> 100% of scientists have an option to publish a copy in arxiv or biorxiv. It's not happening. This is not about publishing, this is about peer-reviewed publis

> 100% of scientists have an option to publish a copy in arxiv or biorxiv. It's not happening. This is not about publishing, this is about peer-reviewed publishing. Putting something on an open Internet archive does not count as a publication you could put on your CV. Were I work, for example, our publications are analyzed with bibliometric tools based on a point system, and our funding and tenure directly depends on that. Putting something in an archive or on a web page: 0 points. Not peer-reviewed: 0 points. Peer-reviewed but not indexed by Scopus: 5 points (probably should be 0 though). Indexed by Scopus and peer-reviewed: 10 points. The third party rating system you suggest makes no sense and could not possibly work. You have to understand that it's not Elsevier who do the peer-reviewing, but your own colleagues who do anonymous peer-reviews and are, of course, not paid for that. No mandated 3rd-party authority could possibly determine and warrant the quality of scientific publications. After all, where would the assessors come from? From the pool of our colleagues, of course. Elsevier and Kluwer themselves do basically nothing. They provide some final editing in India. They don't run the journals, don't compose the editorial boards, don't control the reviews, and have nothing to do with the content of publications. What they have is the prestige of the journals they took over or bought from the 70s until now. For the top journals, which are the only journals that count, this prestige includes a vast pool of reviewers and a famous editorial board, as well as many decades of highly acclaimed publications. You cannot just replace that with a open access journal, it takes 30-50 years of good editorial work for that journal to get the same reputation. That's the problem.