as i understand it the argument for pay walling is the costs of peer review?<p>so how about a service where you publish the paper, but pay for the peer review that grants your paper an accreditation of significance or legitimacy<p>this current system of peer review to enter our journal to determine legitimacy is prone to too many errors: corporate buy outs, poor standards, peer review is only done once prepublication; and needs a revisit<p>i&#x27;d love an arxiv`like to have for hire peer reviewers with associated reputation, question the significance of a paper that is peer reviewed?  Hire your favourite reviewer to take a second look<p>that said, i think all papers should be open for reading regardless of peer review, the indicator of research should be on review stead access