How could scientists paying to publish their work incentivize them to publish more?
I assumed that the point was that the journal is incentivized to publish as many articles as possible, and hence to lower review standards.
I assumed that the point was that the journal is incentivized to publish as many articles as possible, and hence to lower review standards.
If you're just charging for publishing articles, you don't care about whether anyone reads them or about what your "prestige" is, since you don't make any money off of that.
It's true that if I publish a paper it's better for me if it's read and thus cited, but that's much less of a difference compared to published vs not published at all. The entire problem starts with authors not being incentivized to publish a few good articles over churning out as many as possible.