A nice publication by Jocelyn Kaiser in Science titled « Free Journals Grow Amid Ongoing Debate » discusses the success of Open Access journals such as PLoS and BioMed Central ones and brings by some presumably controversial points.
I say « presumably controversial » because it appears to me that someone claiming that PLoS ONE publishes only bad quality papers is just stupid and has no objective value (you know, the one scientists always claim from you when they disagree with you. I say « stupid » because here apparently, your opponent is supposed to produced an objectivable and structured argument, but not you). Papers published in open access journals go through the same peer-review process as in any other non open access journal. Or publishing one’s scientific results under one of the Creative Commons licenses means somehow that you are a bad scientist? This question is rhetorical and deliberately provocative😉
Surprisingly (or not), this Opinion is not open access. You need to be AAAS member of to pay for having access to the full text. Recommended reading anyway.