Some predatory journals publish whatever they get and demand huge fees from authors. Avoid such journals: don't publish there, don't agree to review articles submitted there, don't cite their articles, hopefully they'll go bankrupt!

I don't think we should.

The standards of some of these publications are appalling, see John Bohannon's piece at :

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

These publications tend to be not further reviewed afterwards by serious reviewers, but rather be routinely dismissed or plain overlooked - so if anyone has anything interesting or groundbreaking to say, this does not seem to be the proper vehicle ... The purpose of life is not to boast of a big hollow number of 'publications' (that no one ever reads)

How you treat the article and what sort of reputation it provides should have more to do with the content of the article than the place where it was published and as a rule, I think that this is what happens. When it comes to non-experts judging someone's CV/publication record, it's harder to factor quality in, but even then a paper that's not very good in a non-serious journal isn't going to be seen or cited, and isn't going to be taken very seriously.

Whether or not one should submit to such journals is of course an important, but separate, question. Publication fees don't always mean that it's not a "real" journal, but it's something to watch out for.

Each disciplene has first rate journals, not charging authors for publication. I tend to look papers in these journals first. But, sure, a good paper will find readership regardless of a journal it is published. Uploading a pre-print of the article on RG site is a good way to make results public.

Dear all

I think that we might be treated a paid publication as a real scientific publication.

Because, some time it happened with someone that he / she has his/her own old data, but as he/ she get some new analysis or ideas, then he tried and studied the old thing into new fashion but some journals refused them after seeing such type of things as he/she submit it to journals of his field.

So, in last he tried to published it in paid journals. I know it very well that he/she did not find any thing new, but count his consistency in her work.

I think, we have not to demoralised them.

because next time he will do some thing new.

Sure, any Journal which charge for publications can be avoided. Papers make the Journal, not vice versa.

Thank you dear Alexander.

I think, it's strange for author to pay for the publication of his/her paper, it seems me immoral. It's the same that still admit that the result is not good enough.

Moreover, for me it's strange why journals do not pay for authors for their papers, at least from the Computer Time. When it was pre-computer era, every journal spends money for making paper copies, for printing workers, for the distribution of journals on different libraries etc. But now, they do everything very easily and fast, and the most part of selling comes via Internet in 1 sec. by pressing a button. So the part of work of publishers diminished very much, the part of work of authors even increased, since many journals even do not have editors and suggest to authors to edit their papers themselves (not speaking about the fact that authors always themselves type their papers in TEX-LATEX and present to journals a ready file, sometimes even in the style of the journal). Work of journal is limited only by scientific reviewing. So, it would be more relevant, if journals would pay to authors, as I believe.

I also initiated a discussion with the same theory in mind and got responses from many scientists. A look at the discussion thread will make you clear about the query you have put up here. Here is the link to it:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_far_do_you_think_that_asking_a_fee_for_publishing_a_research_paper_is_justifiable

I believe your views would be valuable in this discussion too.

Thanks and best regards

@John, 'devil is in the details', everything is crucial in our world.

@Mohammand, if they do not publish your work, put it on arxiv.org

@Johan, I didn't know it since I have never applied there. Of course we have to avoid publishing our work there: it will be painful for starting, but then time will force them to stop asking for fees.

@Ekaterina, we alsmost perfectly agree each other: the time I have spent in order to make my article fulfil the latex requirements o f every journal is considerable enough, so why not to pay me for that time?

I think that we all live with myths about science, publications, impact factors, prestigious journals and many others...

If any rich man or woman wants reputation, let organize a philanthropic party and charge everybody $600 to enter, but please don't tell us that he/she is a reputational scientists because he/she has paid thousands of $ to be published!

(Or in other words: you got the money, leave us alone!)

@Johan, probably many of your problems arise from the fact that a commercial journal will never contested itself, since it lies on the mainstream dogma of the current era. So, you have to find other alternative ways to be published.

I think that, instead of:

1)begging every editor to publish our work

2)giving in to the peculiar requirements of a commercial journal

3)waiting months and years to be published

we have to:

1)create a pure scientific index which does not involve:

i)self-references

ii)paid publishing journals

iii)journals that desk-reject systematically the submitted articles.

This is a good beginning in order to redefine what is scientific and what is just public relations.

