There are definitely some wrong things with peer reviewing and scientific publishing, but this is hardly a solution. Sure it’s one way to do it; eLife is probably going to turn into a kind of arXiv with reviews. That is, a repository, not a journal. Whether that is good or not for them I guess it’s subjective, but it’s certainly not the solution.
I think one interesting model is the one by PLoS (especially with One). As long as the methods are valid, the research is original, and the language is minimally appropriate, the paper gets published. While they strive to eliminate the kind of subjective bias you get from small tightly knit communities (where subjective/invisible criteria are enforced in an informal way), they at least try to clear out the obvious junk. As a consequence, they too have become a half-repository, but at least one with a certain entry barrier. Then, at some point during the year, they make a collection of highlights or special picks for the previous year, which kinda work like what a conference would do.
It'd be interesting if you'd give arguments for why you think it's not a solution.
> As a consequence, they too have become a half-repository, but at least one with a certain entry barrier.
eLife will still have an entry barrier, but passing that barrier doesn't give you access to publication, but to a positive rating in the assessment of the significance and rigour. In other words, it will still perform the function of highlighting potentially relevant research, but it doesn't block non-highlighted research from being accessible.
Yes. The idea of PLoS One is that people can subject directly to it, but also it serves as a second chance for papers submitted to the higher tier PLoS journals -- an editor can reject the paper from those while still suggesting that the authors submit it to PLoS One (if the reason for rejection was that it wasn't that exciting but still solid research).
I think one interesting model is the one by PLoS (especially with One). As long as the methods are valid, the research is original, and the language is minimally appropriate, the paper gets published. While they strive to eliminate the kind of subjective bias you get from small tightly knit communities (where subjective/invisible criteria are enforced in an informal way), they at least try to clear out the obvious junk. As a consequence, they too have become a half-repository, but at least one with a certain entry barrier. Then, at some point during the year, they make a collection of highlights or special picks for the previous year, which kinda work like what a conference would do.