The discussion highlights the flawed nature of journal prestige in open access, reflecting on niche subjectivity.
One of the aspects that people seem to disagree with most, when I write or talk about open access, is that there is a problem with journal "prestige". Overly-ventriloquizing on behalf of the stereotypical conversant in this debate, he or she usually accepts (as do I) that, in an economy of journals dealing with niche subjects, some will be held in esteem and that others will not fare so well.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martin Paul Eve (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: