Major Comments: The author make a compelling case that a sizable number of Open Access publishers have potentially flawed review policies that allow substandard

Major Comments: The author make a compelling case that a sizable number of Open Access publishers have potentially flawed review policies that allow substandard work to enter the literature. This is a promising first finding, however the authors then use this data to build a narrative of the nature of Open Access journals without having performed the corresponding experiment with an appropriate control arm. Without a comparison to conventional publishing, these findings cannot be extended as far as the author does in the conclusions. Such an assertion, without support, is not justified or supported. Recommendation: Resubmit after Major Revision.