Publishing reviews along with a paper sounds amazing to me, that’s a part you never get to see in journals when you’re not a participating reviewer. I’d love to

Publishing reviews along with a paper sounds amazing to me, that’s a part you never get to see in journals when you’re not a participating reviewer. I’d love to have some reference points of expert opinion and critique come with each paper. I can understand the fears about submission quality. People do prefer submitting to ‘elite’ journals with low acceptance rates, because getting accepted becomes a validation. I wonder if publishing the reviews might take care of that anyway, if the audience will tend to read only the papers with high reviews. Maybe they could have the best of both by publishing a curated set of the top 10% of papers by review scores in a best-of version of the journal, and still publish everything in the main journal. The move to consider publishing everything makes sense in this new world where all papers are on Arxiv, and they frequently make rounds in the press and social media before getting reviewed. I would welcome the eLife changes if it helps quell the trend of completely unreviewed papers vying for attention.