Do we need to challenge the use of impact factors before we can move to open access journals?
There are some really innovative open access journals out there.
PeerJ for example charges just 99 dollars for a lifetime ability ton publish with them. This is cheaper than almost all publishers, and they seem to offer a professional peer review process and publication platform (formatting/archiving etc).
So why are we not all submitting to PeerJ already?
Presumably because we feel our career's depend upon high impact publications.
This is of course frustrating because impact factors are one of the most invalid metrics of quality one could envisage (see http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291/full).
Do we need to challenge further the use of impact factors, before we can truly innovate with better open access journals?