re: going against your CV, do you have any insight into why this might be? Open access journals are not always predatory or fraudulent publications. It seems to me that as long as the journal is peer reviewed, publishes high quality research, and has a reasonable impact factor, tenure committees being biased against them is irrational.
You have to understand this: Academia runs on clout. Not quality, not replicability, but reputation, however it is earned.
That means that an amazing paper published in PLoS ONE is generally worse for your career than an unreplicable pile of drek in Nature. The quality of the paper, barring notable impact outliers, is secondary to the journal it's published in.
The problem isn't the reality of journal quality, it's just the common perception. The unfortunate fact is that you have to cater to the biases of wider academia.
While more established researchers can turn down the chance to publish in one of the big, closed journals, it's an opportunity that many cannot turn down.
> as long as the journal is peer reviewed, publishes high quality research, and has a reasonable impact factor, tenure committees being biased against them is irrational
I agree. And stronger than that, recently some funding agencies (e.g. the Dutch NWO) favor/require open access for works that come out of projects they fund, and they have budget set aside for that. The trend is hopefully changing, but it takes time.
