Should I review for a journal charging authors?

Someone has to pay the costs of publication. In open access it isn't going to be subscribers. For lots of reasons it isn't going to be the government. So, unless there is an advertising model (yuch) there aren't a lot of possibilities other than authors.

(Professional society memberships often provide a partial subsidy for publication, of course.)

Note, however, that many authors, anticipating this, will get an item in grant funding for publication costs so that it isn't out of pocket for them. And, many such grants are, in fact, government funded. In principle, universities could pay publication costs, but they have other obligations for (often limited) funds.

Also, an author gets to choose where to submit. They aren't held at gunpoint to work with a particular publisher. And some publishers can, in some cases forgive some fees, though the money still needs to come from somewhere. And it is expensive, even for a non-print journal, to make an essentially-perpetual promise to keep things available. Things that aren't adequately funded tend to disappear.

So, yes, if you want to continue to see quality articles appear, I suggest that you at least think about improving the quality of such things. If only cruft is published we are all worse off. Think of reviewing as a service to authors, in this case authors who will pay a fee to make the work available to others. It seems like not a hard decision to me, actually.

Long term, perhaps, other possibilities exist for funding, but lunch still ain't free.

Theoretically, there is an advantage to authors in open access in that it makes the work more widely available to other (funds-limited) academics.

As a researcher working in a Private University in India, I can never afford the APC these journals charge. The APC is worth several months of my salary. Why can't these open access journals be Hybrid? There are advantages to publishing open access, and those who can afford it can go for it. Why exclude a whole section of researchers out of a system? Can't support such a system and would rather not review for them anymore.

To summarize Bryan Krause's point:

If you think a journal is worth submitting to and paying the fees to publish in, then you should also think that it is worth reviewing for. You should review 2-3 papers per every paper you submit.

If you don't think a journal is worth submitting to nor paying the fees for, then you are not obligated to submit nor review for them. The logic cuts both ways. Asking others to review for you in a journal you believe to be of value while not doing reviews yourself would be potentially selfish. I, personally, review for the major professional societies I am a member of, Nature PG, AAAS (Science) journals pretty much exclusively for that reason.

You also have the ability to get on the volunteer publishing board/committee (which is different than the editorial board) of professional societies that run journals or run for or support a candidate for an officer position that believes fees are too high in order to lower them. I know people on those boards and officers of professional societies, and those volunteer professional societies can't lower fees and still provide the services they provide. The overwhelming cost is labor administering the review process, labor for IT maintenance for submission systems. Even the "executives" are volunteers. You are welcome to try to volunteer and lower costs, that's the beauty of volunteer professional societies - clever people can find a better way!

Your situation as an author who's being pushed out of the journal you've worked with in the past is understandable, especially given the APC charge. However, the decision to turn down further reviewing for this journal isn't necessarily about being selfish or justified, but about setting a boundary for yourself. As you've pointed out, the APC charge can be seen as a conflict of interest, as it incentivizes the journal to publish low-quality papers to maximize revenue. This can lead to a decline in the overall quality of research published, which affects the integrity of your field. Consider this: by not reviewing for this journal, you're not only protecting yourself from potential burnout or exploitation but also sending a message to the journal and the broader community about the importance of maintaining high standards in research publication. Moreover, your decision can also have a broader impact on the field. As a reviewer, you have a unique perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of a journal, and your feedback can influence the journal's editorial decisions. By not participating, you're not only withholding your expertise but also depriving the journal of a valuable perspective. Rather than simply choosing not to review, you could consider using this opportunity to advocate for change within the journal or the broader research community. You could reach out to the journal's editorial board or other researchers in your field to discuss the issues with APC charges and the importance of maintaining high standards in research publication. Ultimately, your decision to turn down further reviewing for this journal is not about being unreasonable or selfish, but about setting a boundary for yourself and advocating for the values that are important to you. By doing so, you're contributing to a broader conversation about the future of research publication and the importance of maintaining high standards in your field.