Of course we are not going to solve all existing problems in scientific publication process, but we should at least try to make a set of new definitions:

1)Definition of what is a non commercial scientific added value

2)Definition of what should be treated as a pure commercial publication

3)Definition of a proper impact factor for the cases 1) & 2) above

4)Definition of a general impact factor for open access & without fees journals like arxiv.org

5)Definition of an impact factor for open access & with fees journals like plosone

6)Definition of a proper index for Medicine publications, since there exists an 'inflation' there: probably we should measure them by 100 like the yen currency, in order to be comparable to Physics, Mathematics and other natural sciences publications.

7)Definition of a list of publications that should not get any impact point at all.

After having established all the above definitions we could say that a step forward will have been done.

Someone has to pay for the publishing - including peer review, technical editing, administration, website, printing, etc. Who pays for this? The western model is that the subscribing library (or person) pays - they buy the journal subscription. Other models around the world use institution or association funds to maintain the journal (sometimes these work file, and other times they don't). Increasingly there is a push to make research freely available, so the money has to come up-front - from the journal's institution or association, or from the authors. Where the author is charged this is often paid out of grant funding or their own institution funds. This is this is happening in high quality journals (see PLoS Medicine) as well as some lower quality and possibly fraudulent journals. It is becoming a very complex environment.

@Pippa, usually the reader of the article has to pay and if you see under the 'purchase' button you will observe something like $29.90 and other high prices, so it is not necessary for the author to pay.

@Demetris, this seven definitions (read jobs) really has to be done! Agree, You have done it very systematically !

@Demetris, you are confusing the two different payment models: Payment model 1 - the reader pays - either through a library subscription (annual access for an annual payment) or an pay-per-view (as you described, with charges like $30 per article). This model does not charge the author.

Model 2, the articles are free (see any article on http://www.biomedcentral.com/) - but to make the articles free for readers the authors are asked to pay.

Different journals use different models. It is the choice of the author (to pay, and then anyone, anywhere, can read for free - or not to pay and then readers need to pay to access the article). (Unless the journal is fully-funded from its parent institution or association, in which case neither the authors nor the readers pay.)

@Pippa, the problem is that Model 2 is going to be mandatory for a new scientist: I was in a meeting of the Professors at my Department and suddenly I heard one asking about 600 euros just for fees in order for his article to be peer reviewed. Of course you understand that the situation has gone away when we face such a fee...

Demetris,

Your 7 definitions are OK. However, I am afraid these are too complicated to implement and scientists are not properly informed on this subject. Nevertheless, there is a simple opportunity which is much easier to realise: a list of “trader” journals with periodic refreshments and a very brief characterisation of their business circle. One could create an URL of journals to be avoided and everybody would be able to get information.

Johan,

Classifying? Journals publishing for money classify themselves. Rules of their business can be found at their own URL. The list I proposed is only a source of information. Avoiding is an action decided by individuals. If you mean it (publishing for money) is an ethical deed and serves the future of scientific development you can pay for publishing your results. However, one can name “mercenary” or “trader” journals as he/she wants to do. I think it is not too complicated to find an appellation which is suitable even for overliberal perceptions. Certainly, the possibility of a revenge is obvious versus the initiators of such an URL. Even the URL would be blocked either by the law or by rented hikers.

Unfortunately, dishonesty and corruption cannot be eliminated these belong to the normal operation of our world. What you have written about future reference is fine the question is how this would be implemented in practice where a simple author does have a disadvantage compared with a reviewer or an editor. They can write e.g. your manuscript is OK but the others are much better and suit more perfectly the policy of their journal.

Dear All,

I propose to have a look at

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_modern_research_becoming_more_and_more_publication_oriented

and also to read this

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

Dear Johan,

I understand you and your argumentation. My trouble is whether what has more merit in publishing a manuscript its scientific value or the wallet of the author.

“Nothing is perfect - said the fox when it learned that there are no chickens on the planet of the little prince.”

Please, read my former message.

Very good discussion. I had raised this issue in a different discussion on impact factor. Somebody suggested that good journals do not charge the authors! This discussion has vindicated my conviction.

@Demetris, you are right, there is an imposition from funding bodies that authors/researchers make their works open access - but usually there is an option - (1) to publish in an OA journal (which may require a publication fee - and in which case the funder will often allow grant funding to be used for this), or (2) the accepted version of the article must be made available after publication in a repository, such as PubMed Central, etc. - and in this case the article often does not need to be made available in these repositories until 6-12 months after publication (to protect the subscription revenue of the publisher).

