I think it is not so bad that the number of journals is increasing, but it is hard to follow and hard to buy such journals for the libraries. For young scientists it is a great challenge to select the right journal of conference for the publication. Perhaps it is the task of the adviser to make a wise decision on that.

I like what Alexandre has to say, possibly the best answer.

Agreed, we will have predatory journals and fake outlets, but the best will still survive!

What I like the most about this explosion is the end of hegemony of the elitist in the field of scientific publishing.