Peer review is a essential part of the self-policing of scientific research. It involves uncompensated, voluntary, blind-review of one another’s work. However, as it is practiced now most of it is one in which the author is known, but the reviewer remains anonymous. In the absence of any better method of review, this remains the underpinning of most of our current scientific peer-review. Critiquing the methodology and conclusions and improving the overall quality of science is paramount to maintaining standards for publications and discussion.  Science is essentially a mechanisms of self-correction wherein hypothesis and theory are supplanted with new or corrected versions and, hence incrementally improving the enterprise. The vast exponential increase in journals, especially the “open access” variety has necessarily placed the veracity of peer-review in question.  Most traditional journals have established procedures for anonymous peer-review and does not have the desire to charge fees for manuscript submission. Thus, they are free to reject manuscripts in favor or maintaining quality journals. However, open access journals work on the premise that authors should pay for the open access service that they provide and hence they have less of a desire to reject manuscripts.  At the same time it is not clear from  the data thus far that there is a substantial lack of rigor for the “open access” variety. Thus, the very allegation that the current system is broken seems a little bit too premature.  I would advise one to wait for another decade or more so that the “open access” journals go through the maturation process and then see if there is a difference. I would go so far as to say that in time the “open access” journals would set up practices to weed out unreliable and unscrupulous ones from their herd.  Indeed this proliferation of open access journals would be a great competition to the traditional journals (except for association journals) that also work towards profit making.