A science journalist sent 304 random variations of a deliberately and
severely flawed paper to open access journals.
157 got accepted, 98 rejected with 49 pending. "... about 60% of the
final decisions occurred with no sign of peer review" (pooling across
accept and reject).
The article reads as a sting on open-access publishing in particular,
but it is hard to know how closed-access publishing would have done
under the same test.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
The Google+ URL for this post was
https://plus.google.com/+MatthewBrett/posts/ehQvrESEhvw