The problem I see in general is that not all readers have sufficient knowledge to know if the information provided has the quality we expected to, but this also happens in traditional publications in which, typically, are provides partial information in the sense that it has to do with the point of view that each publisher has on a specific topic. This happens less in scientific subjects, I think because the peer reviewing are scientific, this makes the information a little more secure and true, but not entirely because when comes in the Human Factor, we can always find vested interests to publish or not that might be beneficial to the population, but not beneficial (eg in the case of scientific publications) to the pharmaceutical industry. A great dilemma of the quality of information we receive, mostly due to outside interests us readers.
Open Access and Editorial Quality
Recording of an NUJ meeting on editorial quality in the era of open access publishing. Held at the Wellcome Trust on 6 February 2013.