> In a free-for-all I'd have to put in the effort of peer reviewing every paper I read.
You seem to be criticizing a straw man. Nobody is suggesting that peer review should stop. We're suggesting that there's no longer any reason to link peer review with publication and access.
The real value is added by the reviewers and the authors, and they can keep on providing that value the same as always. It's the publisher who has become nearly superfluous, yet it's the publisher who charges boatloads of money for access.
You seem to be criticizing a straw man. Nobody is suggesting that peer review should stop. We're suggesting that there's no longer any reason to link peer review with publication and access.
The real value is added by the reviewers and the authors, and they can keep on providing that value the same as always. It's the publisher who has become nearly superfluous, yet it's the publisher who charges boatloads of money for access.