as i understand it the argument for pay walling is the costs of peer review? so how about a service where you publish the paper, but pay for the peer review th

as i understand it the argument for pay walling is the costs of peer review? 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 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 i'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 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