An article submitted to an OA journal would be "blind" to the reviewers in terms of whether it is "paid" or not.
The decision to publish or not couldn't be based on the financial situation of the researcher submitting the article. To do otherwise would be self-defeating for any peer reviewed journal. We've been told repeatedly by publishers that the "real" competition isn't for subscriptions, but for quality papers. i.e. they believe subscriptions follow quality. I tend to think subscriptions just follow authors (who submit papers). (I publish there, how dare you not subscribe!) Publishers assume profitability from quality but in the end probably get subscriptions just from the bulk of submitters pressuring local institutions. Quality is something late to the game, I think, as libraries are forced to divest lower quality titles because of financial difficulties --even traditional publishers will be forced to move from bulk to selection in ways they have not been previously. Otherwise why would anyone pay? Some publishers have blamed libraries for buying too many low quality journals (invariably its the other publishers' stock they mean) and think librarians have to be gate keepers-a role libraries have never tried to fill in STM journals. But getting good papers submitted is where many costs to the present system are located, and probably hidden. If OA journals publish the best, then the best articles will be submitted to them. They actually have more incentive, as the new kids on the block, to make sure the best articles are published, as they have something to prove in order to survive. And their "market" is twofold. Researchers deciding where the most prestige and attention will be accorded their articles will submit their best. There shouldn't be many OA journals that are second or third tier, as there are in print systems-in fact the "profitable" journals in a publishers stable subsidize many failures. And we may need to create a "second or third tier" system just to accomodate material that will no longer meet higher review standards that will be necessary as authors select venues and pay charges for OA. Some traditional journals oten just coast on the basis of raising prices. If you can't raise subscription prices because there aren't any, and if you depend on authors not only for submission but for payment , you have to be sure what you are publishing really is worth publishing. That's the only reason authors would decided to participate. OA journals could become the highest of the high quality sources--or fail completely. The verdict is still out. If you want your research seen, reacted to, evaluated beyond prepublication peer review, i.e. actually used and cited by others, the OA journals should over time win the race because of more potential for readers. Pay journals only have a potential for more (or fewer) subscribers. If an author is convinced they are doing the best work they will want to participate fully in the free market of ideas. International researchers should be as interested, if not more than other authors, in the success of OA journals. It takes their work to a world view more than any print system. Chuck Hamaker
