I agree that a lot of low quality work is published even with peer review. But I don't think publishers should be gatekeepers; it's generally impossible to judg

I agree that a lot of low quality work is published even with peer review. But I don't think publishers should be gatekeepers; it's generally impossible to judge the quality of academic work without being heavily invested in the field yourself. So I don't have a problem with publishing rubbish as long as you pay for it yourself. What I do have a problem with is that these people try to collect anything that they can get their fingers on, put an ISBN on it, and then sell it to libraries at horrendous prices. This is not about making knowledge accessible, this is solely about scraping a bit off library budgets with the least amount of effort. (Edit: language)