I think it is a hard case. Johan's argument shows as another option: that of the censoring actions for any 'alternative' theoretical approach. Probably, only for that case, I should agree that an author could pay for publishing his/her work, but why not to publish in arxiv.org which is free?

Dear All,

I have observed that participants on RG generally do not take into account relevant information given as an attached document or source.

Please, try to read this highly interesting article

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

It stresses also the experiences of Johan.

I mention - regarding discussions on RG - there is an obvious and general insufficiency on publication opportunity and ethical backgrounds of leading dogmas (organisations) in science. I think it is time to establish a kind of organisation of independent scientists in order to conserve the real merit of science: working and creating for the welfare of humanity.

I too agree with Dr. Bozsik

@Johan, have you searched about why such an anonymity was established? What was the initial task?

@Andras, I have read the article in Guardian.Mostly, the last sentence is close to me "...so science must break the tyranny of the luxury journals. The result will be better research that better serves science and society." ! Agree!

I think that in order to avoid such negative rejections like the mentioned by Johan we could demand the necessity of non anonymity, everybody who judges ought in principle to be judged, at least from history.

@Johan Prins

My manuscript Logical Refutation of the EPR argument was deleted from arxiv.org in 2004 and my privileges to deposit papers there were suspended to the point that I am one of those authors that require endorsement to deposit a paper. I have written to the President of Cornell University requesting him to investigate, without answer. The paper was published by Physics Essays in 2013. It took them nine years to publish it, but they published it, thanks to the integrity of Dr. Emilio Panarella. My manuscript on intrinsic angular momentum of a system of particles, that challenges the concept of spin, has been rejected with no explanation almost everywhere. These days you need to be a member of the mafia like elite to have anything that's not mainstream published. Then "scientist" appear all talkative against the Catholic church of Urban VIII: they are worse.

@András Bozsik

May be we should start now...

Dear All,

I think the first step must be that every scientist shall be informed on these anomalies. The second could be a possible cooperation say on the basis of definitions drafted by Demetris.

It is a long and slow way to evolve better or more correct circumstances in scientific and publication relationships but nothing will be achieved only with lip service.

I feel a broad understanding and a determined courage are needed on these debated issues. You know rhetoric is always the first thing...

I am afraid there is even a probability that the question will be deleted soon.

I think that, since it is extremely difficult to publish without pay, when a university asks to hire a professor then it should emphasize at the announcement:

1)the candidate has to present at least ... (number) of unpaid publications

2)the candidate probably has to present ...() of paid publications

3)the candidate is necessary to have published at least ...() at open accesss journals

By this way, anybody with a big wallet will have less probabilities to take the position and thus to reproduce the 'pay to publish' system.

Demetris,

I am afraid your new 3 points will not be considered in universities.

I say there are places where without (paid) publications it is possible to be a professor or dean or rector etc. with the help of cronies or political support.

Wallet determined publications are only a little mosaic of carrier building. At a certain level majority of publications are made by colleagues, PhD students, young PhDs (on slave pay) and the fruit of this performance belong to bosses. For many scientists this is natural. There are so much ethical misuses of authority. It would be interesting to verify other performance abuses in case of paid publications (except when mainstream dogmas hinder “normal” ways of publication).

I think these discussions may have a valuable psychological impact and can heal a bit personal wounds many of us received during life.

We humans are theatrical beings: we talk a lot but act carefully and slowly.

Publishing scientific journals is a business. Like other businesses, the owner(s) search for ways to make profit. Their market is in filling the gap for those researchers who have written less publication-worthy papers. The impact factor and other metrics will reveal the value of the journal to other researchers. If your paper is worthy of being read and cited by others, it will get its citations at the end.

Personally, I avoid submitting manuscripts to journals which charge considerable amount of cash to publish my paper. I also mostly avoid those more established ones which charge a page cover cost. There are enough free highly-regarded journals out there. I just need to raise my standard of research work.

So, it's a mesh! Other people (slaves) work and other people publish. Other people (rich) publish like buying a car, other people (poor) face desk-rejections one after the other...I don't wait - András - that something will change, I rather want to downsize all those who want to show us: 'Oh, look at me, I have 124 publications and an impact factor of 654, glory to me!'...

@H. Taherian, please sent me via p.m. a short list of your findings...

Demetris,

Many of us do know you are right. Please, you should understand these kinds of failures are built into the system. Remember Orwell: “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”

I see you do not want to wait , in this case remember: the future will decide on the scientific merit. You are able to formulate your ideas and can publish in a national journal. One can exploit others or he/she will be exploited. Of course, in the first case you have the ethical merit but not impact points.

Andras, I know very well that there exist NOT any concept like justice etc, but this does not mean that we will stay pathetically being fooled by any money-seeker foundation...

Dear All,

Please, read this editoral:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X13014576

Johan,

"It is dangerous to raise your standard of research work, since this is the surest way to have your manuscript rejected by the editors and anonymous peer reviewers."

This is so bitter. Many of us has been kicked by editors but you may have had horrible experiences.

@ Johan,

I agree with Andras that you may have had a few bad experiences with reviewers. I think it is a fair assumption that we have reviewed a few articles ourselves. I try to be fair in review and only check the facts with what I know. I never reject an article just because I don't agree with the result unless I have evidence that the analysis is flawed. I will always directly point to where the author has mistaken. To be honest, I have rejected quite a few articles at times. However, none of the rejections were unfair in my opinion. I understand if some of the authors don't like it when they get rejected. I have been rejected many times.

H. Taherian,

The trouble is that Johan must have a lot of such experiences.

Dear All,

Now, we can do a tiny bit.

Read this URL attentively

http://am.ascb.org/dora/

We can sign the Declaration of Research Assessment and this can be the first step...

@Johan, and it is supposed that we have passed away the dark Medieval Era when they used to burn people...(Now they 'burn' you otherwise: they leave you without job, without money...)

@ Demetris,

I really don't know whether one should treat a paid publication as a real scientific publication or not. I am interested in research that is published and what does it mean to me to the society. I also don't care what the IF of the journal is from which I have got (downloaded) the article of my research. If it is of its worth, to me it is valuable.

All right, I'm gonna step in at this point... We all know the story, the corruption, the cronyism, the incest caused by capital influence within the sciences. It is up to the rest of us to fight these forces, as best we can, to either thwart or arrest such malignant influences; and, hopefully, triumph against the superstition, stupidity and Herd Mentality. on that note: if history serves as any indication of the likelihood of our success, well, "nice knowing all of you..."

And with that... let us all now gather 'round and remark what is at rock bottom the source of all our present woes in this modern wilderness - "A crisis in Authenticity"

Summary:

1)Paid publication increases discrimination among scientists

2)There exist many gray zones: starting from direct payment and ending to "Payment of page charges is voluntary and in no way affects the publication of present or future papers"

3)Scientific world has all good or bad properties of every other world: the 'scientific' term does not disinfects everything that touches

4)Reaction is possible, although results will arise much more later

5)Paid publication probably could be a self-defence for people that are not being published not because of their 'ill written' articles but because of censoring processes

Perhaps we should care about other scientists seeking to publish and not only thinking about us: 'Oh, I at least found a way to be published, who cares about others now?'

Dear Demetris Christopoulos

I am not fully agreed with your nice opinion.

I think that you comment is 30% right.

OK, then not pay publications but also no salaries for researchers if money means such a conflict of interest. Indeed, all this conversation has not sense. Journals have measures to control quality of their publications.

@Vicente, they are two different and well distinct things, the paid publication industry and the paid research, I think.

I do not understand the difference if the main critics is that money may involve unethical procedures. If some considers that paying a publication means that unadequate matters can be published, the same applies for researchers that receive money for doing their tasks. And the same can be extended to the whole picture of other professions. Journal editors need to have some economic input to maintain their staff. This can be achieved by suscriptions or directly by authors (in the new open-Access systems). But they always have measures to control the validity of what is published in an independent manner from the author. This has indeed working since pulication in 1665 of the first scientific journal (Journal des Sçavans) and stills working today: is called peer-review.

Vicente,

not only because of "that money may involve unethical procedures". Must be also "common sense". Of course, we talk about real journals, not about electronic, open-access etc., that is we talk about journals which are sold in shops and distributed in universities and libraries for payments which provide universities and libraries.

Why we should pay to journals if journals sell product which we made for them and which is valuable --- our works=papers? You wrote "then not pay publications but also no salaries for researchers if money means such a conflict of interest." --- I am sorry, if no salaries for researchers ---> no research and researchers (all of them died from hunger without salaries) ---> no journals (what they will sell?)

So just authors represent "hen that lays golden eggs", journals only sell these eggs.

And "hen", as you believe, must pay to sell its "golden eggs"?

