I write regarding Opinion 156
I agree whole-heartedly about what you said should happen to AAM. I would certainly rank it lower than EJC now (I know you also have issues there, but EJC seems to me to be publishing articles at the quality of JCTA/JCTB right now) and probably also AJC (Australasian J. Comb.)---I might be a bit ahead of the times here, but did you know they are now diamond open-access? (no charges to publish or read, just like EJC). Both are doing inventive things. I certainly wouldn't submit something to AAM that hadn't first been rejected by both EJC and AJC, because I like the idea of people reading my papers.
In case you didn't notice, DMTCS has converted to being an arXiv-overlay journal. So (unlike EJC and AJC) every article in DMTCS will FOR SURE be available until the Sun dies, because the arXiv has that many mirrors. There are some issues to work out, but they might be a model of the journal of the future.
Yes, they still reject papers, thereby committing the "deadly sin" of making "some people feel superior to other people by rejecting submissions." If you want to argue that all papers are equal, please go ahead---indeed, start your own journal, but realize I'm going submit 100 garbage papers a year to it. And I'll encourage my students to do the same.
I hate referees as much as you, but they perform a vital service in that they add a roadblock to the publication highway. I don't think any substantial contribution (to the combinatorics literature, at least) is ever denied publication, but publication can be delayed, to the point where the author might wonder if the process is worth it. I think this is the process working perfectly (with some exceptions; I recently had a couple reports that made me want to withdraw the submission, but my co-authors fought me, and we returned a much worse paper addressing the bullshit "concerns" of the bullshit referees---I hope they are happy). Even in that case, we could have withdrawn the submission and found a friendlier venue.
Here is a legitimate issue I have with your opinion: when I "want to find out what's new in math", I do go first to the arXiv. But probably it just tells me stuff I already know.
When I want to find out "what is known (maybe ten years ago?) about this thing?", I go to MathSciNet. The arXiv is not indexed in MathSciNet, which is, otherwise, an incredibly valuable resource.
I think MathSciNet is thinking and working on this, but if they don't get it right, we have a problem.
So here's my question: If some young person proves an okay but not great result about something, and they follow your advice, how will it ever get cited? I *might* see it on the arXiv, but if it gets to MathSciNet, I'll certainly find it eventually. And to get on MathSciNet, it has to get published.
As I've always said, your advice is fine for you, because everyone reads your papers, but it is terrible for young people, because people don't know to read their papers.
If you want to boycott journals, fine, if you insist or strongly suggest that you students follow suit, that's not good advice.
Best,
Vince