A better-ish system has already been made. The post mostly excoriates pay journals for implying that open access journals enable fraud and poor papers and pay

A better-ish system has already been made. The post mostly excoriates pay journals for implying that open access journals enable fraud and poor papers and pay journals prevent those sorts of papers. The arsenic-dna paper is used as a counterexample. The author instead says that ideas of peer review need to change. Although, everyone I know always thought peer review was a continuous process, more support for after-publication review would be nice.