More information about text formats
This article makes headlines by arguing that the majority of researchers publishing in predatory journals, as surveyed by them, actually received peer review and found it helpful. But hidden away in the text of the article itself is the acknowledgment that of the 20 participants who said they would be willing to share a review, only one did (by pasting the review into the survey) and one other author shared an article proof rather than an actual review. The remaining 18 participants did not follow through with sharing their reviews. In other words, of the 65 authors who said their paper underwent peer review, only one provided any evidence that it actually did. This raises the question of whether the participants are merely saying that their publication experience was positive in order to legitimise their publication choices after the fact or whether they actually underwent peer review. I think we should all be very careful with this data until it is replicated by testing these journal's procedures directly.
As an independent researcher I simply cannot afford to publish in open access 'quality' journals. The so-called predatory journals in which I have published have provided an excellent service and the quality of the peer review has been good and led to significant revision of the manuscript. On the occasions I have attempted to submit to 'quality' journals I have been disappointed by reviewers comments which showed a poor grasp of the issues in the manuscript. I know the editor of one of these presumed predatory journals who is a respected researcher and who gets very frustrated over the predatory label which may, on occasions. be perceived to be 'quality' journals protecting their patch.
Clearly you need to do your homework before publishing, but in my opinion there is room for new entrants in the field.