Moreover, as I already wrote, before computer era, journals had more duties connected with issues preparing. Now their work is mostly with reviewing process. Sorry for such comparison, but it's like housework, which is the cause of discord between certain members of family (at least in East Europe countries where just women prepare dinner). Once upon a time, "husband work" was in every "bowl of soup", because the "man work" was to provide a fire in the house, that is, to bring firewood from the forest, chop, etc. But at present, men are successfully spared from this load. But nobody invented an automaton which will itself take meat and vegetables from the fridge, clean them, lay in pan and cook borscht 3 hours which many women make for their families. Thus "man's work" disappeared (in the dinner preparing), but "woman's work" remained. So the "journal side work" decreased in computer era, but "author's work" not only remained, but sometimes increased : many journals fired philological editors, so authors must edit themselves their papers, they must type formulas in tex, but not writing them by pen in the text typed in typewriter etc. making "life of journals" much more easier as before.

But what good did journals for us?

The antiquity of an institution does not guarantee its superiority. In contrary, since world is becoming more complex every passing century or even more oftenly, it is necessary to check if our 'old fashioned view' is still a valuable habit. I remind that prostitution is the oldest profession of the world, so if we had to respect the older (and surly older than 1665), then we had to also promote it...Contradiction? Thus, we cannot argue about peer-review system just because it comes from 1665...

Paid publications !! Actually not right but very few journals have unpaid publications and they have a long queue waiting to be endorsed. I feel, more than paid or unpaid, quality of peer review, time taken for the whole process should be controlled !

Dear Demetris

A scientific publication is the result of scientific research. To do scientific research many times we need a scholarship to fund the project.

There are several governmental institutions created to support and stimulate scientific production in each country. When there is payment for the article to be revised and eventually published , this is not science but commercial transaction

Nelson,

You are right. Several governmental institutions created to support and stimulate scientific production for some persons in each country. In addition, governmental institutions or governments provide financial support for some which allow paying for publication. However, many do not know about these commercial transactions. There are only a few who sacrifice their own money for publication.

Folks, I don't understand the problem. There are great number of Journals of High Quality, which publish for free. As a matter of fact, my field, Physical Chemistry, does not have high quality journals, which request payment from authors. Each field has 1st rate Journal, publishing for free.

Lucky Alexander! I wish that the same situation could hold for Economics, but I have heard about $600 as a fee for review process (without guarantee for publication).

"I don't understand the problem. There are great number of Journals of High Quality, which publish for free."

What is a problem for one party, eg author fees, is not the problem for another party, eg the public who cannot freely access top scientific work.

"I have heard about $600 as a fee for review process"

For OA journals, I do not think the fees go towards paying reviewers, at least I hope not, as this would surely influence their reviews. They go more towards production costs, copy editing, proof reading and profits for the publisher.

Every one can contact the author and get the copy of the paper for free. $600 for a Review Process is the Extortion.

"Every one can contact the author and get the copy of the paper for free"

No, what they may get, assuming the author is well-organised and technically supported, is a version of the paper differing from the definitive published version to an unknown extent.

To my knowledge all publishers allow authors to send copies of their papers privately to other researchers. There is no reason not to send the .pdf file of the published manuscript.

The copyright only prevent us from making it available for download e.g. from our homepage or Researchgate. In those cases most publishers allow that you prepare a post print of the manuscript.

Would there be any reason for an author to change his/her manuscript compared to the published version?

From the list of "production costs, copy editing, proof reading and profits for the publisher" I think that only the last one is active. All other have already been done from the candidate author (at least for journals with a latex template).

"From the list of "production costs, copy editing, proof reading and profits for the publisher" I think that only the last one is active. All other have already been done from the candidate author"

I find that many comments on ResearchGate that have been prepared by authors without any independent copy editing or proof reading to be simply unintelligible.

Since most of the journals now charge for the electronic version of the article I cannot find what are the printing costs at the year 2014.

Since all referees are volunteers I cannot also compute what is the cost of peer reviewing for the articles that are going to be published.

Finally, since by providing a tex template (I speak about at least journals that accept papers written in latex) the candidate author fits his/her article to the printing norms of the journal, I cannot also find what is the copy editing and other similar costs.

So, to ask somebody to pay $600 just for sending the manuscript I think is the ultimate spoof.

@Demetris, ..."So, to ask somebody to pay $600 just for sending the manuscript I think is the ultimate spoof." YES, YES, YES! It is ultimate spoof! It's rude, right?

