What is your opinion? Has the rapid increase in the OA journal become mere business? Is it advantageous? Do you think it is diminishing the overall quality of the publication?
Thank you Dr. Marco for sharing the link for the article on "Predatory publishers are corrupting open access". It is an interesting discussion on OA. Every researcher must read this http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-access-1.11385
I am in the favor of open access journals as it may be easy to study the research updates in time. Few people who can use or are using this for dishonesty then that is up to them and show their morality. We should know about the morality standards but in case if anyone tries to take any illegal step then there are rules and regulations internationally.
There is no difference between navigating a predatory journal-infested waters of the internet age, and choosing a the right impact journal in the pre-internet age.
Frequently, bad OA journals give Open Science bad press more so than crap journals in the pre-internet age gave bad press to peer-review in general. Back then a bad journal was just a bad journal.
We are all trained to be critical and objective, and are capable of applying those strengths to chosing the right OA path for our field, without blaming Open Science for own poor and hurried choices.
I think the top answers in the discussion thread below (link attached) captures it elegantly: common sense and critical assessment needs to over-ride our human zeal to get the paper our quick. Alternatively, we lose out on the opportunities that Open Science offers for individual researchers` careers, and the science-society relationship.