It's a problem. How do we get people who aren't in a particular field to distinguish between something like PLoS ONE, which is legitimately selective and reliab

It's a problem. How do we get people who aren't in a particular field to distinguish between something like PLoS ONE, which is legitimately selective and reliable, but just trying something innovative and new, or the legitimately high quality CS conference proceedings that publish only on arXiv; from journals that accept anyone and publish online, with no barrier to their entry into publishing, or the many people who simply throw their papers onto arXiv and leave things at that? The internet has many opportunities for academic publishing, but many dangers as well. Academic publishing has relied on the barrier to entry in publishing to filter out incredibly bad journals, or make it clear that they are scams that simply charge high publishing fees; now anyone can create a journal, with low publishing fees, that may be quite legitimate or may be a scam.