You may find interesting consequences of megajournal open access journals (that’s impressive in term of numbers):
And this talk shared there: Open Access MegaJournals.
Certainly there’s been a change in the science publication ecosystem (that’s obvious). Unsure as to whether some aspects are easily documented, though:
– actual replication is accepted, but is it easy to find out which studies stand as replications from earlier works?
– “minor results” may indeed have found a way in the available “results pool”, but how do you say? It was clearly an issue prior to open access, since reviewers could reject on the basis that results were not interesting (whatever that meant), but OA doesn’t delineate between results unfairly rejected on spurious motives and “minor results”. Weren’t citation fate of papers telling us about fanciness already? (and not scaling on interestingness anyway!)
Did you ever get the feeling that these two aspects were saved by OA in specific cases? I haven’t yet. Which doesn’t mean it isn’t happening (I’m only saying it doesn’t read well even between lines). Or was I already swimming and reading in the pool of “forgotten studies”?