Interesting points, Thank you for your responses. I am very interested about this subject and various standpoints are welcomed.

I fear that we will be flooded by many more less serious journals in the near future, catering mostly for the less talented "scholars" - by them simply paying an open access fee they will be able to churn out whatever bullshit that they can come up with, since the editorial boards will not care at all what is written. Money will rule the game.

What I would like to see though is a more sharp zone of the publishing universe where peer reviews are very serious, in order to get rid of the bad apples quickly. I hope that the serious journals that I subscribe to and publish in will not fall for the trap of earning more money, but to sharpen their reviewing even more.

I agree with Michael. I don't think that we will see radical change from the current process for some time to come. I too would like to see a firmer regulation and policing of Open Access journals and the eradication of predatory journals if possible. I also think that open reviewing is a good thing - but that change will be very slow to come - if it does. I think that, eventually, subscription models will be replaced by open access - as is already the case on offer with many 'traditional' journals that offer a hybrid business model option.

I think that the biggest change in the near future will be more online journals and fewer hard-copy journals. The thing least likely to change will be the need to be watchful about predatory journals. Submitting to journals that are in a prestigious index, like SSCI, or included in a prestigious database, like EBSCO, is the best strategy.

Interesting points, Thank you for your responses. I am very interested about this subject and various standpoints are welcomed.

All rules will change within 2 years. Peer-review process will change into expert review process with a paid job.

Definitely not, Fatih. Very few would accept such a solution - which indeed would risk becoming corrupted. The peer-review system is perhaps not ideal, but it is the best so-far, and adding money into the system will definitely corrupt it.

"If you accept my manuscript, I'll give you $500" is not something I would like to see ... it would definitely corrupt the system.

Thank you very much Michael Patriksson .

Alternatives to novelty theory, perhaps instead using a basis of concrescence theory.

Alternatives to peer-review, perhaps instead ensuring a basis of peer-replication (contain all pre-requisites, and pre-requisites of pre-requisites) - no missing information, no points for unproductive solutions.

Alternatives to patenting, perhaps instead of ensuring ownership of an idea and inflicting a cost for legal battles, it should ensure responsibility of and access to an idea, while ownership is retained by the state (I'm using state as transiently synonymous with modern-government and future-crypto-law). Thus idea creation is not a profit motive, responsibility is the cost, and power is limited to limited access, which could be organised for greater profits and therefore taxes if one of those becomes your hidden capitalist drawback. This way legal battles are governmental, seeing as I've had them change the meaning of a word retroactively after I've said it - which makes their current game entirely pointless without being able to convince a greater majority a greater proportion of credibility as ownership, and ownership as societal construction, should allow for, as it has begun to already, misquoted intent fakenews propagation to minimise.

They're at the point now where history halts at machine intelligence, classified computer viruses, and significant grant bodies denominating research grants to non-mechanistic generalisations that don't apply with a coherency to the model measured significantly, like a linear rise for cancer and cigarette smoking, and they don't control the variable for BBQ's. An incomplete input is an inconsistent outcome.

Thanks @Aden handasyde. So interesting and informative.