[kqr]

> Publishers are now rewarded for publishing more papers, as opposed to having more readers.

That's the first order effect, but you have to look beyond it. If authors have to pony up $1500, they will only do so for journals that have readers. The journals that are able to charge will be those that focus on their readership.

[zipy124]

> If authors have to pony up $1500, they will only do so for journals that have readers

On the other hand predatory journals make a killing from APCs so there is some market for journals with no readers.

[samarthr1]

My university had made it mandatory for students to publish atleast 1 paper to graduate from their bachelors degree, and would pay all the associated fees.

Most kids unfortunately did end up paying to publish.

[KeplerBoy]

Authors don't pay for that personally though. Nobody bats an eye at the $1500 publishing fee for a mediocre paper, that could have been a blog post, because the institution is happy to bolster its publication count.

Heck, nobody even bats an eye if that publication is to be presented at a conference with a few thousand bucks in travel costs.

[youainti]

This would probably depend heavily on how tenure decisions handles publishing. If it is heavily biased towards quantity of publishing, then that won't matter as much as you can "pay to win your paycheck".

If the tenure process focuses on quality of work, then it should work better.