Gina,
Here's a link to the editorial board of Animal Biotelemetry—not exactly a bunch of slackers, if you know anything about research of large pelagics. And here's an explanation from Editor-in-Chief Peter Klimley about the journal's purpose, why the articles are available to everyone, etc.
If you'd like to read a review of the Domeier-edited book, you could try this review in Copeia. I haven't read it.
By the way, don't assume that an article is better or its findings more "legitimate" just because it appears in a big-name journal such as Nature or Science. Ten years ago, Nature published something by Ransom Myers and Boris Worm that was subsequently panned by many other scientists, yet because that paper (technically it was a "letter") was in Nature and it had really scary numbers about large fishes being severely overfished (just 10% of pre-industrial levels) throughout the world, that letter's findings are still used as the lede for countless mainstream articles, TV shows, documentaries, keynote addresses, and other media about overfishing. (Usually, people interpret the letter's findings as "90% of the world's large fish are gone," but interpretations have been looser, too.) Even though the letter has been debunked (here's one critic's summation)—or at the very least thoroughly disputed by other analyses—it is likely that that "90%" number will endure, given the way people rely on Google and, in mainstream media, many writers just copy each other's work. And it's such a great number—90%!—with such an undeniable wow factor, that just about everyone who is looking for such a number will happily use it and not bother to learn about the many rebuttals that followed that paper. For example, see Greenpeace's page on overfishing. And, of course, Sea Shepherd is all over it. Some numbers are just too damn sexy to die. Anyhow, the point is, an obscure journal can publish great work while the most prominent journals can be sloppy in what they choose to print. And vice versa, of course.