It think this debate has too much focus on the mentioned $600 for review. Obviously it is very wrong, but this is not the way open access journals generally work. You should only pay if the paper is accepted as it is supposed to cower publishing costs.

Yes Ljubomir, and try to imagine the situation for new scientists...

Yes, Henrik, but it is necessary to exist an intriguing concept at every question, just to shake the waters.

And of course, yes Johan, when the peer-review procedure reach the level of being non scientific, then I don't care if it is old since 1687, it has probably to be changed now in 21st century.

No

Come on, folks, a good publication will be recognized by peers regardless of the journal published.

Perhaps the true issue is not whether a publication that paid $ 600 to be published is a good publication or not: peers could recognize something bad regardless of who, what, where and why is published.

The issue could be: could I ever have access to be published in that journal if I do not have $ 600? Maybe I had something brilliant to say...

But, frankly, it is a problem that tends to obsolescence.

We all know that self-archiving and the so-called openscience are growing in terms of reputation, market positioning and revenues. Venture capitalists are investing a lot there [ie. B. Gates invested on RG], and within five years they will get the huge gain procured by the exit strategies they have concluded just in these days.

g

@Alexander: Very true, but research grants and academic jobs are often assigned, at least in part, on the basis of impact factors and other quantifiable parameters (for the justifiable reason that these parameters help to limit the effects of personal likes/dislikes by members of evaluation committees). The moral support of one's peers is only a small consolation for a young researcher who fails to obtain a paid position or a research grant.

On the other hand, I believe that the problem of high page charges is not as serious as some of the above posts suggest. If a given journal asks for impossibly high page charges, publish elsewhere. There are plenty of commercial journals with high impact factors, at least in Europe, that don't require page charges. I am aware of (and published on) at least a few US-based journals that normally require page charges but can waive them if the author does not have funding to cover them.

My own personal policy is not to pay page charges. So far I published over 70 papers, mostly in international journals or book chapters, and I remember paying page charges only once. It was a special case of a paper exceeding the "charge-free" number of pages by a few ones, and in this case I paid in order not to shorten my MS by leaving out what I regarded as useful parts of the paper.

Another of my personal policies is trying as much as possible to increase the value of each of my papers, rather than spreading out useful contents into multiple papers (like too little butter on too much bread). A compromise is sometimes necessary between these two policies, like choosing to publish a big paper in a less widely circulated journal instead of two or three smaller ones on well known journals that accept only shorter papers.

"There are plenty of commercial journals with high impact factors, at least in Europe, that don't require page charges".

I am still confused about fees despite all the discussions on RG. So, are there OPEN ACCESS journals that do not now or in the future charge authors? Could we have a short list of say 5 of these European ones, together with their business models and/or an explanation as to why they do not need to charge authors?

@Anthony: In my main field (paleobiology) I know one: Palaeontologia Electronica (http://palaeo-electronica.org/). As far as I am aware, no publishing fees of any kind. There may be more, but I have not actively looked for them.

I am not aware that this thread specifically deals with open access journals (open access is only mentioned once in the last few dozens posts of this thread). My earlier post, at any rate, does not mention open access journals.

From its website:

"PE is completely open access: there are no charges to authors or to readers. Funding for PE is provided by the Palaeontological Association, the Paleontological Society, and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, who hold the copyrights to papers published in the journal."

Fine for PE, but surely there are very few OA journals that have this sort of subsidy, and those that are must be extremely specialised. Does anyone else know of any?

Any Journal of the above kind (OA and free of charge) in Numerical Analysis and Computational Mathematics?

Man paid journals also have high IF like Biomed Res Int (Hindwaii Journal) near to 3 IF, but is a peer-reviewed journal and also an open access journal. It charges 1500 USD. It depends on the quality papers a journal is publishing and we can't treat all paid journals equally. Nowadays many open access journals are emerging like mushrooms and science has become a market of sale and purchase of papers.

There are many reasons for choosing a particular journal, and open access are often just as costly. It is not so much the cost of doing business, rather it is a matter of maintain the viability of many of the long-established and well-respected journals. At some point we have to have faith in the peer-review process, and the ability of readers to see through blatantly promotional pieces. If a journal is seen as offering a "pay for play" reviewing process, that should not be secret for long, and respectable authors would forgo those journals, and impact factor would be minimal.

In response to Giuseppe, often the page fees are waived for academicians, government-funded research, and for non-US/Canada/Western Europe.